Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149

User:B1mbo and User:3BRBS reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: No vio)
Page:

User being reported: ;

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: B1mbo changes "chalaca" to "chilena" and bicycle kick, for no good reason.
 * 2nd revert: 3BRBS changes sourced information to support claim for "chilena".
 * 3rd revert: 3BRBS changes sourced information again.
 * 4th revert: B1mbo erases reliable source, changes sourced information, and adds citation to "Scissors kick" in introduction despite the body of the article already discusses the matter.

Both users are working together to disrupt the article with incorrect usage of English and awkward claims (in order to avoid the 3RR). I have asked them to discuss the matter on the talk page at various points, but only recently one of them accepted. For the most part they seem to be editing for a single purpose in the English wikipedia (Particularly 3BRBS).

The purpose of the information currently in the article is to leave a neutral point of view of the controversial subject in Spanish, but these two users seem to be focused on promoting their POV at the expense of Wikipedia.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Additionally, I have attempted to discuss the matter with the involved users by making the following proposals (prior to them actually accepting):
 * "Reverted incorrect usage of sources by 3BRBS. Questions? Comment on Talk:Bicycle Kick"
 * "Please discuss changes to sourced material in talk page, Talk:Bicycle kick"
 * "If you contest info, please discuss edits on talk page and not article's history"

Comments:


 * First, it is very rude to denounce "edit warring" after he asks for an explanation in the talk page and it is given, and suggesting a complot by two users to avoid Wikipedia policies. I've been willing to cooperate and reach a consensus and I have explained the changes, while MarshalN20 has been acusing of "Original Research", "Disruptive edits" and "Removing sourced information".
 * I have explained the changes in the talk page. I have removed an unsourced statement about the use of the word in different languages (including English) by a Spanish-speaking newspaper while I kept the link for the explanation of the Spanish differences. I have included the different uses of the word "tijera", present in the same thesis MarshalN20 is using to support his claims (you can see the difference in Spanish Wikipedia: es:chilena (fútbol) and es:tijera (fútbol)). On the other hand, MarshalN20 has removed the source to FIFA where the name "chilena" is used officialy and the same source of El Mercurio explains that "chilena" and "chalaca" are the most used names in Spanish. --B1mbo (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Lihaas reported by User:George (Result: No vio)
Page: (This article is under a 1RR restriction)

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 03:11, January 18, 2011 - Editor re-inserted the "too long" tag at the top, which GHCool had removed a day earlier.
 * 2nd revert: 00:06, January 19, 2011 - Editor again re-inserts the "too long" tag, about 20 hours after GHCool had removed it. They also changed "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance", reverting my change from 5 days prior.
 * 3rd revert: 12:57, January 20, 2011 - Editor again changes "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance", reverting my change from the day before.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor self-reverted 12 hours prior to their last revert, citing a clear understanding that the article was under 1RR, only to return after 12 hours to revert again.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to discussion; I also posted a question on the sourcing for my edit at RSN.

Comments:

This article is under 1RR restriction. The editor clearly violated that 24 hour 1RR window between their first two reverts. Regarding the second two reverts, they reverted once at January 19, reverted again 22 hours later, self-reverted three minutes later (citing 1RR, showing that they understood the article was under 1RR), only to return with the same revert 15 hours later. While the first two were a clear 1RR violation, the second two indicate that the editor was gaming the system to continue their edit warring. ← George talk 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * please see edit history, i duly REVERTED MY OWN EDIT per 24 hours and then added AFTER 24 hours. woops, SELF reverted per WP:3RR "Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")." although this was not a revert (Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC));
 * Lihaas did indeed self-revert following notification of this case. I'll leave it up to admins if any action should be taken regarding the 1RR violation between the first two edits or the attempts to game 1RR. ← George talk 14:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * attempts to game? WP:AGF...as guideline suggested i followed ;) Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gaming means that you violate the spirit of the law without violating the rule of the law. Let me ask you this: You self-reverted, noting that your edit would violate 1RR, only to return 15 hours later to make similar edits along the same lines. Did you gain consensus for your edits during that 15 hours? Or were you only concerned with making your changes, regardless of consensus, without violating 1RR? ← George talk 14:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two additional questions: Are you aware that the first two diffs I linked above (where you inserted the "too long" template) violated 1RR as well? And did you see my note on the article talk page asking you to self-revert before I create this case, or did you wait until after I notified you of this case to self revert? ← George talk 14:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * also note i mae WP:BOLD edits and reverted that oo.
 * templates are not to be removed without consensus especially when UNDERGOING and deceptively removed citing "no discussion" when there was and is a discussion on going. That is not exactly in the spirit of the lawLihaas (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC) oo.
 * Maybe you misunderstood the question. Did you gain consensus for the change from "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance" in the 15 hours between your self revert and your next revert? I wasn't asking about the template you re-inserted a day earlier. Regarding that template, myself and another editor had agreed on talk to remove it 7 days prior to your re-insertion of it. During that 7 days, you made no comments in that discussion, nor did you join that discussion after re-inserting it. ← George talk 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Nobody cited "no discussion" as far as I can tell, and I have no idea where you're pulling that quote from. ← George talk 18:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Respondent self-reverted. Nothing actionable at this board. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Carlaude (Result: Editors advised)
Page: See Template talk:Jesus history

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -- These comments to address the dispute on article talk page were also then removed, but might still be there since my reinsertion of them.

Comments:

This is a case (also) or changing someones else edits on a talk page. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Carlaude - I think SV felt your talk page comments were disruptive b/c they were v. long and injected into the middle of an RfC. It is occasionally ok to edit others' comments on talk pages (see WP:TPO).  Regardless, I'm not sure this is the correct forum for your complaint.  Consider going to Administrators'_noticeboard or better Wikiquette_alerts. Best, NickCT (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Carlaude reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Version reverted to: 3:42 January 20. In the threaded discussion section of this RfC, Carlaude removed a number of references and converted them to a series of cquotes illustrating his opinion.


 * 1st revert 08:39, January 20, restored the cquotes
 * 2nd revert 19:54, January 20, restored the cquotes
 * 3rd revert 20:19, January 20, restored the cquotes
 * 4th revert 20:36, January 20, restored the cquotes

I was in the process of writing this 3RR report, when I saw Carlaude had posted one above, and then reverted himself anyway. So I'm posting the report I was compiling by way of response, and for the record should the reverting begin again.
 * Comments

Going back several months, Carlaude has been removing from the Jesus template a link to Jesus myth theory. I recently posted an RfC, which is underway. Carlaude has been a little disruptive there, challenging each support, and recently added to the RfC a long string of cquotes to support his position, reverting against two editors who either removed the quotes, or moved them into their own section.

After his 4th revert today, I posted at 20:45 on his talk page that he had violated 3RR and asked him to revert himself. His response at 20:53 was to tell me to stop edit warring, and at 20:55 he reported me for 3RR (see above, though I had moved his comments only twice), and then finally at 21:04 he reverted himself,  making the whole thing moot. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Editors are advised to follow WP:TPG and WP:REFACTOR, as well as WP:3RR which applies to talk pages as well as articles. Refactoring of a talk page needs consensus, even when it is well-intentioned: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". I noticed Jeffro77 and SlimVirgin reformatting or moving around comments by Carlaude, and I noticed Carlaude temporarily going over 3RR trying to impose his preferred format on his own comments. He then self-reverted. If people think that the material in the RfC is not optimally formatted for the use of the closer of the RfC, reach consensus on how to do that, instead of proceeding unilaterally. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ed, Carlaude's edits were disruptive of the RfC, adding 12 prominent cquotes to one of his posts several days after others had replied to it, in an effort to dominate (indeed, overwhelm) the thread. Moving the new quotes into their chronological position was the correct response. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Antichristos reported by User:DVdm (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Was warned before under similar circumstances: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics resulting in no meaniningful response—sideways only.
 * Talk:Speed_of_gravity resulting in no response—reverts only
 * User talk:Antichristos resulting in no meaniningful response—sideways only

Comments:

User has been adding same content on 5 different articles: "In relativistic quantum theory, a system cannot be localized..."

Seems unstoppable.

DVdm (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

There is a problem with the obsessive original SYN of User:Antichristos. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Quite lenient given that this is their second block in ten days. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be so bad if Antichristos' physics was any good. However, it's completely crackpot. S  B Harris 23:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Antichristos now seems to be bypassing the block by editing anonymously. For example on Nonlocality, see and discussion  Rafaelgr (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 reported by Sushisurprise (talk) (Result: good faith reverting of apparent sock/meat puppetry)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1) 07:53, 21 January 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted. It's an inaccurate claim. The poster doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia procedures. Maybe Discuss it on the Talk page and it will help understanding.")
 * 2) 08:21, 21 January 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted. Please stop being silly about this. I've posted on both my Talk page (like you did) and yours. Let's discuss it in one of those places.")
 * 3) 08:50, 21 January 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 193.105.134.151 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by HiLo48. (TW)")


 * Diff of warning: [User talk:HiLo48 here]

—Sushisurprise (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: [diff]
 * 2nd revert: [diff]
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Sushisurpise is most likely a sock- or meatpuppet of User:68.168.131.198 and User:193.105.134.151 who have been editwarring for their POV-agenda on Censorship. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a good faith approach earlier and attempted to have a conversation, on both my Talk page and his. The only response was vandalism of my own Talk page. This person is beyond rational behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good faith accepted, though you should probably have reported the case to ANI or SPI. The page has been semi-protected for a day.  If anyone wishes to add the contested claim of Wikipedia censorship, they should bring it to the article talk page and provide proper sourcing. Favonian (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There has since been more vandalism and threats on my User Talk page by 193.105.134.135 HiLo48 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Any posts from User:68.168.131.198 or User:193.105.134.151 did NOT emanate from me. I resent the accusation of sock/meatpuppetting from --Saddhiyama and offensive comments and an accusation of talkpage vandalism from HiLo48. Not much Good Faith being shown here, and it is to be regretted that WP admins permit this type of slander to appear on this noticeboard.Sushisurprise (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * 1st edit (version reverted to): 23:39, January 19, 2011, an IP removed "Even the title of the book plays on this (in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna, and as her indictment is read aloud to her in court over a day and a half)."


 * 1st revert: 02:20, January 20, Roscelese removed a large amount of material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this (in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
 * 2nd revert: 01:54, January 21, she removed the same material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this (in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
 * 3rd revert: 04:58, January 21, she removed the same material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this; in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
 * 4th revert: 06:07, January 21, she removed the same material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this; in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."


 * Ist edit (version reverted to): 06:10, January 21, she added "Nicholas Wroe, in the Guardian, also writes of the relationship between Hanna's illiteracy and the Third Reich's "moral illiteracy."


 * She was advised she may have violated 3RR, so she reverted herself at 06:24, January 21, but continued editing, and reverted twice more involving different material:


 * 1st edit (version reverted to): 06:46, January 21, she added an OR tag to the top of the section she'd been removing.


 * 5th revert: 06:52 January 21, she restored the OR tag.


 * 6th revert: 20:44, January 21, she added a citation needed tag after one of the sentences she'd removed four times, although the source is already at the end of the paragraph:
 * "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust."
 * Source: Franklin 2010, pp. 201–202, which is Ruth Franklin's A Thousand Darknesses: Lies and Truth in Holocaust Fiction. Oxford University Press, 2010. See p. 201, where Franklin is clear that the illiteracy is a metaphor.


