Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive155

User:Wawawaer reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Indef, 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: User has not tried to do so.

Comments:

Result: User:Wawawaer has been indefinitely blocked by User:C.Fred. A banned user created Wawawaer as a sock, and has been gaming the system with BLP experiments. See the edit summaries for the background. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This user has also not been adhering to a neutral point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu reported by User:Rodchen (Result: Reporting user blocked; 24 hours)
Page: Barbara Boxer

User being reported:

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:

Muboshgu is attempting to insert controversial changes to the article while a discussion is ongoing on the discussion page where I am trying hard to build consensus. Please look at the discussion page. Rodchen (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to get the 'links' right here, but I can't get it quite right, but I think you can see and determine my meaning. Rodchen (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As an admin can see by evaluating the recent edits, my edits are not controversial. Consensus has been against this users' edits over the past week or so. Oh, and the most important factor in this report: I haven't violated 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I welcome an administrators intervention. Given the ongoing dicussion on Boxer's discussion page, Muboshgu's edits were controversial and unhelpful. I am choosing NOT to revert again, and participate in an editing war, but instead welcome administrators intervention. Rodchen (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reporting user blocked for 24 hours. See details below.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  02:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rodchen reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 23:32,  6 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 422689018 by Muboshgu (talk) Trying to reach consensus before changes are implemented.")
 * 2) 00:29,  7 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Reproductive rights */  Restoring sentence in paragraph until consensus reached.")
 * 3) 00:48,  7 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 422781979 by Muboshgu (talk) Controversial issues should be discussed before editing.  If you try to put this in again, I will report you for edit warring.")
 * 4) 01:11,  7 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 422783823 by Muboshgu (talk) I have reported you for war editing.")

Ongoing discussions have taken place at Talk:Barbara_Boxer and Talk:Barbara Boxer. I did not place a 3RR warning for this edit war because it happened so fast I didn't have a chance, but this user has been warned for violating 3RR before on his talk page and in edit summaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor has documented the situation of my reporting of him better than I have. I appreciate that. The editor has continued to fight an editing war with the latest revert. I refuse to participate in an editing war, and welcome an administrators intervention on this matter. Rodchen (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rodchen, take care. You've been warned before of edit warring. You have to take extreme care not to reach such a situation again, as the next block would be longer. Use the talk pages of relevant pages for discussion. You have been reverted by not only the reporting user, but by other well meaning users too in the past. May I suggest an immediate stoppage to your edit warring please? I have your contributions and the relevant pages watched for the next few days. So kindly, do not make this tough on you. Please do feel free to ask me for any help on your talk page (till you are blocked) and later on my talk page.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:X4n6 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result:Another editor blocked for 24 hours along with the reported editor)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Despite three editors contesting the edits on the talk page, User:X4n6 has invoked WP:BRD as a defence for his actions i.e. we shouldn't remove his edits until a "consensus" is reached. I'd pretty much say the consensus is that his edits shouldn't be accepted unless he provides sources that the actor in question is credited in the role. Betty Logan (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

X4n6 has also given at least one editor an erroneous 3rr warnings (Betty reverted ONCE and he gave her a warning) and displayed a general lack of understanding of WP:BRD while continuing to revert war. Millahnna (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Betty Logan disrupted a legitimate BRD request as editors were seeking consensus. Once the opposing editor and myself, after some early disagreement, had already agreed to BRD and were working toward that consensus, and had also already agreed to allow the edit to stand unaltered while we sought further agreement and consensus, Betty Logan felt the need to immediately insert herself, attempt to arbitrarily impose her own will and unilaterally reverted the edit in question. When Betty Logan was asked to respect the BRD, was asked herself to BRD and also asked to refrain from making edits that were disruptive to the consensus process, she attempted to retaliate by posted a 3RR warning on my talk page. Fed up with her unhelpful and ridiculously petty bullying tactics, I placed the same warning on her page and again asked that she seek consensus while refraining from making disruptive edits. I also linked her to WP;DE so she could acquaint or reacquaint herself with the policy. Predictably, Betty Logan felt the need to retaliate once again by filling this pathetic grievance. At this point, I could have very easily filed a retaliatory grievance against Betty Logan myself, but clearly one of us has to be the adult here and her actions clearly indicate that obviously isn't going to be Betty Logan. However, if other admins. would like to explain to this editor how consensus is obtained, what the proper procedures are for respecting a BRD, what the rules are for posting 3RR warnings and what the threshold is for filing complaints in this forum, it would certainly be a useful and much appreciated exercise. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As to Millahnna, I have absolutely no idea what this editor is talking about. What does it mean to say I've "given at least one editor a 3RR warning"? Seems to me, if Millahnna can't even be bothered to get his/her material facts straight regarding his/her own allegations and know exactly how many warnings were alleged to have been given by and to whom, then exactly what does that say about this editor? Additionally, there were no 3RR issues with either of these editors on my part, so there is no substance whatsoever to either of their complaints. But I am now concerned with the very real possibility of WP:SOCK sockpuppetry with these two editors and would very much like that investigated. They both followed each other in rapid succession on the talk page in question, and now they appear to virtually parrot each other here - with about as much coherence. Again, this merits review. If after investigation my concerns prove unfounded, I will retract them. X4n6 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The 3RR warning I was referring to. Millahnna (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yet you didn't originally seem to know how many 3RR warnings I had left or to whom? Nor did you even bother to mention which began all this silliness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by X4n6 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Calling for an sockpuppet investigation of two editors with 10,000+ edits each just because they differ with you on one article isn't a very wise thing to do, X4n6. I would suggest you retract that accusation in good faith. Dayewalker (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't asking for the sockpuppet investigation because two editors disagree with me. I was calling on it because I found the manner in which they work in tandem to be suspect. However, in light of your request, I'll defer, and withdraw it - for now. But I'll reserve the right to renew it at some other point should the circumstances warrant. And would appreciate your monitoring the situation as well. As you can see from the comment below, this clearly isn't going to resolve itself easily with these two editors. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Bignole has been blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly undoing edits; and in my perspective, edit warring. X4n6 will not be blocked; as I believe the reversions are borderline and have been undertaken with some discussions on the talk page. However, even in X4n6's case, a warning has been left formally on the talk page noting the danger or the 3RR mark. Beyond that, I am watching the page. I really would like the editors to appreciate the fact that right now, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, just stop undoing and reverting all over the place. If this continues, apart from more blocks that may occur, the page in itself would get fully protected. So please start discussing on the talk page rather than using the undo button.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I was initially surprised and naturally unhappy with the 3RR warning that you placed on my page, I accept it as your effort to fairly resolve this mess. Likewise, I'm going to request, if I may, that you unblock Bignole. We had a rather contentious start to our editing, which I understand because he has been an active editor on the article in question for some years and I expect will continue to be, and so he perhaps felt a bit proprietary toward my edits. Not policy, but human nature nonetheless. But since I brought that to his attention, he has been much more reasonable and in fact, cooperative toward building consensus. So may I offer his more recent contributions as mitigation for the early responses and request the unblock. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyway you can clarify this outcome for me (feel free to bring to my talk page if it's inappropriate here)? I find it really confusing given the sequence of events and the consensus of the page. X4n6 made a bold edit that was reverted for lacking in reliable sources. He continued to revert while Bignole placed requests for comment on several related project pages and engaged in discussion. I don't understand how the one is edit warring while the other is borderline. Can you help me to understand this for future reference? Millahnna (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems. I'm leaving a discussion on your talk page. Regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the record needs to be clarified. There are amble reliable sources, most of which were deleted by Bignole. That's all reflected in the talk page discussions. Still, that was early on and I'm still requesting the unblock. I think the point has been sufficiently made. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see how User:Bignole has got a block in all of this. From my count he only reverted outright three times.  He removed the IMDB reference a couple of times, but it's established that IMDB is not a reliable source WP:RS/IMDB.  He participated in discussion, he posted an RFC on the Film Project talk page to try and get this resolved, and consensus backed his view that the actor's name shouldn't be added to the infobox, and it found for User:X4n6 that it was acceptable to mention the actor's participation in context.  Bignole never edited against the consensus and I don't see how he violated 3RR.   Betty Logan (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly additional clarification needs to be made here too. IMDB is indeed a reliable source as WP:IMDB clearly states it is acceptable as an external source; the only real complaint relates to biographies there and not credits; and any objectioning view must be treated as the top of the page clearly states: "Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy." X4n6 (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, going through your edits more deeply after Betty's and Millahnna's pointers, I did realize I had made a mistake in counting your reverts. Unfortunately, you are as much on an edit war as Bignole. I have blocked you too for 24 hours and would request you and Bignole both to stop reverting and undoing each other's edits from this point. The consensus displayed on the talk page of the article is of prime importance; at the same time, the 3RR cannot and should not be broken. If there is any clarification you need, feel free to leave the same on your talk page; I will be watching the same. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  07:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:RolandR reported by User:Tzu Zha Men (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: "Undid revision 422825247 by AFolkSingersBeard (talk)Your view that his self-definition is "bizarre" is quite irrelevant"
 * 2nd revert: "Undid revision 422836478 by AFolkSingersBeard (talk"
 * 3rd revert: "Undid revision 422843591 by AFolkSingersBeard (talk)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is subject to a 1RR restriction, per WP:ARBPIA, so even discounting the obvious gaming of 3RR by making exactly 3 reverts, there is a clear violation of the restriction. This user has been blocked for edit warring numerous times, and is obviously aware of the rules, per his report, right above. Both editors need to be blocked.


