Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive157

User:FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer (Result: page protected)
This user keeps removing any reference from the Unicron page to him being a Decepticon. I have provided THREE different officially licensed sources by the character's creator saying he is a Decepticon to the user on their Talk page and on the talk page for Unicron, but all talk is ignored and the reverts keep coming. I think we are already in a bit of an edit war, so I wanted to try to stop it now and get help. Any advice? Mathewignash (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick look at the problems shows that you have both gone past "a bit of an edit war". I've protected the page for three days to allow the two of you to try to discuss the change on a talk page instead of through tit-for-tat edit summaries.  Please try the suggestions at WP:DR.  If this flares up when the protection expires, you can both be subject to having your accounts blocked if you repeat your recent actions.   Kuru   (talk)  20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd look forward to a talk. I've been posting on talk pages for several days now, and all she does is revert to her edits, never responds to the talk invitations. Mathewignash (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits are wrong man. He's not a Decepticon in any canon. One toy does not count.-- FaithLehaneThe  Vampire  Slayer  20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Say, how about Talk:Unicron? People who are interested in this conversation are more likely to be watching that page.  Kuru   (talk)  21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:86.145.105.224 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is a long-term IP hopping vandal, who continually reverts to his preferred version (with poor spelling and grammar) whenever article protection expires - this article needs semi-protection again. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:71.235.150.99 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 02:08,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
 * 2) 02:35,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
 * 3) 03:14,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
 * 4) 03:34,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
 * 5) 12:51,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
 * 6) 12:59,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
 * 7) 13:04,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
 * 8) 15:28,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
 * 9) 16:51,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Seabas73 reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=427112268&oldid=427111971


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=427113364&oldid=427112268
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=427116556&oldid=427115710

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seabas73&diff=prev&oldid=427113721

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planned_Parenthood&diff=427114559&oldid=424854762

Comments:

Violation of community-imposed 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Third revert: Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Lgmagone reported by User:lhb1239 (Result: No action for now)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Note: The last revert diff above was made without an edit summary and after I had reminded that editor in my own edit summary to please come to the talk page and discuss.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Note: This isn't the first time I have tried to keep things civil in editing this article -- I have repeated myself many times over on the talk page of the Mortenson article about editing together rather than fighting about the edits and reversions just to revert.

Comments: A number of editors (and one administrator) have attempted on more than one occasion to reason with this editor on his talk page and on the talk page of the article. From practically his first edit in this article, this editor has been engaging in edit-warring behavior. Administrator User:Will Beback has tried to reason with him by telling him point-blank that his edits are disruptive (diff here . Last week, it got so tiresome that Will Beback asked the two of us to take a break from editing the article for three days.  I did not edit the article for at least three days, the editor this report is about was back editing considerably sooner than that.  Other editors have tried to tell him to back off, too.  This editor has also been making edits at the Mortenson article and talk page as various different IPs rather than logging in.  He's been warned several times about logging in and not editing as an IP.  This has also seemed to go unnoticed by this editor.  Some diffs (on the article talk page) for this are here, here , and here. Some diffs for this in the article editing here, here, and here. I have come here because his biggest offense is edit warring. He has essentially mocked anyone coming to a noticeboard regarding his edits by stating "I don't think anyone would find them disruptive". One administrator has already found his edits disruptive and edit warring in nature (Will Beback, as noted above). If I'm in the wrong place, I apologize. I'm totally new to this process. From my observations, Lgmagone is an agenda editor (he's pretty much only ever edited the Mortenson article) on a POV mission to win. If there is something I've left out or I'm at the wrong place, please let me know. One more note, I see that this editor has now gone to the BLP noticeboard (as seen in the following diff: He also seems to be now forum shopping with the addition of this: . Personally, I'm real uncomfortable coming to any noticeboard because I think that if one is going to take responsibility for editing Wikipedia, they should also behave in a responsible manner when asked to do so.  More succinctly, I just don't like being a "tattle-tale".  But, at this point, I don't think I have/had any other choice.  Thanks for considering this.  Lhb1239 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add my response.

Reponse to 3R Violation
 * I've been attempting to add souced, reliable information to the article about Greg Mortenson since the original news broke. The other editor, LHB1239, continues to remove the souced, reliable information that I've added into the article very quickly after I've added it. Just last night, I added several bits of good information to the article, and LHB1239 reverts all of it - and accuses me of edit warring. I don't understand how I am edit warring if I'm adding information and he is the one reverting it.


 * The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th "revert" above are not reverts at all. It was times that I was refining what I wrote. If you look at the change, you will see that I did not revert any information in those edits.


 * I'd also like to mention that LHB1239 has reverted as many times as I have. So I'm not sure if he is edit warring and I'm simply making the article correct, or if I'm edit warring and he is simply making it correct. In fact, after the three day break as requested by administrator Will, he went in and promptly removed all of my recent changes. The revert that I made today was putting them back in because they were constructive edits. Needless to say, LHB1239 does not go without blame


 * I think it would be most insightful if someone were to read the discussion page...you'd notice that LHB1239 goes in tirads at many different editors who add unfavorable information to the Greg Mortenson article.

Response to Forum Shopping

LHB1239 accused me of "forum shopping" as I put in a request for comments on the article. I do not believe that it is inappropriate requesting comments when two editors disagree. Lgmagone (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action for now. Lgmagone is pushing the limits, especially on a WP:BLP article. Since he has opened an RfC we hope that the editors will try to reach agreement there. Be aware that we expect a high standard of accuracy and sourcing for any negative information about the article subject. If you are uncertain whether something is acceptable, ask any admin for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Lcmortensen (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [426751268]


 * 1st revert: [427091227]
 * 2nd revert: [427133140]
 * 3rd revert: [427141213]
 * 4th revert: [427142316]
 * 5th revert: [427142811]

Non-consensus removal of images

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [427144340]

Attempt to resolve dispute:

Comments:

Edit war over the non-consensus removal of compliant non-free images in an article relating to currency.

Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * enforcing WP:NFCC is exempt from 3RR. ΔT The only constant 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This user is enforcing WP:NFCC, specifically excluded from WP:3RR.  &#91; stwalkerster &#124; talk &#93;  22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:BelloWello (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:Varies


 * 1st revert: - straight undo
 * 2nd revert: - same as previous undo without using undo
 * 3rd revert: - Pretty much the same thing, may or may not be revert
 * 4th revert: - straight undo
 * 5th revert: - undoing this a few minutes before

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User has username and has stated that he is alumni of the school. The "Fountainview" from his username is because of his affiliation with the school. User was blocked on April 29 for a 3RR violation. Also has previous blocks for socking and BLP vios. BelloWello (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to improve this article by adding references and changing wording. BelloWello (talk) has been messing up this article by trying to delete whole sections. I have been careful not to revert, but rather to revise in order to create a better article. I have been working on this article because it needs a lot of revision, but that doesn't mean it should be cut. As for "previous blocks, etc." those are from a long time ago and are a red herring. BelloWello (talk) has been following me around for a long time trying to engage in many edit wars. Fountainviewkid 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems very odd to accuse me of following an editor around when they haven't edited this article since at least 2009 (I haven't looked further back). The evidence does not exist for me "following" this editor around. I believe the evidence presented is quite clear above. BelloWello (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been following me to different articles that I've been involved in, or you've worked to delete whole sections of articles instead of doing the better job of editing. You have also engaged in reverting my changes that I made to try and strengthen the quality of the article. Fountainviewkid 23:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, it is not a reason for edit warring. On Wikipedia, we have to discuss if we disagree as it's bound to happen. BelloWello might disagree with you on this, and you have to discuss with him, not edit warring. If he removes something, it's usually explained.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree which is why I suggest we go to the talk page, before we delete whole sections. BelloWello (talk), however it seems would disagree at least in action. I am willing to compromise as all of us should, but this should be done fairly not attacking editors who try to restore deleted sections that strengthened the article. Fountainviewkid 24:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And whether they strengthen the article or not is something that needs to be discussed. You should not revert regardless of how you feel there - in that action, you are not endorsing that version of the article. And please explain how BelloWello is attacking you.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I've been attacking him (which I don't believe I have...) that should be discussed at WP:Wikiquette alerts, not here. BelloWello (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was revising the article to strengthen it's material. I honestly wouldn't say that was a "revert", though the definition is still somewhat foggy. If you look over the past week or so especially on the Southern Adventist University article BelloWello has been engaged in quite a fight with myself and other editors. Additionally he began by challenging my username and other articles I had been involved with. Fountainviewkid 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A revert is defined as the undoing of one or more actions of one or more other editors. I wouldn't consider BelloWello's comments to be fighting; instead, just arguing, which is normal here.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see full reverts at 23:33, 23:28, and 20:59. I see partial reverts at 22:35 and 21:58.  The editor is fully aware of 3RR from previous blocks, and was warned during the course of the edit war. Since this is his second block for this in a short span (not including the ignored one), I have upped the duration to 48 hours.
 * For Bello, I see full reverts at 23:27, 22:21, and 21:36. 23:48 is new material, and 23:31 seems new as well.  I'm disappointed to see him show up at another article and start reverting.  There is not 3RR violation here, but I want to be clear that future bank and forth reverts will be considered as simple edit warring, especially when you're explicitly counting the reverts and playing games.  Kuru   (talk)  00:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - no more gaming the system.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban or indefinite block?
It seems, after the long term disruption caused by this user, we may need to invoke a community ban or an indefinite block. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll need to write up a more extensive request and post it at ANI or AN. This noticeboard is just for editwarring.  Kuru   (talk)  00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree on a permanent block for Fountainviewkid. If I may interject here, this seems to be the third time BW has filed an edit war report against FVK, the first resulted in a page protection and a warning for both editors for 3RR (in deed or intent). The second  resulted in a block for FVK and a warning for BW that he would be blocked in the future for edit warring, and not just for violating 3RR. In the interim, BW has filed a username complaint against him  and a wikiquette alert  based on an argument they had on FVK's talk page while FVK was blocked. These two editors just are not getting along.


 * Looking at the diffs, FVK is clearly edit warring again. BW has reverted    four times as well, and is well aware of the concept of edit warring. Looks like they can't keep it between the lines, and can't stay away from each other. Dayewalker (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The first one you listed is not a revert, it removed the promotional material for the first time. BelloWello (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It actually is, and, reverts do not have to be over the same content.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that. The first one still isn't a revert because that was MY FIRST TIME removing the content from the article. BelloWello (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still a revert, regardless whether its your first time or not. In any case, you seem to be going to the brink of 3RR pretty often. Please do not game the system.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Redacted. If it continues, an interaction ban may be necessary, but, I've been unable to cooperate in the past, but, it did not require any disciplinary action.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring

 * Fountain has been a good editor up until this point. He simply does not know how to deal with an extremely bold editor like Bello. And trust me on this one: Bello is very, very bold. Fountain would greatly benefit from mentoring, and a little impulse control. Lionel (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm under mentoring myself. Yes, I think that this user has been bitten a little. I endorse mentoring.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:842U reported by User:Barnstarbob (Result: Page Protected)
Page: Chevrolet Vega

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:

842A keeps deleting lead section and replacing it with his version after a long project discussion he started (but did not participate in). The section was approved in article talk page and automobile projects discussion by many Users. 842A is acting alone, not following opinions of Users in the two previous discussions, and is editing with OWNERSHIP of article.


