Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive152

User:213.6.17.166 reported by User:Zakhalesh (Result: blocked 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:

I tried to reason with the IP and request him/her to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, as I fear their edits are vastly against WP:NPOV. This hasn't been done by the IP, instead they reply with vandalism or other rule breaking accusations. There's a mediation request, courtesy of Soosim, about the dispute concerning the content. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That fourth revert above isn't really a revert, but I see more than that in the article's history, so I agree this is edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:hauskalainen reported by User:intermittentgardener (Result: Article protected)
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:

Comments:

While it seems that Hauskalainen is not in technical violation of the 3RR he is definitely edit warring at IPAB. He has been blocked three times in the past for edit warring. Recently, he has been warned by many users to stop his behavior and he keeps on doing what he wants to do while ignoring what other people say. He needs a longer block this time. Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is very clear that Interittentgardener is a single purpose account, probably a sock of Jesanj. I have explained all my edits and have used the rules of Wikipedia very clearly. Intermittentgardener has been the subject of a complaint I raised at AN/I in recent times and this is clearly just a "revenge" attack on me. I have received mild threats from user Jesanj by email. Both Jesanj and Intermittentgardener are relatively new accounts focussing on a narrow subject area. I am a long established editor who is used to dealing with editors that attempt to use Wikipedia to insert POV texts relating to health care topics. I edit extensively on topics related to health care reform in the US, health care systems across the world, and more controversial topics such as socialized medicine, death panel and more recently the Independent Payments Advisory Board which is a new body which has yet even to be appointed, but is the subject of a political campaign by opponents of health care reform in the United States. It is clear to me that Intermittentgardener and Jesanj are part of this political campaign and wish to use Wikipedia to spread clearly false information about IPAB. The text I have deleted would be appropriate content for the article about Sarah Palin because it definitely tells us something about her. However, it does not belong at IPAB because it does not reflect WP policy about notability of content and opinion which has to be the opinion of experts and in the mainstream. I accept that Palin is a controversial figure but she is neither an expert in Health care Economics nor even a elected or appointed official of any government. As I have explained at the talk page, it is not enough just to be published in a reliable source to become content at Wikipedia. WP has a higher standard than that. Hauskalainen (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1 week. I see two editors in the edit history wanting the Palin material to appear in the article. I see Hauskalainan opposing, backed up by another editor SarekOfVulcan, on the talk page. This is clearly a content dispute with multiple people on each side, not just one editor warring against consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Zakhalesh reported by User:213.6.17.166 (Result: requester blocked, see reverse report above)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I tried to reason with the user and request him/her to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and to improve wikipedia by adding more links if he/she thinks that one of them is not that reliable instead of just deleting 60+ sources and references, as I fear their deletion and edits are vastly against WP:NPOV. This hasn't been done by the user, instead they reply with vandalism or other rule breaking accusations.--213.6.17.166 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a malformed request. No 3RR warning given to the accused, and the reverts reported are the requester's own reverts. Requester is blocked as the result of a previous report. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tentontunic reported by User:Anarchangel (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:14, 29 January 2011 (edit) (undo) Vsmith (talk | contribs)


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 13:16, 15 February 2011 Tentontunic
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:13, 15 February 2011 Tentontunic
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 21:26, 15 February 2011 Tentontunic
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 23:03, 15 February 2011 Tentontunic


 * Revision as of 21:15, 15 February 2011 Tentontunic Consecutive with #2 "Removing unsourced" Kind of a strange time to be removing material that had been in the article since at least 2008
 * Revision as of 21:31, 15 February 2011 Tentontunic Consecutive with #3
 * Revision as of 11:05, 16 February 2011 Tentontunic Consecutive with #4, although 12 hours later

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Latest revision as of 03:30, 23 February 2011 Anarchangel

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 22:00, 15 February 2011 McGlockin

Comments:

Disinformation, nominated by Tentontunic, was Kept at AfD. I looked at the Talk page, and found signs of an edit war. McGlockin edited in mainspace contentiously, and his 5RR block was well deserved, but he kept his cool in Talk and made several good points, despite being quite a new editor. Tentontunic, despite his experience and the ongoing AfD he nominated, edited in mainspace contentiously, including removing a good 1/3 of the article, material that had been in the article since at least 2008 and edited meticulously close to the meta-game for Talk: sweeping assertions, report all own grievances, give nothing away. Anarchangel (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not right, the first diff is the addition of an AFD template, how is that a revert? There are three reverts on the 15th and one on those was the result of the discussion on talk about the content sourced to a blog. The content removed was uncited, see the article history. And how is putting this template on my talk page  eight days after the fact of any sense? Tentontunic (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocks can only be used to prevent current edit-warring and although the definition of current is a grey area, a week old edit-war is not sanctionable. CIreland (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Eleassar reported by User:Doncsecz (Result: Malformed report)
User:Eleassar on end delete the template in the article Prekmurians. The Banat Bulgarians, or the Mexicans, Argentinians, Austrians and few people have template in his article, but this is Bulgarian, Spanish and German ethnic groups. This interview was with writer Evald Flisar in 2007 in a literary magazine: ''The homeland regards Prekmurje not as a part of Slovenia but something peculiar within its borders… It is unthinkable for two Prekmurians to speak with each other in anything but Prekmurian. I used to meet the former President of the Republic Milan Kučan at public events quite often. We always spoke Prekmurian, it would have felt odd to use literary Slovenian, since he is from Prekmurje too. Others joked about us, asking why are we so secretive. When I met a compatriot in Australia, Africa or America, we immediately started to talk in our own language. This is our language.'' And other peoples Feri Lainšček, Franc Kuzmič, Branko Pintarič (all of us intellectual peoples) promulgate the Prekmurian indetity. But Eleassar time and again delete this informations. I'am from Raba March near the Prekmurje and i ken Lainšček, Kuzmič and Pintarič. I have few source from tidings and books, but Eleassar markedly disclaim this sources, all the same this is spell in Slovene language. Some time ago Eleassar want delete the article Károly Doncsecz (1). His argument: ''An obscure potter. No sources except for what can be found in different wikipedias.'' Károly Doncsecz or Karel Dončec is for Eleassar unknown, i have approbations, that Károly Doncsecz was notorius, as Slovene president Milan Kučan and Hungarian Árpád Göncz also make a call on Doncsecz and come in for few award. Eleassar not dispose of store of learning but affirm, that this informations is fakes. In the Slovene wikipedia (Prekmurci) never nobody not be shocked at the template, soly Eleassar. Doncsecztalk 07:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, why have you reported me at all? I reverted you after you readded the infobox without any discussion or edit summary. When you again re-added it and provided a rationale in the edit summary and started discussion on the article's talk page, I haven't reverted you. So what's the problem actually? To remove biased and unsourced information after mentioning this on the talk page and getting no feedback? To propose articles for deletion that don't have any source and seem obscure? To remove unbalanced personal opinions (even if attributed to notable people) from the lead? Where have I breached the 3RR policy? I can't take your words for granted, so please cite sources when contributing material. Please, refrain from edit warring. And please, don't add unbalanced opinions, even of notable people, to the lead. --Eleassar my talk 15:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Malformed report. Please use 'Click here to add a new report' and fill out the expected fields. Considering following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. If you are uncertain whether a 1921 source should be used, ask for comments at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sanjay911 reported by User:Shshshsh (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

The user has been warned to stop edit warring and was asked to take part in the talk page discussion (Diff). Despite an agreement on the talk page, he keeps reverting the article without further discussion. Has made many reverts already, don't know if enough within 24 hours, but he is now an active edit warrior, and is not willing to stop and discuss. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. I took part in the page discussion and were discussing two different subjects. One, about Filmfare and two, about Raavanan's critical and commercial success. I put forth my argument citing about five credible, approved sources claiming what is true. But the user keeps arguing telling they have been taken from Wikipedia, when the fact is they have been there long before Wikipedia came into existence.

His source is the same as mine. His source, from TOI, is dated 1998. But the same TOI has corrected the real winner from what he claims is true to what I know is true. There has been a false representation in the media, which has later been corrected. I asked him to give more sources, but the sources are just a duplicate copy of the original source. I have put forth more than 5 distinct sources, from reputed, trusted journals like TOI, NDTV, Economic Times, The Hindu etc. claiming the same.

There was no response from his side when I put forth an argument about the same, where I even pointed out one of his sources has been duplicated where as the other source from "Daily Excelsior" cannot be trusted. Since there was no response coming from him on this matter, I corrected back the real winner with all my five credible sources while he continued talking about the other issue we were to discuss - the Raavanan crisis.

Thank you.

Sanjay911 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)#


 * That one user is me and I would like to tell what I feel. The one source by TOI I provided, this one, is straight from 25 April 1999 and covers the entire Filmfare event, mentioning all the winners who were honuored that evening and reports even more. Now this editor claims that TOI was that much stupid and didn't notice the winner that event and falsely stated Kausalya as the winner, and found out 11 (!!!) years later that it was not Kausalya but Aishwarya Rai!! Now ladies and gentleman, decide yourself whose version sound more absurd. All of Sanjay's sources have been from usually reliable and credible sites, agreed, but all his sources were published later than 2008!!! This edit, back in 2006 by some Prince Godfather, who by the way has been blocked since 2007, made Aishwarya the winner of that award then. His previous and subsequent edits prove that he most probably guessed who might have won the award each year, since most his edits are wrong!! Sanjay's sources were all published later and you probably can think from where those sources originated! Of course, it's way easier to find current sources than sources from 1999, when the Internet was hardly in use!!! That Aishwarya won the award, that is the real false representation in the media!!! We are asking Sanjay to provide just one single source from earlier than 2002, which cites that Aishwarya Rai won that particular award in that particular year, but so far he couldn't. Johannes003 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Kausalya winning the award has been misrepresented I believe. That is beacause, only ONE source says she won the award and another source supporting it is the duplicated version of the same source! And the original source is TOI. This was reported way back in 1999. Where as the names of the other recepients' of the awards from the same awards in 1998 have been circulated all over the web (for example, Sarath Kumar's, who was adjudged the Best Actor that year), Kausalya's name is nowhere to be heard. The editor says Kausalya won the award. But that news about her winning has never been heard again. In fact, TOI, and several other reputed journals have already been carrying out facts about Aishwarya winning the award. Even if the other journals turned up to Wiki for the winners, why would TOI come to Wiki for knowing the winner that year? I mean, it was already pre-recorded and archived by their OWN publication about Kausalya winning! This is where I want to point out where the mistake has occurred. Her name was misrepresented in ONE source and has been so for long. That is the exact reason why TOI has been carrying out many articles claiming Aishwarya won the award, eversince, because they corrected to the right winner! And rightly so, even the other credible sources like The Hindu, NDTV, Economic Times, IMDB have done the same. And not just these, many hundreds of articles on the web too contain the same fact. But that one unsorted out article from 1999, as the editor claims is the source of all the trouble and hence so, I wish it to be corrected to the right winner, Aishwarya Rai. Thank you. Sanjay911 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue here is not the content dispute, the issue is the fact that you continued edit warring despite being warned to stop and did not even try to solve it on the talk page. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 31 hours. Sanjay911 has been edit-warring long term at Filmfare Best Actress Award (Tamil) (eight reverts since Feb. 17 of what seems to be the same thing). Though he responded here, he did not promise to stop until consensus was found. When he argues that the published sources are wrong, he should get backup from others that his conclusion is correct, and he seems unwilling to wait for that. While all this was going on, he has made a clear-cut 3RR violation by reverting four times on 23 February at Raavanan.  This kind of behavior should not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Father Santiago reported by User:PrBeacon (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warning from another editor)

Comments:

Father Santiago has tried to add the same line of criticism to the lead four times in a slow edit war. He has not joined the talkpage discussion. (In addition to the current talkpage thread, there is a recent archived discussion about criticism of the SPLC's finances). The contested info oddly enough appears on his user page. The account appears to be an SPA or possible sockpuppet. - PrBeacon (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given an unequivocal last warning. This behaviour must stop, but I don't want to chomp down if this is a genuine newbie.  His userpage has been deleted under G10 as unsourced and negative, and well, WP:SPI handles sock concerns a lot better than ANEW, for very obvious reasons. Courcelles 11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing as stale - no edits for two days, article relatively calm, sufficient discussion on the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Majuru reported by User:WhiteWriter (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: (Reverting removal of unexplained materials, to last version by Zjarri Rrethues) also removing wast section of sourced text
 * 2nd revert: (See talk page for this section) Nothing was written by that user before this edit on talk page
 * 3rd revert: (It's on tape, they offered 100000 euros) Referring to this video, recognized as copy vio on talk page, also not RS.
 * 4th revert: (dont remove sourced material) And source is, exactly " " without any link or anything else.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff on user's page.