 * She also restored material she had added before at 06:10, January 21, including "Nicholas Wroe, in the Guardian, likewise writes of the relationship between Hanna's illiteracy and the Third Reich's "moral illiteracy" ...

Four reverts (2 to 5 above) within five hours, and a fifth (6 above) 14 hours later. Some wholesale reverting, some of it complex and partial.
 * Comments

Roscalese arrived at this article for the first time yesterday, after apparently having followed me from another page I was working on, and began reverting against three editors. She could see that I was looking for sources, and she was being asked on various talk pages to stop reverting. Her responses were somewhat snarky, verging on personal attacks. See Talk:The Reader, User talk:Roscelese, and User talk:Roscelese. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I noted at the article, absent any reason why the Wroe comment (and other critics' comments) shouldn't be in the article, I'm willing to take the heat for adding legitimate sourced information, particularly in the presence of so much illegitimate unsourced information. I also explained repeatedly at the article that Franklin says that the illiteracy is a metaphor, but absolutely not for modern understanding of the Holocaust; SV has repeatedly added this text back after I've noted that it's both unsourced and contradicted by the cited source. (The comment about vorlesen supporting that position is also falsely sourced to Franklin.)
 * It troubles me that SV has reached administrator status without learning that it's not okay to add original analysis to articles. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not to help people publish book reports. Analysis needs to be sourced, and when you threaten a block because I removed original research (and then left it in the article but tagged it as such), I question whether your goal here is the same as mine.
 * SV, since you only suggested this at the other page rather than making an outright accusation, I let it slide, but here I'm going to respectfully ask that you retract your accusation that I followed you. It's so plainly false that bringing it up here only makes your position look worse.
 * In conclusion? Don't make things up. Not about me, not about The Reader.
 * -- Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've written about Holocaust literature before for Wikipedia, and when I saw the condition of this yesterday I decided to start improving it. Instead I've taken it off my watchlist for now, so you're free to do as you please.


 * The point of the 3RR policy is that you must not revert more than three times in 24 hours (and preferably not even up to 3RR), no matter how right you believe you are, unless the issue is a BLP violation or clear-cut vandalism. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And you seem to have a hard time believing that anyone else's motives could be as pure as yours. It is actually possible, you know, for someone to edit an article that you have edited without them doing it because you have edited it. It's not all about you.
 * I recommend that in your future Holocaust-literature endeavors, you make sure you have a citation for something before adding it and re-adding it, especially when it contradicts a lot of other sources. That's what I'm trying to do with the article right now - dredging up citations for these swathes of original research you kept adding. Of course, some of the citations directly contradict what you wrote, but that's life. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 24 hours. If we consider only the edits made on 21 January, Roscelese is over 3RR, based on edits #2, 3, 5 and 6 as tabulated above by SlimVirgin. R. gets no credit at all for diplomacy in her comments above. This editor was blocked eight days ago for personal attacks. Surely people can be polite even when they disagree on the details. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Snowded reported by User:Cptnono (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Snowded has been reverting on the left wing issue at the article for months. There has been a slew of noticeboards brought into it in an attempt to find consensus. If the term can be applied as a label, if the term has sources, if the term can be described, and so on are all valid issues. I understand Snowded's reasoning for not wanting to use the label but that does not excuse gaming (I can detail this at ANI if requested) and hitting the revert button are not acceptable. Edit warring was recently brought here in December and resulted in a lock:

Diffs:
 * Today he closed a contentious RfC he was involved in (although not the originator) and made the change. Requests for comment
 * Jan 15. In his defence it was an IP
 * Ditto
 * Dec 23
 * Dec 23
 * Dec 13
 * Dec 13
 * Dec 12 (this was just a source and not the line)
 * Dec 9
 * Dec 9
 * A revert readding the incorrect tag (was verified but "dubious" could have been used)
 * Dec 6
 * Dec 6
 * Dec 2
 * Dec 2
 * May 18
 * Dec 8 '09
 * Oct 19 '09 (might be considered countering vandalism)

In regards to consensus, it might be shaping and the RfC leans towards removal. It took going to the RS noticeboard twice recently, 3rr (listed above), and the POV board to come even that close.

Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a long-running dispute. Consensus, at least in raw numbers in the RfC, seems to favor omitting 'left-wing' from the lead of Unite Against Fascism. The RfC was not closed in an optimal manner, and a fair-minded closer might want to survey all the other discussions too, like those at RSN. If Cptnono wants to make a request at ANI for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC, that could be a way to settle this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If he would have made the change after an uninvolved admin closed it then I wouldn't have brought this up. The RfC is disputed due to its opening line not being inline with the rules. Anyways, he was still edit warring regardless of the RfC. This is the epitome of slow motion edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I right that you complained about how the RfC was closed? Do you want us to block a single individual, but not fix the RfC? EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I did since using improper procedure to make a revert is part of the issue. But that is only part of the edit warring. This report is not to settle content but to limit Snowded's disruption. I think the RfC was mishandled but that is a separate broader issue. This report is about Snowded and not the entirety of the dispute but that is something that still needs addressing somewhere else.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd welcome any uninvolved admin looking at the whole history here. "left wing" was inserted in early December without consensus and I reverted twice with a request to abide by WP:BRD.  It went to the RS notice board where the original position was again supported and I and others attempted to put in a compromise proposal at that point.  Then it went to NPOV same result.  The RfC followed and the last comment was in December.  Yesterday one of those who ignored WP:BRD in the first place added in another "left wing" again.  At that point I put the article back to its early December (and long standing) position with a notification on the talk page.  Another editor formally closed the RfC.    This has been a long drawn out process with several editors (including Cptnono) attempting to get their position against the clear weight of reliable sources by wearing everyone else down, using a few naive right wing editors (Johnsy88) to do their edit warring for them.  As I say a review of the whole history by some senior admins would be helpful.
 * PS If you go back over the history you will find other reverts of "left wing" by myself and other editors, the attempt to insert it by various IPs and some named editors having been going on for years. The application of the label is the formal position of extreme right wing political parties in the UK despite the fact that the organisation in question has all party support including the leader of the British Conservative Party.    -- Snowded  TALK  06:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your recent mention on the talk page of the article could be considered canvasing since your section header could influence people's perceptions and therefore the outcome. It looks like a request for assistance to me and I hope that people keep in mind that this is not the venue to settle content concerns. This report is about your edit warring which is plainly shown in the diffs. You can claim that I filibustered but you know I feel the same about you. That is not what this is about. You can mention sources (although no source even disputes the description) but that is also not what this is about. If you are blocked (which I hope you are) it is doubtful that any long lasting content change will be made since there will need to be even more discussion about how to handle the sourced information (a label appears out of the question) but encouragement to a swifter understanding of what you did wrong (which you failed to acknowledge) is needed. Your edit warring is disruptive. Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not canvassing to post on the talk page where everyone can see it and it makes sense for other involved editors to see your latest tactic. The simple fact remains that the label was put in place without any consensus, and was maintained there despite each forum the issue was taken to confirming the long standing stable position.  I've tried to put that stable position back in place twice in the past but moved to the talk page when other editors refused to accept the consensus position.  Personally I think your own conduct, including the use of this forum needs examination.  But I leave that up to the community.  As I said above I would welcome some independent senior admins going over this one.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some action taken to stop user:Snowded WP:ownership and slow edit warring of this article, the article would imo do better without his contributions for a while. his repeated reverts to his favored version and demands that a whole discussion has to be made to add something even if its cited is stifling the article and puts of other contributors, its not like its a fantastic article, its WP:unassesed - and in need of wider input. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not "my favored version" its the long standing stable version, a position that was supported at the RS & NPOV referrals, as well as the RfC and by many other experienced editors. Also a quick check of the edit history will show that I am only one of a number of editors who have been protecting this article from being hijacked to the political position of the BNP.  Few of us have the patience to do this so I can see that our removal for a period would be the favored solution.  I'm more than happy for either of the above editors to raise a full RfC on my conduct if they are prepared to have their conduct investigated at the same time.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The data provided in this report are not enough to show long-term edit warring by Snowded, which was the complaint. There is still a dispute as to whether UAF should be called 'left-wing', and I am glad to see that some discussion is happening on the talk page. User:The Four Deuces is the one who closed the RfC, and by now he may be aware that the RfC would be more convincing if a proponent of the winning side were not the one to close it. He is invited to undo his close and ask for an uninvolved closer at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can a non-administrator close it? If so, I'll do the honours (as an un-involved editor). GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

IP user reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 10 January


 * 1st revert: 09:24
 * 2nd revert: 09:47
 * 3rd revert: 10:09
 * 4th revert: 10:30

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: thread

Comments:

This is the same IP user who was wildly revert-warring on the same article already back in November (AN3 thread), leading to semi-protection. Probably a sock of some more experienced long-time user. Sterile revert-warring for obvious POV agenda reasons, removing a new chunk of high-quality text boldly inserted in good faith by a different user (who hasn't so far joined in any subsequent reverts.) In fairness, I must point out that the 4th revert was reverting a banned troll (a User:Wikinger sock, who normally attacks by reverting blindly against me but accidentally had reverted to my version this time), so it probably shouldn't count towards 3RR, technically; however, I still consider it part of the overall aggressive revert-warring pattern of editing of this anon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Admin, Please note that Future-Pref and HxSeek generally work in tandem to revert/editorialize articles relating to the Ancient Macedonians in such a way as to not break the 3RR rule. HxSeek / FutPref have decided to add their inappropriate addition to the lead of the article, which is a hotly debated issue, without discussing it with other editors first, and, more importantly, citing fringe authors, and not following academic consensus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the 4th Revert was reverting a troll who reverted FP's revert ;) But I'm well aware that I did 3 revisions, its the fastest way to get this back into Arbitraion. Lets not kid ourselves, the article is heading there once again... I would however like the Admin to note that I immediately created a new section in Discussion to try and talk to FP /HxSeek about this right after my first revert, but they simply said 'No', and reverted back.  I showed good faith by going straight to discussion, and suggested we give time for other authors to chime in, (rather then expect them to be part of the discussion at 5AM EST).  I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia rules, but I know enough to know that pushing putting minority /POV views in the lead of any article is not allowed.

By the way FP, I hope you will consider my suggestion that we discuss creating a section in the article on the Greekness of the Macedonian culture, language, and ethnicity. We can then share the arguments put forth by the canon of literature in favor, vs the minority view that HxSeek and yourself in opposition. Even if we ignore for a moment the inappropriateness of HxSeek's addition to the lead, it should still be removed for no other reason then that it makes it way too long. (Nearly half the article!)


 * Update: Not sure how I overlooked this, but there is already a section regarding HxSeek's text in this article. Its called 'Modern Discussions'. HxSeek's text (though, would still need some changes) would be much more appropriate there. Though if he would like to discuss new authors and works, it should be an additive revision. He should not simply remove old text and dump his own unilaterally.