 * The discussion regarding Chevrolet Vega is ongoing and not something that is either resolved or static. The discussion page reflects numerous editors citing problems with the article; I am not acting alone. The article essentially has been crafted by one editor who is very close to the subject matter: he has populated the article with his own photographs, photographs form his own cars and promotional material from the manufacturer.  He has gone to great length to expand the article, including sections about minutae (fake wooding siding application) while avoiding the broad legacy the car has earned -- which happens to have a large negative component.  In discussing these points, the editor has refused to allow the information to be included either in the introduction or in a legacy section – often subdividing the sources for information by "auto" sources and "non-auto" sources as a way of obfuscating the facts.  He has suggested that the sources (all listed on the discussion page) are problematic.  This includes sources such as Time, Newsweek, Popular Mechanics and books by noted historians.  In the process of discussing the article, the editor has strongly discouraged editing of the the article by others, saying others are wasting his time, etc.  He has verbally attacked other editors.  I can see where including a products extremely negative reputation can be a delicate matter, but at the same time the Vega article receives hundreds of hits per day.  There is no need to have an article crafted by one editor, near to subject matter, who strongarms other editors out of the conversation. 842U (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Writegeist (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Per previous report. CIreland (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:174.143.205.51 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 24h block)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 01:59,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 02:01,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 427169312 by ClueBot NG (talk) is this rigged or what?")
 * 3) 02:08,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "nothing on the Talk page justifies to me the removal of criticial information, from a reliable source, that points to worldview")
 * 4) 02:15,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 427170646 by Sindinero (talk) your claim that it is "false" is Original Reseach, is it not?")
 * 5) 02:20,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 427171169 by Sindinero (talk)")

The article is under a 1RR per WP:ARBPIA. Reverts of IPs are exempt from that restriction. Arguments show a familiarity with Wikipedia, such as saying "reliable source" and "original research"  nableezy  - 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * CIreland (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bahamut0013 reported by ΔT The only constant (Result: Declined - go argue at ANI please)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:30,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 427158046 by Î” (talk): uh excuse me, but if you want to change the current consensus on the number of non-free images, discuss it first instead of overriding and removing them all.")
 * 2) 11:36,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 427219314 by Î” (talk): discuss, then act. Don't edit war over this.")
 * 3) 11:43,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 427219900 by Î” that's an essay, and your opinion on what constitutes "overuse" isn't in line with the previous consenus. If you revert again, I'll have to protect the page to force you to discuss this.")
 * 4) 11:49,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 427220535 by Î” (talk) You know damn well what you are doing is disruptive and counter to consensus, and this isn;t the only article you're doing it to. Stop or you'll wind up getting blo")
 * Repeated reinserting non-free content against policy per WP:NFLISTS and WP:OVERUSE ΔT The only constant 11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nay, it's actually Δ who is edit warring over this, and refusing to discuss the issue. I was forced to protect the page.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to discus policy is crystal clear, usage of 10 non-free images in lists are not allowed. ΔT The only constant 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I Agree with Bahamut0013, You are still playing with rules misleading policies, and it seems several user are saying you this. So first stop, then ask and discute! --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any policy with the number 10 on it. I do see a previous consensus on the article's talk page when we reduced it from the previous number. Nor do I see a policy that says we should remove every image from an article when one editor deems the number to be excessive. NOR does the 3RR policy allow for continued reverting when other editors object to a nebulous justification.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this isn't the only article where you have done this. It shoudl have been clear from the previous disputes that your hard-headed charging isn't the best way to go about dealing with this kind of diagreement. Even if you were 100% correct (and you're not even close), being a bully is not a productive way to go.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

-
 * Previous consensus was for one group shot. read WT:NFC archives. ΔT The only constant 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus was regarding different articles. If it was supposed to apply to all, they why wasn't the actual policy amended? If it were truly agreed upon by all that only a couple of non-free images were acceptable, then why did you remove ALL of the images, including the group shot?  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats what minimal usage means, NFC never gives an exact number because there will always be one or two exceptions to the rule. Minimal usage is one or two group shots for list of... character pages. ΔT The only constant 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict - how apt!) Consensus changes - by discussion. Your attitude is causing trouble. Templating experienced editors is not the way to influence people. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to change policy WT:NFC is the third door on your left. ΔT The only constant 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And he freely admits to using force because it's been effective for him. The policy is not so crystal clear as he tries to make out, but still he tries to enforce what he thinks is the letter of the law. The article has a talk page for a reason, and I'm still waiting for him to use it.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, is that we do not leave a possible violation of the law (or of a decree of the board) stand while discussing, we remove the possible violation, and discuss its re-inclusion. For me, this seems to be the opposite, (in some cases several) editors reverting to a version which possibly violates law/decree, wanting a discussion of removal. The policy may not be crystal clear, it does suggest that overuse is not appropriate and should be removed. Unreferenced material should be removed until properly, reliably referenced, excessive external links are removed and inclusion is discussed, external links to possible (or likely) copyvio's are removed until discussion shows that inclusion is warranted. This is an area under debate like those examples, and I suggest that they are treated in the same way. IMHO, thé way forward is then to remove all, and discuss which of them should be re-included, or even, if all should be re-included. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be exacting: the use of 10 images - otherwise meeting all other NFC policies - on an article likely isn't a legal problem since that likely falls under US Fair Use. But on WP, we have to go by what the Foundation has said in their resolution on non-free images which is stronger than fair use law, and they have said that all editors must maintain minimal use of non-free images, removing improper images quickly.  The end result is still the same as you're talking about - non-free images should be removed if they are not properly used - just that this comes from a slightly different authority. --M ASEM  (t) 13:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * that was what I meant with 'decree of the board'/'decree' --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bahamut0013 is wholly out of line here. (1) threatening to use protection to force discussion (see edit summary), (2) using administrator privileges in an argument in which he was directly involved (protecting), (3) attempting to force mass overuse of non-free images onto a list of characters article (multiple edits) in violation of WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC #3a and #8, (4) edit warring while discussion was ongoing on his own talk page. I am absolutely shocked that an editor entitled with administrator, checkuser, and oversight permissions is abusing their privileges in this way. I don't agree that Δ should have continued reverting while this was going on, but the burden on Bahamut0013 is considerably higher. Wow. WOW. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, I have to repeat that I wasn't involved in the matter of the image's suitability until after I protected the page. The point of the matter is that I saw what was clearly a disruptive edit from a user who had a pattern of such edits. I reverted it, and didn't even get the chance to warn the user before he reverted me and templated me as if I didn't know the NFCC. I continued to approach the behavior of his edits, not the content, until after the protection. The persistance of his disruptive edits even after being warned to stop (and just for this latest incident) proved to me that he wasn't going to stop (and he said as much), so I protected the page (on the reversion he preferred, no less) to end the warring. I haven't edited this page (or any of the associated pages) in a long time, and while I still have a mild interest, it was his disruptive editing that got me involved, not my desire to have images of a sprite comic that was long concluded. I refuse to be bullied, especially since it's my duty as an administrator to protect people from such behavior as I tried to stop. And you want to criticize me for doing that? It's an insult.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 14:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I too have conducted a large number of such image removals (examples: . Am I disruptive? There is a reason WP:NFCC#3a and #8, and WP:NFLISTS exists. Addressing his behavior by protecting an article rather than blocking him solves nothing. He was free to continue editing other list articles in the same manner. That you chose to protect just one article in which images you personally uploaded images that were removed and were recently edit warring to force their inclusion on was out of line. If you were truly intending to address his actions, and not guard a particular article when you supposedly observed a pattern of edits across many articles, then blocking would have been the better tool (though just as equally egregious in use because you were involved in a dispute with the editor). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No way this is going to be resolved here; please continue the naval gazing at AN/I. For what it's worth, Delta's reverts are clearly exempt from the 3RR rule and I very much doubt that Bahamut0013 would be so daft as to revert again - making a block, whilst maybe allowed by policy, pointless. CIreland (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Szalas reported by User:Cimmerian praetor (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: There are other reverts using IP, I believe it might be the same user.

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

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

Comments:


 * Cimmerian praetor has violated 3RR and Szalas has made 3 reverts - 2 of which included personal attacks. CIreland (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bijuts reported by User:Samaleks (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Link: Diff:


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

Further to edit-warring in Kochi page, the user was trying to do the same thing in Kerala page too.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

The user is using Multiple IPs to evade the block; inserting the same content every time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  

Comments:

The user Bijuts has been blocked once (48 hrs) for editwarring in Kochi, Kerala pages. The user is constantly trying to push his POV, and not using talk pages or other dispute resolution processes.

The user is trying to use Multiple IPs to evade the block. This user should be blocked for a longer period, and the pages should be semi-protected. --Samaleks (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Semi-protected to avoid sockpuppetry (I cannot verify that these IPs were the same user). If the user starts edit warring against in the next 24 hours, feel free to report to me or to this board again (making note of what I said here). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Another revert in Kerala page now : As per Duck, Bijuts could be blocked. Else, I am afraid, that the user is going to use multiple IPs for edit-warring in different pages. Samaleks (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All the Indian notable cities have nick names. Whenever I am trying to add the nick name to Kochi city page with solid references, the User:Samaleks and anonymus ips reverting it without valid arguments. About sock puppetry, nothing to say- User:Samaleks simply allege about sock puppetry without any valid proofs. Administrators can investigate very well. My ip address is 59.93.43.177. Till date no other user logged through this ip address and till date i logged to wiki only through this ip address. --Bijuts (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is in reference to the note by Magog the Ogre. Magog the Ogre stated "If the user starts edit warring against in the next 24 hours, feel free to report to me or to this board again (making note of what I said here)."

Even after semi-protecting the page, User:Bijuts is edit-warring in the article:
 * 
 * 

Moreover he just copy pasted the same warning from his talk page to my talk-page :

Admin attention is requested. Thanks, Samaleks (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Samaleks was blocked on February 28 for edit warring in Trivandrum article. See. And i reinstated the "Commercial Capital tag with solid reference". Administrators can check the references.

--Bijuts (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Even after the page was semi-protected, User:Bijuts is continuing to push POV without consensus in talk pages. The evidence is given in my above message. --Samaleks (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:ClaudioSantos reported by Xanthoxyl &lt; (Result: Blocked 5 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 19:34,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "No it is not explained any where.")
 * 2) 06:00,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "The lead explicity mentions the Groening Protocol.")
 * 3) 14:08,  3 May 2011  (edit summary: "Let discuss and then delete.")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Well aware of 3RR. In the history are recent previous attempts to add similar material over others' objections. Xanthoxyl &lt; 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the discussion, User:Gabbe requiered a graduate source and I added it, so my last editions were a response to that requirement. And I was not the one who first deleted and then discussed but you was Xanthoxyl. I wonder why you always runs to the noticeboard when I add editions against euthanasia. Actually I was one time blocked because of the same reason in the same article and I was the only one punished, despite of some months later the other user (User:Ratel) who was really engaged in "edit warring" my editions, he indeed was expulsed because of his abuse of puppet accounts in order to force his pro-euthanasia editions. Of course you Xanthoxyl denounced me for that edit warring and I've got a block but you did not denounced him. Actually later on you defended his editions in the AktionT4 article. And now indeed my current edition is balancing an edition made precisely by this expulsed user, but you do everything to keep the edition of this expulsed editor but also do everything to delete mine. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ClaudioSantos for 5 days. CIreland (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Spanman03103 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Fairly long-running dispute on article on including this material. Recent article on WND will probably trigger new editors to the article. Spanman has been asked several times on his talk page and on the revert edit comments to use the talk page, but has not.