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:AFolkSingersBeard reported by User:RolandR (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

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

Comments:

This user has already been blocked twice this week for disruptive editing. He has been repeatedly warned about edit-warring on other articles, , , , though not on this article. Most of these warnings have been deleted from the user's talk page. RolandR (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What unmitigated nonsense. This is a clear a case of "gaming the system" as you will find. First of all, Rolandr has been HOUNDING ALL MY EDITS across Wikipedia ever since I joined - I must have distressed him somehow. He reverts precisely 3 times, and then magically, someone reverts FOR HIM a 4th time, so he doesn't breach. He has simply REFUSED to engage in the article's Talk Page, provide sources, contribute at the RfC, etc. The 4th Diff he has supplied there is not a revert, but a third editor removed the reference to nationality altogether, which I naturally re-inserted in line with the reliable sources I have presented (BBC, Reuters, Haaretz, Guardian). And I have only removed ONE ITEM from my Talk page - a ludicrous Edit War warning FROM ROLANDR, based on a revert war that Rolandr began! AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would please ask that any admin please look at Rolandr's recent Contributions to see the pattern of harassment: between 09:08am and 11:50am today, he has reverted me 7 times across 2 articles, without once bothering to engage on the Talk page. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this is a clear violation, but it is equally clear that the reporter is himself guilty of edit warring, and of violating the 1RR restriction on this article, see my report below. Both editors need to be blocked. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For users that are reading this that may not be aware of this policy, I would just like to clarify removal of warnings from a user's own talk page. As per WP:REMOVED, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so."  With some exceptions (blocking notices, deletion tags, etc.). - SudoGhost (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

IP 70.130.144.54 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24h block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Strange edit war: some parts of the IP's edits appear to be a good-faith content dispute (though probably misguided), but some parts of it, especially the apparently random copying of some out-of-context content of an entirely unrelated disambiguation page (probably some old version of Macedonia) is inexplicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

non stop edit war, IP is moaning on my talk page and calling other users Macedonian liars -- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  11:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can not be reached with a blind reverts. Jingby (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Minima ©  ( talk ) 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice that he's discussing his edits, but he's still reverting during the discussion. Not much question here.  Kuru   (talk)  14:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Andrewedwardjudd reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Also warned in edit summary here: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Voluminous extensive discussion followed. See Fractional reserve banking talk page.

Comments:

Andrewedwardjudd also edit warred last week, he was warned but was not reported at that time. See:     


 * Edit warring continues. Andrewedwardjudd has just re-inserted one of the disputed quotes, but into a different section of the article.

LK (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And LK, your recent self-revert is the only reason I didn't block you too. I ask that you take a 24-hour break voluntarily. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Monte Melkonian reported by User:JohnInDC (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:

Comments:

Review of the article Talk page discussion will show that the editor does not appear to address the issues at hand, introduces collateral matters, and was editing against an incomplete, but emerging, consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, efforts to resolve the issue at the editor's Talk page are here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The first "revert" given above is not actually a revert; however, this is, in that it once again removed McClellan's name, and reintroduced the phrase "said nice things about him.".  Editor additionally warned of sanctions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:JohnInDC reported by Monte Melkonian (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Have offered solutions but rebuffed with dismissive attitude


 * Malformed report; I suppose you were trying to report JohnInDC but he didn't violate 3RR regardless. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

== User:BackHo reported by Regards, MacMedtalk stalk (Result: Protected for 24 hours) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:49,  7 April 2011  (edit summary: "Updated information")
 * 2) 22:56,  8 April 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted Vandalism")
 * 3) 00:11,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "reverted trolling")
 * 4) 00:11,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Corrected staff information")
 * 5) 00:15,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "rv unsourced content")
 * 6) 00:18,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "RV unsourced content")
 * 7) 00:20,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "rv edits of Seaphto, vandalism")
 * 8) 00:21,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "The website is wrong")
 * 9) 00:22,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "rv wrong information")
 * 10) 00:23,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "rv vandalism")
 * 11) 00:23,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104122 by Seaphoto (talk)")
 * 12) 00:24,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104204 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
 * 13) 00:25,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104307 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
 * 14) 00:26,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104363 by Tbhotch (talk)")
 * 15) 00:27,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "u mad bro?")
 * 16) 00:27,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104602 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
 * 17) 00:28,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104701 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
 * 18) 00:29,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104777 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
 * 19) 00:29,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104842 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
 * 20) 00:30,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104902 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
 * 21) 00:31,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104975 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
 * 22) 00:31,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423105020 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
 * 23) 00:37,  9 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 423105397 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Regards, MacMed<sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * by DragonflySixtyseven Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 01:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * by Diannaa Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 01:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by User:94.168.210.8 (Result: no violation/protected)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxconn&oldid=422883109#Missing_iPhone_death

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


 * 1st revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxconn&diff=422886867&oldid=422883109
 * 2nd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxconn&diff=423020422&oldid=422985704
 * 3rd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxconn&diff=423127593&oldid=423127165
 * 4th revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxconn&diff=423131166&oldid=423131031

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxconn&action=history

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Foxconn/Archives/2014#Missing_iPhone_death.2C_edit_warring

Comments: The user fleetham keeps reverting my edit regarding the Foxconn worker "suicide" the citation clearly states that the suicide was an assertion of Foxconn and makes it clear that this isn't nesseserily what happened, all I added in my edit is "Foxconn claims" to the beggining of the sentence, on the subject so it is more accurate. Without it the paragraph reads as fact when there is conjecture over the subject. the user has failed to enter into any disscussion on the subject after several attmpts on my end. Thats it really if somone could look into it, it would really help. i also have a suspission that this user is infact a bot as he is not engaging in disscussion at all on this subject and has never replied to anyone on his user talk page 94.168.210.8 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * He recently did the same at Lanix. I was trying to improve this article and at the end (after many reverts to me and an IP) he restored his preferred version, with some links I provided BTW. Check Lanix page history (1 2, 3 4, etc), and his recent 100 edits, this user edit-war the most of time, especially not giving summaries. Something have to be done. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 05:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to Foxconn: With respect to Lanix: . Work it out on the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rajkris reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: R and K blocked 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

...(for reverts 5-13, please see the edit history at ...
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 14th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not actually my dispute--neither editor in this war has discussed the issue, outside of edit summaries and warnings on each other's talk page.

Comments: Now, obviously, if one person is at 14 reverts, the other is at that or about the same number. The reason I'm only recommending User:Rajkris be blocked, and not the other editor (User:Konguboy), is that Konguboy is a relatively new editor (only 130-ish edits so far), and, as far as I can tell has not been informed of the edit-warring/3RR rule until I did in this edit. Rajkris, however, has been given a final warning for edit warring before on another article (back in Nov 2010), and, more importantly, reverted again after receiving the final warning from me now. Hmm...though, as I went back to pull diffs, I see that Konguboy just made a personal attack on Rajkris in this edit, so maybe they need a time out two. I have asked for full protection on the article, as well. In full disclosure, Rajkris claims that the Konguboy's edits are vandalism because xyr source doesn't support what xe claims it does, but that sounds like a content dispute to me, and Rajkris has been previously warned by me and others that vandalism is not just an edit you disagree with.


 * Followup Alright, Konguboy has reverted since getting the warning from me, so please block xyr, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just given references from responsible sources. Rajkris talk page is full of wikiwar blood. Is this fair to block me?!!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konguboy (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. Rajkris' edits are not clearly blatant vandalism; by continuing to revert his edits, you and he are guilty of the same violation of the edit warring rules. In a situation like this, it's best to take the high road, remain civil, and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Continuous reverting and potshots at the other user's user page are uncalled for. Unless you can acknowledge that, it will be necessary to block you to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit of Rajkris's user page by Konguboy replaces it with 'BEWARE OF THIS WIKI WAR LORD'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted edits from Konguboy because the very few refs he has given do not support at all what he wrote. Nowhere in his refs there are mentions of the Aristocratic, Kshatriya origins of the Kongu Vellalar and Chozia Vellalar, on the contrary they are called cultivators... It is the same for other castes he mentionned such as the Muthuraja... It is not at all normal to write such things without giving proper, clear refs. Since a few days, some IPs and user Konguboy are trying to add fake things on this page and I'm trying hard to maintain this page. Since last friday night, I engaged a discussion on this issue in the talk page and gave proper refs which support my action and for the moment no one is able to counter my arguments. I just want someone protect this page (on the initial version) and need a 3rd neutral opinion on it.Rajkris (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Rajkris and Konguboy are each blocked 24 hours. R. continued to revert even while this report was open. K. vandalized a user page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:84.126.221.34 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

The article is under a community imposed 1RR restriction yet the IP editor persists in edit warring to include incidents that are not even sourced as being committed by the Real IRA. Reverting IP editors is exempt from the 1RR restriction, for the record. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three months. This article seems to be the target of single-purpose IPs who may be socks. No IP who has changed the article in 2011 has left an edit summary, used the talk page or added a source. This Timeline is a list of attacks that are believed to be the work of a group called the Real IRA. In this kind of a list it is reasonable that the entries should be sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jprw reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Version restored (addition of POV tag) March 9
 * Version restored (removal from lead of "unpaid") Feb 27


 * 1st revert 09:51 April 8: restored POV tag
 * 2nd revert 17:18 April 8: removed from the lead "he took up an unpaid appointment ..."
 * 3rd revert 18:16 April 8: removed from the lead "In January 2010 he became a visiting professor (unpaid) at the University of Oxford to teach graduate classes on aesthetics ..."
 * 4th revert 05:00 April 9: removed from the lead "In 2010 he was awarded an unpaid visiting professorship at the University of Oxford."