(unindent)The IP is already familiar with some basic policies of wikipedia like POV and ArbCom, so like FutureP said he may be a long-time user, although if he's a sock, the sockmaster's IP is probably stale.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I find most troubling is that he confirms using revert-warring just below 3R with the express purpose of escalating a conflict towards Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I'm sure that he's not a new user, because when edit-warring with his old IP he left a message on my talkpage about twinkle and agf .-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result: WP:LAME)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is turning into an edit war again. The word "ceremomonies" on the calendar is centralized, and Aleenf1 continues to decntralize it without any reason. On all other wikipedia multi-sport articles the word "ceremomonies" is centralized for example and. However, Aleenf1 on my talk page has threatned to report me to the administrators, because I am using "rollback tools" when clearly I am right by leaving it as centralized. I am guessing he is bitter from the war we had recently on the 2011 Asian Winter Games article. I tried to reach out with an olive branch and say sorry, but he was bitter and refused. Although this might be only 3 edits, what is stopping him from keep continuing, so I decided to report this before things get out of hand. I know 100% sure I am right, and Aleenf1 is instigating this war all over again. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Uhm, no, there is no "100% right" about this. First, he's right that you shouldn't be using rollback. Second, there may be obvious good reasons why somebody would want all entries left-aligned, so your position is not self-evidently and undoubtedly better. Third, the argument that other templates do it the same way doesn't mean it's the only legitimate way. Fourth, neither of you has yet broken 3RR (but you should obviously both stop.) Fifth, and most importantly: for Chrissake, what a goddamn trivial edit war this is. Have you guys got nothing more important to edit-war over? A piece of formatting in a template. I mean, come on, seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:TFighterPilot reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Hummus, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction. See WP:ARBPIA for additional information.

Three days ago TFighterPilot was blocked for violating it:

Right after his latest block he has now went back and violated the restriction one more time.

Previous version reverted to: Removes "Palestine"


 * 1st revert: removes "Palestine" and replaces it with southern Levant.
 * 2nd revert: removes "Palestine" and replaces it with southern Levant.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Seriously? That's got to be the fastest repeat violation I've ever seen. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:71.217.143.161 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 18:28, January 22, 2011


 * 1st revert: 01:15, January 23, 2011
 * 2nd revert: 02:12, January 23, 2011
 * 3rd revert: 02:17, January 23, 2011
 * 4th revert: 02:19, January 23, 2011
 * 5th revert: 02:21, January 23, 2011
 * 6th revert: 02:26, January 23, 2011
 * 7th revert: 02:30, January 23, 2011
 * 8th revert: 02:33, January 23, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:19, January 23, 2011 signed 02:22

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He's also received 3 uw-spam and warnings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

may also have reverted 3 times. Miscounted. No other 3RR violations; I've reverted 3 times, Logan 3 times, Mindmatrix 1, and Wayne Slam 2 (so far) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "previous version" is also a revert; see 23:47, December 20, 2010 for a previous time the link was added. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm ignoring all reverts by others because the reverts were of blatant spam. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User:114.74.237.52 and User:114.74.243.54 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 72h)
Page:

User(s) being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (This one is complicated.  Most of the reverts were, doing one or more of the following:
 * 1) Restoring the "Mechanism" section, without much change, from the revision of 06:39, January 22, 2011
 * 2) Restoring Sovereign Bonds and Fractional Reserve Banking to the See Also section, from, for example, the revision of 06:39, January 22, 2011
 * 3) Restoring parenthetical comments to the "Function" section (later, per 09:16, January 22, 2011 by the same IP
 * 4) Removing tags from the "Mechanism" and "Function" sections, reverting my edit of 15:21, January 22, 2011


 * 1st revert: 08:58, January 22, 2011 1,2
 * 2nd revert: 09:26, January 22, 2011 1,2,3
 * 3rd revert: 10:24, January 22, 2011 1,2,3
 * 4th revert: 06 04:26, January 23, 2011 4, as second IP

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 09:58, 22 January 2011
 * 2) 05: 45 49, 23 January 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:28, January 22, 2011 Attempted to explain the reasons for my edits.

Comments:

The first IP and were adding the same nonsense (something like the last paragraph of the "method" section) to multiple locations on the talk page. Reverts 2 and 3 had edit summary "Repair Vandlism attack and set the truth free !". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a rangeblock to prevent further IP hopping, so it won't show up in their individual block logs. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Ehrvkhuletzz reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:SPA that has been adding links to an article it wrote, Ervin bobadilla, that has been speedy-deleted twice. Apparent WP:COI with the subject of the article. edit-warred in both Super Twins and Calla Lily (TV series) when editors noticed and reverted unsourced additions to those articles. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User: 72.42.146.36 reported by User:Jonathanwallace (Result: No vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  Comments: IP user has a history of vandalism to articles such as Atheism and blanking of well sourced relevant sections, often religion-related, in other articles. Consensus on WP:EAR}} was material belongs in article; IP seems to be removing it based on [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Warrenonlive reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 06:52, January 23, 2011


 * 1st revert: 07:11, January 23, 2011
 * 2nd revert: 20:42, January 23, 2011
 * 3rd revert: 20:51, January 23, 2011
 * 4th revert: 05:03, January 24, 2011
 * 5th revert: 05:09, January 24, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:09, January 23, 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff; there was also some discussion between the editor and another on Warrenonlive's and Masem's talk pages.

Comments: Basically we've got the same editor adding a link that doesn't belong. Warrenonlive has been adding a link to the Onlive service, which clearly poses a conflict of interest as well. Technically the fourth and fifth reverts aren't by the user himself, but by an IP -. Still, I think we can safely assume it's Warrenonlive logged out, as the IP has no other edits aside from these two, which were to continue the edit war. Three editors now have undone the edits with explanations in the summaries. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Indef'd for advertising, COI and username. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There may be more meat puppets. See this thread that is clearly connected to these edits. --M ASEM  (t) 05:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:6k7de3x4v reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:43 24 Jan 2011
 * 2nd revert: 04:33 24 Jan 2011

The reversions on the 24th followed these:


 * 3rd revert: 00:01 18 Jan 2011
 * 4th revert: 00:14 18 Jan 2011
 * 5th revert: 01:12 18 Jan 2011
 * 6th revert: 01:26 18 Jan 2011

I am not listing the six reversions the user made before 00:00

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Two reverts on the 24th following eight reversions over the 17th and 18th. This user has been involved in discussions on the article's talk page as well as their user talk. They have resumed insisting on their version despite being informed by several editors that their edits are in conflict with the manual of style. I have no confidence that this individual will change their behavior.  Tide  rolls  05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User: 14.139.128.14 reported by User: UplinkAnsh (Result: No vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

There seems to be serious edit warring going on Accession Day (Jammu and Kashmir) article. I was away form serious editing of wikipedia for a couple of weeks so I personally did not warn the IP. From the edits however it seems that the IP is edit warring to remove sources. He has been warned by other editors but has reverted edits of 3 editors. Multiple editors have engaged the IP into a discussion but the IP continues to remove sources. UplinkAnsh (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If they keep it up and refuse to discuss, maybe we can think about blocking, but I don't think this is actionable right now. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   08:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:83.12.91.242 reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments: User has been aggressively adding highly POV-charged content to Tuvia Bielski over the past few days. Any reversions are viewed, in WP:TE fashion, as "vandalism" by the user, who has been previously blocked for edit warring.

Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Fifteen501 reported by User:Bws2cool (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Fifteen501

Comments:

The user is edit warring in two areas. First, they are changing a Japanese name to be formated as an official English name. This has not been officially revealed, and they have failed to show a good source for it. Second, they are calling a Pokemon "the grossest", which is not a neutral point of view, but they continue to add it back because "I didn't notice it before".

On the articles List of Pokémon (494–545), List of Pokémon (546–598), and List of Pokémon (599–649), the user has been inserting unsourced material, and removing sourced material for months, disrupting the article. Editors have tried to reason with them, but they continue to make confusing edits.

I realize that I may be also edit waring, but I am only trying to uphold guidelines, and they are failing to explain themselves. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ryulong has taken this to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. This discussion may no longer be needed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 72 hours for long-term edit warring. Previous attempts to get this editor to wait for consensus have not worked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (by User:GiovBag)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Dear Noticeboard members: I am filing his notice in response to an adamant decision by one user, Andy the Grump, to delete the infobox and, according to his own admission, an entire article, itself. He alleges that White Argentines (30 million + people) are an "invalid ethnic group", and will not cease. Based on past experience, users this adamant about denying self-evident facts are only playing devil's advocate, and doing so on our time. Please help. Sherlock4000 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: A second user, GiovBag, is now deleting the infobox without reason or consensus. Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC) -
 * T. Canens (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Kalsermar reported by User:Whaledad (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Kalsermar is a Wiki friend of SwedishSven alias Istochleukzonnaam, who was blocked in Commons, Meta, SV, Simple, En, Nl for his cross-wiki vandalism removal of the JDL picture and/or sock puppetry: , Kalsermar, himself not a stranger to being blocked (which also includes sock puppetery) has now apparently taken it upon himself to redo SwedishSven's cross-wiki vandalism in removing the same JDL picture:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Now removed by user, accusing me of cross-wiki vandalism in his edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaledad (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note that this has also been discussed extensively on NL-Wiki. Kalsermar is currently blocked in NL-Wiki for PAs and ArbCom violations as a result of his behavior in those discussions.

Whaledad (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't often edit on en:wp so I'm not sure if I can post comments here or not but here goes anyways :-)
 * User Whaledad has been putting up a certain picture on articles about the JDL, a picture that, as far as I can tell, has been removed on most if not all language versions of Wikipedia. Whaledad is also on a vendetta against me for some reason. there are some lies in this report from my colleague that I do need to address.


 * 1)I am not, nor have I ever been, a friend of SwedishSven or his sockpuppets. In fact, I have tried, on the nl:wp, to stop a spree of mutual blockrequests between SwedishSven on the pone hand and Whaledad, Paul kuiper and Eddy Landzaad (all users on nl:wp that are also active, more or less, here). I have urged admins on nl:wp to clamp down on these childish request to have the other side blocked but unfortunately it hasn't stopped.


 * 2)Listing where SwedishSven has been blocked is clearly an attempt at influencing since it has nothing to do with me.


 * 3)I have never been blocked for sockpuppetry because if I nhad been it would have been a permanent block according to nl:wp rules. I have never and will never use sockpuppets. They are not worth the trouble since a high profile editor (who edits controversial topics) will be found out anyways before the day is out. This libellous claim by Whaledad alone should result in some action by an admin here against him.


 * 4)Whaledad's claim that I am continuing someones vandalism is also something he should at the very least recieve a warning about since I simply removed a picture from an article that in my opinion has no business being there. The consensus seems to be on my side there as evidenced from the discussions about the picture on this and other Wikipedias.


 * 5)I do hope there are admins here that can read Dutch and go over to nl:WP to unmask another one of Whaledad's outrageous claims. I am indeed blocked right now on nl:wp because I used the phrase "The crowd of Whaledad, kuiper and Landzaad" to refer to those three editors on nl:wp who are constantly editwarring with SwedishSven and that is unfortunately a violation of a arbcom ruling forbidding Paul kuiper and myself to personally attack each other.


 * In short, I am completely perplexed by this action of Whaledad's on this page and can only see it as an extension of his and other's efforts to have anyone that disagrees with them blocked for spurious reasons. I hope and trust that the admins here will deal with this quickly and forcefully.