<b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - page was moved from Natural born citizen to Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution shortly after report was made. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Textbook. Kuru   (talk)  18:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Solopiel reported by ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:28, 24 April 2011  (edit summary: "As many as it takes while the British are still there.")
 * 2) 16:22, 26 April 2011  (edit summary: "Not vandalism.")
 * 3) 05:18, 28 April 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 10:19, 30 April 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 06:22,  1 May 2011  (edit summary: "Status says: "Presence of British troops in order to train Iraqi military until May 2011."")
 * 6) 23:09,  2 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 426850875 by V7-sport (talk)")

— repeated edit warring ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 03:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; It seems multiple people opposed the edits over the course of the last month or so, while none seemed to support them. -- slakr \ talk / 03:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Platinumshore reported by User:206.188.60.1 (Result: defer to WP:ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

March 29 report that was not acted upon at the time:

April 7 removal of tags: (again without any discussion)

April 26 removal of tags: (again without any discussion)

Comments:

This SPA user only logs on every week or two to make this one change and then leave. This has continued since January. Please help curve this disruptive behavior. 206.188.60.1 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The user has explained the edits adequately. Lack of discussion is problematic; however, this is not the place to report tendentious behavior. Try WP:ANI instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:99.90.197.244 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Human evolution semiprotected for 3 days )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by User:GManNickG

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Human evolution

Comments:

Seems some what willing to talk at first - however since this edit and 8 to 10 reverts i see no point in trying anymore. 5 different editors have raised concerns about the edits in there rv summaries to no avail. At this point i believe a correction in behaviour is needed and hope that another ban will get this across.Moxy (talk)
 * I have semiprotected Human evolution for 3 days, effectively barring the IP from participating. 10 reverts is alot and not a first offence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not the same results at all - not sure this is sending a message that his behaviour is wrong. 10 reverts is way over the top for anyone.Moxy (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:70.92.140.153 reported by User:Izauze (Result: )
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Also, regarding harassment on my talk page:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  

also warned via revert comments, and on discussion page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP has had a short but volatile history of editing. This particular page (which is rather slow) has had a long history of being whitewashed by various anonymous IPs that may or may not be related to the current IP. The current IP has done a lot of repeated deleting on the article above, and a lot of repeated harassment/vandalism on my talk page, and has done essentially nothing to communicate with anyone in any way other than false edit summaries. It is because of this lack of communication and efforts to support his/her actions that I feel like outside action is needed. They keep deleting factual, neutrally-voiced, well-sourced material regarding controversy surround this particular article. They also revert to their preferred peacock words and non-NPOV descriptions throughout the rest of the article, which leads me to consider whether this is an editor with a bias or even a vested interest in this article, and is intentionally controlling/whitewashing it anonymously. Izauze (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note in my defense that Izauze edits his own talk page and the talk page of the article in question to delete my comments, then goes and claims I am not supporting my edits with commentary. See the history of Izauze's own talk page as well as the history of the talk page in question.  Additionally, I believe you will find Izauze's own edits probably deserve a vandalism complaint, but seeing as I'm a new user and only an IP address I felt it presumptuous to do so until I get a handle on Wikipedia better.  In any case, his/her destructive edit history is, IMHO, notable in the page in question's talk *history*.  Just remember, Izauze deletes (and probably will continue to delete) my comments/comments in my defense in order to suppress me and my edits and support his efforts to suppress my edits.70.92.140.153 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * His removing content from his talk page cannot supress your comments, they are still in the page history. A specific user's talk page is typically not the correct place to discussing an article, that is best done on the article's talk page, so that multiple user's can discuss the content (and other users typically have no way of knowing that you put the explanation for your edits in another user's talk page). - SudoGhost (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, there is no Wikipedia policy forcing a user to keep most comments on their talk page (there are exceptions, this is not one of them). WP:OWNTALK states that Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. WP:REMOVED says that 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. and, specifically states at the end: Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What a mess. I'm seeing a little red flag by an IP user whose first edit summary includes a wikilink to our BLP policy.  70.92, which other accounts/IPs did you edit under before?  Kuru   (talk)  01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also would like to get the IP on record on this subject,as s/he seems to have some pretty developed wiki-knowledge for someone who refers to themselves as "a new user." Izauze (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this still active? Why archived?  Izauze (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ninalba reported by User:WhiteWriter (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This happened in two days, 2 may and 4 may, while:
 * 1. no talk page activity.
 * 2. No other subject edited except this article. (quite possible sock, due to the complete historical unimportance of the subject, except nationalistic pretensions.)
 * 3. Despite warnings and 2 user page discussions by User:A Stop at Willoughby, no reaction nor respond is available.

I am afraid that no other option is available. As far as i know, this is school example of disruptive editing. -- WhiteWriter speaks 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I first became aware of this article after a recent deletion review for a pair of related articles, after which I added the article to my watchlist. Essentially, Vojsava Tripalda was the mother of Skanderbeg, an Albanian national hero, but sources disagree on the question of her ethnicity; many say that she was a Serb, while many others say that she was Albanian. As a result, this article is of interest to both editors interested in topics pertaining to Serbia and editors interested in topics pertaining to Albania. It therefore is fitting to have both Serbia-stub and Albania-stub as tags on the article. However, Ninalba has repeatedly removed Serbia-stub, sometimes also adding the article to the non-existent, always without comment. WhiteWriter warned him against edit-warring; for my part, I tried to engage him in discussion and to explain to him why the stub tag was appropriate (see User talk:Ninalba). Sadly, he continues to revert without comment. This is not only edit-warring but also tendentious editing and a failure to follow our editing policy, so perhaps a warning under WP:ARBMAC is also in order. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. The complete lack of communication after multiple polite requests and explicit warnings is the most concerning.  This is simple edit warring.  I will read up on WP:ARBMAC to see what remedies are available there.  Kuru   (talk)  00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User: Mikeymike2001 reported by User:TySoltaur (Result: 72 hours/MM, 48 hours TS)
Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_champions_in_WWE

User being reported: MikeyMike2001

<

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:

WWE.com currently lists Christian as the champion (http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight)and the continuous change to Orton is unsourced and unsupported by WWE. TySoltaur (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's clearly been edit warring, possibly 3RR if you count the first as a revert. I can see at least five explicit reverts for you as well on the same article.  I'd love to simply protect the article, but there's way too much traffic from people who are editing constructively to justify the disruption that would cause.  Since you're both familiar with our policy on edit warring, I've blocked you both for durations determined by your previous blocks for that problem.   Kuru   (talk)  00:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:74.72.163.219 reported by User:Kmhkmh (Result: )
The IP keeps making inappropritate/questionable edits at American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein and is not reacting to comments or reverts by other editors. The IP has ignored repeated comments in the version list and/or the discussion page and was already warned by another editor and myself(see version history,User talk:74.72.163.219). A page semi protection has been declined as the problem so far is only tied to one individual IP and vandalism report was referred to this board. It might be also wortwhile to check whether the IP is identical with User:Politika6969, who was making somewhat related edits at the same time and is not reacting to comments either (see also Help_desk/Archives/2011_April_25).--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sleetman reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Not strictly applicable, editor has two double reverts on same article involving different (but related) texts


 * 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: In the last 5 hours, this user has added back disputed content twice without consensus, with the majority of those commenting to date objecting on BLP/WP:UNDUE grounds. His prior edit inserted content similar, but not identical, to previously deleted content. He then added a spurious tag challenging the neutrality of the article, claiming it can't be neutral unless it covers the subject he insists be included. The tag was twice removed by other users, with talk page discussion; and he has twice more reverted to add it back even though no other users find his position reasonable. In response to my 3RR notice on his talk page, he substituted a different, equally spurious tag, and "warned" me on my talk page that filing this 3RR report would be "a personal attack on [his] character." The underlying issue is a running dispute over whether the article should include a discussion of the article subject's (he's a pro football player) rather foolish comments on Twitter regarding bin Laden's death. Whether he's technically broken 3RR or not (and he's pushing its limits at best), he's edit warring against multiple editors without regard for consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no editing warring that user Hullaballoo speaks of, he said that I was in violation of 3RR and told me to undo change of the the tag I put in order to avoid the risk of being blocked (which I did). Despite the change, the user went ahead anyway with the 3RR complaint and my telling him that doing so would be an attack on my personal character. As for the neutrality tag itself, there was consensus before the user joined that stated the tag warranted...which is an important note as the person who consented with the tag was the person with whom I was engaged in a dispute (the exact words of the user was this: The section, in its current form, does not have a slanted POV, considering it only mentions his brother, Walter. If we add back the Twitter controversy in its entirely, I think it would be appropriate to add the tag.) I should also point out that the changes the user is agitating is to remove ANY mentioning of Mr. Mendenhall's twitter controversy despite the incident being widely-reported in national and international news media outlets, (which he defends because "The internet may stretch these 15-minutes-of-fame events out to 15 hours or even 15 days, but they're still transient events without lasting consequences.") As of today (May 05, 2011) the talk page makes it clear that that change the user is advocated for is supported by nobody but the user. Sleetman (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have misread Eagles247's comment rather badly, turned it on its head. He was giving you his opinion (and he's an admin) that the article form you objected to was neutral, and that the version you proposed was not neutral. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand mistaken I didn't see the "not" word...although I must say the sentence was poorly worded. That however still doesn't change the fact that user Eagle 24/7 doesn't object to putting information about the twitter controversy by Mendenhall on the Wikipedia page. Sleetman (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Biker Biker reported by User:Barnstarbob (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]

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

Comments:

The Lead, Problems and Reception were covered in two long discussions and were approved by many Users. Biker Biker did not participate is now also reverting the sections. None of his edits according to Wiki prose and content were reverted, but the deletion and complete change of the three sections above were reverted as the previous versions were already approved in two discussions for content and neutrality.


 * Look at the changes made in the past 24 hours by myself and 842U and you will see a concerted effort to improve the article. No tendentious editing like Barnstarbob, no WP:OWN issues like Barnstarbob, and no POV pushing - making sure that the article is whitewashed by having more praise than criticism for the vehicle. All we have done is try to balance the article, reduce the trivia and fancruft, remove many of Barnstarbob's COI blog entries and videos, and generally make the article better than it is. Barnstarbob's response was four straight reverts in a row. I stopped when I realised he wasn't going to give up, but each time I asked him to cease and engage in a discussion at the article's talk page. He refused instead pushing the same line of "the article has been approved by others" meaning effectively that it can never change. Wikipedia is based on consensus and one editor (Barnstarbob) does not own this article. Where he gets the idea that an article can be approved and for ever more set in concrete I don't know. If you look back at Barnstarbob's behaviour over the past couple of weeks it has been a constant cycle of reversion of other people's work in favour of pushing his own content into his article. Even this report, crazy because he's the one edit warring by reverting mine and 842U's work, is because I reported him to ANI (see current case there). As for this case - you'll notice he can't provide 4 reverts because I didn't make four. He did however, here are the four diffs for his wholesale reverts of a lot of hard work by myself and 842U - diff1, diff2, diff3, and diff4 --Biker Biker (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Barnstarbob