I would appreciate help in dealing with a long-term reverting problem at Roger Scruton. Jprw is an admirer of Scruton's, and has been engaged in serial reverting at the article for about eight months, mostly removing well-sourced criticism, or adding the POV tag. The reverting isn't taking place while he adds other content: reverting is almost the only thing he does there, and it is halting article development. He was blocked three times for 3RR in 2010 —the second time in Sept for 72 hours for 3RR at this article, then for five days for 3RR at this article and block evasion. But it continues.
 * Comments

One of the issues is that Scruton has not worked much in academia for 20 years; he was a lecturer and professor in philosophy at Birkbeck College, London, for a long time, but left in 1992. Since then, he's mostly worked as a freelance writer and consultant to companies, topped up with some television work; a few part-time minor fellowships in the States; an unpaid visiting professorship giving graduate seminars at Oxford; and a quarter-time research position at St Andrews. But Jprw is determined to present him as a current, major academic, and keeps removing that his position at Oxford is an unpaid one—something that Scruton himself stresses; see here. Now Jprw has removed entirely the details of Scruton's positions from the lead, wanting to say instead (see his recent edit) that Scruton has been lecturing for 40 years, which is false; giving graduate seminars doesn't make a person a university lecturer. I mean no disrespect by that; it's just a fact. Examples of the reverting:


 * Removing that Scruton's appointment at Oxford is unpaid: April 9, April 8, April 8, Feb 27, Dec 10, Dec 4, Nov 3, Sept 24.


 * Addition of POV tag: April 8, March 9, March 1, Dec 10 Sept 16, Sept 10 Sept 10 (the latter two as 95.27.94.16).


 * Removing details of Scruton's consultancy contract with a tobacco company: Dec 4, Dec 4, Oct 12, Oct 12, Sept 8, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 5, Sept 5, Sept 4, Aug 28.

The reverting has been accompanied by personal attacks (only one of the following is recent)     and restoring personal attacks posted by a banned anon. Other editors are subjected to the same approach, e.g.

Any help would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a tissue of distortion, deceit, and exaggeration from an individual who it appears simply cannot stand being disagreed with. One example: One of the issues is that Scruton has not worked much in academia for 20 years Well, I have said that I have put forward a general sample wording to summarise his career as a lecturer (before there was a tedious, long-winded and inappropriate list of establishments he he had taught at in the lead). I'm quite happy for the wording to be changed so that it reflects accurately the new sub-section I created to cover his career as a lecturer. All my other claims regarding neutrality I set out on the discussion page. The editor called SlimVirgin did not respond to these for a lengthy period, quite possibly the reason for this was that my concerns exposed a clear agenda on this editor's part to cast Scruton in a bad light, suppress his achievements, and allot huge coverage to issues that have nothing to do with why he has a WP article in the first place. I have in the past witnessed first hand her dishonest methods; so I am not entirely surprised to see her now hysterically scurrying to Admin with an erroneous/deceitful list of charges, simply because I have continued to disagree with her and consistently point out her POV pushing on the Roger Scruton page. In addition, the 3RR accusation also appears to be bogus as I have reinstated that material only once. Jprw (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of content arguments here from both SV and Jprw. This board is not going to take a position on content. Nonetheless the abusive language from Jprw might be a factor in how this report gets closed. Jprw made a comment at "Response to unhinged leftist" stating that SlimVirgin is a 'quite seriously unbalanced individual.' Jprw was blocked 72 hours for edit warring on the same article per this Sep 2010 report at AN3. That block was later extended for evasion. Jprw has also made three reverts on April 8 at Melanie Phillips. Can either party say whether they have tried any dispute resolution, such as an WP:RFC, or tried to get comments on the content questions from others? EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ed, I offered to work with Jprw in November last year (see here) to improve the article, in terms of building up a description of Scruton's philosophy. I have a background in philosophy, including postgraduate studies, so I'd be happy to do that. But he declined. The personal attacks since then have been so serious that I wouldn't want to do it anymore. I offered you only a sample of them above. Any attempt I make to involve others—e.g. at RfC, or by taking the issue to the BLP board—will trigger more attacks.


 * Other editors were involved in a discussion last year about Scruton's tobacco consultancy; see BLP noticeboard here. Jprw just ignored their views and continued reverting anyway, and still wants the POV tag on the article in part because of that material; see here for the section of the article about that.


 * The issue I would like to see end is the constant reverting of well-sourced material and attempts to fix the writing. If material about Scruton's philosophical ideas is to be added, it will have to follow the academic sources, but Jprw will simply revert anything he doesn't like, no matter how accurate it is, so article development has stopped. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 19:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we need to discuss the content dispute, although it is clear that its resolution would benefit from the input of others. The evidence is pretty clear that Jprw has engaged in sustained edit-warring and severe personal attacks; their contribution to this thread and reflect particularly bad form. I am blocking Jprw for a week for edit-warring and personal attacks, and suggest that the next block be of indefinite duration.   Sandstein   21:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:122.151.252.213 reported by User:Tintor2 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

When I was trying to clean up the article Gintoki Sakata, the user just started making reverts to all of my edits as well as his own edits without reasons. I left a message on his talk page, but I noted that was previously blocked for the same reasons.Tintor2 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Total lack of communication, contribs are practically only undos, already blocked 48h for similar warring in March.  Sandstein   21:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Tomballguy reported by User:Trasie123 (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

User Tomballguy is engaged in both original research and edit warring on the 2009–2011 Toyota vehicle recalls page. His first edit to the article took place on February 22, where Tomballguy adds the term "pedalgate" using bold font to the article's heading. He then adds List of scandals with "-gate" suffix to the page's see also section.

Using google one easily finds the term "pedalgate" has not been associated with this Toyota recall by the mainstream media. 

I reverted his edit here:. Tomballguy reverts my edit without explanation. Another editor requests a citation,. Tomballguy adds two citations:. One is from The Truth About Cars (first result to appear on google) which is a minor automobile website/blog and the other some random blog at blogspot.com referred through using google.

I reverted his edit, Tomballguy continues to revert without explanation , adding the same two citations as before. He immediately changes the second blogspot.com citation to yet another irrelevant source. 

I'm bringing this to administrator attention as I've noticed this editor makes other questionable drive-by style edits to pages, such as this one. Trasie123 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:FCTS 142 (Result: no vio)
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: see above. And there's | my own talk page.

Comments:

An IP made a comment/question that Gorlitz found inappropriate. I'd say it was just a newbie making a good faith error, but okay. Instead of explaining the error, Gorlitz simply deleted the IP's message. The IP restored it, he deleted it again. I found that rude and pointless, so I restored the IP's message and added an explanation for the IP that an article talk page wasn't really the place for this. Don't bite the newbies, right? Gorlitz deleted the IP's message AND mine. And when I restored it in an attempt to expand it and explain my reasoning, there was an edit conflict because Gorlitz had already deleted the message I was working on again. And what he accuses the Greek IP of (making up Dutch words) isn't even right, I added a ref to show that. I left a message on his Talk page about all this but he just deleted that too. A discussion on my Talk page went nowhere either. I give up. FCTS 142 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Noticed that compared to other reports mine looks pretty messy. Sorry about that, had some trouble with the form. FCTS 142 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC) )
 * Never mind that bit. Links fixed. FCTS 142 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, talk pages aren't for general discussion about the topic. That said, the one place both of you should avoid edit warring is on a talk page. -- slakr \ talk / 03:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:69.142.243.63 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is the version before the edit warring began, though this is two weeks before the present as 3RR had not come into play at the time. I'm assuming the 24-hour limit doesn't "end" at the turn of day, as these span a few hours either side of midnight but are very close together in 'real time'.


 * 1st revert: 20:01, 10th April
 * 2nd revert: 22:12, 10th April
 * 3rd revert: 01:34, 11th April
 * 4th revert: 02:34, 11th April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor has been making these same edits for a number of days now, approaching a fortnight. Both MOS for infoboxes, and consensus reached on the article's talk page, indicate that the starring cast in the infobox be kept to a minimum. Instead of agreeing to, or even addressing, these concerns, the editor has thrown up constant strawman arguments by pointing out other articles which fail to meet the MOS standard. User has already been warned by another editor over this same matter almost a week ago and has only increased activity from then. GRAPPLE  X  03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 04:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Punya6666 reported by User:Indian Chronicles (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

User: Punya6666 has been continuously edit warring on pager of Vinayak Damador Savarkar. He is indulging in edit warring, introducing POV’s and unsubstantiated information and making personal attacks on me on the talk page of the article. Previous version reverted to: This is the preferred link that I am trying to save.


 * 1st revert: 00:44, 3 April 2011
 * 2nd revert: 05:10, 5 April 2011
 * 3rd revert: 05:06, 7 April 2011
 * 4th revert: 04:22, 9 April 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user had previously been warned by me on his talk page for edit warring on the same article. and warned him on the talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He has also indulged in personal attacks against me doubting whether I am on Indian and Comments: This page is often vandalized by Right wingers who want to push their Hindutva agenda and extreme POV. It needs to be semi protected permanently so that only established users can edit objectively.

Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC) --


 * (1)As far as I know the 3R rule applies to edits done within 24 hours, Punya6666's edits are spaced over a few days. (2)Punya6666 is a new user who doesnot know how Wikirules well, so when the action is taken against him please consider his newness. (3)Edit warring cuts both ways, please take the content dispute issue and other wiki rules before arriving at decisionYogesh Khandke (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well he was warned. He persisted with his POV and refused to reply to me on discussion page. Furthermore, he may not have reverted within 24 hrs, but his overall pattern is disruptive. I am not asking to ban or block him. I am asking for article protection and a warning to Punya6666 to discuss first.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The closing administrator is requested to appreciate the situation that Punya6666 doesn't even have his user page, imo opportunities for dispute resolution on the talk page have not been exhausted.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having or not having a user page has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the blank userpage to get the point across that he is a new editor.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No formal 3RR warning so far, nothing else to do here.  Sandstein   21:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