 * Kind regards,


 * --Kalsermar (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some responses from me:
 * I placed the pic in dispute on both NL and EN, as I frequent both (I'm Dutch and live in the US). The pic was actually auto-suggested on the NL-JDL talk page: . That pic was at that time already used in numerous versions of Wiki around the world in both JDL and Racism articles.
 * SwedishSven/Istochleukzonnaam instantly removed that pic on both NL and EN (which he does not frequent, proving that he's stalking me) claiming to know the graffiti was not written by JDL, while the subscript just said it was signed JDL. I reverted those removals, and on a hunch checked another language, finding that SwedishSven/Istochleukzonnaam had removed the pic around, as far away as Japan. In some cases S/I had started edit warring with the local users and had removed the pic up to 5 times. At that time he was already blocked in Sweden. Where locals hadn't yet reverted his removal, I did. Where locals (in discussion) locally agreed on removal (e.g. NO) I left it removed. To date the pic is still in use in Simple, ES, HIF, JA, and SV.
 * While it is true that Kalsermar himself was not blocked his Palliser sock puppet was:
 * There was no consensus the the EN-JDL talk page for removal of the Pic. Kalsermar's aqct to remove this pic on EN-Wiki (which he admits himself he doesn't frequent) is also a case of stalking.
 * Kalsermar's translation of "meute" in "crowd" is very liberal. "Meute" when used for people is a derogatory term, comparable to "pack" (as in "a pack of wolves").
 * Hope this helps, Whaledad (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This will be my last comment in this matter but more lies demand a rebuttal. The section by Whaledad regarding SwedishSven is absolutely irrelevant here and just serves to imply guilt by association or some such thing. Very transparent really. User Palliser was blocked on nl:wp but he/they was/were blocked because an account is strictly personal and Palliser (not my sockpuppet but I do, or rather did, know them) was a group of three users editting under one account name. Again, under nl:wp policy, if it had been my sockpuppet it would have resulted in a perm block for both. I also may not frequently edit here on en"wp, I have a long history of doing so. Last but not least, note the cherrypicking here (well, for anyone who knows Dutch and wishes to look on nl:wp. I used the word "meute" once and "menigte" twice, indicating a crowd as I was referring to three users who are almost acting in tandem (can a tandem be used for three?) with each other. There was nothing derogatory about it, that's for sure. Either way, it is all rather irrelevant. The real issue here is the attempt by Whaledad to silence anyone who opposes him and that is very unfortunate and "unwiki".--Kalsermar (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Status update I won't bother to address the claims in Kalsermar's last response : Another user has changed the caption for the picture, better illustrating relevance AND providing 2 references to support that relevance. Kalsermar seems to support the pic with the new caption. If he promises to leave the pic alone from now, I withdraw my complaint. Whaledad (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "If I promise blah blah blah you withdraw????" Who died and made you God, no offense? I will not promise you anything, let alone to alter my editorial choices that I think are in the best interest of the encyclopaedia because Whaledad disapproves.--Kalsermar (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A single revert does not edit warring make. T. Canens (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
I'm not involved in this, but there is an edit war going on between about four editors at Three-dimensional chess. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is . Keeping an eye on it. T. Canens (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Winston786 reported by User:Sodabottle (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

This editor has been engaging in edit wars with multiple other editors in multiple articles over the past few weeks. He doesnt discuss in talk page or in user talk pages and insists his POV is always right. Currently he as violated 3rr after being warned by User:SpacemanSpiff. He disguised the fourth revert, but adding more content and using a deceptive edit summary.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Longer than usual since it's right off the previous block for edit warring and due to the decee_League&diff=409821994&oldid=40heus Canens|T. Canens]] (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:71.174.128.244 reported by User:Jorfer (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The talk page is filled with the WP:OR and WP:FRINGE violation pushing.--Jorfer (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll also keep an eye on this in case a longer block is necessary after this one expires. T. Canens (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Reissgo reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Two editors warned Reissgo against his questionable use of a source (myself and Lawrencekhoo). He has utilized quite a number of reverts even after being warned that he was probably already over the 3RR bright-line. BigK HeX (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * T. Canens (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:121.102.122.122 reported by User:BIL (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: Editing other users discussion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Could you add a temporary block and a warning towards the User:121.102.122.122 who is really annoying, adding some pure speculation and even real untrue statements to some railway articles.
 * Comment: This IP is a frequent contributor of unsourced content to articles about railways. He never provides a reference. Some of what he adds is clearly speculation and it gets removed by others. This is not a good pattern to encourage, and it seems that a long block might be needed, since he's been doing this for three months and interacts very little with others. I'll ask him to respond, and hope that other admins will say something if they disagree with a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked two weeks. Any admin may lift this block if the editor will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:74.115.160.206 reported by User:CnrFallon (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP address in question has vandalized the FOPA act, reverting a section that is supported by video evidence linked. A second IP address was also involved, but on the other side of the debate, and it reverted the vandalism of the first IP address. --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks. One IP has reverted four times, and another IP has been reverting the first. Since no registered editors have been warring, I think semiprotection is justified. The use of video evidence for a claim like this seems tricky, and I suggest asking at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard if this is appropriate. If consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:89.164.118.104 reported by User:Chzz (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: '''Whilst there is discussion on the article talk, my own attempts have been on the user talk page;

Comments:

Simple case of repeatedly adding unreferenced material, which the user freely admits is based on their own knowledge rather than any reliable source, and despite warnings and attempts to discuss the importance of WP:V, they insist on adding their unreferenced claim.  Chzz  ► 17:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Semi protected by Dabomb87. Minima  c  ( talk ) 22:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:NPz1 reported by User:Cptnono (Result: 31h, notified of ARBPIA)
Page:

User being reported:

Editors at the Gaza War article are restricted to 1/rr. Per the talk page (which has not been used by NPz1:) "In accordance with Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." and "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

The article talk page clearly states the opening part with a big stop hand.

I informed the editor of his breach of 1/rr and he has failed to self revert after 20hrs and instead blanked his user page again.


 * 1st revert: (this was not significantly different from his previous version I reverted. He did not use the talk page to discuss improvements even though there is an ongoing discussion)
 * 2nd revert: (note that this revert was done after another editor who I do not even always agree with who stated "your edit was reverted before. either join the discussion on the talk page or stop making the edit")

The user is more than likely a POV warrior and could be a meatpuppet. The history since this account as just started shows more than one editor warning him about BLP and other issues. All of that is reason for a formal warning but the disregard for 1/rr after being notified is reason enough to block. The edit is live at this time and the editor is disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And now there is an edit war. Two editors besides myself have attempted to remove the edit since there are problems with it. Now The confusion has caught someone up who isn't even involved in the contentious topic area it looks like. This is why there is 1/rr and this is why editors like NPz1 need immediate blocks to ensure a better understanding of the guidelines/prevent disruption from primarily disruption only accounts. I can't be too miffed at the admins here since there were no responses to anything while this was up but I am venting a little in general since the article as been mainly calm over the last few months accept for instances like this.Cptnono (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor has been given a final warning on disruptive editing, and a notification of an arbcom ruling which enables any non-involved admin to impose sanctions, including immediate blocks of up to a year. I have given the user advice on discussing controversial edits, and a warning that a block is likely to be imminent. I seriously considered blocking immediately, and I do think that one more incident will certainly justify a block. I would not criticise any admin who decided that a block was already justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 31 hours by User:Malik Shabazz. Notified under WP:ARBPIA by User:JamesBWatson. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:194.145.60.134 reported by User:Anthonyhcole (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Sorry, don't understand what I should put here.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Permanent link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of user notified on their talk page

Comments:

The IP is repeatedly inserting the same content unsupported by reliable sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 24 hours. He made a seventh consecutive revert after being warned:. I would recommend that any additional revert-warring after this block expires be met with a longer block, as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Tnxman307 reported by User:Stormstrike (Result: No violation has taken place. )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments: The links Tnxman307 deleted are to a regional daily newspaper that has been in existence for more than five decades; a weekly newspaper that has been in existence for more than four decades; and an online news site that exclusively covers the Village of Port Chester. All three are institutions in the town and are legitimate media organizations staffed by real editors, reporters and photographers. They are not spam or content mills, as Tnxman307 deems them. In addition, threatening to remove another user's ability to edit, and taking it upon himself to ban users from linking to LOCAL institutions that are part of this community, is exactly the sort of behavior that gives Wikipedia a bad name and discourages users from participating.

Tnxman307 apparently believes he is "cleaning up" Wikipedia, but he is arbitrarily deciding to deprive readers of information about a local community that he is not a part of and has no knowledge of.

This kind of hostile, dictatorial editing is to the detriment of Wikipedia and its users.

In addition, I would like to note that I sent an e-mail to Tnxman307 explaining that these are local media institutions, and that they are legitimate media organizations, not spam outlets. Instead of responding and having a discussion, he again took it upon himself to delete the links to The Journal News, the Westmore News and Port Chester Patch. Gannett is the largest newspaper company in the world, and Patch is the largest media organization in the world, but one Wikipedia editor has decided that neither of them can be linked in a directly relevant article about a village covered by both companies? I think the hundreds of thousands of *local* readers of The Journal News and Port Chester Patch would disagree.


 * Result: The editor has made three reverts over a period of over three months. This cannot reasonably be viewed as edit warring. There is room for debate on whether the removal of links can reasonably be defended on the basis of the external links guideline, but this is not the place for that debate. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dbrennan3333 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I've adjusted MikeWazoski's report, as there were actually 6 reverts within a 24-hour period. Also note that Dbrennan3333 made 2 identical reverts in the weeks leading up to this: . --IllaZilla (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7th revert: The editor has resumed adding content which is not reliably sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The page had a fallacious statement on it. I corrected this and cited a primary source. User BettyLogan was a little bit confused by this. Another user user then said that the problem was that a smaller part of the statement was not cited. So, I just went back in and sourced that small part of the statement....five times. I can source it twenty more times, if you want. (The issue was about whether media reported a plagiarism incident in a particular way. Every single mainstream media article cited in the very same Wikipedia article had, in fact, done so. I proved this.) The matter should be over. I appreciate any recognition for the hard work that I put into this. Much more challenging than simply clicking on "undo" and making ten word declarations. --Dbrennan3333 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dbrennan3333, there was no "fallacious statement" in the text you altered. The text stated that Ellison believed The Terminator was based on his Outer Limits episode "Soldier", and cited a source where Ellison explicitly states that The Terminator "was a ripoff" of "Soldier". I do not see the so-called "fallacious statement" in that at all. The "smaller part of the statement" you added that was uncited was a broad claim that "virtually all media accounts" had for a long time wrongly reported that a different Outer Limits episode by Ellison, titled "The Demon with the Glass Hand", was the one "ripped off". In order to verify this claim you need to cite a source that specifically says "virtually all media accounts did this". It does not matter how many individual sources you provide that got the episode wrong...you can cite 10 or 20 or 100 but you cannot prove that this represents "virtually all media accounts". To claim so is original research. I made this point several times on the article talk page yet you have not once attempted to change the wording to remove the broad, unproveable claim. You've simply reinserted the same text, 7 times now. And that's why we're here. Whether you believe that you are right or noble does not excuse edit-warring. This is something that I myself have experienced firsthand. Getting up on a high horse will not help your case. You need to show that you are willing to discuss and collaborate when disagreements arise, rather than edit-war until you get your way. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now he's edit-warring over a single word...   I've tried to be patient & work towards a reasonable solution both in the article & on the talk page, but enough is enough. I'm stepping away before I get baited into an edit-war. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:184.33.33.244 reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

& 5th revert:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I warned him in the edit summary, he responded he wouldn't stop, and clearly understood what he was doing. 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Did it on the proper page as mentioned above. Comments:


 * Someone else warned him on his talk page even, he then does it again. Says he won't stop until he gets his way apparently.  Please see the latest one at    D r e a m Focus  11:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see someone has blocked him. Am I allowed to undo his last edit, or would that put me above the three revert limit?  Can someone hit undo at his section blanking please?    D r e a m Focus  11:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor has restored the section that was removed by the IP, and the article has been semiprotected for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:PopularMax reported by User:Passionless (Result: Notified both under WP:ARBPIA)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:-(Korean part was a third party, and I fixed the spelling difs)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * The last revert removed my addition of the Israel based news article-another POV pushing revert

Comments:

I'm not too sure if this is a case of 3RR just because the reverting could have been done in fewer edits if the time was taken as it was 3reverts by Popular, 3reverts by me+1revert of an obvious vandal by me, than 3reverts by Popular. I made the report anyhow because I did not want to get in trouble myself for 3RR in undoing his POV insertion. Oh and I explain by reasoning here as there are no talk pages for the current events. Passionless  -Talk  00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Passionless didn't have the patience to work out a solution before posting to this noticeboard. (I was offline and did not see his/her message until this morning my time.) I had begun to demonstrate my willingness to compromise, by taking Passionless's comment into account with this change, which was not just a straight revert):

I also thought that multiple reverts apply to the items on the Current Events page individually, and as far as I can tell, I have not reverted the same item more than twice (as has Passionless), per the following breakdown item-by-item on the page:

Peru and Palestine:

Passionless 1st revert: My 1st revert: Passionless 2nd revert: My 2nd revert:

Hamas book banning:

Passionless 1st revert: My 1st revert Passionless 2nd revert: My 2nd revert: (note, with a compromise, it was not just a straight revert back to the previous version)

Iranian executions:

Passionless 1st revert: My 1st revert: Passionless 2nd revert: My 2nd revert:

I have since read the 3RR rules and understand that it applies to a page, rather than an item on a page unless there is an exception for the Current Events page which is somewhat differently structured than regular article pages. I did not see that however, so unless you can indicate that is the case, I will commit to following the 3RR rule for the page. PopularMax (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The edits labelled "Passionless 1st revert:" by PopularMax were only me editing the sections for NPOV, I did not revert their full addition without explanation like Popular did to the Israeli article(7th revert). I messaged you PopularMax 5minutes after your last edit, waited an almost an hour, than posted here as the current events portal is too important to wait around while it is fileld with blatant POV. Passionless   -Talk  18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors have reverted on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so I am notifying both of them of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. We expect that people will carefully work to reach consensus even on transitory pages like those under Portal:Current events. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just can't accept WP:ARBPIA on the portal:current events....it would be very detrimental to this fast moving highly viewed portal. Consensus on such a page is reached normally by us editors quickly re-wording and adding new news sources to articles numerous times within an hour or two until we can both agree. This portal receives ~40k views a day, month old news receives 500 views a day, 2 year old news 50 views/day. It's important editors are not restrained and can move quickly to take out problems. WP:ARBPIA would do more to keep POV within the article than to remove it. The 1RR rule is meant to slow stuff down and keep status quo, to apply it to a page which grows from nothing each day and is easily the fastest growing, is not helpful.
 * Besides that, does that mean each article on the portal is seperate from others on the page and 3RR would only applying to a single article and not numerous article changes being reverted??? Passionless   -Talk  19:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm moving this discussion to here, so that this can be removed, and other editors notified of this. Passionless   -Talk  19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no 1RR restriction on Portal:Current events or its subpages. The caution about ARBPIA is something that needs to be kept in mind by editors who work on Israel-Palestine topics on those pages. Since there are many subpages, any edit warring complaint is more likely going to be about long-term warring rather than 3RR. Editors need to carefully work for consensus even though these pages are fast-moving. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If ARBPIA is enforced on related articles on the current events portal, it would be supportive of those who add POV articles. Now, all seven of those reverts were on one subpage within 24 hours. So. Does 3RR apply when reverting multiple seperate articles on a single subpage for a total of 4 or more times within 24 hours? Passionless   -Talk  20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The diffs that you supplied in the report were not easy to interpret, which may account for no quick response by admins. A variety of different news items seem to have been involved. In such cases, it is best if the submitter (yourself) will include a sentence to explain why he thinks each item qualifies as a revert. Now that admins are aware that some Israeli-Palestinian matters may be disputed at Portal:Current events it may be easier to follow these matters in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just earlier this week I broke ARBPIA, here's the scenario:


 * 1st edit by Ocravaria:-adds POV by making false claims (Islamic Jihad part) and violates WP:LABEL.
 * I revert the edit-
 * Octavaria reverts my revert- -re-adding the false claim of Islamic Jihad
 * I make a second revert- to remove the false claim. If 1RR was in place it would have protected the false claim as there are not enough NPOV editors around to quickly undo bad edits related to ARBPIA.
 * So, in the future how could I instantly remove bad edits without breaking 1RR and not going through a discussion of such length that it would make it self pointless? I think I will just stick by the de facto way we work at the portal as per WP:IGNORE and WP:BROKE. Passionless   -Talk  01:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to close this, Passionless   -Talk  05:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Salmon1 reported by User:JNW (Result: See other case)
Page:

User being reported:

Apologies for not supplying diffs--my mouse ain't working well. This user has a long-term agenda to remove works by one artist, and has reverted to edit warring. JNW (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am writing this response to you with the hope that it will help to restore civility. In my entire 5 year history in Wikipedia editing I have only uploaded three images. The three images were used to replace the extensive use of images for Ronnie Landfield by Modernist. I have replaced with. Similarly I have replaced with. There are several of the same image of Ronnie Landfield's remaining in use in other general articles on  and. The replaced two images were by artists who are highly recognized both in the US and internationally. I explained my action in each case in the respective talk page. In the third instance I chose an artist who was exhibiting in an exhibition along with Ronnie Landfield, John Seery. I explained my action in the talk page. The rest of the problem is discussed at the same section of the talk page for the article Color field,. I do not have the tool to revert and I did not revert. Actually I only tried to upload once but I thought that I was repeatedly unsuccessful so I kept trying. Shortly after to my surprise there was added a double image of Ronnie Landfield’s along with a larger image of John Seery’s. In the future I will not touch the images associated with Ronnie Landfield. It is really the role of the consensus to determine what endures. Thank you for your help. Very best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC))


 * If I'm reading them correctly, edit summaries for Color field indicate an awareness of intervening edits, and continued attempts to revert them . Edit warring is not dependent upon access to reversion tools.
 * The promise to cease editing in an area where there is a contentious history is welcome. My suggestion, as already offered at the Color field discussion page, is that this have a broader application: that Salmon1 continue to edit, particularly in their field of expertise -- where they have recently created articles, -- while avoiding direct conflict with Modernist. Additionally, should either contributor have a disagreement with edits by the other, remedy will be sought at appropriate article or visual arts project talk pages before any reversions are undertaken, so that a thoughtful consensus may be reached. It is likely that the contributors know each other outside of Wikipedia, and the mutual claims of harassment underscore the need for a permanent cessation of provocative acts and statements here. JNW (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: See another complaint about the same dispute, at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Salmon1 reported by User:Modernist (Result: Article protected, editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, link permitted]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am writing this response to you with the hope that it will help to restore civility. In my entire 5 year history in Wikipedia editing I have only uploaded three images. The three images were used to replace the extensive use of images for Ronnie Landfield by Modernist. I have replaced with. Similarly I have replaced with. There are several of the same image of Ronnie Landfield's remaining in use in other general articles on  and. The replaced two images were by artists who are highly recognized both in the US and internationally. I explained my action in each case in the respective talk page. In the third instance I chose an artist who was exhibiting in an exhibition along with Ronnie Landfield, John Seery. I explained my action in the talk page. The rest of the problem is discussed at the same section of the talk page for the article Color field,. I do not have the tool to revert and I did not revert. Actually I only tried to upload once but I thought that I was repeatedly unsuccessful so I kept trying. Shortly after to my surprise there was added a double image of Ronnie Landfield’s along with a larger image of John Seery’s. In the future I will not touch the images associated with Ronnie Landfield. It is really the role of the consensus to determine what endures. Thank you for your help. Very best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Result: Article protected one week. If Modernist and Salmon1 engage in a revert war anywhere else, blocks are possible. If a disagreement exists as to which images to use in an article, wait to reach consensus on the talk page before reverting again. I note that Salmon1 has been warned in the past for revert warring at Lyrical abstraction and Expressionism. No sanctions were issued in those cases, but I hope that she will take more care in the future. Both parties to this dispute seem to have a conflict of interest, the details of which are known to the admins. Special caution is needed in those cases, and people who engage in a pattern of self-serving edits risk a block for disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Mattun0211 reported by User:Adam4267 (Result: Two articles protected)
Pages:

User being reported:

This user has edited the page 3 times today and 15 times yesterday being warned while he was editing, he has also frequently edit-warred on the Green Brigade page and left 3 threats on the talk stating that the page would 'become the scene of a permanent edit-war' which he then later tried to remove. He has been frequently warned about his edits on his talk page and he has also been reported by another user for incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4267 (talk • contribs) This report is somewhat hypocritical of Adams own editing over the last 24-48 hours. Which I feel inclined now to report myself. As for Mattun he made it quite clear on the Celtic article that he was working on a slow computer and had to save every so often while he was making bold edits to the page to prevent from losing them (perhaps an inexperienced mistake). Even in note of this another user kept reverting (even though he had not completed his edit). As for his statements like 'become the scene of a permanent edit-war', my take on that is that he was attempting to resolve the issues on the discussion to prevent an edit war not to start one (I also contributed on the discussion of that article so have first hand feedback).Monkeymanman (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comments
 * Yet another fantastic attempt by you to sweep something under the rug monkeymanman

how are you going to dress up the quote ''Just a heads up. Any more deleting of fair comments without any explanation will see this page become the scene of an edit war, which I doubt is in the Green Brigade's best interests. Spellgate will be used as a WMD'' and how you so non-chalantly managed to disregard Mattun's 15 edits in 1 day, I did not know that the 3rr rule only applied to people with fast computers. How do you plan to evade the point and mis-qoute sources and wikipolicies to get your wee pal off this time.

I suppose you need all the friends you can get now, seeing as the incredibly bias dominance you had established over Old Firm articles for so long is being removed. Adam4267 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That quote still shows what I already believe was meant; the user was attempting to avoid edit warring, not to start it.


 * 15 edits in 1 day I already said that I believe it was a mistake by a possibly inexperienced editor who was jumped on, and to note it was not fifteen reverts.


 * wee pal off this time, Lets be clear I have already said I don’t care for either of you and even attempted to encourage disscusion while you both were edit warring


 * incredibly bias dominance , What is this dominance you are pointing out to, I would strongly argue it is the opposite. Regards Monkeymanman (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: -- Both articles are protected for one week. Neither Adam4267 nor Mattun0211 gets much credit for patiently seeking consensus here. These articles may fall under the WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES discretionary sanctions. If this is confirmed, a 1RR/day editing restriction would apply to anyone working on these articles. We'll leave that as a future possibility and hope that the articles settle down after protection ends. It is too long since the last revert to issue a 3RR block to Mattun0211. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Adam4267 reported by User:Monkeymanman (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * then another today

warning


 * Comment

I think both users should be blocked to be honest, Jmorrison230582 did NOT make an attempt (from what I saw, correct me if I am wrong) to resolve the conflict whereas Adam4267 did. While this was not over the course of one day, I still do believe these users should be blocked to prevent further edit warring. Addi hockey  10  e-mail 20:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense.