 * Invoke WP:Boomerang. Reporter did not provide diffs, but lets look at a few from them. 1 2 3 4 reverts. Seems like a clear cut case of a 3rr violation by the reporter. Reporter obviously knows the 3rr rule by virtue of filing the report here. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Barnstarbob has continued his 3RR behaviour today. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This dispute is too complex and concerns too many diverse areas of the article to believe that blocking Barnstarbob and Biker Biker would solve anything in the long-term. Consequently, I am protecting the article for a fortnight, during which time, I hope that interested editors will pursue dispute resolution. I would recommend an RFC on the main areas of contention. Asking for the involvement of additional editors at associated WikiProjects may also help. CIreland (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, it's a good decision, although I don't hold out much hope that Barnstarbob with his "I don't see what the problem is, there's nothing to discuss" attitude will actually engage in discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good decision. I just finished reading through the issues at the WikiProject earlier this year and the current AN/I, and I think that a nice in depth discussion of the issues is called for here. It may be worth creating a userspace draft and holding a request for comment advertised at WP:CAR. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can definitely see the wisdom in this decision, in terms of encouraging editors to work collaboratively on this article. However, I am concerned that Barnstarbob clearly violated 3RR and is "getting away with it."  If he continues to play the role of censor to edits that do not conform to his ideal of what the article should be, I think a block will be needed to show him that he does not own this article.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I too am concerned that Barnstarbob has got away with several breaches of 3RR with not even a warning from a third party, let alone a ban. I would still like to see that happen or his behaviour will only continue - perhaps worse reinforced by the knowledge that nothing will happen. Would it help if I spelled out with a specific set of diffs the incidents of tendentious / 3RR editing? Having said that however, I am actually more interested in moving the article forward. I have never done an RFC before, but am very keen to find out more and kick one off. Can someone give me a pointer / kickstart? --Biker Biker (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ♠While I can't speak directly to breaches of 3RR, I've known Bob to rv anything contrary to his vision of the page, so violating 3RR would not surprise me.
 * ♠In Bob's defense, I see no particular problem with him using his own pix, if they're available. (I've used quite a few of mine here & here, because there weren't any others, & would welcome better or more varied ones. Especially, may I say, of the Pacer pickoupe. :
 * ♠I've seen varieties of disruption, including people who start fights for the sake of starting them & walking away. This may be the most insidious kind, because there's actually good intention at bottom, & good info & effort put in. It's too bad it's been perverted.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Betsythedevine reported by User:ברוקולי (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

The article is under WP:1RR The user was warned about edit warring, when she did it yesterday, but today she did it again. In her second revert she claims Restoring "quote as per discussion on talk page", but she did it without trying to reach consensus. Broccolo (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Comments:

Comment - I don't think Mbz1 should be issuing warnings about content edits that are clearly within scope of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions given her topic ban. Just saying. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mbz1 issued warning before the article was marked as I/P related. as it is seen from this thread the article was not under 1RR when Mbz1 issued the warning. Broccolo (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of the AE report and that thread, nevertheless Mbz1 should know better than to issue warnings about content edits that are very obviously I/P related given her topic ban. In her warning she specifically referred to making more than 1 revert in less than 24 hours so she was invoking the ARBPIA 1RR restriction. Someone cannot have their cake and eat it. For my part, I will be continuing to add ARBPIA/discretionary sanctions templates to articles that are or become I/P related despite EdJohnston's personal opinion that it should be done by admins. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * at 19:18, 3 May 2011 EdJohnston said: ":::@Gatoclass: User talk:2over0 gave permission to Mbz1 to create this article (see his talk page) in the belief that an article could be written that would not touch on the I/P conflict. My impression is that the original version of this article was not related to I/P. However, normal expansion would probably bring it into the area. The thing that Broccolo reverted about 'stolen land' sounded like an editorial rather than a review, so the article shouldn't be marked 'I/P' just because of that one thing. I'm saying that it should be considered I/P from now on, and people like Mbz1 who are restricted from I/P will no longer be able to comment on it". Mbz1 never commented on it after that. If you have a problem with mbz1 warning file AE. This board is a wrong place. Broccolo (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, good morning. I did not mean to be edit-warring. The two diffs cited by Broccolo were part of a GF effort to improve the article. The sum result of those two diffs was to (mostly) undo this single diff by Gilabrand, plus add a bit more information about one co-author.

Before discussing those diffs, I would like to respond to absolutely false claims by Broccolo above. First, I did not do any previous edit-warring on the article--I have now added the relevant diffs to Mbz's May 3 complaint. User_talk:Betsythedevine. Second, I did seek consensus on the talk page for the second of the two diffs cited, and I find it hard to WP:AGF about Broccolo's claim that I didn't. My statement got several replies from other editors:
 * Seeking consensus with the edit summary "Can't censor critics complaining about what isn't in the book on the grounds that stuff isn't in the book"
 * "Well I disagree, and incidentally, I don't believe I need anyone's permission to edit the article, which I have worked on extensively and upgraded considerably from the miserable mess it was before I started." (Gilabrand)
 * " The reviews say what they say. Reviewers always talk about whatever they want. C'est la vie. It's nobody's fault." (Sean.hoyland)
 * " also have no problem with the quote discussed above." (No More Mr Nice Guy)
 * Gatoclass had also previously stated he thought removing the quote was "an inappropriate edit."
 * Nobody but Gilabrand had supported his removal of the material at that point, and believing that consensus had been expressed, I did restore it. After I did so, GabrielF who had not weighed in before also objected to the quote and I replied. As I said, I thought consensus had been achieved at the time I restored the quote.

Now about the first diff: I saw on the article talk page that Gatoclass had complained about the peremptory removal of the author section and restored it, adding a little bit of information about the second co-author, information which a different editor quickly expanded. Only after that edit, did I learn (again from the article talk page) that Gilabrand's edit had also removed part of a review in the Jordan Times. I have not attempted to restore the author section after Broccolo removed it; I think there is consensus that the author section is out.

It was not my intention to edit war. The first of the two diffs cited by Broccolo was something i would do differently if I had the chance. That is, instead of restoring the author material after seeing that Gatoclass had complained about its removal, I should have waited for wider discussion on the talk page. As for the second diff, I thought consensus had been achieved. I also thought it was not a violation of 1RR since in fact the only material being changed was the exact same diff by Gilabrand as my previous restoring of the author material. If I was mistaken about that, I apologize. betsythedevine (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The user claims she did not understand what is revert, but she was extensively explained what is revert. Besides the user participated  in AE request that discussed the situation with reverts for this very article. The fact is the user was edit warring on May 3, was warned and continued edit warring on March 5. Also, The edits the user made were not innocent edits as she's trying to present them. Both of them were reverted. Broccolo (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't consider my efforts to improve the article edit-warring, either on May 3 or on May 5. I do not claim that I don't know what a revert is, although I had no idea before May 3 that any change to the work of another person could be considered a revert. I think that's a bit draconian but if that's the rule I would like to abide by it. But doesn't that rule encourage wikilawyers to make drastic changes in one huge edit rather than thoughtful, well-justified single changes?


 * Broccolo's claim that both edits were reverted is also untrue. The first diff was indeed reverted...by Broccolo  The second diff was not reverted but transformed into an indirect quote. Where I had restored the direct but disputed quote "The West Bank and Gaza, a $3 billion economy that is virtually closed to Jordanian exports, are not mentioned as a source of revenue for Israel." Now instead there is an indirect quote "He also takes the book to task for failing to mention the contribution to Israel's economy from the occupied territories." This effort to reach a consensus version was made by Gilabrand and slightly modified by Sleetman. betsythedevine (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet another edit "for improving the article" got reverted. In this edit the user inserted POV " for his longtime employer the Jerusalem Post. Please also note the edit summary "Answering one more salvo" . The user clearly does not understand what is edit warring. She believes that if in her opinion she "improves" the article it is OK to edit war.--Broccolo (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

<-- Everybody can read the diff supplied by Broccolo and see if he represents it fairly. I explained that edit on the talk page saying, "The claims in the lead do not have a reliable source and misrepresent the source they do have, a statement made by coauthor Saul Singer when being interviewed. The lead claims the book reached " fifth place on The New York Times Best Seller list and The Wall Street Journal's best seller list for books on business. What Singer actually claimed is "It reached No. 5 on the business bestseller lists of both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal." The "Business Bestseller list" of the NYT is entirely separate from the prestigious NYT Nonfiction bestseller list [2]. The lead should not be wikilinked to the more prestigious list. betsythedevine (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)" I really did try to find a better source for those claims before making the change I did, but since I could not find any support for them outside that interview and the book's own website, I thought I should indicate the source being used. Once again, Gilabrand greatly improved the situation by finding better sources for both the NYT and WSJ bestseller lists. Since a better source was available, there was no longer any need to mention the Jerusalem Times interview.

I am sure any admin can easily decide who here is engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and POV-pushing. betsythedevine (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is becoming silly now. Broccolo, if you are unhappy with the way that article is evolving stop editing it. Walk away. There are millions of articles. You don't just have to edit the ones written by Mbz1. There are many editors working on that article. It's developing without drama, without edit warring, with civilized discussions taking place on the talk page, with the normal ebb and flow of content, bold additions, reverts/partial reverts, adjustments of text here and there etc. All of Betsythedevine's edits are clearly made in good faith. The edit you cite (the 2nd of 2 consecutive edits) was explained on the talk page prior to the edit being made as pointed out above. Perhaps you would have preferred Betsythedevine to have quoted the Jpost source and said "super-smart, relentlessly questioning, insightful editorial writer, Saul Singer" rather than "for his longtime employer the Jerusalem Post", who knows. You are creating unnecessary drama. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * CommentWith this edit the user introduced to the article battelground behavior. The edit was reverted a long time ago, but user:Betsythedevine has continued introducing to the article her POV and has continued edit warring. On this board the user demonstated over and over again a complete lack of understanding what is edit warring.
 * Sean.hoyland I am more than surprised by your attack. I will edit any articles I feel like editing. I'd also would like to ask you to review WP:NOTTHEM. Broccolo (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Broccolo is complaining about a good faith attempt to add one sentence from one of the only 4 negative reviews then cited, a review that had been linked to by Mbz1, the article's creator. At the time I made this edit, the article was a coatrack of praise for Israel and the book, including one long excerpt from the publisher's blurb, identified as "a review" and linked to as a reference 4 different times. The 4 critical comments were so telegraphic as to be almost incomprehensible. I wondered why Miles was quoted as saying "There is no economic miracle in Israel," looked at the source, and found his one-sentence condensation of his review's argument: "There is a state supported economy that derives much of its initial wealth from stolen land and U.S. largess economically and militarily." (As with another contentious sentence complained about above, this represents a direct quote from a review, NOT my own opinion.) I added that sentence to the review and then, as Broccolo says, {{WP:BATTLEGROUND]] ensued, but not by me. The sentence was removed, replaced, removed again (both removals by Broccolo). A demand was raised to scrub the entire review, not just that one sentence. Nableezy requested clarification at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, whose conclusion was that the source "is no good for facts but for an attributed comment on a book, it's a question of weight rather than reliability." The entire quote from that review is now only 7 words, even shorter than what Mbz1 included in the original, and reads "Jim Miles, in The Palestine Chronicle, disputes many of the book's premises and concludes, "There is no economic miracle in Israel."   betsythedevine (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Attack ? Oh please, quit complaining and causing conflict in the topic area. Do something constructive. Try not using your feelings to decide what articles you edit for a start. If you can't work with editors who try in good faith to enforce NPOV compliance, a mandatory requirement, don't edit the article. You know nothing of Betsythedevine's POV. Don't even talk about it. It doesn't matter. It's about what the sources have to say about the topic of the article, that's it. Some will be positive, some will be negative. It doesn't matter which as long as there is a properly sampled representative set of reviews. There is no edit warring. There is just a bunch of people volunteering their time to improve the article to make sure that it properly complies with the mandatory policies of this project. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 22:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

{{AN3|nv}} Barely squeaks by, on technical grounds. The two reverts reported appear to be a restoration of this edit. I wouldn't count piece-meal restoration of an old version as multiple reverts, I count it as one. Nevertheless, I caution Betsythedevine to avoid being hasty about judging when consensus has been achieved (consensus is not evident on the talk page for one of her reverts she claims has consensus), for such hastiness gives the appearance of edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:EarlySquid reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, then taken to the RSN page.