85.162.27.170 reported by Severino (Result: Rangeblocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The different IPs obviously all lead to the same user. I have reported his behaviour already on the incidents noticeboard before i noticed that this one here is more proper. His edits seem to violate Designated terrorist organizations ,Manual of Style (words to watch) and maybe other rules.--Severino (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 85.162.0.0/16 rangeblocked 1 week. This appears to be blocked user . <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 00:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

it seems that this user continues his work with a different IP .--Severino (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * has been blocked one year as an open proxy, per web reports that it has been serving as a proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * seems that he moves to new proxys: ,--Severino (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe semi-protecting Church Street bombing, Joe Slovo, Umkhonto we Sizwe and Chris Hani is the only way to deal with this. They don't seem to understand WP:NPOV at all and it doesn't look like they are going to stop. I had hoped my saying "2 proper academic sources "The birth of a new South Africa" and "South Africa: A Modern History" don't call it a terrorist attack. they call it bomb blast/attack. do you see ? that's why we can't say "terrorist"in wikipedia's narrative voice" at Joe Slovo would explain where they are going wrong but the revert response "No. It is unacceptable to call terrorist attacks "activities". It was a terrorist attack carried out by terrorist organization (MK)." shows they just don't get it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * especially this IP seems to have a long "history".--Severino (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and now Oliver Tambo...there's probably more to come. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've semiprotected five of the articles mentioned above. Any more open proxies should be taken to WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also been keeping an eye on the pages, although Severino always seems to be a few seconds ahead of me in reverting. ;) - SudoGhost (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:AlecTeal93 and User:TheRingess reported by User:Cuddlyable3 (Result: Declined for now)
Page:

Users being reported: and

On-going edit war at Mandelbrot set between User:AlecTeal93 and User:TheRingess. WP:3RR is broken by both. A note I posted at User talk:AlecTeal93. Neither party has brought their dispute to the article talk page. I have posted to both encouraging them to do so. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For now. There doesn't appear to be any disruption since AlecTeal93 was warned, but I'll monitor that article.
 * AlecTeal93 seems to be unaware of the WP:NOR policy; so I left a note on the user's talk page accordingly. Looks like TheRingess was simply reverting original research. I'd cut some slack in 3RR for that, it's just a step away from reverting vandalism. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Antiviral reported by User:Eraserhead1 (Result: indef)
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:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraserhead1 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked as a sock of . <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 00:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dlabtot reported by User:Tzu Zha Men (Result: Notified under ARBPIA)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

The article is subject to 1RR - per this diff:, and a clear warning about this is both on the Talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Per the prominent notice on the Talk page, "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."
 * In other words, there was no warning and that's why there is no diff. Dlabtot (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

User has been blocked twice before for edit warring Tzu Zha Men (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply:

Mea Culpa. I did not visit the talk page and was unaware of the 1RR. I would implore you, however, to look at the substance of the edits as well. Also, it should be noted that one of my prior blocks was a 'bad block' as was acknowledged by the blocking admin. The other involved restoring my own comments to a talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Dlabtot (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: I have notified Dlabtot of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. He undid his last revert at Human shield. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What seems to be the problem with the well sourced piece? Please do explain what is wrong with it? It is the truth, it happened, it is well documented and reported around the world in reliable sources. I put the piece there in the first place with the sources. So what is the problem?Owain the 1st (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really the issue here; here it is more about the process and the 1RR restriction. But I plan on continuing to press the points you mention on the talk page, in an RfC if necessary, et cetera. But not tonight I'm too tired. Dlabtot (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:62.178.177.37 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

This is how it looked like when I added for the first time in the campaignbox that a Hind was shot down. Later on I added one more source for confirmation that it was a Hind above the city and one more source that it was a russian-made shot down and only one sent in the previous two days.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: At this point I added the source with the picture
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: At this point I added one more source
 * 6th revert:

Comments: During the battle, numereous reporters stated that they saw a rebel Hind attack helicopter over the city. Source that it was a Hind (with picture):. Later during the day, rebel fighters said that a rebel helicopter had been shot down during the battle, also they confirmed it was a Russian-built helicopter they sent in the previous two days (time when the Hind was seen). Point is - Rebels confirmed they sent one helicopter into battle and they lost it, and news reporters confirmed that they saw a Hind. However, this anonymous user is resisting mixing two sources - one source confirms a rebel helicopter was lost (and was the only one sent that day) the second source confirms a rebel Hind was seen over the city. The anonymous user has made over 3 cancelations of my edit and the article should at least be protected from editing by anonymous users for a period of time or his account should be blocked for a period of time until he cools down.

Would like to point out that the editor in question broke Wikipedia's rule on civility by making derogatory comments (calling me stupid). Source for this here. EkoGraf (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you basically stated everything important above. I edited it because you were making an edit, that was not enough sourced. You took two sources, the first reports a downed Helicopter; the second shows a Picture of a Hind above the city, but does not mention that it was shot down (its a constantly updated blog, and as of now there is still no report of a downed Hind). Also, please show me source that states that the Hind was the only Helicopter in the air that day. Not one of your sources claim it was certainly the only one. So, all your edits on this topic were not sourced information, they were your conclusions. Its as simple as that.

Then I proposed the following: Instead of writing, "1 Hind attack helicopter shot down", we could write "1 attack helicopter, likely a Hind shot down". EkoGraf agreed to this, then changed it all of a sudden. His Argument? He cited another source (as he mentioned above), that clearly states "a Russian-made helicopter was shot down". Well, Mi-2s are Russian-made too and can be used as gunships. So this "new" source was nothing new at all. I edited the page again, because he broke the agreement and failed yet again to provide a credible source that states that a Mil Mi-24 (aka Hind) was shot down.

On a side note, he also wrote that a Algerian "migrant worker" was executed by the rebels. But according to his own source (the Independent webpage) it was "quiet likely" a migrant worker. So (again!) he is trying to bring biased (as you can see in almost all his edits, he is clearly pro-Gaddafi) or false information in the article. Its also quite hard to talk to EkoGraf, because he doesnt seem to understand the concept of sourced information.

Fazit: I do apologize for calling EkoGraf stupid. That was against the rules and I admit that. He is, however, completely unwilling to cooperate with others (see the talkpage), in fact, he was the one that violated the rules by writing unsourced information in the article in two different cases. I would recommend that somebody explains the terms "verifiable" and "sourced" to EkoGraf. Regards 62.178.177.37 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: You're even starting your comments with a lie: There was one picture of a Hind, not "numereous reporters". Jeez...62.178.177.37 (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet you still continue with the insults. I myself am not pro-Gaddafi, I am simply editing the facts and trying to be neutral. Nothing biased or pro-Gaddafi in my edits, everything I have edited was from a neutral stand point. Calling me pro-Gaddafi simply because you don't like some things that are happening in reality on the ground over there shows you are more non-neutral than I am. Simply by calling me pro-Gaddafi and getting upset over it shows you are non-neutral. All of my edits are properly sourced, unlike you who have removed sourced information. Yes I agreed to your proposal, however a new source surfaced and a proper edit was needed. Also, about the migrant worker, the reporter in that source used the term quite likely because he was contradicting a few rebels claims that he was a mercenary. Nobody is innocent in a war, all sides are guilty. And in this war both loyalists and rebels have done certain things. However, once again, the main point is - Rebels confirmed they sent one helicopter into battle and they lost it, and news reporters confirmed that they saw a Hind. '''But, everything you have been saying 62.178.., is not the issue here. The issue is you violated the 3RR rule and plus insulted another editor. Those are the facts. Period.''' And if you cann't keep a neutral stand point and get all emotional and start calling editors stupid or maybe something worse than you have no buisness editing on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right place for a discussion. Your information was verly poorly or not sourced, as anybody can see. Check the 3RR site. Reverting poorly or not sourced information is not a violation of the rule. Fact. And your last sentence is pretty much a threat. I'd like to add that you have falsely accused me of vandalism before. 62.178.177.37 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 24 hours. A shorter defense might have been more persuasive. EkoGraf should tone down the bolding in his comments; this is not the end of the world as we know it. IPs with no history should be cautious about editing hotly contested articles; this pushes the limits of the IP role. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you getting too emotional and twisting the facts. My last sentance was not a threat at all, at the very least it was advice. Can someone tell me what did I threaten him with in my sentance? Also, I did not accuse you of vandalism. I told you that you removing sourced information can be regarded/seen/constitute as vandalism. And it may be poorly sourced in your eyes, but my edits were properly sourced and were in no moment without a source so that one of those citation needed tags were needed. But, like you said, this is no place for this discussion. What this place is for is for the fact that you violated the 3RR rule, insulted another editor and removed sources. And that's something that can not be disregarded here on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:24.1.69.247 reported by User:Rndomuser (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This user has been warned multiple times, but seems to ignore/not respond to anything. Temporary semi-protection of the article (requested by me) didn't deter his/her deliberate destructive actions.
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. See a complaint at ANI about an IP repeatedly adding an unsourced item about light leakage in the iPad2. The choice was between semiprotecting for a bit or issuing a long enough block to the IP. No IP who has added any new content since 1 April has participated on the article's talk page. The inconvenience to the IPs is necessary to stop the problem of unsourced material being re-added constantly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Danjel reported by User:110.174.23.139 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I have asked user Danger(Moderator?) to assist. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As a sign of good faith for someone who clearly doesn't understand, I've tried to fix up some of the above for "110.174.23.139".


 * <blockquote style="border: 1px dashed #CCCCCC; color: #000000; background-color: #EEEEEE;">Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR...


 * On other issues, the IP reporting this is a highly WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. I have repeatedly tried to involve him/her in improving the article at hand, but s/he steadfastly holds to the content that he prefers. S/he engages in abuse and ad hominem, visible on the talk page. S/he has previously had issues with WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:NPA at this article. Quite clearly, s/he has an axe to grind in regards to the centre and acts tendentiously towards the article.


 * The content that s/he is trying to insert has problems with its wording and this has been pointed out. Further, I would argue that it's not noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion on the article, as it has no bearing to the operation of the centre, merely to the financial solvency of the corporation running the centre (but we haven't even got to that point yet). - danjel  (talk to me) 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Any previous lack of NPOV has been resolved with the assistance of more experienced editors. The information I am adding is not emotive and reflects informative content. The user danjel insists on removing my edits without any discussion. user danjel removes Bold content without discussion. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That you engage in personal attacks to some degree in almost every single one of your contributions ([], [] and []) to the talk page suggest that you are being emotive here.