 * I posted legitimate sourced content that he kept removing for no good reason other than his own opinion (probably because he doesn't want something bad said about a Celtic player, I suspect). I made the first comment trying to resolve the situation at Richie Towell on Adam4267's talk page, warning him that he was violating WP:3RR. His reply on my talk page was over 20 minutes later.


 * Get your facts right before posting utter crap. I see that you describe my comment as just a "warning", when in fact I go on to explain why he shouldn't be removing sourced content for no good reason - in other words, trying to resolve the edit war. His post on my talk page just reiterated what he had already said in the edit summaries. I ignored his comment, as I am entitled to do. As far as I was concerned the matter was over because he did not revert the addition again after my comment.


 * But if you want to block established users who have never been in trouble before for no good reason then fine, go ahead. Just don't expect me to vote for your next failed adminship application, because it would show a remarkable level of pettiness. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why this has been brought up seeing as it wasn't over the course of one day. Adam4267 (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. There were a couple of reversions through edit summaries and then the situation was resolved by the comments on each other's talk pages. I don't understand why this has been brought up here at all. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Page:


 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th

warning


 * Comment

Perhaps Adam4267 should receive a lengthier block for edit-warring on multiple articles. But both users seem to be communicating via edit summaries, while reverting one another which is not appropriate whatsoever. Addi hockey  10  e-mail 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Again don't see why this has been brought up as it wasn't over the course of one day. Adam4267 (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Masteryorlando reported by User:EPadmirateur (Result: blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Masteryorlando

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Masteryorlando apparently doesn't read the substance of the objections and doesn't want to discuss them on the Talk Page.


 * Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Steveg79 reported by User:86.157.62.248 (Result: 31 hour block and page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Various

Reverts post notification of this report
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert
 * 11th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Uninvolved in current editing

Comments:

User is a recently created SPA who is almost certainly the SPA IP) who originally created the controversial material and refused to accept [[WP:BRD]. If so that increases the above count.  I just put up a final warning on a AGF assumption that the editor may not have know its "any revert"  however the overall behaviour looks like someone who knows their way around Wikipedia, not a newbe.  I'm not wild about 3rr reports by one time IPs as this is, my view was to wait and see if Steveg79 continued the behaviour after they were advised.  I'd suggest that a neutral admin spells out the rules rather than taking more punitive action-- Snowded  TALK  10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This user in my opinion was justly defending a valid post. There was no consensus as to the removal of his additions and so for those reasons he was protecting against vandalism. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User snowded thinks he own certain articles and allways ediys from pov. he has made way more that three reverts in th elast 24hours. cant be bothered to link them but look your self--Steveg79 (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two reversals of your original insertion as an IP with a request to follow WP:BRD; thereafter I made various modifications to the content in an attempt to make the insertion NPOV while raising my concerns and making a proposal for deletion on the talk page. Oh and one reinstatement of a fact tag that you deleted without providing a source.  As to the other accusations (made without evidence), I think that just proves you are not a new editor.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Steveg79 should be blocked quickly. Not being aware of the first 3RR notice, I gave the user another 3RR notice, which they acknowledged by removing it. Immediately after removing the two 3RR warnings and some other sections from their talk page, the user reverted again on the same article. This is currently an edit war by 2 users being won against 4 users, simply by one of the two being a recently created SPA that apparently does not mind being blocked. This behaviour must not be rewarded by protecting the wrong version. Hans Adler 12:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the nature of the edits were to be reviewed it would soon transpire that they are in no way shape or form to the detriment of the article. It is just the simple fact that people do not like giving credibility to this group Alexandre8 (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also protected the page for a month. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Markglad reported by User:WikiManOne (Result:Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Markglad (another user had already warned him previously but I have added the template)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He seems to have commented here, but it appears that four other editors have been reverting his edits as unconstructive and have not been communicating about in on talk page. Talk:Thomas_Jefferson

Comments:

I have no prior involvement with this issue, the same user inserting the same text nine times despite four other editors reverting his edits seems like a text book definition of edit warring. After responding to a request for third opinion I placed the article on my watch list, within hours I noticed the occurrence of constant reverts. After viewing the article history, it appears four editors have been reverting unilateral additions by Markglad against consensus. Viewing his edit history, he seems to have very few edits outside of the edit war on the Jefferson article. I believe this to be grounds for a block of some sort. WikiManOne 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This user certainly is persistent. Blocked 24 hours. --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt attention! WikiManOne 18:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that we have another problem. Another user has reverted the content for the tenth time. This user only has four mainspace edits, out of which the last three were not helpful. One is the revertion,, and two constitute vandalism, , . The timing of this account being used is particularly suspicious as its second edit since Markglad's 24 hour ban is to continue the same edit war as Markglad made. WikiManOne 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the timing is "suspicious," but one edit is not a lot to go on. I gave this user a level-one templated vandalism warning -- warnings and other user-talk communications are almost always a good idea when one has encountered problematic behavior. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Markglad is trying to discuss his edit now on the talk page, I'm still monitoring but don't plan on getting involved. WikiManOne 06:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So what happens when all the users who want to censor this don’t want to discuss it? It sure looks like Wikipedia want to keep this article slanted and non neutral. And by the way, this was all discussed almost two years ago but someone decided to delete all the talk about it, I guess someone doesn’t want free thinking here. -Markglad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you attempted each step of dispute resolution already? If not, keep going. If so, you might want to reconsider whether or not you may be wrong. (I haven't read anything other than your last comment. I didn't even bother checking the topic. I'm just responding as to what your next step might be.) --Onorem♠Dil 18:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, NPOV started, And as far as be wrong, I was just entering a black and white fact wishing the reader to further research for their own opinion on what it means but was told the Library Of Congress was not a reliable source of information. -Markglad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:JamesMLane reported by User:Jæs (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of article probation notification:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Articles relating to Sarah Palin are subject to article probation. On January 17, User:JamesMLane insertedundefined a comment regarding Joe Manchin in the Public image of Sarah Palin article. The content has been discussed extensively on the talk page and was removed (with four editors supporting its removal and two supporting its inclusion). User:JamesMLane has restored it three times since, including twice in the past day. The Palin articles are only as stable as they are because editors are essentially forced strongly incentivized to use the relevant talk pages to hash out content supported by consensus — hence the strict terms of the article probation. For whatever reason, User:JamesMLane has decided to ignore those terms in this circumstance, prompting a cascade of edit warring to reinsert the content regardless of the lack of consensus that it should be in the article. jæs (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a growing consensus to include editor:Lane's proposed paragraph. Please see Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin. I was surprised that Lane had not implemented his edit. Now I see why. Consensus favors inclusion. Buster Seven   Talk  21:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're mistaking the more recent consensus to remove his content (and some other content) for the fact that there was no consensus to include it to begin with. Regardless, edit warring to include the content isn't excusable under any circumstances.  jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  06:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I apologize for not responding here sooner. Jæs launched this attack on me without troubling to notify me of the matter, so I didn't even know about for the first day of its existence, until a third party was kind enough to tell me.


 * Here's the background: On January 11, an editor add a passage, sourced to The Washington Post, that tended to put Sarah Palin in a favorable light on a hotly disputed subject. This edit left our presentation quite unbalanced, in violation of WP:NPOV.  Nevertheless, I didn't remove it.  When I had time to work on that aspect of the article, I found information that put Palin in a less favorable light and was from a reliable source (The Hill), so I added that information on January 17.


 * My addition was reverted less than an hour later. There was then discussion on the talk page, in the course of which I made it clear that I wasn't wedded to my version.  Because the specific citation that was deemed unfavorable to Palin was criticized on the talk page, I said and reiterated that we could delete it if it were replaced by some other citation that would fairly represent the viewpoint of those critical of Palin.  The key wasn't any specific quotation but rather that the anti-Palin point of view be fairly represented, along with the pro-Palin point of view.


 * The editor who had originally criticized the inclusion of the information from The Hill then edited the passage so that the information was still included, as I had suggested, but with wording that he considered more accurate. I didn't change his wording.  In that version (January 18), this part of the article was stable for more than a week.  Jæs now asserts that there was no consensus, but the fact is that more than a week elapsed with no edits to the passage and no further comment from anyone on the talk page, which is at least an indication of rough consensus.


 * The dispute was rekindled on January 26 when an anon IP, without saying anything on the talk page, removed the information that Palin supporters did not like. That triggered a renewed dispute.  Yes, I reverted the anon IP, because there was clearly no consensus for the deletion of the material and for the presentation of only one side.  It was only in response to my revert that the anon IP deigned to participate on the talk page (although not until he or she had again removed the information).  In this round of the discussion on the talk page, removal was favored by the anon IP and Fcreid, while inclusion was favored by BusterSeven and myself.


 * The anon's second removal was reverted by a previously uninvolved editor, HelloAnnyong, who commented, "i think this is fine". From there the history is: Fcreid removes the information, saying, "Please see Talk...."; I restore it, saying, "Please see Talk...."; Jæs (of all people) reverts, saying (of all things) "Stop your edit warring"; Jack Merridew restores it, saying, "Actually, JamesMLane has made very good arguments on talk"; the anon IP reverts again; and the anon IP then implements a compromise suggestion that I had made in talk, as discussed below.


 * Throughout this dispute, I never removed the Washington Post link that put Palin in a good light. The issue was always whether we would report only that side of the dispute, as Palin supporters wanted, or whether we would report both sides, as I and others wanted.  (Incidentally, I use the term "Palin supporters" as a shorthand for "Wikipedia editors who wanted to include material that would tend to give the reader a more favorable impression of Palin, who wanted to exclude material that would tend to give the reader a less favorable impression of Palin, who in some instances have made other edits that would make Palin-related articles more pro-Palin, and who may or may not support her off-wiki.")


 * While Jæs was bringing this complaint behind my back, I was continuing to discuss the matter on the talk page to try to find a consensus resolution. As I thought more about the topic, I became less impressed with the whole back-and-forth, and concluded that the article might well be better off with both statements removed, instead of both being included, as I had previously favored.  I suggested that we go that route and provided the specific text of how the passage would read if we did.  I did not edit the article itself.  Based on the reactions to my suggestion, another editor (the anon IP referred to above) implemented my suggestion.  As of this writing there is some basis for hoping that the new version will be stable.