Comments:

This editor has removed the sourced section about Bennion founding the home on several occasions, stating that the news source used was actually just plagarized from Wikipedia. I've discussed it with him on my page and the talk page, taken it to the reliable sources board, and warned him about edit warring, which he stated he understood. Since then another editor added another source and he's reverted again so I've brought this matter to this board. Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kuru  (talk)  13:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Califate123! reported by User:Alvesgaspar (Result: User warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

This user, sometimes acting as anonymous IP 188.83.252.71, is forcing a series of pictures into Portugal, most of them out of context or replacing better quality versions (one of them FP). Because there was no consensus for the changes, I reverted them a couple of times, left messages in his talk page (here) and tried to start a discussion in the article’s talk page (here). With no results. This is a high visibility article which was once protected exactly for the same reason (and same user, if I remember well). Sorry if the format of this complaint is not the correct, but I am not acquanted with the procedure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - What I find disturbing here is that these issues could be solved by consensus and negotiation but User:Califate123! never participated in any dscussion related to the articles, or otherwise, even when other editors posted in his talk page. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't find Califate123!'s addition of images really disruptive; while some of the images are unnecessary (like the flamingos), others appear to enhance the article. Nevertheless, I agree that the collaborative nature of Wikipedia requires communication with those who disagree with you per WP:BRD and Califate123! has not been doing this. I have left a warning on Califate123!'s talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mschwerin reported by User:Mathsci (Result: indef as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * and possibly some later reverts ...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user also left this message for me on my talk page after the 3RR warning was left on his talk page. "I am in no need of your warnings motherf*ucker. I discussed more than it was necessary but none of that matters for your empty head as long as you get exactly what you want." There is also a related SPI/CU request, since this appears to be a sockpuppet account of a banned user (see Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2).


 * I'm presuming this won't be his last block. Kuru   (talk)  11:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Later changed to indef per report at SPI. Kuru   (talk)

User:Kuebie reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (article move)
 * 2nd revert: (article move)
 * 3rd revert: (article move)
 * 4th revert: (article move)
 * Additional reverts:, ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Page move-warring occurring due to disputed title. User has refused to engage in discussion (via WP:RM or similar avenues) over a move with no community consensus, and is controversial. User has been warned multiple times by multiple users via edit summaries, and is given a clear idea on the talkpage that there are users that do not share or support his ideas. Previous discussion occurred almost one year ago; as of the past few moments, user has suddenly engaged in page moving and reverting without any discussion, and is refusing to discuss any issues with other editors. User has been blocked for edit warring multiple times before (refer to blocking history), and is aware of policies such as WP:EW and WP:3RR better than anyone else involved. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also of particular interest, quote: and just lol how so many fucking Chinese users have it on their watchlist. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. First of all, none of you have actually participated in the discussion, ever. Asking me to participate when I clearly have (and this discussion is OLD), and then tell me to reach a consensus when no one else voiced their opinion against the move, seems like a stalling mechanism to me. I've already waited months to do changes, and when I finally do do it, you guys seem to think it's okay to leave a bs edit summary like that and undo the move. Also, I think it's important to mention that me and this dude have history. Kuebie (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to mention some serious tag team editing going on (not the first time). Kuebie (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's funny how you mention that post by Novidmarana, a blocked partisan sock. If you've crawled through the Chinese nationalism page history (as with many other articles he's claimed that I've been malicious on), I've had very few edits here. Check for yourself. In fact, he even claims that I've been a bad boy on Talk:Mount Toromocho. Saying that I've been tag-teaming is bad faith on your behalf; what I am discussing with Quigley in regards with Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands has nothing to do with you, I don't see why you should be all worked up. Remember how I came late to the party this time? How do you know that I've been canvassed here, if people like me have the habit of checking the box in the options page that watches every single article that I edit? I'm quite sure I came on my own accord, it's not like you can concretely confirm otherwise. And even with your accusations comes the smell of pot calling the kettle black, that is, does it make your edits any less malicious? If you want to engage in discussion, feel free to create a WP:RM, I will by all means support your actions. However, what you claim as "consensus" makes so sense at all. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. So you're telling me, Ben, that you've reverted me for technicality? Are you serious? Wow. You know, sometimes I seriously don't know whether you undo my changes out of spite or just on wiki principle. But considering our history and our opposing pov, I'll take the former.
 * You're right. Not consensus, more like apathy. Kuebie (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You want results? Go create a formal discussion, create a WP:RM, and start from there. If there is obvious opposition to something, there is no consensus. Wikipedia is built upon consensus. I for one am actually surprised that you were given a second chance after an indef block. Given your past actions that revolve around incivility, edit-warring, partisan POV-pushing, ethnic attacks and tenacious editing, I kind of question what actually went down back then. --   李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cryptic edit summaries written by uninvolved users is not a opposition to anything. Like I'm somehow supposed to get the message when you guys revert me. No fuck that. State your reasons and actually join in the talk, or I'm going to assume you're undoing my changes for the hell of it. Kuebie (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? More ad hominem attacks? I was unblocked, end of story. Can you make it any more obvious about your character assassination? Fine, I was a dick when I first started out. Does that even matter now? Kuebie (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dearest sir, do you read edit summaries? Does it ever occur to you, "Whoa, they're mentioning something. Perhaps I should take into account what they're saying?" Or do you simply disregard them, as if they were nothing? I'm quite sure that other editors' points have been made quite clearly; you have simply refused to acknowledge the ideas of others. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Started out? Judging by, have you ever changed since? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This convo is going nowhere. You think I've purposely ignored the edit summaries (which I've uhh directly responded to on my first reply here), and I think you're behaving unreasonably. There, that's all people need to know. Kuebie (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly this isn't a social networking site, not everyone is here to make friends homebro. If you don't like the way I write and still think I'm a dick, fine. I don't care. The only thing we have in common is that we seem to bump into each other a lot. Not a welcome sight tbh. But I tolerate you. And that's really what it's all about. Just being tolerant to random assholes on the internet. Yeah, not trying to derail this subject further. Kuebie (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion has devloved into personal attacks, it would be best to move forward. Kuebie was clearly move warring; this is his fifth block for the same issue; I've set the duration for 1 month.  Kuru   (talk)  16:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:OMOMOMOM reported by User:Monty845 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert about the time of the warning:
 * 6th revert after warning:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] None

Comments:


 * Will report the other party to the dispute if they revert again after warning. Both parties appear to be SPAs. There are some older reverts as well, but those are more then enough for 3rr. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now removed the material being pushed by the reported user, the material is controversial and not reliably sourced. The only source is a forum post at the forum of an involved group, which clearly fails WP:RS. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur with your assessment, both waiting on the other editor to respond to the warning and in removing the material in question. Since they're throwing names in now, I'd entertain a BLP exemption.  Kuru   (talk)  18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Mindbunny has been engaged in a slow revert war since February, removing details of Lara Logan's sexual assault in Tahrir Square on February 11, 2011, during the Egyptian revolution. More details below in the Comments section.


 * February 16–24
 * 1st edit 16:39, February 16, removed: "An unnamed source told the New York Post that she was "attacked for 20 to 30 minutes," during which the assailants were heard screaming, "Jew! Jew!"


 * 1st revert 16:59, February 16, removed: "An unnamed source told the New York Post that she was "attacked for 20 to 30 minutes," during which the assailants were heard screaming, "Jew! Jew!"


 * 2nd revert 19:33, February 16, removed: "A network source told the New York Post that she was "attacked for 20 to 30 minutes" during which her assailants were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" Logan is not Jewish."


 * 3rd revert 03:49, February 17, removed: "A network source told the New York Post that she was "attacked for 20 to 30 minutes" in which her assailants were screaming "Jew! Jew!" during the assault; Logan is not Jewish."


 * 4th revert 05:30, February 18, removed: "A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault."


 * 5th revert 05:42, February 18, removed: "A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault."


 * 6th revert 06:05, February 18, removed: "A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault."


 * 7th revert 22:58, February 20, removed: "It was later reported in a South African publication that she had provided details of the assault to her family who live in Durban, South Africa. She was reported as telling her family that the attack was "sudden" and she had "no chance of escaping" what was her "darkest nightmare". During the attack that followed, her clothes were ripped off, she was kicked and punched, her hair pulled out and she was "sexually attacked" but escaped being actually raped because of the intervention of a group of women who "threw themselves on top of her" thus protecting her from further harm.


 * 8th revert 00:27, February 24, removed: "Chants of "Jew" and "Israeli" accompanied the assault (Logan is neither Jewish nor Israeli)."


 * March 3–28
 * 9th revert 22:36, March 3, removed: "During the Feb. 11 attack, according to the Times of London; "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching". As she was being abused, the crowd of roughly 200 men chanted "Israeli" and "Jew," apparently believing her to be a spy."


 * 10th revert 00:07, March 5, removed: "During the Feb. 11 attack, according to the Times of London; "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching". As she was being abused, the crowd of roughly 200 men chanted "Israeli" and "Jew," apparently believing her to be a spy."


 * 11th revert 04:44, March 16, removed "During the February 11 attack, according to the Times of London, "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching." As she was being abused, the crowd of roughly 200 men chanted "Israeli" and "Jew," apparently believing her to be a spy."


 * 12th revert 00:13, March 17, removed "During the 11 February attack, according to the Times of London; "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching". While this was ongoing, the crowd of roughly 200 men chanted "Israeli" and "Jew", apparently believing that Logan was a spy. State-owned Egyptian media had been reporting that Israeli intelligence agents were posing as television crews."


 * 13th revert 16:03, March 28, removed: "During the 11 February attack, according to British newspaper The Times; "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching".


 * May 3–6
 * 14th revert 21:58, May 3, removed "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."


 * 15th revert 22:37, May 3, removed: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."


 * 16th revert 22:52, May 3, removed: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."


 * 17th revert 23:45, May 4, removed: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."


 * 18th revert 03:11, May 6, removed: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued pulling her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."

The details Mindbunny is removing are (a) that a trigger for the attack was someone in the crowd shouting that Logan was a Jew (a "match to gasoline," according to CBS), and (b) details showing the severity of the attack. He is not working on the article in general; all his edits to it that I can see involve removing this material. The article has already been fully protected three times because of it. He is careful to avoid 3RR, as seen in the May reverts, where he reverted four times in 26 hours.
 * Comments

The details are reliably sourced, and Logan recently offered the information herself in an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes. In February, he said he was removing the material because the sources weren't good enough. This continued when the source was The Times of London. It continues now that the source is Logan herself and CBS. It has led to an uncomfortable situation on talk (BLP-wise), where editors are being forced to discuss the details (what is rape? did they do x or y to her?). All we should be doing here is reporting the key points from her interview, and leaving it at that.

Mindbunny is a relatively new editor (first edit December 1, 2010). He was blocked twice in February for edit warring, though unblocked again because he apparently wasn't warned properly, and in the same month was reported to AN/I for disruptive editing on another article (see here) where it was noted that he was engaging in the same disruption on Lara Logan.