 * I assume that you're saying the word "Bold" here in reference to WP:BOLD. Well... The process is (1) be bold and add content, which you did; (2) the content is reverted, which I did, with reasons given; (3) DISCUSSION. We're at the discussion phase at the moment, and you haven't taken into account my criticisms of your tendentious actions there and that I have a problem with the wording of your content. - danjel  (talk to me) 08:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. My edit is concise, has a NPOV, is relevant and has a cited reference. You have made no mention in the discusssion of exactly what bothers you with the wording - Receivers called in as Top Ryde Shopping Centre runs up $700m debt six months after opening. You only say it is not neutral or lacks relevence but you do not give any reasons to support you contention. In any case this not an appropriate place for extended discussion you could have easily chosen to talk on the article discussion page. I am making this report because I believe you are edit warring. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit is concise to the point of being pointless for inclusion. A citation does not make it a good edit, see WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTNEWS.


 * Your insistence on your edit the way you want it is evidence of acting tendentiously, several of your edits include personal attacks and your reversions go unaccompanied by collaboration. That's the definition of edit warring.


 * But you're absolutely right. This isn't the place for extended discussion. So, unless there are questions from anyone else... - danjel  (talk to me) 09:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ~Amatulić (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:110.174.23.139 reported by User:Danjel (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (this time adding just the article heading???)
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Top_Ryde_City with involvement by myself and User:Worm That Turned

Comments:

The IP has previously been blocked for edit warring at this same article. This latest attempt, together with the ad hominem against me throughout the talk page shows that s/he is editting from a POV and WP:TENDENTIOUSly adding content to the article that presents Top Ryde City in a negative light.

See also the report against me made above. - danjel  (talk to me) 11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Lisa reported by User:RolandR (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Per WP:ARBPIA, this article is subject to a 1RR restriction.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]Unnecessary; user has already been warned about the 1RR restriction, and the article's edit page has a lerge header reminding editors of this restriction.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The diff of the "attempt to resolve dispute" (which is nothing of the sort) is after RolandR himself reverted my edit. Note, please, that the first diff which RolandR claims to have been a revert is nothing of the sort, but merely an edit. RolandR himself is violating WP:NPOV by insisting on using "Arab citizens of Israel" to describe people who describe themselves (in direct quotes cited within the section in question) as Israeli Arabs. RolandR claims that this is a NPOV descriptor, which is clearly not the case. I would like to request that RolandR, and not I, be cautioned for edit warring. A look at his posting history will reveal a long standing bias. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My editing of this article cannot possibly be considered edit-warring. I mmade an original edit, introducing new material, at 10.14 on 11 April, and reverted to that once, at 15.51 on 12 April. Meanwhile, Lisa reverted twice within two hours, at 14.50 and 16.48 on 12 April. Nor is it true that I discussed this on the talk page only after I reverted Lisa's revert. In fact, my talk comment was at 15.47, before my revert. The rest of Lisa's comments above are not relevant to this report. RolandR (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I find Lisa's claim that the first revert reported is "merely an edit" to be without merit. That particular heading had already been going back and forth between two different versions over the prior day, the last being just 3 edits prior to Lisa's first reported revert. Lisa's first reported revert was indeed a revert. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:98.113.152.93 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result:48h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 14:47 10 Apr 2011: ''User is warned about unconstructive edits on Check (chess): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.113.152.93&oldid=423342818
 * 5:21 11 Apr 2011: 
 * 1st revert: 5:32 11 Apr 2011
 * 2nd revert: 4:52 12 Apr 2011
 * 3rd revert: 5:12 12 Apr 2011
 * 5:13 12 Apr 2011: 
 * 5:59 12 Apr 2011: ''
 * 4th revert: 8:18 12 Apr 2011
 * 8:32 12 Apr 2011: ''
 * 8:55 12 Apr 2011: 

Comments:

The same sort of warring involving the same players has been going on over at Castling.

So, basically, what we have in the Tempo article is: It seems that the obvious thing, then, is to leave the article the way it is. However, according to User:98.113.152.93's pattern, he is active from about 4:00 server time to about 10:00 server time. I am concerned that tomorrow we'll have another repeat.
 * Two or more editors (Bubba73 and Quale) who have had a consensus on the article since 12 Dec 2010
 * An IP address editor (98.113.152.93) who keeps introducing material against consensus
 * Another editor (212.68.15.66) who came by, saw the brouhaha, and made another revert
 * A fourth editor (Jsharpminor) who came by, saw the brouhaha, and templated three people for excessive reversion and 3RR,
 * An article that now stands correct by consensus.

In my unprofessional opinion, a simple look at User talk:98.113.152.93 merits at least a short block for
 * violating consensus,
 * edit warring,
 * introducing factual errors against the warnings of others, and
 * name-calling and other aggressive behaviour.

''I chose to stay completely out of this edit war. The only contributions you'll find from me are on usertalk pages and the Tempo article's talk page.''

Jsharpminor (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

by JamesBWatson -- Jsharpminor (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Miacek reported by User:Hilderich (Result: filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilderich (talk • contribs)

Check this thread. It's yet another sock puppet of the troll Dodo19, who has been stalking me for months, always here with the sole aim of causing disruption. Note that reverting vandalism (I removed deliberate factual errors, introduced by this sock puppeteer's account) is not covered by 3RR. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What vandalism?--Hilderich (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked by as a sock of . <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>   ( Talk ) 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Sugar-Baby-Love and User:70.90.34.77 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Edit war currenlty ongoing.

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&action=historysubmit&diff=423747954&oldid=423747368
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=prev&oldid=423746386
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=prev&oldid=423744974
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=prev&oldid=423743667

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

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

Comments:

Diffs of the IP: Both have been properly warned and continued reverting. Sugar-Baby-Love claims it is clear vandalism and exempt from 3RR, does not seem clear to me. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th diff to establish that both are in violation

Diffs of warnings:

Sugar-Baby-Love —

70.90.34.77 —

Added diffs of warnings. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Saying "Both have been properly warned and continued reverting" is not correct. My concern was to bring in administrator attention to this vandal when I realized when he or she would not just give up, and now that administrators have their eagle eye on him I made it clear that I'm giving up on the page (and not editing there further). I'm not interested in editing it! I just detest vandalism. Anyways, good luck catching all of his or her socks! Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to re-read WP:VANDAL. The edits you were reverting would not qualify.   Will Beback    talk    22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Turning "political journalism" into "yellow journalism" (unsourced) is as clear as turning "concert pianist" into "concert penis". It's textbook vandalism. Not to mention the addition of (again unsourced) commentary about the websites content being paid by neo-cons who have Jewish paranoia.
 * Also, claiming that you are Wikipedia editing for pay is totally unacceptable vandalism.
 * Besides, how on earth can someone use so many Wikipedia editing accounts without censure? Vandal behavior to a T. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to pile on things, but "Edit war currenlty ongoing" is also incorrect (as well as misspelled). Now that administrators can deep six the socks there's no further conflict on the substance. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you re-read WP:VANDAL?   Will Beback    talk    22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Turning "political journalism" into "yellow journalism" (like turning "concert pianist" into "concert penis") seems pretty darn clear as vandalism. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you avoid using "vandalism reverting" as an excuse for going over the 3RR limit in the future because you do not appear to understand the Wikipedia definition of the term. Please note the following: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Upon their discovery, revert clearly vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings, and administrators should intervene to protect content and prevent further disruption by blocking such users from editing. When warranted, accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked even without warning."   Will Beback    talk    23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than edit warring, if you think there's repetitive vandalism then please report it to Administrator intervention against vandalism.


 * Erm, why do you quote policies to me that I was following (and understand clearly well)? Vandalism is not edit warring over content. Vandalism is turning "political journalism" into "yellow journalism" (unsourced) or turning "concert pianist" into "concert penis". Such obvious vandalism is not subject to the 3RR rule. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I blocked the IP for this edit warring, but also because it had bled over into sockpuppetry a bit. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * by Dabomb87. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 06:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The block failed. The same editor is averting the block by editing using an alternative account, this one. See this edit. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:128.135.96.216 reported by User:RaseaC (Result: blocked, semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uday_Hussein&oldid=421446781


 * 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:

User appears to be using multiple IPs: 128.135.96.216, 99.23.145.55, 128.135.96.51


 * Article semi-protected for 3 days to prevent further disruption from other IP addresses. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Holland and the link removed by Airplaneman and then his protecting the page. I would beg to differ with his decision. The link in question has repeatedly been removed by staffers in MH's office since it contains information that he does not want the public to have access to. This is honest information aimed at Canadians particularly those in his riding. It is not an abuse of the page since it is only a link at the end of the article. Not to mention I am the one that requested the page be protected WITH that link included. That is particularly important at this point in time since we do have an election upcoming as well. Wiki is known for having all good info.. not selective info only.. and since the link in question is good and valid honest information it should be included in that article and protected from removal. Not the other way around.

User:124.150.51.210 reported by Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) (Result:Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 19:28, 11 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
 * 2) 15:05, 12 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
 * 3) 15:28, 12 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
 * 4) 15:34, 12 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
 * 5) 00:52, 13 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
 * 6) 01:10, 13 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
 * 7) 17:22, 13 April 2011  (edit summary: "")

—Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here
 * by HJM...  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:KTDizzle90 reported by User:Gruselfratze (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * T. Canens (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Uriel227 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 04:36, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")


 * 1st revert: 21:28, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "")
 * 2nd revert: 21:56, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
 * 3rd revert: 23:45, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
 * 4th revert: 05:27, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
 * 5th revert: 07:34, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
 * 6th revert: 10:18, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
 * 7th revert: 11:12, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
 * 8th revert: 12:13, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */") (as sockpuppet Uriel228)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:

Uriel227 added a list of episodes to a table in Dylan and Cole Sprouse, which also resulted in a minor table error, here. Since the list was excessively long and unnecessary for the table I replaced the list with "Seven episodes" and corrected the table error, simply noting in the edit summary, "Too precise". I later returned to the article to discover that Uriel227 had been edit-warring with two other editors, so I reverted his last edit and warned him on his talk page. After doing so, I added an explanation and an invitation to discuss the edits, even though he had actually made 4 reverts by then. I did not report him here at that time because his first revert did not restore the table error, and I assumed he may not have understood that the list simply was not necessary. However, 15 minutes after I had left the invitation to discuss on his talk page, and 33 minutes after the 3RR warning was left, he chose to make another revert, so he has now clearly breached 3RR.

--AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: Uriel227 has now made a 6th revert after his last edit was reverted by another editor. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update2: Uriel227 continues to make reverts after his 6th revert was reverted by another editor. This is despite yet another warning on his talk page. I have advised the other editors of this report. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update 3: It seems this user now operates as User:Uriel228. At least someone with this name continues reverting. EDIT: Judging from he wikipedia the 228 account (blocked there) was the original account the user started to edit with. I can't read the block notice but it may have been due to renaming. --Denniss (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

After the Uriel228 sockpuppet appeared, I raised an SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/Uriel227. Checkuser appears to indicate that both of these accounst are socks of another user, who appears to be User:אֶפְרָתָה. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or soon will be, per SPI. T. Canens (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Borchica reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 10:24, 14 April 2011  (edit summary: "unreliable links, dead links, primary sources")
 * 2) 12:07, 14 April 2011  (edit summary: "personal interpretation of scientists claims - I just rephrased his statements")
 * 3) 12:34, 14 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Scientific explanations */")
 * 4) 12:41, 14 April 2011  (edit summary: "dead links removed")
 * 5) 15:38, 14 April 2011  (edit summary: " added - pls help find relevant other source")
 * 6) 16:39, 14 April 2011  (edit summary: "you cite sth swelim never said...POV")


 * Diff of warning: here

I also warned him a bit later - but he removed my warning. —Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that his last revert removed a quotation from the source claiming that the source hadn't said it, but I just did copy and paste from the source. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for edit warring. I don't really care if he technically hit the 4-revert line or not. Edit warring is blockable independent of 3RR. T. Canens (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Andrewedwardjudd reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:37, 14 April 2011, this was performed after being reverted by User:Lawrencekhoo
 * 2nd revert: 13:23, 14 April 2011, this was performed after being reverted by myself
 * 3rd revert: 13:35, 14 April 2011, this was performed after being reverted by User:Bobrayner
 * 4th revert: 16:24, 14 April 2011, this was performed after being reverted again by User:Bobrayner
 * 5th revert: 17:20, 14 April 2011, this was performed after being reverted again by myself

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Excessive reverts over the past few hours. Multiple editors have been trying to appeal to User:Andrewedwardjudd to no avail. BigK HeX (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * . Second recent editwarring block.  Sandstein   18:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: stale/superseded)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Two consecutive Requests for Move over two month, first one: move from dash to hyphen, second one: no consensus to revert the first move.

Comments:

Violation of MOS:STABILITY, which cites three arbitration cases that condemn edit warring over stylistic issues. The article was created with a space separated name. One editor changed it to fit the new title of its main article, then Kwamikagami changed it to a dash despite the result of the two move requests. I reverted him because it was against the result of the move requests and because this article had never carried a dash before, and then I warned him. Now Dickylon, who knows of the existence of the RMs because he commented in the second one, has continued the edit-warring by reverting back again to a dash. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hardly edit warring as it was the first time I looked at that article; sorry I didn't look close enough at the history or I would have taken it back to the space, the stable version there. If stability is what you're after, realize that Mexican–American War was stable with the en dash since the middle of 2008, and your campaign to reverse it (like here about the "damned dash" and the threats) is very disruptive.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You say that the article was improperly moved but you have provided absolutely no proof of such a thing. If you are worried about that, then raise the issue at WP:AN, but don't take the matter in your own hands by edit-warring the page moves. That will only land you a block. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't been edit warring. The evidence of the lack of consensus for the move is at the discussion you linked above: first one: move from dash to hyphen; subsequent discussion confirms the lack of consensus.  And if PMAnderson hadn't snuck his anti-dash campaign in here without me noticing, there would have been even more opposition.  As to whether the admin who closed it acted improperly as an involved party, I haven't studied that allegation enough to take an opinion on it.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The closer of the first RM said "Consensus here is to move, but with vocal opposition", the second RM was closed as "no consensus to move" (aka, no consensus to undo the first RM). I don't think that the lack of consensus for your edits can be spelled out clearer than that.


 * The attempts to move the page were advertised in WT:MOS the very same day that the first RM was started here, watchers of the Manual of Style had ample warning and time to participate in any of the two RMs.


 * The impropriety of the RMs was raised at WP:AN here. The closer of the second RM was probably an uninvolved admin that had spotted the AN thread.


 * Given all of the above, I don't see much ground for claiming that RMs were improper. Also, the proper thing was to challenge the RM, not to start reverting people who were trying to implement the result of the RM. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're taking the result of this vocally contested move as a mandate to change a bunch of other articles? That's objectionable.  And I was not aware of the mess at WT:MOS until Noetica notified me; are you the one who objected to that as canvassing, or was that PMAnderson?   Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (I didn't make that canvassing objection, and I had never before heard of it).


 * These persons already gave their arguments at the RMs, and they were evaluated by the closing admins. I should be able to implement the result of a RM even if someone is complaining loudly in the talk page about the result, right? Otherwise, people who don't like the closure could simply keep complaining loudly, in order to block indefinitely the implementation of a move that they dislike.


 * When a "main" article is renamed, it is common practice to rename too the spinned-out articles, the category where it was the main article, the subcategories of that category, and the members for that category and its categories. This is exactly what happened about 1-2 years ago when Mexican-American war was moved from dash to hyphen, after being created with a hyphen, and staying several years with a hyphen. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While punctuation edit wars often qualify for WP:LAME, there seems to be no need for blocks or locks at this point. Related discussion at WP:AN. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Noetica reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: stale/superseded)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (the page with a dash, right before the closure of the first RM)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Two consecutive Requests for Move over two month, first one: move from dash to hyphen, second one: no consensus to revert the first move.

Comments:

Keeps refusing to accept the closures of the move requests, and keeps edit-warring over stylistic issues after very clear warnings that he was violating MOS:STABILITY and in the article's talk page.

And he is just picking up the edit war started by Tony1 after I warned Tony1 about reverting again. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep pushing away from the stable version, citing WP:STABILITY, and whining when people revert your changes made while the issue is still under discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it still under discussion? There are no open move requests. –CWenger (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Mexican-American War is showing several dozen edits per day recently, including today. Is that not discussion?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, discussion maybe, I'll give you that, but that is always the case. Certainly nothing is actively being proposed right now. –CWenger (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My impression of Enric's actions is that he's getting a little too personally invested in this hyphen versus dash war. Its ultimately a silly dispute, and its even made it onto the Lamest edit wars page. But yet most of the editors are still being pretty civil and willing to go round and round.  But hey, whatever! -- Avanu (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Closing per above. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:K22UFC reported by User:Dachknanddarice (Result: 24 h)
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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:MMA

Comments:

Despite the fact that we've explained to this user that MOS:FLAG guidelines ask us to remove flag icons from BLPs regarding MMA fighters, this editor has decided that he won't accept that answer and has now gotten into an edit war with me (yes, I am guilty of this too) and has been reverting my removal of the flag icons more than three times on three different pages already. His disruptive edits have been talked about on the WT:MMA page already as I linked earlier. He's simply just trying to force his perception of what he deems looks better despite the consensus of how things should look. An ANI on him is soon to follow, I'm sure, but I'm also willing to accept a block on my account for 3RR. Please take a look at the histories of all three pages I listed to see that we've been edit warring for the past 10 minutes regarding this. Again, I'm happy to accept a block along with K22UFC because I refuse to let his distruptive edits against MoS consensus go unchecked. Dachknanddarice ( T ‖ C )  01:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dachknanddarice, I strongly considered blocking you as well even though WP:MOSFLAG seems to support your position. On balance, I do not think that that would be best, but anyone else should feel free to do so if you disagree. It is best to self-revert when you realize that you have been edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Waikiki lwt reported by User:Ohconfucius (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link to proper warning
 * pre-emptive warning after 2nd revert


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

Comments:

Unusually aggressive and tendentious editor, whose tone on the article talk page was already very belligerent and uncollegiate.

-- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Full protection on this article was applied by Airplaneman. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 16:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:89.241.217.215 and User:89.241.218.10 reported by User:WildCherry06 (Result: malformed)
Page:

and others

User being reported:

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:

 

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

Comments:


 * Closing as malformed - no actual edit warring is immediately apparent. Requesting clarification from reporter. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:PRODUCER reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (14 April 2011, 16:29)
 * 2nd revert: (14 April 2011, 20:06)
 * 3rd revert: (15 April 2011, 09:37)
 * 4th revert: (15 April 2011, 17:14)
 * 5th revert: (15 April 2011, 21:16)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edit warring has been basically about an inclusion, or not, of Emir Kusturica in the infobox. He was included before PRODUCER started removing him without any support or valiable reason beside his own opinion, in March 31st. Another user (who PRODUCER edit warred) provided him a set of sources at the talk page about why he should be included, and PRODUCER ignored and continued removing him from the infobox. It was just now (while I´m writting this) that PRODUCER responded for my demand of sources and posted some, but they anyway doesn´t support his edit warring. Beside, when the other user, User:VVVladimir opened discussion and provided him sources, PRODUCER responded by using profanities, as seen in this diff. When I asked him to avoid talking in such manner, he responded me by saying to "deal with it" (it´s all in the same section/discussion of the article´s talk page).