 * If my conduct is deemed to be edit warring, then, fine, I'll learn my lesson. Next time I'm in a situation like this, when my Hill citation is removed, I'll remove the Washington Post citation that the Hill citation was intended to balance.  Anyone on the other side who restores the article to his or her preferred version -- the one that includes one POV but not the other -- will then be equally guilty of edit warring, and we can all spend our time throwing rocks at each other on AN/EW instead of trying to find good sources and improve the article. JamesMLane t c 08:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, you should know better than to repeatedly reinsert content over a number of days, especially at an article subject to probation. You can make any number of secondary points, but that fact remains.  You say you were "continuing to discuss the matter on the talk page to try to find a consensus resolution."  That doesn't make repeatedly reinserting content without consensus acceptable.  Then you go on to say that the next time you're "in a situation like this," you'll retaliate by removing other sourced (and drastically more relevant) material.  This is not acceptable behaviour at any article, let alone one subject to heightened editing standards.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  10:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If I were to take any action here, it would be to full protect this page because it's a pretty broad edit war. It's been several hours since the last revert, so maybe we could agree to stop so I don't have to? And yes, please heed the probation. Remember that I or any other uninvolved admin could put you on 1RR anytime. (And by "you" I mean no one in particular; anyone involved should keep this in mind.)Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected three days. In spite of the filing of a report here, reverts have continued, each party urging (in their edit summary), 'See Talk.' This is ridiculous! Try to reach consensus in the ongoing discussion. It would help if one of the participants would try to summarize on talk what the opinions are. Consider requesting an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. As Heimstern observes, 1RR restrictions can be imposed at any time. This can be done under the Palin article probation. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, you're being too pessimistic. Before I knew of the filing of a report here, I had proposed a compromise on the article talk page.  As I detailed in the history I set forth above, some other editors expressed support for my suggestion, and one of them implemented it.  All of that happened before I even knew about Jæs's complaint against me.  Since then, nothing more has happened at the article -- no one has reverted the compromise version and no one has criticized it on the talk page.  It's at least possible that your recommendation for consensus has been achieved, without reference to Jæs's charges against me. JamesMLane t c 04:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a 1RR restriction on the article probably would be preferable at the article should an issue like this arise again. A consensus emerged to remove your content (along with a related segment) after you had reinserted your preferred material numerous times without consensus.  The fact that you're searching around for someone else to blame and saying anything other than "My mistake, it won't happen again" is pretty damned alarming.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  04:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I too am alarmed by some aspects of what's gone on, but I see no point to further bickering here. I've set forth the historical record to my satisfaction.  Any editors who want to wade through the details can determine for themselves whether your characterization is accurate. JamesMLane t c 05:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice, James, if some editors do as you suggest, and wade through the details. They would likely find some pretty severe POV-pushing designed to skew the article against the subject. This is peculiar, because a neutrally-written article should be able to adequately expose all of the subject's alleged warts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not for disputes. Can we please take it to the relevant talk pages? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Haymaker (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: at 00:53
 * 2nd revert: at 10:02
 * 3rd revert: at 15:15
 * 4th revert: at 16:25
 * 5th revert: at 22:02
 * 6th revert: at 02:23
 * 7th revert: at 11:09

Roscelese has been warned about edit-warring several times and was blocked for it earlier this week.

Comments:

This section of the article has moved a lot in the last few days and though only a minority of these diffs were outright reversions all of them contain partial reversions of contested material, though often accompanied by the addition or subtraction of uncontested material. Over the course of 34 hours Roscelese reverted the work of 3 different editors 7 times (4 times inside one 12 hour block). The user is well aware of 3RR, she has been warned of it several times and was blocked for edit-warring earlier this week. She broken both the word and the spirit of 3RR in her continued ownership of the article. - Haymaker (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: If you remove diffs that a) are not reverts (the first one - I suggested on the talk page of User:Esoglou, who had added a lot of stuff to the article, that zie move it to one of the more appropriate main articles, which zie did, and that diff is from the process of working out a better summary) or b) were later reverted by myself (the removal of tags), there is no violation of 3RR here. Sorry, Haymaker. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, taking a second look, it isn't +3RR even if you do count the first as a revert because, as I noted above, edits that I have since reverted myself aren't evidence of edit warring. So...yeah. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and one should note: Haymaker's statement that I removed uncontested material is simply untrue, which is obvious from looking at the diffs, and some of these reverts are in fact my restoring reliably sourced information that Haymaker has removed because he doesn't like it. I've asked you this in the past, Haymaker, but in this sort of formal, disciplinary context, please try very hard to tell the truth about other users: exaggerating or inventing their "crimes" in order to get them blocked is really not very collegial. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Every one of those diffs is a revert, in part or in whole, you made 4 of them inside a 12 hour period. You've been warned about edit-warring ad nauseam, rather than use the dispute resolution process you just reverted other editors' work. - Haymaker (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And, as I already noted in several comments, I later reverted myself on a number of these. Unless you're trying to claim that replacing tags with citations counts as a revert. I hope that's not the case, because that suggests you'd rather use tags as badges of shame than as indicators that something needs improvement.  Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An editor added those and then you reverted that editor. Why wouldn't that count as a revert? - Haymaker (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: from my limited participation in articles these two are involved in, it is clear that Haymaker clearly does not assume good faith by Roscelese and other editors who disagree with him. I would strongly disagree with any sort of block for Roscelese but I would support a sanction on Haymaker for his continual non-good faith edits. nonsense! this WikiManOne speaking. drivel! 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, nobody canvassed me for this, I saw this when I was going to add a comment to my previous and successful report above on the Thomas Jefferson article, its also cute how Haymaker never warned the user being reported here as is clearly stated to be a step of reporting and rather just provided her with a link to this page after the fact. nonsense! this WikiManOne speaking. drivel! 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned user has been warned about 3RR several times and was blocked for violating it earlier this week. There is no reason to believe she was unaware she was violating 3RR, the first edit I made after this report was letting her know about it. - Haymaker (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you're required to warn first, actually, though as WikiManOne has recently been a nominator in this process he may know better than me. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Haymaker, who has recently changed names, has a long history of edit-warring to insert their strong POV despite concensus and assuming bad faith is implied in their edits. It's not bad to have strong opinions based on religious beliefs but those opinions are not facts and in specific subject areas - including Jewish and gay people - their standards of deletion and sourcing is especially disproportionate to community policy and seems to be a chronic issue. (see ) They seem eager to edit-war and don't stop until made to, the crusade needs to end and maybe a 1 revert per day imposed. CeeAyah (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whose bitter heart spews such slurs? Which indef blocked suckpuppeteer from years gone by are you?  Benji?  Spot maybe?  Surely you've found something to do with your time by now? - Haymaker (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Haymaker, please be civil towards other editors and assume good faith. It is possible for multiple people to disagree with you without them all being secretly one person. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Save that this one is very clearly a sock. - Haymaker (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * -note - User:Roscelese has also been reverting my attempts to remove their uncited hate page from the search engine results, user has from the start of my meeting with them used threatening templates and insisted on keeping their uncited article in the search engine results. I also support a edit restriction on this user as this report and their actions to keep their uncited article in the google results represents a pattern of aggressive warring. See here the google results for their uncited attack article. Off2riorob (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, if a) your first edit to my draft had not been vandalism b) you had not followed up the vandalism with personal attacks c) you had linked the relevant policy when I directly and politely asked you to, so I could restore the template myself d) you had asked another editor to become involved, rather than edit-warring after I directly and politely asked you to stop editing my user page, there would be no issue here. Now that someone else has done that most basic job of linking the policy, there is no more issue, except possibly your failure to realize that vandalism and personal attacks are not okay and that warning templates about them are not an attempt to intimidate you. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it Rob's job to notify you of policy? Shouldn't you have glanced at it before you created indexed userpages? - Haymaker (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to close. Haymaker, though seemingly unaware of how self-reverting to avoid an edit war works, has made his case, and since I'd rather not see him brought to another forum for personal attacks and off-topic sniping, I recommend closing this case so that he doesn't say something he might later regret. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more than familiar with self-reverting, it in no way explains the 7 reverts to the page you made. I strongly resent the tone of your last statement and would ask you to try to keep a civil one. - Haymaker (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, on the off chance anyone is interested in confirming that my removal of tags was shortly accompanied by the addition of citations: diff. Haymaker, you seem to be arguing above that this is a revert and that the right thing to do would have been to leave the information uncited. That's a very silly position, so could you please clarify what you mean? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't just add citations, you reverted an editors actions and then later added citations. If this was the first time you had been in this trouble or if this was a borderline case then that could serve as an excuse but it isn't.  That does not explain your revert and it doesn't even begin to explain the other 6 reverts. - Haymaker (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Haymaker, hopefully you read WP:3RR before you accused me of violating it. I'm going to assume you just accidentally overlooked a few of the things there, such as "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user" (ie. removing a citation tag and then immediately adding a citation) "counts as one revert" - so please go re-read it now. I also recommend that you read WP:Self-revert again. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your continued concern regarding my reading habits is noted. Even if that worked out the way you think it does and you were absolved of that revert there are another 6 left. - Haymaker (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright. I think this is the longest report I have ever seen. Let's be honest Haymaker, most of us that edit here have lives and haven't read every page of applicable WP policy, if we somehow violate it, I at least expect a little wiggle room if I had never heard of the policy before, therefore, it is completely reasonable for Roscelese to ask for a link to applicable policies if she is not aware of them. Also, Haymaker, I believe I saw a note on a policy somewhere that accusing someone of sock-puppetry is inappropriate. Furthermore, yes you are expected to warn the user per " ."
 * Off2riorob, take a look at this. It clearly suggests that if you have a problem with something on someone's userpage you should talk to them about it first which you seem to have failed to do. Furthermore, your additional report is irrelevant as the reverts you referred to are within the user's userspace, per:
 * "The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. (emphasis mine)"
 * Did I miss something? Probably. :) nonsense! this WikiManOne speaking. drivel! 08:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, it is frowned upon to groundlessly accuse someone of sock-puppetry (a charge which Roscelese has leveled at me) but this SPA is pretty duckish and I have actually filed a formal SPI. - Haymaker (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the above discussion leads to a clear conclusion in full accord with my own positive impression of Roscelese, who is quite open to accepting other people's reasoned views. My first interaction with him was when he reverted, on what seemed to him good grounds, an edit of mine, but he readily accepted my sourced explanation.  He has been helpful in providing objective information not biased in favour of one view or another.  I am confident that we can reach a full agreement on a matter on which I have doubts, but which I am leaving until later both because of having much to do at present (I am not referring only to Wikipedia editing) and, more especially, while I await the end of the present quarrelling.  Esoglou (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I asked Esoglou to comment here, because some of the edits above were related to changes he had made. I did not know whether or not he would agree with Haymaker that my behavior had been out of line.
 * Thanks for the comment, Esoglou. (As a side note, I am female.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Le sigh. Religion and abortion are problematic enough as topic areas, and we get to combine them here for extra fun. I'm not going to issue blocks, and I'm not going to lock the page, because these edits are now days old and something resembling constructive editing appears to be occurring. But, here's what I suggest: Haymaker and Roscelese, is there any way for your editing interests to diverge for a while? Surely there are enough articles here that you can avoid each other? This relationship is headed nowhere good, and I don't want to see good faith editors blocked or topic banned, or pages locked. Also, for either party, it is unnecessary and possibly inappropriate to summon other editors here to comment, unless it's to draw attention to some factual matter that was overlooked in the report. I suggest avoiding the appearance of impropriety altogether. Andy Walsh   (talk)  19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * *shrug* I edit on quite a large number of topics, and somehow the only person who is consistently unhappy with my editing is Haymaker here. He's welcome to avoid topics where I edit if he thinks doing so will keep his blood pressure down. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you say that? - Haymaker (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I simply gave my advice. Both of you can accept it or ignore it at your leisure, of course. I will say that this particular conversation needs to end here, since the edit warring noticeboard is not the place to carry on your disputes. Your next stop should (and probably will) be RFC/U. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Scarmudgeon reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1) 12:23, 30 January 2011  (edit summary: "/* Rules and cheating */")
 * 2) 13:02, 30 January 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 410954563 by 1ForTheMoney (talk)")
 * 3) 13:07, 30 January 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 410956102 by 1ForTheMoney (talk)")
 * 4) 13:12, 30 January 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 410956625 by 1ForTheMoney (talk)")
 * 5) 14:46, 30 January 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 15:03, 30 January 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 410969754 by Onorem (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

1 adds poorly sourced content, 2-4 are reverts. 5 adds different unsourced content, 6 is a revert. -—Onorem♠Dil 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I must put myself in for consideration as well since I've reverted most of these reverts and Onorem has rightly warned me. Attempts at discussion (here and here) have failed and I've let my emotions get the better of me. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

At least 3 more reverts now. Multiple personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. (People who disagree must be employed to protect the companies image...) The only contribution to the article's talk page saying whatever you guys do, i'm gonna counter it. I've requested page protection now, but I'd much prefer it be handled here instead of it being protected in the 'wrong version'. --Onorem♠Dil 17:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had hoped full-protection wouldn't be necessary (even though the article is on "The Right Version", pre-disputed material), and that indefinite semi will be restored afterwards. Given that multiple editors have now removed the material and the user has just left this on User:OSborn's talk page, the options are limited. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if this is relevant here, but Scarmudgeon removed a prod I placed on a completely unrelated page with no edit summary. OSbornarfcontribs. 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Me chase girl she chase me reported by User:JCAla (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (?)