There was also a claim at Sockpuppet investigations/Noloop/Archive that Mindbunny is, which he seemed not to deny. I have no idea of the truth of that, but if he is Noloop, it's worth noting that Noloop was blocked four times for editing warring between August 2009 and July 2010; he stopped editing on November 20, 2010. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 04:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's interesting that I decided to limit myself to 1 revert per day, started a section in Talk to discuss proposed changes, and proposed my preferred version there, and have not been reverting to my preferred version...and SlimVirgin promptly reported me for edit warring. It's pretty silly to list edit warring from 3 months ago, because it is completely devoid of the context. In this case, the context of the early reverts was that the reporting was anonymous, so that there were anonymous descriptions of a recent sexual assault in a BLP. It was opposed by many editors, including an admin who protected the page (NuclearWarfare), who said explicitly that consensus was irrelevant in such a case . None of this context is present in the above list. Nor does SlimVirgin mention that she is edit warring to get changes into the article, without contributing much in Talk. I am reverting, once a day, to a version that has been stable since March, until a consensus can be reached. Mindbunny (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the early reverts, of anonymous reporting in a BLP, were brought to ANI and the the BLP noticeboard and discussed at great length. I was not blocked then, precisely because the material I was removing violated BLP guidelines. Please pay attention to the context of the disputes, instead of cherry-picking edits to try and get someone blocked who disagrees with you. Mindbunny (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You started out in February by saying the sources weren't good enough, and to begin with you had a point (New York Post). But in March The Times of London started reporting the same material, and you continued removing it. On May 1, Logan herself gave an interview to CBS 60 Minutes, and you're still removing it. So clearly your concern is not BLP, or quality of sourcing. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You simply aren't aware of the facts or history of the dispute. It was not just me. It many others, the folks at the BLP noticeboard, and the admins at ANI. There is a reason the version that has been in the article since March omits that material: that was the consensus. This is an old issue. The Times of London is a News Corp (Murtdoch) publication and so is the New York Post; they were running the same story, and the key point in both stories is that the source was anonymous. It simply did not meet BLP standards, and this was discussed many times at noticeboards. The rules on edit warring explicitly mention BLP violations as an exception, and anonymous descriptions of a sexual assault in a BLP were considered such a case. If you are going dredge controversy from months ago, you need to put some research into it. Meanwhile, the version you keep inserting into the article now has no consensus, and I actually decided on my own to limit myself to 1 revert per day. And I started a section to discuss proposed wordings. And then you reported me. Mindbunny (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch is neither here nor there; it's a high-quality reliable source. But regardless, Logan herself confirmed the details on May 1 via CBS, and you have continued to revert the details five times, carefully avoiding 3RR and triggering a discussion on talk about what constitutes rape. It's very disruptive.


 * Also, if you're Noloops (and that sockpuppet page seemed to make clear that you were), I recall that you engaged in serial reverting with that account too, on articles related to religion. Please understand that it can't continue, because it completely disrupts whichever article you're editing. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is it that every time somebody complains about me to admins, I spend half my time correcting the facts? I have said nothing about "what constitutes rape." I've made no comments about that in Talk at all. (There is no policy or ethical rule that prohibits discussion of what constitutes rape, anyway.) And starting a discussion in Talk is not "very disruptive." It is what you are supposed to do. Yes, I reverted  5 times--over a 4 day period. What you don't mention is that I made my preferred edit just once--the first edit on May 3. The others have been to revert to the provably consensus version, neither mine nor yours, that has been stable since March. You don't mention that your version lacks consensus, as is clear from Talk. Quit trying to "win" by reporting people. Contribute to the discussion. Mindbunny (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of like-minded accounts operating over there, trying to extend the Israel-Palestine dispute (their favorite topic). These accounts seem to assume that an addition to an article, if somehow sourced, would be admissible (and would be the default, or status quo ante version, with regard to a talk page discussion) regardless of the relative weight given to different pieces of information, or of the style in which the content is being presented. Cs32en  Talk to me  22:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is clear edit-warring by Mindbunny about whether or not to include certain content. Who wrote the revision you revert to does not matter.  Sandstein   06:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:188.223.133.60 reported by User:ProhibitOnions (Result: Semiprotected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Anon user repeatedly reverts page to remove any reference to the Daleks from Doctor Who, which are parodied in this episode of South Park. While edit summary is correct that sourcing is desirable, this should not be difficult to find, and is no excuse for nine reverts.

Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Semiprotected for a month to allow experienced editors to sort this out and, per WP:BURDEN, source it if they wish it to be included.  Sandstein   06:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Backedupinfo reported by User:Mike Rosoft (Result: warned)
Revert warring at Jonah, making unreferenced changes on whether or not it would be plausible for a sperm whale to swallow a human whole. Warned twice on user talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * I am putting the report on hold for now; the user has finally started discussing the changes. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the edit warring continues, please re-open this report or make a new one. I also note that it would be best if discussion of sources and wording were to occur at Talk:Jonah. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Luciano di Martino reported by User:AnnekeBart (Result: 72h, ARBMAC)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is an older version by another editor that is now being reverted to


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

The editor named Luciano di Martino is reverting back to an older version by an editor named Davide41 after the latter got into a case of edit warring that ended up at ANI. Davide41 has promised not to edit the page anymore, but against consesus and without discussing the matter on the talk page Luciano do Martini is now making the exact same edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

As mentioned above, this issue has been discussed extensively on the talk page. Most of the talk page and the archive are about this issue. 

Comments:

The history of the page shows an attempt at consensus was made --AnnekeBart (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Response I am a man of strong academic attitude who respects prof David's (University of Rome) academic background and experience. After reading the article talk page content I unconditionally supported prof. David's contribution to the credibility of this article.

I did not enter into any discussion here for an obvious lack of mutual respect (visible on the article talkpage) necessary to carry out any civilized discussion. A student of a provincial university (Zagreb) throws primitive disqualifications of the prof. David's (University of Rome) academic background this way: Philosopher12 (talk) This user is from Croatia. This user is a student of history and philosophy at FFZG. Dear Davide, professor of history in Rome, who apparently does not know history. OK, so you are a vandal that will be banned in a no time. I don't have to say anything else. It's sad I've spent time on you. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Respect. Thirty five years of teaching. --Davide41 (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Ok "professor", i don't know history, you do. Now, could you show me a map where Grisane in Lika is part of the Republic of Venice? Could you show me books dealing with Klović ONLY, his life and works, that state he is an italian illuminist. I'm also happy with his contemporaries.Philosopher12 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC) "professor" I'm offended. This is an encyclopedia is not your playground; the information must be accurate Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily. This must be reported --Davide41 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

At the end a few questions to User:AnnekeBart
 * how someone can claim a consensus over article content if out of five two are against of it?
 * how it is possible that only one person (me) is involved in the edit war for each war must have at least two participants?
 * how it is possible that User:AnnekeBart who does not have any background in the Italian medieval history knows what are second and tertiary references supporting the article context?

As a university professor of medieval history I support decisions of the universities and colleges across the Globe to disqualify Wikipedia as a valid academic resource as long as I see the nonsense pointed at above.

My professional and academic based response to the quality of this article content is appended to the article talkpage.--Luciano di Martino (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 72 hours for nationalist edit warring. He is insisting that this artist is Italian rather than Croatian, and in his pursuit of the cause, he has removed modern scholarly sources that specifically look into this matter. Does the case for his side become stronger if he deletes the evidence for the other side? I've also warned him under the WP:ARBMAC decision. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans: a study of identity in pre-nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the medieval and early-modern periods, University of Michigan Press, 2006, p 195 Google Books)

User:AmiAyalon1969 reported by User:RolandR (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: [diff]

Comments:

This edit is actually subject to a one-revert rule under WP:ARBPIA. The editor (a suspected sock) is edit-warring over several different articles, and is already the subject of discussions at ANI and AE. Despite this, s/he is continuing to edit war, in breach even of 3RR, over many articles. RolandR (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor has also breached 3RR at Racism in the Palestinian territories and at Judaization of Jerusalem, to both of which 1RR applies. RolandR (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: Indefinitely blocked for abuse of multiple accounts by User:Timotheus Canens, per a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:86.19.191.48 and User:79.35.189.102 reported by User:David in DC (Result: no violation)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Edit warring/3RR warnings: User talk:86.19.191.48 User_talk:79.35.189.102

Discussion attempting to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_living_supercentenarians Comments:  I'd kinda hoped the talk page discussion would head off the kind of edit warring we see now. Apparantly, it just led the warriors underground to IP addresses.

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity This case lies in the background of the current dispute. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons) Please note especially the collapsed particpation of a topic-banned editor. An admin explains to the topic-banned editor why his participation in the discussion above was inappropriate. I believe, but cannot prove, the edit warriors are associated with the group identified in this discussion, and that the second set of reverts was most likely set off by the discussion. Diff 5 through 8 are evidence of increasing (and slightly scary) hostility. David in DC (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Consecutive edits are not separate reverts, so each of them have only reverted once. If you feel there's a bigger issue in the works, please drop a note on ANI (or SPI if you feel these are all the same editor), but I don't see edit warring.  I'll leave 86.19 a waring on the goofy personal attacks.   Kuru   (talk)  23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. David in DC (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (talk) (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 07:09,  8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "undo nonsense changes")
 * 2) 07:47,  8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 428040706 by Moonraker2 (talk) try reading the paragraph")
 * 3) 08:23,  8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "There is nothing wrong with this section")
 * 4) 10:00,  8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 428051698 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) for the last time WILL YOU PLEASE STOP THIS?")
 * 5) 10:56,  8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Parrot of Doom. (TW)")

—PBS (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

PoD is an experienced editor, who has been reported here twice since 21 March for breached of 3RR to the page Guy Fawkes Night:
 * 22 March Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive153
 * 28 March 2011 Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive154

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

See the talk page and most recent archives. However most of these reverts were to bold edits (not changes the text placed on the by another editor in the last 24 hours). In only one case was the edit to revert a the same previous edit in the last 24 hours but that edit was made by a different editor partially reverting an edit by POD.

Comments:

It appears that the last edit by PoD was using Twinkle, and the comment indicates that Twinkle was used in an inappropriate way: Reversing a good faith edit and calling it vandalism. --PBS (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Iridescent. Parrot of Doom 12:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PBS's edits were in violation of WP:POINT and were an active attempt to disrupt an ongoing FAC because he feels the discussion isn't going his way. Now, PoD may or may not have edit-warred - but I don't feel he should be blocked, because it's quite obvious that PBS was not acting in good faith. I would also be reluctant to protect the article, because it's currently at FAC. I'm not sure how best to resolve this. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe PoD should be admonished not to violate the letter or spirit of 3RR at any time, but I'm not comfortable with PoD being blocked here, because the behavior on the other side was in no way less problematic, and because he's in the middle of a FAC that requires his attention. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PoD has merely reacted to constant gaming of the system by an editor who is determined to trivialise a good article. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not commenting on the 3RR possibility as I don't intend to involve myself directly in the article history (I prefer to stay uninvolved in content matters until the direction of the FAC is clear and I can weigh reviewer commentary about the text without prejudice), but it is abundantly clear that PBS is disrupting the FAC, Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1, making demands without providing yet a single source on the FAC to back his assertions or concerns. The appearance is that he will do anything he can to cause the FAC to be archived and to make it difficult for reviewers to enter legitimate commentary or for nominators to address concerns.  If any blocks are in order here, I hope they will apply to all.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope the closing admin will not choose to block PoD for this. He's been trying to write a featured article under trying circumstances for several weeks. Philip Baird Shearer has, it appears, been trying to disrupt the process at every turn, including engaging in drawn-out talk-page discussion about one minor point after another; then after they've been addressed, unarchiving weeks later and continuing to demand answers (example). If the issues he's raising would improve the content, or if he were offering high-quality sources, or helping to improve the writing, that'd be one thing. But the suggestions of his that I've seen would have caused deterioration. It's extremely difficult to work with this going on, and this is far from an isolated example of Philip behaving this way. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think that this situation calls for a block of any party at present. I am loathe to protect an article while it is at FAC, both because it interferes with development and because there should be sufficient experienced attention on the article to prevent disagreements from becoming edit wars. The proposed Request for comment looks like the best next step here. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:MosMusy reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have worked very hard, as have other users, to bring about a compromise here. I have presented WP:RS to support my position and encouraged the other user to do so. Instead the other user has repeatedly declared that he is the "winner" of the argument and has instituted his controversial edits twice after being explicitly warned he did not have consensus to do so. I've filed a request for mediation because I'd like the ultimate issue we're debating to be settled, but I don't think edit warring is an appropriate recourse for this user and I don't seem to be getting across.