Comments:

Here i tried to talk to user, but he/she didn't responded... Also, i informed his that i dont want to edit war, and that he/she shouldn't also. User is mostly editing only this page on wiki, but i dont think that he/she may be problematic or disruptive in bigger scale, so some useful admin assistance may be needed, if i am wrong... As there is some questionable activity on Robert De Niro page. :) The same way of including information per bad You tube video. (in this other De Niro case, misunderstood also.) -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that the 3rr warning was given after the final revert reported above. No disruptive behavior has been evident since then. It is possible that Majaru wasn't aware of the three revert rule. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing as stale - no edits for two days, article calm for over a day. Please come back if discussion does not resolve this. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Flyboi9 reported by User:Dpmuk (Result: Blocked, 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (by IP but given similarity in edit comment nearly definitely the same editor logged out).
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert: (again by the same IP)
 * 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st 2nd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion on talk page - there's lots so no diff

Comments:

Reporting user for repeated slow motion edit warring. User was blocked on 17 January (after first warning and diffs 6-10 above) and has now continued (diffs 1-5 above despite a second warning). User is attempting to discuss things on talk but this is always combined with reverts to their version on the article. Although slow progress is being made the repeated reverts are becoming disruptive.

Dpmuk (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

CIreland (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous block. The actual article is clearly not neutral and after doing research on this facility, this is clearly a place that is missing content that is extremely relevant and neutral. SMH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.46.63 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:InternetHero reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, warned by another editor than myself, who has also been participating in the discussion at the article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:War of 1812

Comments:

An editor with a history of POV pushing and what seems to be trolling has started a campaign at the article in question, War of 1812. He was reverted per BRD and a discussion started at the article talk page. Without even so much as expaining the edit he wanted in any kind of coherent fashion, the editor has proceeded to edit war over his point, which so far none of the rest of us can fathom. I am currently at 3rr myself, so am disengaging.  He  iro 05:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And after taunting me on my talkpage for awhile User talk:Heironymous Rowe, they have now purposefully made a disruptive edit at another page Enriquillo, daring me to revert them there.  He  iro 06:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor has a prior block history that seems to justify this escalation of block length, although s/he is free to appeal the block. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Fohren reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 36 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 18:06, 23 Feb


 * 1st revert: 21:26, 23 Feb (made while logged out, but obviously same editor)
 * 2nd revert: 23:25, 23 Feb
 * 3rd revert: 01:53, 24 Feb
 * 4th revert: 16:31, 24 Feb

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Stubborn inserting of fringe theory sourced to obviously unreliable source. Aggressive ad hominems on talk pages, ,. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan reported by 3bulletproof16 (talk) (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1) 19:42, February 22, 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 415420184 by 3bulletproof16 (talk) don't start that crap again")
 * 2) 07:24, February 23, 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 415473263 by 3bulletproof16 - cited below, so no citation is necessary in the lead; it's also an important part of the article summary")
 * 3) 07:41, February 24, 2011  (edit summary: "the consensus was that such numbers were notable if they were reported by a variety of sources and reliable if they meet the criteria for reliable sources; both apply here, so it stays - added more sources to support notability")
 * 4) 16:22, February 24, 2011  (edit summary: "you're wrong on all counts; the link isn't broken, Baer and Meltzer are established experts with multiple published works in the field, and WrestleView has been accepted as reliable in an FAC")

Comments: The editor appears to push non-neutral position in article. Cites unreliable sources for in-article commentary regarding a non-notable rumor. A consensus was previously established on the subject issue @ Talk:WrestleMania 23 - a disscusion in which the user also pushed a non neutral position in said article. The editor has yet to respond directly to article concerns on the involved article talk page. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 00:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 days. If I was issuing blocks, I'd have given you both one. You didn't cross the 3RR, but you both were clearly engaged in edit warring, which is sanction-able without crossing 3RR. Since no one else seems to be involved, take it to the talk page, which hasn't seen an edit in six weeks. Courcelles 00:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:96.50.79.235 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

All five of them neatly lined up: Special:Contributions/96.50.79.235

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Note: I have filed a semi-protection request for that page, precisely to stave off persistent POV-pushing (look at this IP's record—this is not an empty accusation) like that. Whether I should have informed Seb az86556 about this is up to him. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  04:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't protected the page as the disruption as of late hasn't been too bad, but re-request at RfPP if that changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tincup2684 reported by User:Spril4 (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Ehrlich&oldid=399366246


 * 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: and user talk page:

Comments: The editor's history includes only edits to this page as indicated at. The majority of these edits consist of removal of sections describing controversies about the article subject which are cited in reputable sources. The editor has refused to explain how the information is repetitive, redundant, outdated, or biased as claimed. Is this board the correct place to report such slow-motion edit wars?

Spril4 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. Long-term warring to remove well-sourced info that is critical of Robert Ehrlich, a former governor of Maryland. In some cases, the text was removed with a misleading edit summary, calling it 'outdated'. Whether the critical information belongs in the article is up to the consensus of editors. There is no obvious defamation being reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It may not be a coincidence that editor 98.233.175.133 has now blanked the same well-sourced content, calling it "biased and baseless controversy". Best regards, Spril4 (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems to be evasion so I've made the necessary blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:24.147.177.19 reported by Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) (Result: PC)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:03, 24 February 2011  (edit summary: "/* High-Speed Rail */")
 * 2) 22:04, 24 February 2011  (edit summary: "/* High-Speed Rail */")
 * 3) 22:17, 24 February 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 415761646 by Cuchullain (talk) Verifiable, therefore not original research. Article is from FDOT - government agency tasked with accurately assessing impacts")
 * 4) 22:33, 24 February 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 415765834 by Cuchullain (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: Tendentious IP editor appearing to push non-neutral position in article. No apparent willingness to seek consensus as noted by commentary on article Discussion page and IP editor's Talk page.

—Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User was warned after the 4th revert, and has discussed the dispute on the talk page since the warning even though the page currently is the version the anon wants. Wait and see. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes protection applied by. Discussion on talkpage seems productive enough, so nothing more to do here. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Medicineman84 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 10:30, 24 February 2011; Previous version reverted to: 16:20, 23 February 2011
 * 2nd revert: 16:32, 24 February 2011; Previous version reverted to: 14:49, 24 February 2011
 * 3rd revert: 17:51, 24 February 2011; Previous version reverted to: 17:14, 24 February 2011
 * 4th revert: 21:01, 24 February 2011; Previous version reverted to: 20:02, 24 February 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Involved in lengthy discussions with user about his edits on the article's talk page, but to no avail: ,

Comments:

The user above has repeatedly added original research and synthesis to the article, and stubbornly refused to seek much less obtain consensus for his edits. He has also twice threatened on the article's talk page to take the edits "all the way to the top" (presumably a reference to constant reverting), and at one point indicated that he "can do this for 1000 years if you want". He has in the process well-surpassed three reverts. Another editor has also attempted to discuss matters over with him, but to no apparent effect here either. Middayexpress (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not look good. I have notified Medicineman84 of this AN3 report. I suggest we wait until either (a) he continues to revert or (b) he responds to this complaint. Make a decision if there is no answer by 18:00 UTC on 26 February. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sound obtuse, but is that comment to not make a decision directed at me or other admins? Middayexpress (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See my report of Middayexpress. I have made several attempts to discuss and negotiate but, my edits are simply deleted with no discussion. The page in the state Middayexpress has it is incomplete and gives a wrong picture. Alternative views from credible sources are often deleted with impunity under flimsy excuses! Thus, the current state of the discussion has been driven by Middayexpress's arrogance. Middayexpress also has lackeys who are her disciples who view her as a teacher or authority even though from reading her edits her knowledge level with regard to genetics is certainly less than mine. She may have read more on Somali Genetics but, her synthesis of the information seems rather elementary. I have been patient and negotiated in good faith but, my patience has generally paid little dividends. Medicineman84 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We took the time and clearly explained to you what is wrong with the edits you provided. You constantly ignore this and it looks like you reverted again.. Wadaad (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - After brief review, I'm having difficulty grasping the content dispute, but Medicineman84 seems to be the more aggressive editor here. NickCT (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No comment on whose sources are better or when various haplogroups diverged. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress reported by User:Medicineman84 (Result: redundant)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somali_people/Archive_3

The user has created a deceptive page were some information is excluded while others are included. All I have simply done is included all information and set a standard of using peer reviewed sources. I created a page which reflects the full information with sources from top level scientific journals and they were deleted immediately. Often without reading. The user then decided to prematurely report me as a way to suppress discussing the issue. This to me is the peak of arrogance and disrespect. IF you follow the talk page it becomes apparent that I have been willing to negotiate and compromise but, constant threats and immediate deleting of info I have added has been the norm. The page in its current state is more correct than previous versions. Medicineman84 (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC) -->
 * This isn't a 3RR violation, please check the times between those edits. However, your edits are a clear 3RR violation as they were within 24 hours. Read the rules, cheers.Wadaad (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Closing with reporter blocked as part and parcel with the symmetric report above. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

122.151.252.213 reported by User:Tintor2 (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Constant addition of wp:non free content and reverts against guidelines:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

I tried contacting such user, but he did not respond to my messages and keeps adding such material.Tintor2 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently that user reverted the article again, but not to add more non-free material, just change its position.Tintor2 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. Long-term warring by an IP who does not participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: this edit at 20:08 is the removal of the sentence added by JohnAlbertRigali a day earlier
 * 2nd revert: this edit at 20:22 is the reversion of the edit immediately proceeding it
 * 3rd revert: this edit at 12:34 is the reversion of the edit immediately proceeding it
 * 4th revert: this edit at 13:07 is the reversion of the edit immediately proceeding it
 * 5th revert: this edit at 22:09 is the reversion of the edit immediately proceeding it

User has been warned about 3RR violations in the past.