 * 1st revert: 04:38, 29 January 2011
 * 2nd revert: 14:00, 29 January 2011
 * 3rd revert: 21:06, 29 January 2011
 * 4th revert: 23:58, 29 January 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

Comments: The User: Me chase girl she chase me has also been named in a possible sockpuppetry case. The nature of his edits and the way he tries to engage others in an edit war are similar to those of blocked User: Lagoo sab who had a network of sockpuppets.

Admin. User: NawlinWiki also reverted User: Me chase girl she chase me's edits once (for good reasons). 

JCAla (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know what the hell going on. I have explained to the User: NawlinWiki about his revert but then this other guy came to mess with my edits.Me chase girl she chase me (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hxseek reported by User:Athenean (Result: 72h, reporter cautioned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Highly experienced user, long past warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clear-cut violation of 3RR. After Hxseek made these major changes a while back (without prior discussion), I changed some of the wording   as several users had objected to its editorial tone and value judgments ("What matters most is that they made their mark not as Greeks, or a different Balkan people, but as Macedonians"). Hxseek then re-adds the text in slightly different form (1st revert), but nonetheless re-adds the controversial "What matters most..." and "It is clearly observable that..." clauses. He then proceeds to edit-war over it, breaking 3RR. This is accompanied by hostile edit summaries ("It might help if u read the book") and talkpage trolling. What is even more galling is that when I brought up the matter on the talkpage a week ago he agreed with me, only to suddenly start edit-warring a few days later. This shows he was discussing in bad faith (saying one thing but doing another). User has a history of edit-warring and POV-pushing on this topic, ARBMAC sanctions may be in order. Athenean (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict):Yes, he's the only one, who violated 3RR, but only because you and A Macedonian have been reverting him together to avoid the violation of 3RR(WP:GAMING). It should be mentioned that both A Macedonian and Athenean had been under 1RR restrictions because of using WP:CIRCUS edit-warring actions to enforce their POV in the past. A Macedonian without any participation in the current discussion reverted Hxseek,after Athenean had already made two reverts. In the past the same edit-warring pattern has occurred on Konitsa where some users including Athenean were edit-warring and when Athenean reverted A Macedonian joined the revert-warring again without any kind of participation in the discussion and when the other user reverted A Macedonian immediately Athenean reported him on 3RR. This is an obvious pattern that has been observed, reported and sanctioned in the past and I don't think that Hxseek is the only one edit-warring.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And you've been blocked and sanctioned in the past for wikihounding me and making false accusations against me, and that's exactly what you're doing here. The only one who was sanctioned on Konitsa was Sulmues, and for good reason. Athenean (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been blocked/sanctioned only once because I didn't understand the details of my interaction ban unlike you and I'm not making any false accusations against you, since this is an exact pattern of edit-warring and reporting repeating itself and if you consider my accusations false could you please explain why when you asked from A Macedonian to enable the email option so you could have private contact you asked him to remove the message from his talkpage so that nobody could learn that you asked him to do such a thing?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You were placed under a one-sided interaction ban against me recently for precisely the kind of wikihounding you are engaging in right now. Careful, if you continue, I will request the your interaction ban be renewed. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No wikihounding as I'm someone, who has edited the article and didn't just show up to make comments against you so please don't warn me about reporting. I observed a very obvious pattern, which has occurred frequently and I'm merely mentioning it. Why did you ask from A Macedonian to remove messages about your private contact from his talkpage? You asked him to enable the email option and afterwards to remove your request in order to hide that fact and that's something that can be found on his talk page history.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't let this go, can you? You simply have to have the last word. You haven't edited in three days, and just after this report closes, you rush in out of nowhere in a desperate bid to get me blocked as well. Very well. Athenean (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote my message before Mitchell, there was an edit conflict and please don't label me as desperate to get you blocked instead of replying to my question. Btw I wasn't editing, but I was still reading the various disputes.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever. The point is, as soon as you saw what you thought was an opportunity to get me blocked, you came out of your "retirement" like *that*. Whether or not it's wikihounding, we'll just have to see if the admins at AE think so. Anyway, I'm not really interested in continuing this thread, so I'm done here, have at it. Athenean (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't attribute motives to me. Btw when did I retire?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * for a clear 3RR violation and not his first. Reporter counselled against further reverting. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:NPz1 reported by User:AgadaUrbanit (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Editors at the Gaza War article are restricted to 1/rr. Per the talk page (which has not been used by NPz1:) "In accordance with Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." and "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

The editor was just informed of ARBPIA as a result of previous discussion here. The editor was also warned on their talk page (1 2) and instead blanked their user page.


 * 1st revert: (this was not significantly different from his previous version reverted previously. The change was discussed on the talk page, there was no consensus for inclusion.
 * 2nd revert: Both reverts were performed without discussion on the article talk page.

According to this noticeboard previous discussion and the editor talk page history, the editor was approached number of times by various editors and continues to choose to be disruptive. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Drealgrin reported by Jakew (talk) (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1) 05:19, 31 January 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 05:42, 31 January 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 15:39, 31 January 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 411175414 by Jakew (talk)")
 * 4) 15:54, 31 January 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 411180125 by Jakew (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Jakew (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * , as Drealgrin reverted again after the warning. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:178.148.32.160 reported by User:Danlaycock (Result:24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: ,
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

Comments:

The editor is trying to remove references with edit comments such as "keep this template free of references" and "put your references on some other place". Has threatened to edit war indefinitely: "i can do this forever", "i will win this war because in the end this reference of yours WILL BE DELETED sooner than later".

So i referenced that article on serbia page and someone copied that refrence into template and anonymous TDL are telling me that i have to remove reference from serbia page? is that right? and can someone explain it to me why is it necessary to put refernce onto template in this particular case because TDL and Ron 1987 can not give me any plausibile explanation why reference should be there. They are only telling me that it should be there without any explanation. and when i say that reference will be deleted it is because once EU is notified REFERENCE WILL BE OBSOLETE and thus deleted like in any other case before that. But it seems to me that TDL is not aware of this and that he is reverting this just for laughs and stubborness. I am contributing to this article [] for over 3 years now i and i never had any peroblems until now. 70% of that article is edited and put there by me and now because of someone stubborn behavior i have to be harrased in this way. 178.148.32.160 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 178.148.32.160 and   HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:70.144.80.97 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: semi-protected )
User being reported:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Bright line violations of 3RR in three separate articles. Anonymous user is often reverting without edit summary and has not attempted to seek consensus on article talk pages for edits which ignore NFCC policy. Other anonymous edits of the same content have been made from this same IP range, so there is a real possibility of continued edit warring even if a block is placed on this address, suggest indefinite semi-protection for these articles. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That is, semi-protected. IP hopping is less than ideal. Also, GarnetAndBlack - please try to point user to engage on the relevant talk page of the articles. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected)
User being reported:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: -  re-adds unsourced OR, adds cn
 * 2nd revert: - revert
 * 3rd revert: - revert, adds citation to a WP:SPS
 * 4th revert: - partial revert, re-adds SPS citation
 * 5th revert: - no edit summary
 * 6th revert: - edit summary doesn't mention revert

Page:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: - revert and copyedit that doesn't remove OR/supposition
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: - revert and add citation that doesn't support both claims
 * 7th revert:

Warnings issued:
 * Warning 1:
 * Warning 2:
 * Warning 3:
 * Editor removes warnings:

Comments:

Editor appears to have made regular practice of exercising WP:OWNership over articles over the span of several years. No specific violations of 3RR.

24.177.120.74 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was in the middle of commenting on the user page when this started. I have observed a lot of knowledge for the above new user who has alredy encountered this within a few days of editing. Is this procedure a NPOV dispute? Francis E Williams (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Demiurge1000 (Result: nothing)
Page:

User being reported:

Version immediately before Mbz1's first revert:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (note also insulting edit summary)
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Mbz1 responds to required warning above, by accusing me of being a "troll" in her edit summary:

It had already been explained on the article's talk page why there were concerns that the material being re-inserted was a WP:COPYVIO:

Comments:

"All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." per WP:ARBPIA.

Mbz1 has been previously notified of the provisions of WP:ARBPIA and has been blocked numerous times previously under its provisions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussed piece in this article did not violate copy rights because it was linked to the original source that is The Wall Street Journal. Over and over again I was trying to explain to user:AndyTheGrump that it is not a copyright violation, but the user was undoing my changes and it looked like he is vandalizing the article. Then he complained that he is not a subscriber of the Wall Street Journal. I explained to him the way how to read the whole thing: here's the link to the search, just click the first one, and read the whole article from the Wall Street Journal, but instead he brought the mater to AN/I.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments by Mbz1
 * I'm not sure why you keep saying the Wall Street Journal was the original source. You yourself cited the original source, The Washington Post, when you created the article on January 6th: . The entire sentence was copied from The Washington Post; plagiarism problems begin here when another contributor (probably inadvertently) removed the quotation marks during cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am only saying that in this edit (4 edits ago) I did change the source to the original one, which is The Wall Street Journal. That's why I cannot understand why user:AndyTheGrump continued talking about Washington Post. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you're still using their words. :) I've explained in more detail at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to user:MoonriddengirlI was able to understand where the problem was. As I explained earlier I believed the user is talking about the main quote that I did take directly from the Wall Street Journal because the user kept reverting the whole thing over and over again even after I explained at the talk page that the quote was taken from the Wall Street Journal. Anyway now the fog cleared up. I did say "sorry" to the user. My reverts were not bad faith reverts. They came from misunderstanding. Please notice I genuinely believed I was reverting vandalism. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The exception to 3RR for reverting vandalism is "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." The edits that you were reverting, were each accompanied by an edit summary stating that the reason for the edits was concerns over a possible copyright violation. You continued to revert after the other editor discussed those concerns on the talk page for the article. Such edits cannot be considered obvious vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Info I removed the quote altogether. It has nothing to do with this report. It is much worse than that Here I explained why.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a technical violation, user self-reverted anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)