-Kudzu1 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see no violation. There were more than 24 hours between the reverts. What I do see is that Kudzu1 has developed an attitude that he OWNS the page lately. TL565 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * MosMusy has not edited the article since the 3RR warning, and has stated a willingness to seek compromise. I am sufficiently concerned by their talkpage posts, though, that I am notifying of WP:ARBAA2. I would advise Kudzu1 to be more circumspect in reverting, but I do not think that their edits over the past week indicate an inappropriate degree of article ownership. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Rafy reported by User:77.44.210.15 (Result: no vio / stale)
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:

User:Rafy wants to force certain edits and he does not want to reach a consensus formula through the discussion page.77.44.210.15 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * please read the definition of the 3RR before accusing me.
 * I provided references in the article and raised some issues about your edits in the talk page. You might want to discuss the reasons for your reverts in the talk page first before including them in the article.--  R a f y  talk 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While I don't see a direct 3rr violation due to the timing, it is getting into edit war territory. I would strongly urge you both to pursue additional Dispute resolution steps rather then continuing to revert each other. Maybe requesting a Third opinion would help. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a 3rr violation, but it is obvious edit warring from his part. User:Rafy tried repeatedly to force his edits and refused my attempt to reach a compromise with him.77.44.210.15 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There have anyway been no edits to the article for a day and a half, making this report stale now. WikiProject Christianity may be of use in generating additional input to resolve the underlying dispute if the recently presented references do not suffice. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem here is a problem of CONDUCT. User:Rafy does not want to compromise, and I don't think any dispute resolution project can help when a user is not willing to compromise. Your decision is a green light for the edit war to continue.77.44.210.15 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Icerat reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

The user (Icerat, aka User:Insider201283) has repeatedly reverted the removal of an old WP:OR tag. I first removed the tag yesterday based on the fact that it was added in 2009 (by Icerat/Insider201283) at which time the content in question (one sentence in the Politics and Culture section of Amway) was discussed on the article Talk page by several editors who disagreed with Icerat's assessment and were of the opinion that there was no OR. I came across that Talk page thread for the first time yesterday when I was following up on a COI/editing conflict complaint regarding this user's contributions on another related Amway page Amway Australia. After not having made any input on this issue since 2009, Icerat immediately reverted my removal of the tag on the basis that a link cited with a sentence he objected to was dead. Icerat also removed the entire sentence itself despite the fact that he had already reverted the removal of the OR tag. I replied that a dead link was not valid basis for removal of the content (the relevant text from the source in question had been quoted on the talk page) and that instead, a 'dead link' tag should be added. I again removed the OR tag. The editor was clearly intent on keeping the OR tag in place even when the alleged offending content was removed from the article. The goal seems to be to denigrate the entire section of content in (Amway:Politics and Culture). Despite repeated warnings, the presentation of additional supporting references, and input from another editor on the noticeboard indicating that the content in question is not OR, Icerat violated 3RR today.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This was simply ridiculous edit warring and verging on harassment on the part of Rhode Island Red. We are talking here about a tag, not article content. He removed an old tag, which triggered a watch for me, I reviewed the problem and in my opinion it still existed, so I added a new tag, with current dating. He challenged this and kept removing the tag, despite ongoing discussion. I raised the issue on the OR\Noticeboard to get additional viewpoints. He continued to remove the tag despite this active discussion and my concerns. Indeed, including the original case, he removed the OR tag four times within 24 hrs. I've no idea what he's referring to about me wishing the tag included after the alleged offending material was removed. RIR replaced this info in his first revert and I believe it remained until it was rewritten. In any case, tags are in place to try and encourage other editors to contribute to an article and any discussion, removing them in spite of another editors concerns, and ongoing discussion, is simple disruption. Even more bizarrely, the issue the tag was about has now been resolved on the OR noticeboard and the section in dispute rewritten, and the tag removed, by myself. In other words, there's no problem. --Icerat (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * NB: The issue has not been resolved. I'm merely letting your latest edit stand until the admins have had a chance to review the evidence of 3RR violation; that doesn't mean I agree with your edit or that anything has been resolved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the issue not resolved? You found a source. I've since found another source. Both have been added to the article and the text improved to reflect them, and the tag your so stressed about has been removed. If you've got a problem with the actual text there now there's no reason not to continue discussion in talk while your pursue this petty 3RR vendetta. --Icerat (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You raised this issue in 2009 on the article talk page. Two editors replied at that time and both diagreed with you. You did nothing about the 'issue' in the 2 years that elapsed. Yesterday you posted a comment on the OR noticeboard, and again, the editor who replied disgareed with you. And lastly, I disagree with you. When you continue to insist on denigrating a whole section of content based on the fact that you alone don't like it; ignore the unanimous comments of other editors; display WP:OWN and ignore WP policy; and engage in unjust edit warring, then the principal problem clearly lies with with your conduct. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're embarrassing yourself, particularly given the content in dispute, and the tag itself, were removed by myself some time ago - indeed, before you registered this 3RR claim ]. The OR dispute was resolved because additional sources were found that (a) actually existed and (b) did not require original research. It's still POV-pushing and doesn't belong in this particular article, but that's a dispute for elsewhere. --Icerat (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) The tag is still there.
 * (2) After violating 3RR, Icerat made additional edits to the content in question, and not only did this user revert the deletion of the OR tag again, they added a second tag (POV). This conduct is clearly over the top. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I thought I removed the OR tag when fixing the text and adding the POV tag. I certainly intended to. I've now removed it. --Icerat (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to belabor this any further, since the evidence already speaks for itself, but I couldn’t help noticing a lot of significant refactoring of Icerat’s comments on this 3RR. It’s just my opinion, but it seems like tinkering with excuses until they fit better (jamming a square peg into a round hole?). Much like the user's comment above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now re-editing something for clarity is a crime? Good grief. In any case, I've re-added the OR tag as the overall issue has not been solved. Having to deal with your multiple personal attacks in various forums is making it difficult to focus. The overall issue now is one of WP:SYNTH (see Talk:Amway), which is a part of WP:OR but not explicit in the tag. I'd removed the OR tag then re-added it on this basis before submitting the edit, and then gotten distracted with having to deal with this petty 3RR case. --Icerat (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No comment on the CoI and OR board discussions. Rhode Island Red, regardless of the rightness of the matter, edit warring over a tag is often silly, especially when exhorting other users to stop edit warring. Please consider that consensus takes time. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally understand you POV and sincerely appreciate your input. If you scan through the Talk page and noticeboard replies, every editor (5 in total now) has commented that there is not an OR issue with the source/content in question. What we have here is one editor insistent on ignoring that quasi-consensus and doing what please them regardless. Anyhow, thanks for your attention in thsi matter. Hopefully it will cool things down a bit on the project page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:QuintupleTwist reported by User:Mathsci (Result: indef as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user's editing has already caused concern. Here he is edit warring to make fundamental changes to the lede of an article covered by arbitration sanctions WP:ARBR&I. I independently have started an SPI/CU Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev; and there is a parallel discussion on WP:AE in which his name has come up. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: A checkuser has confirmed that the he is the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Closed based on that SPI. Kuru   (talk)  15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:78.105.18.126 reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: 24 hours)
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:

Comments:

User has been warned several times and encouraged to discuss proposed changes on the talk page, but user will not engage. This appears to be a single-purpose account for edit warring at this article and Christine Maggiore. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Had already blocked for 3RR in the request below. Kuru   (talk)  15:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:78.105.18.126 reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:10, 3 May 2011


 * 1st revert: 02:44, 9 May 2011
 * 2nd revert: 13:07, 9 May 2011
 * 3rd revert: 14:06, 9 May 2011
 * 4th revert: 14:35, 9 May 2011
 * 5th revert: 06:35, 9 May 2011
 * 6th revert: 07:22, 9 May 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:25, 26 April 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has not engaged on talk page despite requests at User talk:78.105.18.126.

Comments:

Apparently fixed IP, edit-warring across a range of articles related to AIDS denialism. MastCell Talk 15:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Oops, same editor reported immediately above. Please consider these two reports together. MastCell Talk 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two more reverts (I think).  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly the same editor as previous days, has been warned about 3R before. Kuru   (talk)  15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:86.186.32.97 reported by ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant (Result: stale )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:20,  8 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 427071334 by Î” (talk)")
 * 2) 11:10,  9 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 428173865 by Î” (talk)")
 * 3) 15:13,  9 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 428241541 by Î” (talk) many of these are in fact PD, the others may also be PD, am awaiting clarification from BI")
 * 4) 15:36,  9 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 428260649 by Î” (talk)")
 * 5) 15:37,  9 May 2011  (edit summary: "Kindly cease removing public domain images, as clearly explained on your talk page. Many thanks.")