Comments:

Pretty standard 3RR violation. - Haymaker (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do get four reverts (not five), but over a 26 hour period. It may be edit warring, but given the last revert was 14 hours ago, a block is useless here.  Courcelles 18:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to flog a dead horse but the first diff is the undoing of JAR's edit. Isn't that the definition of a revert? - Haymaker (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Every time on your diffs is wrong... I can't make sense of them, so I'm looking at the article history instead. Roscelese's edits of 0208 and 0212 UTC 24 Feb. are debatable, are they reverts or clean-up? JAR's edit rearranged external links, not adding any. Later removing two of them is not a revert, which is all her 0212 edit did, and 0208 appears to be minor copyediting.   Courcelles 18:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, in the first diff above she also removed the text that he included, specifically the contested phrase "He was a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement at the time of his death.". - Haymaker (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:09 is also not a revert, it's a wording change and cleanup. (I doubt the IP actually meant to put that fragment floating around in there, because that would be a silly edit. I just assumed it was a draft for the text zie inserted in that same edit, and that zie forgot to remove it.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Along with the upper paragraph text that you modified, you reverted, in part or in whole, the work of another editor. Seeing as it wasn't vandalism I don't see why it wouldn't could as a revert. - Haymaker (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On the side issue of times, Haymaker may have set his preferences to report something besides UTC. For purposes of communicating with other, it's almost mandatory to use UTC. Alternatively, offset from UTC should be indicated.   Will Beback    talk    00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:118.148.134.43 reported by User:Chaosdruid (Result: Semi)
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: and

Comments:

The IP user began discussing on User Talk:Managerarc ending with a veiled threat of legal action, claiming to be Vaid himself. I informed the user of the legal threat process User Talk:118.148.225.24 and submitted a report via email to en-q.

I moved the contentious material to the talk page for discussion, however the new IP began reverting today and was warned on their talk page User talk:118.148.134.43 - protection requested at Requests for page protection. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected by User:Wifione. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Shii reported by User:Wikiwatcher1 (Result: reporting party blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

This is an attempt to again prevent an edit war by an editor who justifiably feels he is coated with Teflon. Samples of unjustified reverts, from most recent to earlier ones:


 * Most recent revert: No rationale
 * 2nd revert: Ownership rationale
 * 3rd revert: False rationale
 * 4th revert: Deceptive rationale
 * Earlier revert: No rationale

Most recent diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On Jan. 21, he was warned "Your obsessive edit warring may have to go to ANI," and User:Shii responded, "Feel free to take it to ANI, . . " After responding to his edit war a few days ago, I got pulled into a 3RR scenario for which I was blocked, although User:Shii amazingly received no censure, which probably explains why he feels so casual about his disruptive behavior. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am enforcing the consensus reached on the talk page by everyone except Wikiwatcher1. I already used the 3O and RFC processes. There was no disagreement with me, yet Wikiwatcher1 continues to revert. If anyone disagrees that there is a consensus I invite them to engage in the discussion themselves. Shii (tock) 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree this looks like a rather blatant case of a single editor edit-warring stubbornly against a well-founded consensus by everybody else. I have blocked the reporting party, Wikiwatcher1, for 48 hours as a repeat offender. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mjs2010 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result:24 hours )
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: [diff]

Comments:

No attempt has been made by the editors to discuss the issue on the talk page, but User:Mjs2010 has been restoring unsourced content and reverted two different editors, so this should have been a clear sign to desist. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Editor has reverted again despite being informed of this case being filed: Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How would you know? You dont even contribute to the One Tree Hill articles? How would you know how we do things? HUH?


 * He has remove this report without explain why: . -- 79.228.204.235 (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An admin also removed it. I will contact the admin to see if there was a reason.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked both user and anon for 24 hrs Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Shirtwaist reported by Ken keisel (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Revision as of 00:37, 27 February 2011 (edit)]


 * 1st revert: [Revision as of 23:15, 26 February 2011 (edit)]
 * 2nd revert: [Revision as of 00:21, 27 February 2011 (edit)]
 * 3rd revert: [Revision as of 00:21, 27 February 2011 (edit)]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [:::::::::::I still haven't found my copy of Angel's book, but I did find a similar reference on p. 168 of Piers Bizony's book, where he refers to Kubrick personally selecting the fabric for the costumes and furnishings. I'm also noticing that this secttion is quickly becoming the most reference laden section in the whole article, largely due to one individual adding citation tags, even in mid-sentence, to sentences that are already tagged at the end. If the same standards were applied to other sections this article would have hundreds of citation tags for all the unreferenced material that is contained elsewhere. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Page 168 is the very last page of Bizony, and only has a sketch of Kubrick beside a camera on it. There is no mention at all in Bizony of furnishings that I can find. As for the tags, see WP:verifiability, it's one of the pillars of the Wikipedia philosophy. This article underwent a peer review a while ago to find out what it needed to bring it to FA status, and one of the results of that review was that the article had too many unsourced statements. Your adding an entire unsourced section to it, then complaining that it was removed, does not help this situation. I suggest that in future, you become more familiar with your sources and cite them properly (such as providing page numbers so we know what you're referencing) before adding information to WP articles. Shirtwaist (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shirtwaist- If you have Angel's book handy, look for a b&w photo of Kubrick holding up one of the conference room glasses and studying it. I believe the text was with the photo. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such photo or text in Agel, as I told you before. I suggest you remove the info and ref in question until you find a source that supports it. If you don't, I will.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you ever check before making threats? I ammended the passage earlier, and announced the change two paragraphs up. Suggest you read more carefully. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did, which is why I told you there is nothing in Bizony about furniture on p.168 or anywhere else. This kind of bad faith editing is frowned upon by the admins, and if it continues, you will be reported to them.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, you're a little late, I reported you about an hour ago. I can't help it if your copy of the book is abridged. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

]

Comments:

3RR violation by Ken keisel:


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

Note: One of the reverts Ken keisel is counting as part of the 3RR complaint was an undo of my own revert, which was done because I failed to include an edit summary in the first edit. Undoing my own edit allowed me to add a summary, and was not a revert of Ken keisel's edit. I explained this in the second edit. Why the undo of my own edit didn't show up in the edit history is unknown to me. This undo revert should not be counted as part of a 3RR vilation.Shirtwaist (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * for one day. There was definitely edit warring going on at that article, but also productive editing. There is plenty of discussion at the talkpage, though it would be a good idea keep the mood a bit more collegial. I do not think that at present this would be best resolved by blocking anyone, but neither do I want to stifle productive editing. Please resolve this question at the talkpage before restoring or removing the material. WikiProject Resource Exchange might find another editor with access to the sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Shatnertrek reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: Not an edit warring issue)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This editor has not technically reached three reversions and has made, IMO, at least one constructive edit. However, adding a spurious source in an effort to bolster their content after being apprised that their previous source was lacking, combined with their complete lack of discussion proves to me that this user will not stop.  Tide  rolls  07:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - No vio. Maybe its a nuance I'm missing but I don't see why NJ.com isn't a reliable source. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The cited source is relating events in a New Jersey school. Monroe-Woodbury High School is in New York.  Tide  rolls  09:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing here resembles 3RR. Also, new users should be warned with either uw-3rr or a personally written message that at least directs them towards the Edit warring policy and informs them of the three revert rule. --B (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Passionless reported by User:B (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Under Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, Passionless "is limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces" (almost all the way at the bottom of the page under 2011). And even if he were not, 1RR is in place for all Israel-related articles anyway. And even if they were not, the edits are highly tendentious. --B (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * and discretionary sanctions imposed. Courcelles 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As a point of information, I did not realize when I reported this here that two of the three reverts were of a banned user. I still think it's clearly tendentious editing and I doubt he knew that the user was banned, but I at least feel it should be noted here for consideration that two of the reverts were of a banned user. --B (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Largeother reported by User:B (Result: Indef block as a disruptive WP:SPA)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

This is a new user, but in accordance with Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, all Israel-related articles are subject to 1RR and users may be blocked on a first offense without warning. (There is an edit notice in the article that serves as a warning). --B (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked as a disruptive WP:SPA and possibly a sock account. Dreadstar ☥  05:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't even think about it that that's who it was. --B (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:93.19.187.248 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 20:53, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* In popular culture */ Asking for a source for such thing is retarded since it's a typical ingame content without official recognition, and screenshots may be find on any image search engine.")
 * 2) 21:04, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* In popular culture */ Happy now? Until we need to search for another one again since it's a typical non-perennial source.")
 * 3) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* In popular culture */ Cleaning my mess.")
 * 4) 21:27, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 416438296 by Yworo (talk) Either remove the video games line entirely to be coherent, or stop being an harrassing admin. Thank you. Added a perennial source for your great pleasure.")
 * 5) 22:18, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "It's not a random blog, it's the Joystiq magazine website. Also, please read the discussion page and stop abusing your administrator powers.")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Notes: 2 & 3 are a series of edits. Editor has four times restored a trivia item removed on December 31, the last three time with different, but not adequate, citation. Yworo (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * - I only count three reverts and, in any event, at the ANI thread, the IP user promised to stop. --B (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jyusin reported by Kintetsubuffalo (Result: No violation)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Because of events in Libya, changes to the template are natural. But User:Jyusin, who has been warned for years about lack of edit summaries, lack of discussion and collaboration with other editors, and using the talkpages of articles to discuss his changes, is mass changing Libya-related articles and edit-warring when reverted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 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:


 * - several things here: (1) you twice reverted the user's changes without explanation using rollback. That is grounds for removal of the tool.  You have been warned about this before.   (2) If a user makes a change that you disagree with, try discussing it with them.  At least if you're going to revert it, give  a reason.  See WP:BRD.  Just reverting them using the vandalism revert tool is NOT going to solve the problem.  (3) Nothing here remotely constitutes edit warring on Jyusin's part. --B (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Iaaasi reported by User:Chaosdruid (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

The wording from the quoted ref is:
 * "Although some Hungarian historians have tried to disprove that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin, the overwhelming evidence supports the view that they indeed were not Magyars, but rose in the service of the Hungarian king"

This has been perverted to quote the ref as saying
 * while other researchers support the view that he "was of Vlach (Romanian) origin...".

Clearly the ref says he was not a Magyar (Hungarian), but it does not say that he was Vlach.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: which I corrected to  after an (ec) and discussion with a cooperative editor in the same conversation who had caused the (ec). I have not warned him on his own talk page, adding "potential 3RR" notice as it seems the instructions wish me to.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

As well as on their talk page:

Comments:

I have tried to keep the edits of various users NPOV on a much warred over article and talk page. There is a history of removing Hungarian and Romanian claims of ascendency from each side.

The problem is two fold. The reference was completely removed and replaced several times, and the quote from the reference has been corrupted. Previous edits by Iaaasi have sailed close to the warring mark on a few occasions, yet he still persists in misquoting the reference and reverting to the misquoted version. He has previously removed the reference altogether.

I removed the term "overwhelming evidence" as it was puffery and not directly quoted. I have pointed out in chat that the words should either be included in the quote, or dropped as puffery.

After asking for discussion the material was once again removed and the misquote replaced, I reverted and asked for discussion again as per WP:BRD. The edits were again removed and I reverted with a warning of 2RR. I also added a sentence to clarify the literature source while the discussions took place.