Resumingly, we have an user that edit wars for days against all sources and evidence, and that discusses provocatively using profanities in an already sensitive area. FkpCascais (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Kusturica was included by Vladimir "without any support or valiable reason beside his own opinion". You asked for sources, I gave them, and, predictably, you ignored them. Your biased presence did not help the situation so a third opinion was sought. As for my profanity I said "shit" once. Big deal. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 22:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Kusturica was not included by Vladimir because it was already there. It was actually removed by you in the diff I provided. Not only you don´t learn anything, but you actually think by lyeing you´ll get something. And you gave sources just now in your last edit, that anyway doesn´t change nothing neither provide reason for edit warring for days. FkpCascais (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * PRODUCER has made five reverts. Blocked for a week as it is his eighth edit warring block, and formally notified of ARBMAC. The other two parties with multiple reverts have not been blocked, but have both been informed of the existence of the ARBMAC decision. Courcelles 04:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jasper Deng reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: novio)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: BRD does not include a 2nd revert, you told me about this before, Fleetcommand.
 * 2nd revert: Please watch 3RR. No entitlement to revert more. If he reverts, it's his bad, but if you revert again, it's yours.

Comments:

While I am trying to build consensus here, User:Jasper Deng is intentionally disrupting the process of consensus-seeking between me and User:Gyrobo. Yes, I have twice reverted edits by Gyrobo once per WP:BRD and once because Gyrobo refused to contend to dispute resolution process (as demanded by rules of reporting in this page). I tried to reason with Jasper Deng, but he pull a "3RR card" on me, disregarding my message.

I request Jasper Deng to be blocked from editing for 24 hours. Fleet Command (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. He has deleted my message from his talk page. Here is the diff: . Fleet Command (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

-


 * FleetCommand has had issues like this in the past, where I could get nothing done with him, and dispute resolution turned into accusations of wikilawyering by him and civility by me (see history of FleetCommand's talk page). It is not my problem. FleetCommand was himself violating 3RR. I was deleting his comment on my talk page because I was absolutely sick of being accused of wikilawyering. I feel like FleetCommand is gaming the system.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you disrupted the consensus-building process because you are sick of me? And I really like to see a list of diffs my former accusations of Wikilawyweing. Fleet Command (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you that I did not base this off past discussions (was only including them for reference to past behavior). I have to say that your reverts are no more helpful than his; in fact, you did break 3RR by making 4 reverts. Remember, a lack of reversion is no endorsement of the page version then. He reverted you, but then, I was correcting your revert of his, as you had no entitlement to do so.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't lie. None of us have reverted the article four times. And remember that per WP:BRD, I had the right to do one revert. You and Gyrobo do not have such right without reaching a consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then explain why you reverted two of mine and two of Gyrobo's edits (2+2=4) . BRD no longer applies if you outright revert our edits so it's your way. As for you, you have not tried to reach consensus yourself. If you had you would not make another revert. You definitely did it in good faith, and I reverted in good faith too. In the end, I have to say, you've been using BRD to game the system in order to make reverts of other peoples' edits just because you wanted the article to be your own way. I think you've been AGF'ing so far but in the end I think you need to not game the system with BRD.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you aren't listening.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't lie! I did not revert you twice! Fleet Command (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your provided diffs here are the reverts. Just go up one edit.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those diffs are yours, not mine. I didn't undo the second revert of yours. So, you weren't lying; you were just assuming bad faith. Fleet Command (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops then. But still, in any case, I believe you made a total of 3 reverts:2 of Gyrobo, 1 of me. Good thing you stopped. I had to assume bad faith though because you've had a history of accusing people of edit warring after BRD was supposedly violated, which is actually not the right thing to do-you use 3RR instead. Since BRD has not worked for your discussions in the past, I would suggest you refrain from using it again.
 * Getting back to my original point, my point was that you could not cite BRD as a reason for edit warring accusations and you need not to revert things back to the way you want it. It's something everyone needs to work on, but it's something that you've been failing to learn on the long term.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I very well can! In fact, this page says I must! You see, I am allowed to revert once per BRD. Then, I start a discussion. I seek to build consensus. If the person who is reverted didn't work towards consensus building and just reverted again, I can revert him back up to three times (depending on how non-cooperative the edit warrior is) before reporting him here. This authorization to revert has a reason: To encourage the non-cooperative warrior to enter discussion. (Otherwise, he can simply ignore me and assume ownership of the article, keeping it in the state he wants forever.) Now, I offer you a choice: Allow me to continue discussing with Gyrobo. In return, I will withdraw this block request. Fleet Command (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The ability to discuss is not impeded in anyway here so I don't see the sense in this. Just refrain from using BRD in that way if it can't produce acceptable results.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is impeded! If you continue to prevent me, Gyrobo will never talk and a consensus is never built. Please, Jasper! For the last time, do not disrupt the consensus building. Fleet Command (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No shouting please. How did I stop you from discussing? If Gyrobo doesn't want to discuss it's not my fault.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (Shouting? Huh? Me? Anyway...) Very well. I take it that you are unwilling to cooperate and will continue to edit war.
 * To the attending administrator: Thanks for tolerating us here. I'd like to re-iterate my request for punitive action. Fleet Command (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Every single sentence in that comment ended with an exclamation mark. In the end, Kww is right. We have been arguing over perceived policy violations, and have done so in the past, and we need to stop (you especially, FleetCommand, as these kinds of discussions have occured before for you).Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That means you agree to discuss contents only. Therefore, this discussion ends here. See you in Talk:Internet Explorer 10. Fleet Command (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See Wikiquette_alerts/archive100.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you disrupted the consensus-building process because Wikiequette case did not resolve to your liking? Fleet Command (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I feel that you were being the disruptive one by getting the article back to your own version. I expected better from you when you reverted that. See - you have not learned from that.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And why did you not feel that Gyrobo's revert is disruptive? After all, his second revert was a violation of WP:BRD and thus edit warring. Why did you not participate in talk page discussion? Simply because you are sick of me and not sick of Gyrobo? Fleet Command (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See my reply above.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If the two of you agree to stop this silliness, I won't block either of you. WP:3RR requires four reverts to cross, so that hasn't happened, and WP:BRD isn't something you can violate with a second revert (although WP:BURDEN usually comes into play if someone tries to revert in an addition). No bright line policy violations yet, and the two of you seem to be fighting more over perceived policy violations than actual content. Discuss the content, leave the policy acronyms out of it, and figure out what to do.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read through this section, and I disagree with my portrayal as being opposed to meaningful discussion. As I've said on User talk:FleetCommand and User talk:Gyrobo, my issue was originally with FleetCommand's conduct, how I felt that he frequently ignores the opinions of other editors, engages in tendentious editing, and misrepresents policy. After I expressed this opinion on his talk page, he immediately reverted my edits on Internet Explorer 10 and basically told me that I needed to discuss any changes before they would be acceptable in the article. This isn't BRD, this is OWN, and it's exactly the kind of behavior I was trying to discuss. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The page is under heavy enough development that I do not want to lock it, and when the discussion focuses on content rather than the editors involved it appears to be actually productive. FleetCommand and Jasper Deng, please disengage from each other; Kww's advice is solid. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have done so hours ago! You can lock this discussion down safely. Fleet Command (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf reported by User:A man alone (Result: novio)
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:

a_man_alone (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagreement over whether the exploding cigar is "best known", "better known" or just "a" plot to assassinate Fidel Castro.
 * "See talk, boy" is not conducive to a friendly editing environment either.
 * Neither editor (myself included) seem to be able to compromise, although I've had a go, so I've decided to bring it here - as otherwise we'll go at it all night, 3rr notwithstanding.


 * First diff is not revert.
 * Third diff is not a revert.
 * The "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" was started by me.
 * There were no revert after the (equivocate) 3RR warning.
 * . --Damiens .rf 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * . Please try to work this out at Talk:Exploding cigar. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Tgandz reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

All Arab-Israeli conflict articles are on a 1 rr:

Tgandz has violated it here:, the day before he did the same rv:

I have showed him the rule and asked him to self revert: and he said that he was not gonna: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Tgandz is being highly argumentative and did technically violate the 1RR provision, but as they are extremely new I have left a warning to see if they would be willing to let go of WP:NOTTRUTH. I have hopefully made it clear that this is a one-time free pass, so please come back here or to my talkpage if they revert again. Supreme Deliciousness, please remember to notify the other user when you request review at a board such as this. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:189.32.137.46 reported by User:2over0 (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:, 04:25 2011-04-14
 * 2nd revert: 05:09 2011-04-14 (two revisions)
 * 3rd revert:, 04:49 2011-04-15
 * 4th revert:, 04:04 2011-04-16
 * 5th revert:, 05:20 2011-04-16


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:36 2011-04-14 (note: slightly different IP address, but clearly the same user, see below)
 * Diff of notification of this report:


 * Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin
 * Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin (this section was originally part of the older Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin, which deals with similar issues)

Comments:

This is, as will be obvious from the dates above, a general edit warring report rather than a simple WP:3RR report. There are other users involved, but talkpage consensus is strongly against 189.xxx. Whois gives a pretty broad assignment, but the rangeblock calculator puts the six most recent addresses all in 189.32.128.0/20, which is small enough for a rangeblock. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I might have duplicated this effort here. If an admin deals with this issue, can they close the AN/I? Thanks. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 07:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected by Mjroots for one week, which is good enough for me. Sorry for closing my own report, but it seemed easier than withdrawing it and waiting for someone else to do the bookkeeping. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Igny reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Restores a POV tag which he has previously edit warred into the article.
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please not edit summary.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This is not the first time this user has edit warred a POV tag into this article, it is an ongoing cause of disruption. Tentontunic (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is fairly straight forward. Editor's fourth violation of this policy.  Kuru   (talk)  14:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Riemann'sZeta reported by User:X7q (Result: article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Technically, the first revert is older than 24h, but the user doesn't seem to intend to stop reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

X7q (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're asking to block for the slow edit war; this would clearly entail blocking both of you. It seems like a better idea to protect the page and encourage you to complete the discussion on the article's talk page.  Kuru   (talk)  14:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BogdaNz reported by User:Parsecboy (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Two other users have become involved in the issue, see here, here, and here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 15:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Prajwal21 reported by User:GaneshBhakt (Result:Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
 * 2) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: diff