Iaaasi agreed last night that there should be discussion and then reverted this morning with no discussion. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As it can be seen, I did not break 3RR rule
 * A text should be added to the article after reaching consensus, not before that. A popular poem can't be a reliable source, I think any admin will agree with that. I was glad to participate at the discussion, I did not refuse it, The only thing is that the status quo version must be kept until having a conclusion. The disputed content should not be inserted prior to the talk.
 * The phrase "Although some Hungarian historians have tried to disprove that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin" seems to indicate very clearly that the author supports this theory. In addition the phrasing "other researchers state that overwhelming evidence supports the view that he was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin" was introduced by User:Hobartimus, not by me. The version supported by me contained the exact quote. I am sorry to say that Chaosdruid seems not to assume good faith. He is as guilty as me, because in an edit war there are two sides.
 * I've put the words in quotes as requested
 * I am one of the main contributors on John Hunyadi article (I have added both text and images), so it is sad that some people accuse be of disruptive behaviour (Iaaasi (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC))


 * The whole point of this is that the wording that you say you supported was exactly that which I was restoring. You then reverted it back to the incorrect quote again several times.
 * You had it at the exact quote days before the edit you just mentioned - here and here  and here, but when I corrected it all of a sudden you edit war with me to leave it at the incorrect quote. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The incorrect quote" was the creation of Hobartimus. You did not restore my old version, but only eliminated some words from the sentence (Iaaasi (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC))
 * That is not true - I have already shown three difs which show the quote I was restoring was the same as the one you had originally restored. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is senseless. The admin can check the diffs to see who is right (Iaaasi (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

If I understood it well, "According to H. Munro Chadwick John Hunyadi was "recognised as being Hungarian..." and "frequently called Ugrin Janko, 'Janko the Hungarian'." - this sentence is problematic. The source Chaosdruid presented is valid, but it is from an epic poem, as I once written on the talk page of the article in question, epic poems are poems - not facts. As for this edit war/mix-up I think both users should take it easy and talk (while the pre-edit war version of the article is present). Adrian (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ex: By Serbian epic poem Prince Marko could smash ten enemy solders by just looking at them :-). Should we include that in the article about him as a fact that he could do that for real ?
 * The source is not the poem, but the author who is analysing the poem and other works about his origins.
 * The discussion here is about a different quote though . My point is that after Iaaasi restored the correct version several times over several weeks, he entered into an edit war with me when I restored it. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mixed-up the quotes then. I thought that was the main problem. Adrian (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, discussion is still continuing on the Hunyadi talk page about Munro Chadwick's "analysis" and "conclusions". Chaosdruid (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the fact that whether Iaaasi is in a violation of 3RR or isn't, two things are certain that the reviewer administrator needs to know:
 * Once already Iaaasi was blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing from editing Wikipedia, who got a second chance for the return. It was because of a magnanimous gesture of good will and a very long and steadfast IRC canvassing with which he greased a second chance.
 * Administrators have no authority to deal with resolving content disputes, and whether an edit is edit-warring has nothing to do with its content (such as whether it is justified according to a guideline) and everything to do with the circumstances under which it is made.
 * --Nmate (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ??? And I was blocked several times, you too... What does that have to do with anything here? After all block logs are public.., and how does your comment here help in this discussion? Adrian (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

None of us was blocked for indefinite time. And if anybody is a second chance type of user, then an increased caution is needed for lest the user be found to edit disuptively again ,basing on the fact how long the duration of his/her block could be next time. And Iaaasi got his second chance not earlier than 3 months ago. --Nmate (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say that User:Nmate did in the past the thing he accuses now of. He reverted me on the motivation that there wasn't a consensus about those edits. The situation is very similar with this one, where I undid User:Chaosdruid's disputed changes(Iaaasi (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

The conflict was extinguished, so we'd like to ask for the closing of this thread (Iaaasi (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Result: No action. Both parties have agreed to the closing of this report. See Iaasi's comment above, and notice Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae reported by J Milburn (talk) (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported: (perfectly aware of the 3RR, as warned me in relation to it a matter of minutes ago)

Time reported: 15:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:23,  2 March 2011  (edit summary: "Links to commercial sales sites are absolutely not allowed. WP:ELNO, WP:NOTADVERTISING")
 * 2) 15:28,  2 March 2011  (edit summary: "As before -- we CANNOT link to sites that sell the DVD,  Also, footnotes and other reference links do not get mixed under "References". Either put those links in EL, or separate "References" & "Footnotes"")
 * 3) 15:44,  2 March 2011  (edit summary: "Call for an RfC: Two editors now have removed your commercial lilnks. Your insistence on adding them, when journalistic sources exist, leads on to question why these particular commercial sites")
 * 4) 15:54,  2 March 2011  (edit summary: "Please respect the RfC process. You have now reverted me three times. Once more and you are in WP:3RR viiolation")

—J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Response from Tenebrae: No 3RR

 * My first edit, at 15:23, 2 March 2011, was not a revert of anything. It was a simple, ordinary edit. User:J Milburn then reverted my edit three times so far:


 * 1st: 15:25, 2 March 2011 J Milburn


 * 2nd: 15:29, 2 March 2011 J Milburn


 * 3rd: 15:50, 2 March 2011 J Milburn

In each instance, he is adding commercial sales links that drive traffic to sites selling DVDs.

In addition, I had called for an RfC earlier in this process, to help curb an edit war, and he refused -- putting a note on my talk page, declaring, "no, we don't need a RfC." I began one, and was notifying him when I found this. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are in violation of 3RR. WP:EL refers to the external links policy, not to references. ΔT The only constant 16:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS your claim that we cannot link to commercial sites is bogus, we have 111 different pages that link to amazon.com that are all in the article space, for the most part we avoid linking to commercial sites but it is allowed. ΔT The only constant 16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * example #2 another article that has a very similar link. ΔT The only constant 16:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, you're meaning to suggest that you're "allowed" to make the edit four times, while I'm "allowed" to revert it back to the stable state in which it has been since the FAC only three times? Right. I said we did not need a RfC for the simple fact that you were quite clearly misunderstanding the guideline you were citing, which, despite the fact you now recognise that it does not say what you claimed, you continue to cite. Whether you are right or not (which, I can assure you, you are not) is irrelevant here- you have still breached the 3RR. If you had any respect for the procedure here, you would have iniated discussion after the initial reversion, not forced your preferred version of the article in until I stopped reverting for fear of breaching the 3RR. (For anyone following the conversation, that's the reason Tenebrae's version of the article is now there...) J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I'm the one who's not sure of your meaning. I don't recognize that it's OK to add links that drive traffic to commercial sales sites. Common sense dictates that if we have a policy of not allowing ourselves to be used for commercial purposes, then we shouldn't allow ourselves to be used for commercial purposes. I understand perfectly. What I don't understand is an editor's insistence to keep linking to two particular commercial sites, rather than even trying to find journalistic sites with this information. Why would any Wikipedia editor want, indeed insist, on driving traffic to a certain sales site or other?


 * I have not breached 3RR. My first edit was not a revert of anything or anyone. It was an ordinary, simple, good faith edit. As for procedure, I did suggest an RfC after my second edit of your reverts. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I must admit, I am completely guilty of not searching for sources for this article. All I managed to do was take it from creation to appearance as TFA a couple of days ago- I should have probably spent more time looking for sources. I'm not sure how many times I need to say this- you are citing a guideline that does not exist. Now, seeing as you like to play the lawyer, you did revert- "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." You undid my work in removing sources I added. You reverted me in the first edit, and we agree the other three were reverts. As such, you reverted me four times, and should be blocked. Of course, there are plenty of other good reasons to block you, but we'll stick with this one for now. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have requested that this be closed. J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A third editor has joined the dispute, so this is the best way to douse the wildfire before it spreads to even more editors. Tenebrae, you could, and maybe even should have, been blocked for this, I'd advise you in the strongest possible terms to not do this to any more articles until and unless the RFC runs its course and finds consensus on your side. Courcelles 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:WWEJobber reported by User:NiciVampireHeart (Result:24 hours)
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:

Comments:


 * Checking the history, there's a lot more than just these four reverts, but I believe they serve to illustrate the point. has also been edit warring with, but has not reverted since I warned him. This dispute also seems to be occuring/spilling over onto the List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel article, although I haven't actually looked closely at that.  Nici  Vampire  Heart  18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I already told her that I reverted it before reading her message. It was just a mistake, not a vandalism or a bad faith thing. The other guy reverted the article after he was warned too, but he do it using another login account. Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * .  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  22:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by 24.184.232.19 (Result: both blocked)
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: Already blocked twice for violating 3RR previously. Notified here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Trust Is All You Need keeps reverting to the phrase "but support for the ideals of communism and Marxism-Leninism continued to be evident, even on the eve of his death". He first reverted back to unsourced versions, then to versions purportedly (but not really) supporting this. 24.184.232.19 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Qampunen and User:Augusto_XXI reported by User:Krashlandon (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported: And

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Users are arguing now.

Comments:Multi-day dispute with trash talking in edit summaries. Editors stopped warring after I warned them, but continue arguing on their talk pages. Likely to resume eventually.

Krashlandon (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Follow-up comment: Both users have settled down, so probably no further action needs to be taken. I will leave this up for admin review, though. Krashlandon (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Augusto has made seven reverts at 2010–11 Copa del Rey since Feb 27. The only 'trash talk' I could find is these two diffs by Augusto: and, plus some overheated edit summaries.  Qampunen makes the dispute harder to follow by deleting relevant messages from his talk, and he reverted the subject article 11 times since 25 February. This proposal by Qampunen appears calm and well-intentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Overheated:" That's the word I was looking for. Anyway, might I mention that Augusto appears to have created his account solely to fight Qampunen's changes, however unless they resume fighting, the warning is probably enough for now. I suggest possibly having someone verify the info in conflict or directing them to a neutral third-party, if Augusto hasn't just vanished, that is. Krashlandon (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Augusto XXI has not edited since the warning, so there is no continuing dispute. If this restarts he could be due for a block. Qampunen should be careful with his own reverts and is advised to use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:99.19.84.216 reported by User:Rodhullandemu (Result: Blocked by OrangeMike)
Page:

User being reported:

Evidence of edit-warring and warnings here

No attempt to discuss on article's Talk page.

Comments:

This is not the only editor edit-warring here, and whether a block of this IP is appropriate or not, semi-protection of the article to persuade the combatants to go to the Talk page would seem to be indicated. Rodhull andemu  23:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125 reported by User:Aleenf1 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I have no idea with this man, not first nor last, always revert with nonsense reason. Just hit "undo" without view and always jabs on grammar. So fedup. --Aleen f 1 16:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am more fed up with you!! She This user has reported me at least 10 times, because and I have never been blocked. Why? because he is wrong. Go look at all those edits there are grammar mistakes for all edits this editor has made. Also he has removen stuff that is needed for the article, such as "participating nations" and replacing it with "participation" when the standard is the former one. Considering he has reported me many times, I think he is doing this on purpose as he goes and edits articles immediately after I have posted something. For example, this editing war had started after I had posted the "participating nations" part, and Aleenf1 less then a day after edits it with grammatical errors. Is that accpetable, changing a good enough grammatically paragraph do one filled with errors? And certainely my reasoning is justified, please take a look. I also took the time and put in the reference template he used as well as re word my sentencing so it seems like they for sure will particpate, but rather they are planning on (which was his concern). Reference tempalte changed  and wording moved around,  Intoronto1125 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is already 4th times, time to justify. 3RR violation, already, you just revert everything i change, civil? --Aleen f 1 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work." - that is the defintion of the 3RR rule and all those edits were at least 24 hours aprat, certainely not 3 in 24 hours so again you are wrong. And if I can add, that warning was questioned by Aleenf1 on the issuer's talk page, . Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

4 reverts were over a 5 day period. --Selket Talk 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Wrestling0101 reported by User:WWEJobber (Result: both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Page:

User being reported:


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


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

Comments:


 * The user keeps adding wrong information that are not reliable. The official website is used as a reliable source, but he insists to add unreliable data. And he keeps lying about the TV show to state his version. Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrestling0101 for 48 hours as his second EW block; WWEJobber for a week as the second edit warring block this week. Courcelles 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:Medeis (Result: Submitter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: describes comment as aside not appropriate to lead
 * 2nd revert: asserts comment is not true and commands me to stop adding it
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: falsely describes my restoral of various information, which he reverts wholesale, as "BLP violation"  (BLP warns against "self-published" sources by third parties which this is not, and specifically allows biographical statements written by the subject himself - which the source is.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (also in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaron_Lanier&diff=417172197&oldid=417162161 edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This subject was previously discussed on the talk page. Viriditas archived the relevant talk page rather than comment. My comments were explained on his talk page and in my edit summaries.

Comments:

I realize that the verbiage may be controversial. What matters is reflecting the source with accurate verbiage, not censoring it from the article. Note that each one of my restorals was highly selective, retaining edits Viriditas had made in the meanwhile, and each attempting new verbiage (retired filmmaker, former filmmaker, onetime experimental filmmaker) on my part, and answering his concerns: (1) that it was an aside by (A) shortening it on my part, (2) that it was "untrue" with (b) restoral of the sources he had deleted noting the comment's notability and verifiability and (3) that it was "poorly sourced" with the fact that Lanier himself published the information (in effect a statement against interest.)

Note that each Viriditas' edits was a wholesale reversions. Note that his rationale for the reversions - an aside, untrue, unsourced, BLP violation have nothing in common excpet "I don't like it".

I ask that Viriditas be admonished for violating wp:3rr, that the last edit be revereted, and that the matter be referred to the talk page, so that if the matter is found better to be addressed elsewhere, that some such consensus be reached. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have explained to Viriditas the BLP policy and offered to drop this complaint if he reverts his lat edit. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The diffs above show no such 3RR violation. On the contrary, Medeis has been edit warring and obstructing non-controversial cleanup on Jaron Lanier with blanket reverts that restored poor sources (A Cato promotional bio and a primary source interview that Medeis has chosen to interpret) and BLP violations without any discussion on the talk page.  The user has been invited to use the talk page twice, once at 22:58, 4 March 2011, at 23:37, in each case ignoring requests for discussion, and continuing to edit war and add BLP violations that the subject of the article himself has complained about, both on Wikipedia and online.  According to Lanier,


 * "My Wikipedia entry identifies me (at least this week) as a film director. It is true I made one experimental short film about a decade and a half ago. The concept was awful: I tried to imagine what Maya Deren would have done with morphing. It was shown once at a film festival and was never distributed and I would be most comfortable if no one ever sees it again. In the real world it is easy to not direct films. I have attempted to retire from directing films in the alternative universe that is the Wikipedia a number of times, but somebody always overrules me. Every time my Wikipedia entry is corrected, within a day I'm turned into a film director again. I can think of no more suitable punishment than making these determined Wikipedia goblins actually watch my one small old movie. Twice in the past several weeks, reporters have asked me about my filmmaking career. The fantasies of the goblins have entered that portion of the world that is attempting to remain real. I know I've gotten off easy. The errors in my Wikipedia bio have been (at least prior to the publication of this article) charming and even flattering."


 * Lanier voiced these concerns in May 2006. It is now March 2011 and Medeis is still at it!  I have explained to Medeis on his talk page that we 1) base BLP's on reliable secondary sources, and 2) that we use the article talk page to discuss issues.  Both points continue to be ignored by Medeis, with my comments explaining my edits on the talk page at Talk:Jaron Lanier completely ignored by  Medeis.  If Medeis wishes to engage in disruptive editing while gaming the system and blaming me for his bad behavior, that is his prerogative, but BLP's must be written very carefully with attention paid to reliable secondary sources and I stand by my edits.  Further, there has been no 3RR violation whatsoever and diffs do not support his claims.  Frankly, it appears to me that Medeis should not be editing this article at all, as his edits appear to show a complete misunderstanding of how we use sources to write BLP's and a complete disregard for the opinions about these disputed edits voiced by the BLP himself.  There are no reliable secondary sources that refer to Jaron Lanier as a film director, filmmaker, or retired filmmaker, and it was this continual misrepresentation of Lanier that the primary source discusses, which Medeis is deceptively using to justify calling Lanier a filmmaker in the lead section!  This is disruptive behavior with purposeful intent to mislead.  It should not be tolerated.  Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that Viriditas accuses me of not joining in on a discussion which he had not begun until 31 minutes after his fourth revision of the article] when this became a matter for administrative attention.


 * Note tha Viriditas provides no explanation of how quoting a statement by the subject himself in an article published by an independent entity amounts to a violation of BLP when BLP itself says non-self-serving and creditably attributable statements by the subject are specifically allowed.


 * Note that Viriditas attempts to make this an argument about "truth". The last edit which he reverted described Lanier in his own words as a "onetime experimental filmmaker" (perhaps that could be made into a subsection of the article instead - I won't have time to discuss that while having to complain about civility and ownership and 3rr here) but he simply reverted it wholesale.


 * Note that Viriditas complains about an edit war dating back to 2006. Perhaps he has been a party to it?  I don't know.  Apparently the article reached a final version in his eyes.  I have only been editing this article since 2010 when I read You Are Not a Gadget.


 * Note that Viriditas says I am obstructing noncontroversial cleanup. While I have been very careful in my reverts to retain his other edits and have commented on the edit summaries and on his talk page that I agree with much of what he has done he has reverted my edits wholesale without any attempt at discussion - just commanded that I not do things in his edit summary.


 * This is about civility and procedure. Not about what version the former experimental film maker comment will take as a result of consensus.  And certainly not about "truth".  I was quite happy with the prior compromise which I did not write.


 * If merely being correct in one's own eyes allowed one to violate wp:3rr, I could claim correctness and do the same. This is a rather clear cut wp:3rr violation with wholesale revisions, no attempt at compromise, commands and false accusations leveled at me, and ad hoc rationales invented with no consistency.  I can't imagine a more obvious case of wp:ownership and wp:idontlike μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:TL;DR Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Submitter warned. The material that Medeis wants to add to the article may not be acceptable under WP:BLP. This is an extra-good reason to get consensus either on the article or at the WP:BLP/N for Medeis's proposed changes. I also encourage Viriditas to make an extended effort at consensus before making more edits that are subject to challenge. If this continues as a two-person revert war (with no talk -page consensus) admins will probably take further action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

My last edit before the edit war:

His reverts: 1st revert: 2nd revert: at this point I left out of the infobox some figures that could be considered unreliable and noted the figures that are in the box are claimed figures, thus trying to find a compromise 3rd revert: 4th revert:

User constantly removed sourced figures of people killed in the Tripoli clashes from the infobox, on the basis they were unconfirmed reports, even though one of them was an official report by the IFHR, which he said was also claiming and not presenting a fact according to him. He issued a notice to me that I also violated the three revert rule, however I didn't. In an attempt to find a compromise solution I tried to note in the infobox that the figures were just claims, since we lack independent official figures, though I would think the IFHR is an independent observer. Nevertheless he canceled even my compromise edit. He has also started an edit war at the Battle of Brega and Battle of Ra's Lanuf articles, stating that those battles are not battles but just skirmishes. I confronted him with multiple sources that state that those are battles and asked him for a source that they were just skirmishes. He didn't provide me with any sources and said my sources don't count since they are just media sources. o.O Also, I would like to note the user is a serial POV-pusher and has been blocked for edit warring numereous times in the past.EkoGraf (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have already reviewed for my part what I saw this evening after stumbling upon what looked like an edit war at Ra's Lanuf clashes. While some information added is not correctly referenced in the sources, some is, and it looks to me like Off2riorob is trying to push his POV into the article.  While it could be argued that both users are guilty of 3RR here (it's not an identical revert, so maybe not in both cases), I do believe EkoGraf has been trying to find a compromise solution while Off2riorob has simply been removing information without making any attempt to be civil towards EkoGraf - a step I am now taking for better or for worse despite knowing nothing about it myself (other than what I've heard in the news).  I am discussing specifics of what is not accurate on EkoGraf's talk page, but Off2riorob has been entirely uncivil and just removing things over and over; he even literally moved a completely unrelated post off of his talk page right in the middle of my talk page discussion, making it look as if EkoGraf was getting pissed at me (fortunately I realized what had happened and reverted the addition as unconstructive).  Off2riorob also has a large block record, so a small block would not be enough to drive home any message related to this instance, for he will simply come back and continue being uncivil and continue edit warring.  I think a longer vacation is in order so that he can readjust his attitude before doing further editing.  CycloneGU (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - Want to also note that he broke the Wikiquette rule by telling me to stuff off and has behaved hostile, unreasonable and uncompromising during the whole discussion period. In addition since Cyclone has already noted the two other articles, I would like to say, in regard to the Battle of Brega, that I provided multiple sources to both Off2riorob and the article itself as a compromise solution and a confirmation that the battle is regarded as a battle but he rejected that also and constantly calls it a skirmish while not providing any sources to back up that claim. I constantly tried to call on him to discuss before reverting but he wouldn't listen. EkoGraf (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Stale. Both parties have made four reverts but nothing has happened in the past 24 hours. If either party is tempted to revert again, they would be well advised to find consensus first. The submitter of this report, EkoGraf, has not made any comments on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:92.231.189.224 and User:85.179.138.8 reported by User:Elephantwood (Result: Protected, submitter warned)
Page:

User being reported: And

Previous version reverted to:


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

Talk:Shugborough inscription and on this discussion page

Very similar behaviour shown by the two accounts, which have reverted to give a special place in the article (namely, its own graf in the lede, and its own subsection, neither of which are given to any other theories) to one particular theory about the meaning of an inscription in Staffordshire, England, which has never been explained or deciphered in a way that has won widespread acceptance. Statement made on this page that this particular theory is the "only" sensible theory, and editing has been entirely consonant with this POV.

I am not an experienced Wikipedian, and am being called a vandal myself. Please can administrators look at the recent history of this page in relation to the issue of what kind of mention to give to the Morton theory. I am sure that objective consideration can lead to a reasonable solution. Thank you.Elephantwood (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's also, , - all German Ips from the same carrier. Odd. There's a concurrent thread concerning this here for those that don't watch both noticeboards (yeah, right) :>  Doc   talk  12:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, you weren't called a vandal so much as warned about 3RR yourself. Remember that you too are culpable under 3RR for reverting these IPs as it is not obvious vandalism. For an inexperienced Wikipedia (your words) you do seem fairly well versed in Wikipedia policies, so I'm sure you understand why you were warned. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand why I was warned, and have apologised for my use of language. I was called a vandal in edit summaries 416313974 and 416313807 on 28 February. I don't think I am one. I've tried to focus on the issue of whether or not to give special importance in the article to Morton's theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elephantwood (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you claim you are new to wiki, you should know that some IPs are reset upon each computer restart. Your suspicion of the three 85-179- IPs is misplaced (you ARE new). They are clearly all the same IP. This is out of my control and they change (just a little) with each computer restart, but the number itself retains its distinctive prefix. I've made no indication that they belong to different people, and have, many times, referred to my own words during discussion. The problem is that these IPs, my IPs, were not behind the edit that placed Morton's solution in its own subheading. Since this edit is what bugs EW so much, I suggest he stops wasting time with my roll-back. I see he has once again reverted Paul Barlow's edit. The user is now publicly speculating about my whereabouts, calling Barlow a nutter, and this is now the fourth or fifth page I see him wasting people's time about this. I'm feeling distinctly stalked. Reported. 85.179.75.25 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, user of 85.179.75.25. Please note that it was Doc9871 who said that the use of three 85.179 IPs was "odd", not me. There's nothing wrong or sneaky about using dynamic IPs, if that's the kind of arrangement you've got with your ISP. As for me, I was suggesting that 92.231.189.224 and 85.179.138.8 might be being used by the same user. Incidentally, both blocks of addresses are registered in Germany, and it's public knowledge that A J Morton lives in Germany. May I therefore ask you two questions.