Comments:

Prajwal21 is continuously striking a deadlock regarding the signature of Priyanka Chopra. He says that I have wrongly copied the signature provided by him, only changed the format and uploaded it. I can't understand that why his says that the image is ineligible for copyright... when I can't even upload a better image. He is jealous of me and thinks that I am stealing the credit when I have provided him due credit. He has already listed the image for deletion and, outrageously, even for speedy deletion!. You can also read a detailed arguement about the topic at here. GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I do not think that a block is the way to go here (though anyone should feel free to override this on your own discretion), and it does not look like page protection will help resolve the underlying issue. *.svg is the preferred format (it produces smaller files, accepts background transparency, and scales like any other vector format), but it feels like there may be more going on here. I recommend a gentle touch, but I am not quite sure how to go about it. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 *   Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  10:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:GiovBag reported by User:Tia solzago (Result: 48 h)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Lega Nord Lega Lombarda  Liga Veneta  Lega Nord Piemont  Padania

Lega Nord
 * 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:

Lega Lombarda
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

Liga Veneta
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

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

Padania
 * 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion with consensus can be find here and here. User was warned in his talk page

Comments: I've reported also rollback by IPs because it's clear that behind them there's always GiovBag. I want also stress that some edit summaries contains a kind of personal attacks against my work (eg., , ). Edits by GiovBag war rollbacked by different users, not only by me, and consensus reached in talk pages is clear --Tia solzago (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * . This might be helped by starting a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard or initiating a request for comment on the main party page. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Byanose reported by Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions (Result:No vio for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:51, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Negative results */  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)")
 * 2) 14:52, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Validation study */")
 * 3) 15:00, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Contamination */")
 * 4) 15:02, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424532522 by Sciencewatcher (talk) Validation study should not be hidden amongst the text.")
 * 5) 15:04, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Negative results */")
 * 6) 15:06, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Negative results */ the reaction conditions were not the same in Erlwein et al for RT-PCR")
 * 7) 15:07, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Negative results */ small correction")
 * 8) 15:11, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Organization */")
 * 9) 15:14, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424534019 by Arthur Rubin (talk) Consensus is incorrect Lo et al confirmed the finding, consensus must now change or be void")
 * 10) 17:02, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "Reaction conditions of the RT-PCR were not the same")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand that the editor does not understand the meaning of the term Consensus and is going against it. That could be a reason for a block in case the editor continues this behavior. Come back if this reversion behavior continues.   Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  10:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:78.173.62.144 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 17:19, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "Revert misquote")
 * 2) 20:50, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "Can't say "-" in a sentence")
 * 3) 23:15, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424580749 by Dougweller (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: No discussion on article talk page because user is deliberately misquoting a source, a link to which is provided in the article. This is a behavior issue and belongs on the user's talk page, not the article talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 *   Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  10:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Smart Nomad reported by User:Zakhalesh (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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps inserting information that has been contested as original research by several editors on the article's talk page and that contradicts several sources. Smart Nomad's been edit warring over this for a few days now. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * along with another warring editor.   Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:24.254.197.72 reported by User:Jpgordon (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also a reminder, I know you (JPGordon) are a checkuser (and possible one time arbcom member), but please avoid using the automatic rollback tool in disputes (unless I've misunderstood, this is in fact our policy). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC) If the user returns as another IP, feel free to inform me if I'm around or to ask for protection at WP:RFPP; I'll certainly semi protect the article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Andrewedwardjudd reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

previous revert: 21:39, 18 April 2011
 * 1st revert: 22:11, 18 April 2011
 * 2nd revert: 14:33, 19 April 2011
 * 3rd revert: 21:57, 19 April 2011
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Unfortunately, after 2 recent blocks for exceeding 3RR, this editor still doesn't seem to understand that edit warring is not an acceptable approach. Only 3 reverts are listed here in the past 24 hours, but I think the pattern of this editor relying on reverting his new material into the article and deleting long-standing material while caring little for achieving talk page consensus is pretty clear. He has even taken to niggling over the archive settings on the talk page:. This editor's approach is getting fairly out-of-hand. BigK HeX (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Adotrde reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 09:06, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "/* Speaking and networking */ restoring info with citation")
 * 2) 10:20, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424832589 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) What? Read about Streaming Faith -- most definitely relaible and notable")
 * 3) 10:37, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424835602 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) "Revert-wars do not help build consensus" Before reverting, please post on the talk page...sthg I have been doing.")
 * 4) 14:40, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "added two new refs from City News Singapore (one refs him as speaking to business group, one includes info on talking to govs) / added one new ref from The Christian Post")


 * Diff of warning: here


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

Comments:

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These edits amount to an on-going effort to peddle the notion that Thompson is an advisor to business and government leaders. I have added fv to the source originally provided for this claim and have made a case that alternatives provided do not satisfy WP:RS.  The fourth removal of fv subsequent to a 3RR notice today puts this editor into >3RR territory, and a block is warranted to reinforce the message that the talk page -- not repeated edits -- should be used to form consensus for this sort of change.
 * I changed the sources; I didn't believe I was reverting. Just because one editor disagrees with me on whether a source is reliable or not (one of which is KTBN-TV and the other Streaming Faith (the world's largest online faith based broadcasting portal)). OK, the editor disagreed on both of those sources, so to save ourselves from ongoing back and forth, I researched and found new sources and instead of "no citation given" which Nomoskedasticity added, I replaced them with the new citations. I've been referencing everything I was doing on the talk page. I really don't see what I did wrong? If I was simply reverting him, I understand, but I wasn't. I only undid him once (without editing the article) because I felt my sources were genuine and he didn't discuss it on the talk page (I asked him to discuss it on the talk page in my edit summary when reverting). Adotrde (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:201.241.42.51 reported by RA0808 (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:44, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "vandalism removed")
 * 2) 11:53, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "Unfounded.")
 * 3) 19:45, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:SOAP")
 * 4) 20:01, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:SOAPBOX WP:NOT")
 * 5) 21:32, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:SOAPBOX")
 * 6) 21:43, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:SOAPBOX")
 * 7) 21:53, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424923570 by AlexReynolds WP:NOT WP:SOAPBOX")
 * 8) 21:58, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")
 * 9) 22:02, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")
 * 10) 22:05, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")
 * 11) 22:08, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")
 * 12) 22:11, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")
 * 13) 22:21, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")
 * 14) 22:24, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")
 * 15) 22:36, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")
 * 16) 22:40, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")
 * 17) 22:44, 19 April 2011  (edit summary: "WP:NOT WP:NOTSCANDAL")

—RA0808 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * by Salvio giuliano.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:DeadSend4 reported by User:[[Tenebrae (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: starting here (05:17, 16 April 2011) with six straight reverts of User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, ending here (08:55, 16 April 2011)
 * 2nd revert: here (20:00, 16 April 2011) reverting User:Nymf
 * 3rd revert: starting here (21:15, 16 April 2011) with two straight reverts of User:Crohnie, ending here (21:24, 16 April 2011)
 * 4th revert: starting here (23:02, 16 April 2011) with five straight reverts of User:Nymf through here (21:49, 17 April 2011)

This editor also is the subject of a Wikiequette Alert signed onto by multiple editors here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Note: I would have, but this editor has threatened me with harassment if I add anything more to his talk page. ("if you post on my page I'm only gonna come back and make you whine again.") See his abusive posts headed "Your continous attempts at blocking my edits for no reason other than having no life? Or your personal distaste for Kidman?"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I and other editors all have tried. Please see the four posts beginning with "Edit summaries" on the editor's talk page.

Comments: This editor has moments ago made a second 3RR vio, on April 19. He exhibits abusive, uncivil behavior including partially all-caps rants, and insults and demeans other editors. Several editors are concerned about this, as evidenced by his running roughshod all over the page for days, making largely the same edits as the blocked sock User:Jane his wife. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:SISPCM reported by Nmate (talk) (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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


 * 1) 12:21, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424218857 by Hobartimus (talk)")
 * 2) 19:17, 17 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424563560 by Hobartimus (talk)")
 * 3) 13:33, 18 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424676474 by Nmate (talk)")
 * 4) 15:08, 18 April 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 424696708 by Nmate (talk)")

Comments:

Yesterday, I found myself in an edit war with the user I am reporting here. And albeit ,technically, there was no violation of 3RR going on there, the user has been consecutively made as many as 4 reverts, remainig out of 24 hour timeframe, which is  officially imposed by the 3RR rule without having started any discussion on the talk page of the John Hunyadi article, while I expressed my intention on the talk page of this user that I want to discuss edits instead of edit warring. But of course I can't do that on my own. Also, It is important to note that user:Hobartimus ,who too made some reverts there, is also willing to discuss edits as his active presence on the talk page of this article speaks for itself --Nmate (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above user is lying. He never attempted to settle the issue in a civic manner, he simply reverted to the un-encyclopedic and contentious edit made by an anon. IP. User Hobartismus is part of a group of three Hungarian editors (together with user:Fakirbakir and User:Hobartimus) imposing their POV using mutual support, hectoring Romanian, Slovak, Serbian and other users with debased tactics like unjustified accusations in edit summaries, threatening and harassment. SISPCM (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above user, SISPCM is acting as a proxy for the banned user:Iaaasi, editing on his behalf. He might be a straight up sock of the banned user, or might be a simple meatpuppet. The above comment is even written in the usual style of Iaaasi who has a severe case of hatred against Hungarians. Please note this recent communication with the banned user which indicates further off-wiki communication. . Hobartimus (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A few recent edits of the banned user:Iaaasi are as follows, please compare against the edits in the report. More information on the banned editor Iaaasi here Hobartimus (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * is also removing sourced contents in Aryan wiki page. It is not the first time. He has already been banned for this a few months ago.Rajkris (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sock issues should go to WP:SPI. Edit-warriors now warned of WP:DIGWUREN, though.  Sandstein   06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)