 * Question 1) are you in fact A J Morton himself? I refer to the chap who advertises his services with the line "Got a puzzle to solve, or a code to crack? A.J.Morton may be able to help", and who describes himself as "currently seeking academic endorsements"?


 * Question 2) As well as the 85.179 addresses, have you also used the 92.231 IP addresses 92.231.222.12 and 92.231.189.224? As I said, like the 85.179 addresses, they too are German. The first of these addresses was used by the person who wrote as follows on the talk page for the Shugborough article: "Can anyone explain why the Morton Solution portion keeps getting deleted? (...) Why should a widely reported solution, one that seems more believable than every other solution referenced on the page, be omitted? Has someone decided that the page should only contain references to dubious (read failed) research? Or can we inject some logic and make a more believable page?", and who then goes on to state his opinion that "Andrew Morton, if that's his name, seems like a serious historian". The 92.231 user was writing in a very similar way (his concern, his prose) to the 85.179 user. Both were using German IPs. Both wish to give special importance to the Morton theory. So you'll understand why I'm asking the question.


 * If the answer to 2) is 'yes', can you explain why you are calling A J Morton "Andrew" and at the same time expressing uncertainty as to whether that's his name? It might be relevant here that it is also public knowledge that whereas the A J Morton who authored the Orgreave United with Overley and Shugborough, Viscount Anson Venables Vernon theory about the Shugborough inscription is known to have changed the name he uses from 'Jamie A Morton' to 'A J Morton', a quick websearch did not unearth what the 'A' stands for.


 * Thanks for any help with these questions.Elephantwood (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We have now had a 4th revert, again by an 85.179 IP (this time 85.179.143.97), again reinserting the entire paragraph and entire subsection devoted to the Morton theory.Elephantwood (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First things first, sorry but the answer's no to your main question. I am an English speaking student living in Germany. And a girl! That Morton lives in Germany (in the same city in fact!!) is just one reason I have an interest in him. I'm not going to apologise for this, since interest helps keep wiki working.


 * Secondly, I've already explained that the IPs are clearly both mine. It's public record they are mine. You say you understand dynamic IPs, but I did not pass them off as different personas (as you have done with your hastily created account), and, as you said, I used similar language throughout. I have not done anything wrong. It looks like the same person talking, because it is. I was not trying to fool you into thinking otherwise. You are simply paranoid.


 * Thirdly, I DID NOT MAKE THE EDIT in the first place. You are pointing your finger at the wrong editor! As far as I was concerned, you and I (and hardly anyone else) have been battling over an edit made by Paul Barlow. I liked the edit. You didn't. That's the argument. I never gave the Morton Solution a subheading. And before you say it, I'm not Paul Barlow either!


 * Your last post (which clearly took a lot of work) is a bit frightening if you don't mind me saying so. Now officially creeped out. I'm going to leave you to do as you please from now on. You're not worth the hassle. It's a dubious page anyway. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not passed anything off as "different personas". So you're saying that IPs in both blocks are used by you, i.e. both 92.231 and 85.179? Thanks for clarifying. Contrary to what you say, there is no "public record" that this is so. The question needed to be asked and answered, and now it has been. I don't think you've "done anything wrong" in using dynamic addresses, even from two blocks. Please get a grip! Incidentally, the style and tone you're using are somewhat different (very different indeed, in fact) from those that have been used fairly constantly before in this discussion by the user of 92.231 & 85.179. They are much more female.Elephantwood (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected one week. Elephantwood is warned against personal attacks. His account began on 27 February and it has the air of being created to edit war on this article. If he already has another account it violates WP:SOCK for him to make a complaint at this noticeboard, since socks must not participate in discussions in Wikipedia space. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gnevin and User:Fry1989 reported by User:Ajh1492 (Result: Not an issue for this noticeboard)
Page: and Others see: (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons))

Users being reported:

Requested and received temporary full-page protection per WP:RPP for Template:JewishPolishHistory and placed requests on both user's talk pages to cease the edit war on the template (even offered and implemented a compromise - smaller sizes on icons). A result of this action showed that the immediate event is a skirmish in a larger edit ward between the two users - Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons).

I am NOT requesting WP:3RR, but I am requesting a cease-n-desist on the running edit war on WP:MOSICON guideline interpretation (or over interpretation) before it affects other pages and templates I watch. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * sledge hammer being used to crack at nut. I've no intention of reverting fry again but this ani and the page protection are over kill. Ajh dialogue with the users involved many be better option next time  Gnevin (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like the dialog you started on the template talk page before you started the edit skirmish? The only reason why this template started to be discussed on WP:MOSICON is because I brought it up. If you want to talk about "following the rules" - you were in multiple edit wars nearly violating WP:3RR on at least one occasion. If protecting the template for a week and raising this ANI/EW ceases the wider edit war, then yes, the effort is well worth it. We all don't need you two running amok on random templates. I still don't know why the template was singled out for this kerfuffle. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no axe to grind, but based on my investigation there has been a series of edit wars on a number of pages. It needs to stop. End of story. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one claimed or implied you had an axe to grind. The point remains you could of engaged with the users involved and as stated above I've no intention of reverting fry again Gnevin (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're viewing WP:MOSICON as a hard-and-fast rule not a guideline. You both need to step back and stop your actions - both of you were on the verge of violating WP:3RR if I hadn't requested page protection. Viewing WP:MOSICON clearly shows that you both are in the midst of an edit war spanning a number of pages which means it needs to be brought to the attention of some admins for some resolution. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't view MOSICON as a hard and fast rule and while you may think you have a crystal ball you don't. I had no intention of breaching 3RR. Your definition of edit war is pretty all encompassing, edit dispute yes, war no. Once again you've ignored my point that you could of talked to the editors before going nuclear Gnevin (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It will only stop when Gnevin stops over-applying his personal view of what is a MOSICON vio, against the common acceptance by the community of images in the templates which he intends to edit/remove. Fry1989 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Not an issue for this noticeboard. Please figure out a way of pursuing this elsewhere. If you think there is a discussion that needs closing, ask at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close it. Perhaps you should open a real WP:Request for comment. This would require you to frame a precise question, which I don't see in the above. See WP:Dispute resolution for other options you might consider. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:67.67.61.42 reported by Daniel (Result: 31h/semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:11,  5 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 417271335 by Rehevkor (talk)")
 * 2) 21:31,  5 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 417314694 by Bbb23 (talk)")
 * 3) 21:36,  5 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 417317573 by Daniel J. Leivick (talk)")
 * 4) 21:48,  5 March 2011  (edit summary: "This edit is well sourced with 5 verifiable sources")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Daniel 21:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version removed:


 * 2nd removal:
 * 3rd removal:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: S/he has deleted the warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (diff)

Comments:

This is edit warring on a Guideline page. All Hallow's Wraith has been removing the long-standing guideline regarding Ethnicity in Categories, saying there was no consensus to add ethnicity over 2 years ago. This guideline has been very stable for many (18) months, so much so that I only checked the page watch rarely.

In fact, the entire page was renamed from "WP:GRS" to "WP:EGRS" (adding Ethnicity) after considerable discussion, on the Talk page, on WT:CFD, and WP:VPP. Myriad CfD decisions have been based on the guideline over the years.

It is the responsibility of All Hallow's Wraith to build consensus to change the guideline. We have a procedure for such changes. S/he has not followed it. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong on all counts.
 * First, "William Allen Simpson" reverted as many times as I did (neither of us broke 3rr or even came close to it). here, here, and here.
 * Second, "William Allen Simpson" didn't reach consensus for any changes he made because, by definition, "consensus" requires the agreement of more than one person. Simpson's post in July 2009 proposing this change was the last one on the subject - see here. In December 2010, I asked if anyone minded that I remove the part from the article because it had no consensus. No one objected until Simpson returned two months later. Presumably, I have "consensus" to remove it in the same sense he had "consensus" to add it in the first place. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. of course I deleted the warning! You're going to "warn" me about doing the exact same thing you just did? Why do you think that is logical? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I do not intend to spend my time explaining here information and decisions that took place 2 years ago. You were bold, although that does not apply to guidelines. I reverted. You continued to delete/replace the section. Although you did it 3 times over a period of days instead of one day, that's still edit warring. It's also gaming the system. PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING!


 * Comment - I've searched the portion removed by All Hallow's Wrath. An identical starting sentence of the paragraph in question is found in this diff from July 25, 2009.  Therefore, the task is not to find consensus to add the paragraph; the task is to find consensus to remove the paragraph.  That consensus was not achieved; therefore, there was no reaqson for its removal.  It's worth noting that William made the edit from 2009 where I found the sentence.  That solved, there only appears to be two attempts by All Hallow's within a 24 hour period to remove it.  This is not a 3RR situation.  I do not agree with what All Hallows is doing, but it's no 3RR.  I have commented at All Hallows' talk page.  CycloneGU (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. There seems to be a proper discussion now happening at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, which began after this report was filed. Both parties are urged to accept whatever consensus is reached there. If anybody reverts the guideline before the discussion is finished, protection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:75.47.128.146 reported by User:KakMassoudMustHang (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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

Comments:

I'm new, and have no idea what i'm doing here! But this IP has undone all my edits for no good reason whatsoever. KakMassoudMustHang (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If KakMassoud refers to Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani you might want to review Username policy.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replaced your links with 'diffs'. See WP:DIFF. The IP seems to be removing content on the basis that it's unsourced (despite removing a source) and restoring content that is itself unsourced. Strange. I suggest you read the policy about biographies of living people if you are unsure about the rules.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP has filed request for full protection of Wadah Khanfar at WP:RFPP. I've commented there.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected one month. Taken together, the 75.47.* edits have broken 3RR. If the IPs have concerns, please contribute on the article's talk page. If consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted. The submitter of this report has been blocked as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Brendan.mattson reported by PPdd (Result: No action)
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:

Comments:

A mass of WP:MPs self describe themselves as “A number of concerned professionals have been attempting to remove some offensive material from the Traditional Chinese Medicine page.” There objection is the dress style of women professionals in new age California alt med clinics. It is wrong for WP to cave in when women are told what to wear by men arguing that if a woman is near a bare chested man her appearance is described in edit summaries as "seductive", a medicine bottle is interpreted to "look like a bottle of wine", the room "looks like a hotel room", and the man complains they should "wear a white lab coat". (1) If a man was treating a man, the objection would not have been made; (2) if the woman was treating another woman the objection and interpretation would never have been made; (3) if the objecting males were did not find the woman attractive, e.g., if she was 80 years old in or in poor physical shape, but in exactly the same photo, the objection would never have been made. When I first saw the image in question, my thought was, "that is exactly what all of the acupuncture/moxibustion sessions I have seen look like in new age norhtern california, candle, headboard, and all." The group is certainly INTENTIONALLY WP:MP, since if they did not know they were doing anything wrong, or know about 3RR, then why does a new account keep getting created, instead of the same editor making the same deletions? Next I predict they are going to argue “consensus” because there are so many single-edit accounts. By User:Mubong here and here. By User:Sschram deleting eating “raw” flying squirrel feces here. By User:Meirish here. By User:71.34.98.149 here. By User: Huangqi01 here. By User:Petalumana here, here. By User:Brendan.mattson here, here, here, and here, and AFTER a 3RR warning here, and here. By User:76.102.5.245 here, and here, and here. By User:76.178.243.228 here, By User:Tgarran here, then following the 3RR warning to one of them, a new account created by User:Donhossen here. This is not a complete list of their recent deletions, as their single purpose contribution histories show more such edits. Although “these” are new editor(s), they appear to have no interest in improving Wikipedia except to censor images of professional women that do not meet their own cultural standards for women. One of “them” suddenly appeared from out of the blue at the same time on a talk page and said something like, "I'm not a TCM or alt med advocate, I'm a student of allopathic medicine". I have never heard a med student describe themselves as “allopathic”. It is as dumb as a stoned kid randomly walking up to a cop and saying, "look at me, occissiferr… er, officer, I'm not stoned". It might be best to wait to block them so that if they are MP and not SP, the entire group of associated IPs can be rounded up at once. Next, I anticipate them arguing “consensus” citing their own numbers.PPdd (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The editor appears to have been caught being SP and maybe MP, which adds still more reverts after the 3RR warning, and is outright lying about not being SP/MP, not knowing he has been caught. PPdd (talk)
 * Once again I ignorantly created ONE new account in an attempt to edit without using personally identifiable info. There is no link with other editors, only the fact that I was aware others were targeting the the same photo that is almost unanimously considered ridiculous.Brendan.mattson (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: No action for now. Resubmit if problems continue. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Brendan.mattson, where an admin has done some blocks and has semiprotected the article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Clemency requested. Clear violation (and SP, too)... but new editor who seems willing to comply with policies and guidelines and listen to advice and learn, and we all make mistakes. PPdd (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:195.28.75.114 reported by User:Nmate (Result: 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 00:28,  2 March 2011  (edit summary: "die in NovĂ© ZĂˇmky, Slovakia")
 * 2nd revert: 11:50,  4 March 2011  (edit summary: "die in NovĂ© ZĂˇmky, Slovakia")
 * 3rd revert: 16:13, 5 March 2011  (edit summary: "anton bernolak die in NovĂ© ZĂˇmky, Slovakia")
 * 4th revert: 16:13, 5 March 2011  (edit summary: "fix")
 * 5th revert: 09:13, 6 March 2011  (edit summary: "anton bernolak die in NovĂ© ZĂˇmky, Slovakia")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apparently, the Ip user is single-purpose account whose errand is to delete Hungarian place names from articles which are related to Slovakia. I had reported the user for vandalism and then my report went out to the WP ANI board, where the motion settled with a result of "It is a content dispute and while the edits may seem extremely tendentious, that is not a call an administrator could make". Then I wanted to interact with the user but without any success either because the user is unwilling for the interaction or, because is unable for it ,due to poor English knowledge. Technically, the user is no in a violation of 3RR but because I have no chance for discussion with the Ip user I do not know what should be doing.--Nmate (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: User:Nmate failed no inform the accused party about this report, so I did it for him (Iaaasi (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Result: Blocked 3 days. He seems to be on a crusade to describe some 19th century events as happening in Slovakia even though Slovakia did not exist then. He can't do blanket changes of this nature without getting consensus. He never talks, but he sometimes insults people in edit summaries, while vandalizing their user page. If we can't get him to participate in discussions, a longer block may be needed. In this edit, he removed a bunch of references, with the misleading edit summary 'ref added.' EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:2.89.119.157 reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Semi)
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:

This user not only constantly adds a sentence that violations Verifiability (i.e. not verified by the source he has given) but is also very impertinent and calls everyone who says the opposite of his views (including the entire world) "incompetent", despite the presence of a third opinion (from User:1exec1) and a fourth (from 129.120.86.194). Fleet Command (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Article being reverted by two different IPs from the same region who, by an amazing coincidence want to restore the same material. Per WP:SOCK, the same person must not use multiple accounts in an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:70.79.75.159 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealFennShysa (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Result: Blocked two weeks for a pattern of edit warring. This is the IP's fourth block. The last was in January 2011 for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Vval1570 reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: stale)
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: Editor has not used the talk page, I did request he do so.

Comments:


 * Those four edits are the entirety of that user's contributions. A little less WP:BITE might have helped, here. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs (with range 115.x.x.x and 117.x.x.x) reported by User:Aarem (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: Anonymous IPs (with range 115.x.x.x and 117.x.x.x) probably from any of the below listed users:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: All the suspected involved users are well aware about the 3RR policy. Their talk page contains several warnings, and all users were blocked before for edit-warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion in the talk page =>

Comments:

The involved editors(User:DileepKS69, User:Mountainwhiskey, User:Samaleks, User:Induzcreed, User:Bijuts) are furiously edit-warring on the same topic since many days. Chances are high that the anon IP addresses are from the involved users. Blocking the users and Semi-protecting the page may stop this for some time. -- Aarem (Talk) 04:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Fully protected one month. An RfC is running on the talk page. Everyone is urged to contribute there and try to persuade the others. If consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:99.19.84.216 reported by TMCk (Result: Blocked by OrangeMike )
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:.

Comments:

A user called Seb az86556 is reverting well documented facts from the Turkey page. There is an ongoing voting for whether the information should stay or not and so far the majority is for it staying. However the user keeps deleting it and is either unaware of this or he is deliberately trying to turn  the article into a propaganda article (which happens a lot in the Turkey page). I have no idea if this will help but the Turkey article should be watched carefully. Otherwise it turns out to be a platform for Turkey hating people. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP-vio. Several warnings were given including to IP 206.180.38.20 which was used before for the same warring (some are blanked).

User:LiteralKa reported by Buridan (talk) (Result: stale/DR)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:44,  4 March 2011  (edit summary: "IRC logs are not a reliable source")
 * 2) 17:16,  4 March 2011  (edit summary: "/* freenode */    ")
 * 3) 17:17,  4 March 2011  (edit summary: "an IRC news website isn't a reliable source, either")
 * 4) 17:18,  4 March 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 17:18,  4 March 2011  (edit summary: "/* #LinPeople and The Linux Internet Support Co-Operative */ rm trivia")
 * 6) 06:29,  6 March 2011  (edit summary: "The Slashdot story cites no news story.")
 * 7) 06:34,  6 March 2011  (edit summary: "/* OpenProjects */")
 * 8) 06:36,  6 March 2011  (edit summary: "/* OpenProjects */")
 * 9) 06:46,  6 March 2011  (edit summary: "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Articles for deletion/Rob Levin (fourth nomination)")
 * 10) 16:36,  7 March 2011  (edit summary: "I really don't see any point for this, aside from promoting freenode, the only citations are links to freenode policy and a page that Rob wrote... (Which belongs in the freenode article, not here)")
 * 11) 16:37,  7 March 2011  (edit summary: "/* References */")
 * 12) 16:42,  7 March 2011  (edit summary: "I find no citations for his death")
 * 13) 03:56,  8 March 2011  (edit summary: "Please do not call my edits "dumbness", or revert legitimate edits.")
 * 14) 12:40,  8 March 2011  (edit summary: "Please do not add irrelevant information back.")
 * 15) 12:43,  8 March 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 16) 12:57,  8 March 2011  (edit summary: "Blogs about IRC - Not notable/reliable. We don't need a section about his nickname. Slashdot - Not reliable.")

—Buridan (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest actually reading WP:3RR. I am exempt under WP:BDP (Any individual born less than 115 years ago is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed the individual's death.) Last I checked, Rob Levin wasn't 116 years old. "WP:3RR exemptions: Removal of [...] unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial." Also, "please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior", not every edit that I have ever made to the page. LiteralKa (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * considering the page was stable and well-cited, had been through several afd's with results of keep and snowball keep, then you remove content and propose it yet again, I think we can safely assume that every edit to the page you made is likely a disruption. The reliable sources were on the page, you've deleted them.  I'm not going to argue about your actions, you are edit warring and I suspect you might be trolling as you seem to be on an edit attack against freenode related topics.  I'm not the one to decide that though, other people can debate your current and past actions as an editor.  --Buridan (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How is a "news site" (in reality a blog) about IRC reliable? How does it's inclusion make it well cited? The AfD's are 5 years old. And how is putting up one article "an edit attack against freenode related topics"? LiteralKa (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As a longer term dispute, there would be some merit to the argument that no edits for over a day does not necessarily require that this issue be viewed as stale, and I would not object were anyone else to look at it in that light. The article in question is now at AfD, which should resolve the issue of whether the sources are reliable enough for inclusion and whether the article is properly covered by the Biographies of living persons policy. If it does not, please make the case at the talkpage, seeking additional input as outlined at dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Diren Yardimli reported by User:Athenean (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: First, this is a clear-cut 3RR violation. Second, this user has previously edit-warred over the exact same material about a month ago. After breaking 3RR that time, he laid low for a while, and now he's back at it. Third, this is an ultranationalist SPA that pretty much does nothing else but try to equivocate and edit-war over the Armenian Genocide, as he has zero positive contribs. These comments say it all   about how he thinks and what he is here to do. The overall behavior is extremely disruptive and needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * . Also notifying editor of WP:ARBAA2 discretionary sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:BatteryIncluded reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Editors advised)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 03:16, 8 March 2011

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


 * 1) 15:46,  8 March 2011  (edit summary: "Moving WP:Fringe "argument" from the introduction.  + Additional ref.")
 * First revert to older version dated 03:16, 8 March 2011 with "Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life" and adds old 1990 NASA memo and history.com source. BatteryIncluded  calls Neil deGrasse Tyson, the original author of the cited quote, "fringe" in the edit summary.  However, looking at the page history, we see that it was BatteryIncluded himself who added the source to Tyson, but cherry picked the quote without attribution.  Looking further at the page history, we see ownership issues, as it becomes evident that BatteryIncluded is the original editor who added this previously unsourced material to the lead section at 03:12, 26 July 2010, a lead section that had been stable for years.
 * 1) 19:48, 8 March 2011  (edit summary: "references.")
 * Second revert to "Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life". User is warned about edit warring and 3RR reporting on the article talk page at  21:20, 8 March 2011.  User acknowledges receiving the warning eight minutes later at 21:28, 8 March 2011 by deleting it and adding a personal attack.
 * 1) 21:48, 8 March 2011  (edit summary: "edit + references.")
 * Third revert to "Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life". User is given an official 3RR waring on their talk page at 01:09, 9 March 2011.
 * 1) 01:17, 9 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 417879791 by Viriditas (talk) NASA's astrobiology reference included.")
 * Fourth revert to "Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life".


 * Diffs of warning:
 * 1st warning: 21:20, 8 March 2011, article talk page
 * 2nd warning: 01:09, 9 March 2011, user talk page


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Many, but here are a select few:
 * 19:59, 8 March 2011
 * 20:09, 8 March 2011
 * 20:50, 8 March 2011
 * 21:20, 8 March 2011


 * User notified? Yes, at 04:21, 9 March

Note from submitting editor: This is a long-term problem with this editor that crops up every now and then. User does does not make use of the talk page other than to make personal attacks, delete comments made by other users, and to act unilaterally. The user is currently the top primary contributor to the article, illustrating ownership issues. As the diffs show above, the user knowingly broke the 3RR after being warned and did not respond to repeated requests for discussion about his edits on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User viriditas, a self-declared science fiction fan, has logged multiple attempts the last 2 weeks likely with anonymous IPs as well as logged in at erasing the statement "Earth is the only planet in the universe known to harbour life". His reason: "Claiming that Earth is the only place in the universe to harbor life is not just an absurd statement, it is not something that can actually be known. Instead of confrontation, I limited my requests to him to citing a reference stating the existence of extraterrestrial life, but instead he engaged in in philosophical discussion which I refused to be drawn into. Since he found no reference to support his alleged existence of extraterresttrial life, he had no other course of action but to acknowledge it and paraphrased my original statement "Earth is the only planet in the universe known to harbour life". In a bizarre combative attitude, next diverted his attention to the references' dates and took the unilateral decision to delete ALL references that literally state: "Earth is the only planet in the universe known to harbour life", a very well know CURRENT scientific fact; however Viriditas claims that such idea is "out of date". He refuses to acknowledge that whether stated in 3000BC, 1990 or 2011, the fact remains that Earth is the only planet in the universe known to harbour life.

My refusing to discuss his beliefs to the contrary has to be saved for someone else in a science fiction forum, not on a WP talk page. His failure to produce a single reference proving the existence of extraterrestrial life has obviously frustrated him and this ANI is nothing but an additional angry and retaliatory move of his trying to find a WP technicallity, while he continuously deletes all references (NASA and History Channel) that literally state: "Earth is the only planet in the universe known to harbour life". You do the math. PS: "Deleting" other user's comments and personnal attacks are Veritable paranoia without proof. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could an administrator please take action based on the evidence I've provided and the bizarre reply from BatteryIncluded? It is, in my opinion, a wonderful example of WP:ABF, and does not account for the edit warring and refusal to discuss on the talk page.  I will be happy to show on the article talk page that every single one of BatteryIncluded's claims above is a complete fabrication and distortion (and for the most part, I already have), but as this 3RR page says at the top, "Do not continue a dispute on this page".  Briefly, I've been editing astronomy and biology related articles here since 2004, far longer than BatteryIncluded,  and I'm a major contributor to many. I first joined WikiProject Novel's Science fiction task force on January 18, 2011, to help them deal with their workload.  I haven't the slightest clue what my joining that project in January has to do with my edits to astrobiology, or with BatteryIncluded's edit warring and refusal to discuss his edits.  Obviously, he glanced at my userpage, saw my userboxes, and came to a snap judgment. His behaviour on the talk page and here in this regard has been outrageous and needs to stop.  I have never once, at any time, claimed to "support the alleged existence of extraterresttrial life." The user is evidently confused.  Nor, have I ever used any other account but this one, and I would encourage BatteryIncluded to file a check user immediately if he has the slightest courage of his convictions.  As I said at the beginning of this reply, the user assumes bad faith, does not interact with other users in a collaborative or civil manner, and refuses to discuss their edits.  I filed this report in an attempt to get BatteryIncluded to stop. It has, looking at his almost unintelligible and "science fiction-like" reply, made him worse.  Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: How is it that you seem to get into so many different edit wars with so many different editors? This page is on my watchlist and I see your name popping up all the time.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As BatteryIncluded observes above, there was already an edit war in progress due to a controversial, unauthorized announcement by Richard B. Hoover. The text in question was added by BatteryIncluded in July 2010.  The article had been stable for years before his addition.  He only decided to add a source on March 7, because anon IP's were removing it.  However, the source he added was a cherry picked quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson.  I then attributed the source and added the full quote from the cite.  He reverted, claiming that Tyson's quote was "fringe" (even though he had added it in part) and then I began adding cited references in the astrobiological literature that supported it.  Asking that editors use the most current, on-topic sources to support content directly is something I focus on across the board, so it is not surprising to encounter resistance from entrenched editors who think they can pick and choose any source regardless of topic or currency. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Viriditas has made four reverts in 25 hours, starting at 19:29 on 8 March. I think that is close enough to a 3RR violation to earn a sanction for WP:Edit warring. The person on the other side of these reverts is always Batteryincluded. There is precedent for blocking both parties in a situation like this. If both editors will promise to wait for consensus before reverting again, sanctions might be avoided. Anyone can open an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, I don't see how I violated the 3RR. Could you give me diffs?  My Tyson edits were not reverts. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 19:29 on 8 March: Viriditas removed two sources (Graham and Lunine)
 * 21:32 on 8 March: Removed a source by Lunine
 * 01:06 on 9 March: Removed Lunine yet again
 * 20:26 on 9 March: Removed an entire section
 * Four reverts in 25 hours. Per WP:EW, anything that undoes the work of another editor is a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In a show of good faith, I've self-reverted the 20:26 removal of the section, even though 1) it wasn't a technical violation of the 3RR and 2) removing disputed content to the talk page is a common way of working to resolve disputes.  Now, what is the way forward?  As you can see from BatteryIncluded's reply, the user is unwilling to assume the slightest bit of good faith, and has made a series of false accusations. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas should be banned for lieing. It is all in the history pages. Another of his lies is me deleting his "warning". WTF?  But again he'd acusse me of roasting babies for breakfast while wearing a nazi uniform if that'd prove we are not alone in the universe.  BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've now falsely accused me of using sock puppets, of promoting aliens, and now of lying. Is there any single piece of evidence supporting your claims, or does your interpretation of the word "discussion" hinge on defining it as false allegations, personal attacks, edit warring, and general incivility?  Exactly how much more of this nonsense is going to be allowed?  The diff of BatteryIncluded deleting my warning was already offered up above, but can found here.  Looking through the ANI archives, I discovered that BatteryIncluded was previously warned in 2009 about deleting the comments of other users. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Editors advised. Viriditas undid his last revert, and Batteryincluded made a conciliatory statement. They are urged to pursue WP:Dispute resolution, and not to perform any unilateral reverts that don't have general support. Now that the issue has been reported here, admins may take quick action to stop further warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I protest the outcome of this report. The user clearly made reverts after being warned twice, made numerous personal attacks, made false accusations here on this report, and has refused to justify a single revert on the talk page.  Furthermore, I have shown, with evidence, that the user does not understand the sources they are using or how to cite them. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Amandajm reported by User:Medeis (Result: no action)
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:

Edits were made by User:Acps110 and myself attempting to shorten a statement in the article. Amandajm opposed the edits as "ungrammatical" although they were not. Amandajm was warned quite civilly that she had already violated wp:3rr with a fourth reversion of our edits. Amandajm not only justified her fourth edit (because she is "experienced" and Acps110 had been "rude") she also reversed the article a fifth time from the shortened version which both User:Acps110 and I supported. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. May I draw your attention to the fact that my last edit to the article was not a reversal. It was a different, correct solution which maintained the change made by Acps110.
 * This last edit was made, because it became clear to me that other editors were also likely to perceive an error where none existed, simply because the form of comparative used was unfamiliar. Most people, while using the term "the tallest", do not use "the taller" in referring to only two people.
 * Medeis, while acknowledging the grammatical correctness of this, keeps pushing for a less correct (slightly briefer) form, without accepting the compromise.
 * I have just left a message on Acps110's page, attempting to explain the finer grammatical points of my original edit. I had no trouble with having it changed, provided the change was grammatically correct.


 * Basically, it's a storm in a teacup, that really didn't need to go as far as threats of reporting, and then reporting because I dared use a compromise solution, in the interests of Grammar.
 * If blocked, kindly tell me how long it lasts. I have a few articles on the boil and a great number that I am watching.
 * Amandajm (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This continued complaining about grammar is a red herring. Every single edit by every editor has been grammatically acceptable. The problem is Amandajm's sense of entitlement and belief that she can outedit others because she is "right" and they should stop bothering her. Amandajm's fifth revert of the article was not a simple "undo" but it was a return to an unnecessarily longer version when both Acps110 and I  had supported the same shorter version. μηδείς (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Amandajm initiated the relevant talkpage discussion, and has been participating with clear explanations and willingness to compromise throughout. I do not see evidence of inappropriate article ownership issues on anyone's part. Medeis, this issue did not need to be escalated; simple collaboration and explanation of the issues should have sufficed. If disagreement continues, it may be time to dust off Strunk & White or some other style guide. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:76.108.196.241 reported by User:HidariMigi (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (Along with page blanking and removal of other content)
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Anon IP has exclusively edited this single page, and is apparently the principal of the site.


 * Result: Semiprotected. Long-term edit warring and removal of sources by IPs. Please use the talk page to explain what problems you see in this article. Deletion of reliable sources does not appear to be a good-faith activity. Some of the talk page comments suggest that one or more of the the editors here may be participants in litigation. Openly declaring what relation you may have to the parties would place you on safer ground, and allow us to take you more seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Maumau1000 reported by User:ttonyb1 (Result: 31h)
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: and

Comments:

Editor continues to add possibly inflammatory, unsupported comment concerning Turner's comments in the Ted Turner article. The comments have been reversed by myself and another editor. I have asked the editor to pose the question of appropriateness on talk page without adding the text to the article before consensus has been reached, but the editor continues to add comment.


 * Result: 31 hours for 3RR violation on a BLP article. Persistently adding a controversial attribute for Turner ('misandric') against the advice of other editors. Do not restore this again without getting consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:66.214.168.122 reported by User:Pol430 (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 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: This annon editor is engaging in tendentious editing on the above article. I came across the page on RC patrol and noticed the IP edit warring when two other editors had undone their edits and attempted to illicit response on the talk page. I have warned the IP but they have continued to revert and now clearly violated the bright line of 3rr. I'm not going to continue to feed them


 * I don't know what's the motives behind the "RC patrol" to so fastidiously remove my factual edits from what are solid sources including CNN. There are sources that I don't find "solid", but was already cited on that page by biased editors, which I have brought into question, and the users like John Smith, Pol430 and Rangoon11 cannot even let me state these simple facts. I would like to believe those "medalists" and "administrative" type of users and controllers of Wikipedia are unbiased and lack prejudice, but I honestly from the very core of my heart, very much doubt it, especially when trying to properly present articles concerning China, its history and culture.66.214.168.122 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a better set of diffs that shows the reversions only:

-- Diannaa (Talk) 23:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment The IP continues to edit the article in similar manner despite this report and despite having been reverted by another uninvolved editor Pol430  talk to me 23:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Analyzer99 reported by User:Zakhalesh (Result: 1 month)
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:

Comments:

I haven't taken any part in the discussion or the dispute, I only stumbled upon his revert which I reverted because I felt the rationale wasn't sound. User has a history of edit warring and getting blocked for it on topics related to Africa. I don't want to be mean, but I feel a short long topic ban would be appropriate here. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why make it a short topic ban? User:Analyzer99 has been blocked twice this year for this same behavior (at African diaspora and African people). She/He has shown an inability to work with others. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I was under the impression that 3RR violations seldom result in bans in any case, but your comment makes much more sense, so I refactored my comment a bit. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am involed here and only wish that editors stop editing counter to what the consensuses is on this pages. As seen before in the past and as of now the editor could care less about the consensuses or the rules that we have shown to  him/her about disputive editing. As seen here the editor feels the word "black" is offensive - thus has been removing the word from many articles making sure that the word black is eliminated from this kinds of articles wholesale. Moxy (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked one month. The editor seems to be on a crusade to remove the word 'black' from articles, and is ignoring all feedback. Consensus would be needed for the kind of change he insists on. If he will agree to behave differently in the future, the block can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Iaaasi reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 13:20, 7 March 2011.


 * 1st revert:  09:38, 11 March 2011
 * 2nd revert:  10:16, 11 March 2011 multiple successive edits merged (they count as one)
 * 3rd revert:  11:07, 11 March 2011
 * 4th revert:  18:05, 11 March 2011
 * 5th revert:  18:51, 11 March 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: dispute was about removing an academic source from text

Comments:

3RR violation 5 reverts within a day. The user is very experienced as he has thousands of edits on main account and thousands more elsewhere. Certainly familiar with simple rules like 3RR. Hobartimus (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly the case. As this is the third 3RR block for this editor, I have set it for a week.  Kuru   (talk)  19:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)