Repeated violations of our non-free content poliocy —ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The images were in place on the article for 3 years, and were removed by the user above claiming it was 'overuse' of non-free fair use content. I restored them, and when I looked more closely found that many images were quite clearly in public domain under Indonesian law, so I tagged them correctly, which User:Δ reverted on sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Check your facts, PD-gov for Indonesia does not apply. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am well in possession of the facts, I have spent several years and tens of thousands of dollars studying Indonesian currency, and I can assure you that the images I tagged were issued by the central government and are public domain under Indonesian law.
 * Now given that the images were in the article for three years and free or nonfree are not a copyright violation, but only in your view 'overuse', I consider that you are the cause of the edit war in that you continued to revert aggressively, certainly well in excess of 3RR when we were still ACTIVELY discussing the status of these images. You are yourself violating 3RR, which says 'Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.' (Boldface at source.) Since it is far from 'unquestionable', I suggest you are being rather forward in your nomination of me here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ive been thought this multiple times. enforcing NFCC is exempt from 3RR. either provide clear proof of your claims from a reliable third party or shut up. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ive asked for proof and Ive look for proof of your claims and I cannot find it. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 16:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline is very clear, you may only exceed 3RR when it is 'unquestionably a violation' of WP:NFCC. Whether or not possibly nonfree banknote images issued by 'Bank Indonesia' are 'overused' is a matter of interpretation and is certainly not an 'unquestionable violation' of the guidelines at WP:NFCC
 * That's the first problem with your behaviour.
 * The second is that if you actually went to the trouble of trying understand what it is you are battling over, rather than just acting robot-like on the output of some 'overusage' report, you would get much further. If you look through the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banknotes_of_the_Indonesian_rupiah&oldid=428263093 (the one with images in, before you removed them) you will see that there are 'Government Notes', such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indonesia_1954_1r_o.jpg which are clearly issued by 'Republik Indonesia', and there are 'Bank Notes', such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indonesia_1957_5r_o.jpg which states 'Bank Indonesia'. Just in case it wasn't clear enough the Government Notes are signed 'Menteri Keuangan' (Treasury Minister) - i.e. government official; whereas those 'Bank Indonesia' notes are signed 'Gubernur' and 'Direktur' (i.e. bank officials)
 * It is also explained in the article that the low denomination notes could not legally be issued by the Bank as according to the 1914 Currency Act, which is why they were issued by the government.
 * So as already requested, you need to go back and restore those correctly applied public domain tags, and please in future try to understand a little more, and battle a little less. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again you failed to prove anything. I asked for reliable third party sources stating that the money is PD. Just because its signed by someone does not meant that it is published by the government. Without a doubt there is some governmental involvement with the post 2002 images, and prior to 2002 there is no proof of public domain either. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth noting here that Betacommand, or Δ as he now seems to prefer to be known, has only recently been released from a two-year restriction barring him from any action relating to non-free content "policing", imposed in consequence of his previous bull-headed behaviour. I find his assertion that "enforcing NFCC is exempt from 3RR" especially disturbing. This shows a signal failure to understand policy in this area, which as the anon correctly cites firmly forbids such action except when there is unquestionably a violation. Without taking a view on Indonesian copyright law, on which the anon may well be right, it should be noted that showing what the current bills of a country look like is absolutely the spine of the topic for an article on the banknotes of that country. Such depictions have been absolutely standard on such articles for at least as I've been on Wikipedia, and on most reasonable interpretations I would have thought would plainly pass NFCC #8. If these images were nominated for WP:FFD, I have not the slightest doubt that they would be kept. If Beta wants to question that status quo, the right way to bring up the issue would be through a well-advertised RFC. Edit-warring is not acceptable, and if Beta doesn't know that -- or doesn't want to know that -- then that seems to me a matter of the highest severity, and perhaps time that his ongoing probation should be reviewed. Jheald (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)I would also make the edit request that the images be restored to the page by an appropriate neutral admin, so that they can be seen and examined in situ while discussion progresses, as for example they would be pending an FFD; rather than remaining off the page, because that makes them liable to be deleted by an automated process regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case.
 * As I wrote above, it is standard practice for articles on "Banknotes of Country X" to show the banknotes. In the case of US dollar denominations I am sure we would expect nothing else, and Indonesian denominations should be no different. If somebody wants to raise the question of this wiki-wide, the way to do that is through an RFC. But edit-warring, as Beta has done, on a particular page against a long-standing customary use cannot be acceptable. Jheald (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * NFC requires removal, you cannot leave such violations in place. There are very few remaining currency articles with large amounts of non-free content in them. this issue has already decided. Until there is consensus for inclusion they cannot be re-added. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 18:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS US and other cases use FREE images, I really dont care whether you use 1 or 1,000 free images, my focus is on the over usage of non-free content. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 18:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jheald, your disdain for our NFC is known, This issue has already been determined, see [User_talk:Δ/20110501#New_Zealand_dollar_images]] for an other example. There is no reason for the amount of NFC in currency related articles. see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 18:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)You tell me that "the issue has already been decided" and you point me to a discussion at WikiProject Numismatics. But all I see there is a personal view being pushed by Hammersoft (possibly the one other editor who could challenge yourself for uncompromising zeal in this area) -- and achieving no traction or consensus whatsoever.
 * Interpretation of policy should be guided by (i) consensus, if necessary following an RfC, and (ii) long-standing practice. It is not something that is there that just you and Hammersoft can declare. This also has been something that led to your past restrictions. Jheald (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it unlikely that any consensus has ever been reached. What I see is a determination to demolish first, ask questions later, even in the face of doubts as to what the copyright status of these images are in the first place. If the issue has been 'decided' it is only by repeated application of the kind of heavy-handed tactics that Betacommand has employed here (perhaps with one or two like-minded bulldozer editors working alongside), in order to successfully excise these encyclopedic images from other pages.
 * Such tactics, while frequently successful on Wikipedia do not really demonstrate anything with respect to 'consensus' or 'law', merely the relative levels of obstinacy and persistence of the warring parties. I have witnessed it in the past - a single user, perhaps two, can trample over the objections of multiple other users, going through each in turn saying 'das ist verboten unter Wikipedianlaw', and when asked to prove it simply repeats 'DAS IST VERBOTEN!!!!', perhaps linking to a previous discussion where that same user has said to another person 'DAS IST VERBOTEN'.
 * Usually these tactics are successful, as typically the content producers are distinct from the wikilaywers, so the latter is able to successfully trample over the former, getting a smug sense of satisfaction at the end as another page falls under 'compliance', caring not that the resulting page is thoroughly debased and less useful as an encyclopedic reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Δ, I think you should adjust your approach at bit. Let's assume for the sake of argument that these images fail NFCC, is there a huge need to remove them immediately from the article, given that they've been there for a long time already? If someone disagrees, discuss with them, get someone else familiar with image use policy to comment, whatever. If they keep restoring it, ask for protection. Making like half a dozen reverts then reporting them for edit warring is not the best way of handling this kind of thing. Yes, NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR. That does not mean making half a dozen reverts is a good idea. At all. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made some suggestions for 86.186.32.97 to follow, to try to prevent a repeat of this war - basically if he can show that PD-IDGov covers these notes then he is free to add that template to the images.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged many of the images, which were clearly issued by the Indonesian government, as PD-IDGov. I don't see any reason to doubt this given that the notes say 'Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Finance', however Δ is rather tendentious in dealing with this matter, and has insisted on links to all copyright laws since 1912 and various other things, which I have now provided on his talk page.
 * It was rather time-consuming to tag the images, and I didn't particularly appreciate Betacommand's 'shoot first, ask questions later' style of dealing with any doubts he might have had about it, which has resulted in this rather tiresome discussion here.

New Zealand dollar
Additionally, six reverts by at New Zealand dollar between 21:17, 2 May 2011 and 23:56, 2 May 2011 by him trying to strong-arm his and Hammersoft's personal new view of policy. This is not tolerable, and not the sort of behaviour that the limited exception to WP:3RR for uncontroversial NFC policy enforcement was put there to permit. Jheald (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (uninvolved opinion) While I have known Delta for years, and we have certainly butted heads in the past, generally over his inability to communicate civily with others, in this case the relevent bit is WP:BURDEN. Regardless of what it is, the burden of for including anything in an article lies with the person who wishes to see it in.  Whether this is a controversial statement which needs a valid source, or a picture which needs a valid fair-use statement (or appropriate copyright tag) the onus is on the person who wants to put it in an article.  The arguement that it has been there for a long time is a red herring; lots of stuff gets left in articles for varying lengths of time and there's no statute of limitations on inappropriate material.  The fact remains that (for very good reasons) the burden lies with the side that wishes to include something to clearly establish why they are justified in including it.  In this case, insofar as the use of these images, and their copyright status is in dispute, the images should be left out of the articles until the issue is resolved.  Resolved in this case would be to produce reliable sources which indicate that the images are (as claimed) in the public domain or are otherwise compatable with Wikipedia licenses.  If they are (as is being claimed here) then producing documentation thereof should be trivial, however it still needs to be produced before they are added back to the article.  That Delta's interaction style is offputting is irrelevent to the issue at hand; Wikipedia policy is clear; the person who wishes to add or return a disputed item needs to provide the evidence and establish consensus, not the person removing it.  While I am not going to resolve this ANEW notice one way or the other, I as an admin am inclined to let this one slide without any blocks on either side, with the expectation that the images are left out of the relevent articles, discussions will occur where documentation to their status is provided to the satisfaction of Wikipedia policy, and we all go back to being nice, civil people.  -- Jayron  32  19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Khazar (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

WP 1RR violation (see below)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

According to the talk page notice, this article "is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are: All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." PlotSpoiler made two reverts in succession apparently without consulting other editors, and then added some |unneeded suggestions on the motives of my own edit. He's also made personal attacks against other editors involved in this article that an admin persuaded him to remove.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Editor removed notice from her/his talk page.
 * As a note, this has no bearing on 3RR, and is allowed as per WP:REMOVED. 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. - SudoGhost (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Consecutive reverts are counted as a single edit when considering WP:3RR and 1RR. Please request page protection if discussion does not resolve these issues. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: Stale)
Page:, and many, many others

User being reported:

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


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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, reverted without comment minutes later

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, deleted moments later (justified as a "move", but without even a pointer to the new place left)

Comments:

Δ, previously known as Betacommand, was recently released from a two-year restriction barring him from any action relating to non-free content "policing" -- this series of edits makes it quite clear that he's back to his old ways. While this behaviour would be tolerable if he were actually enforcing clear-cut policy, his interpretation of WP:OVERUSE is quite extreme and, in the specific case of fair use images of banknotes in currency pages, strongly disputed by the community, as per the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 51. (For Indonesian rupiah, he has repeatedly removed the images despite considerable evidence that they are in fact PD!) And to top it off, he uses highly misleading edit summaries, eg. describing clearly sourced and attributed fair use images as "copyvio", and regularly threatens users who revert his changes with being blocked. This is not tolerable, and us tolerating it harms Wikipedia. Jpatokal (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My experience on Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah, is that he ripped the article apart by removing all of the images (without notifying any relevant parties - Indonesia Wikiproject, numismatics, etc.), then reverted no less than six times, in clear violation of 3RR based only on his personal interpretation of 'overuse'. His behaviour towards others - slapping me with warning templates, reverting first discussing later, is in clear contrast to what he tolerates himself, as shown by his removal of warning and discussions above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All reverts here given are >24 hours old. Other methods of dispute resolution are open, but AN3 is not the place to go for this. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Koreanworld1 reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user was a sockpuppet exempted a block by an uninvolved admin. Sockpuppet_investigations/Koreanworld1


 * I have welcomed the new user and directed them to discuss this at the talk page. Please come back if undiscussed changes continue. Phoenix7777, please remember to notify the other user when making a report such as this. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:68.194.239.60 reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Ongoing vandalism of articles relating to Puerto Rican themes such as Puerto Rican people and Puerto Ricans in the United States. Vandal was blocked for two weeks but has resumed vandalizing articles and putting non-referenced items. Apparent sock puppet of both blocked users User:Afrodr and User:DDatGuy1. Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected both. The census numbers were changed from the cited source, but it is possible that the user was looking at different numbers somewhere else. XLR8TION, please be careful when describing another editor's contributions as vandalism, as that term is usually reserved for changes that are obviously not intended to improve the encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fat&Happy User:Loonymonkey User:Mystylplx User:Johnuniq reported by User:Sempi (Result: stale)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Check history for many others, these are just the most recent. 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

History:

Comments:

Note, these blanket deletions of any and all references to Vattel and the Law of Nations by a handful of censors on this article is historical. This is not merely an "edit war," but appears to be a focused direction on their part, regardless of discussion, regardless of contributor, and regardless of sources. No matter what editor posts a Law of Nations source, nor what references they cite, this team of censors has been managing to delete it without providing any references or sources themselves justifying such deletions. They do participate in discussions, but it's nearly all irrelevant, non sourced, and appear to be for show.

In summary, this article is about the "natural born citizen" clause of the US Constitution. Yet, the Law of Nations source, which has a direct "natural born citizen" reference, and which is also referenced as being used by the authors of the US Constitution is being repeatedly deleted as even a mere possible source of "natural born citizen" in the US Constitution.

In short, this handful of people are gaming Wikipedia rules in order to censor knowledge, which would seem to be the antithesis of Wikipedia. I'm probably just the first one that really decided to do something about it.

Review this recent comment between two of the conspirators, "You were reported at WP:AIV (permalink), but the report was assessed as "content dispute" and removed. Let's proceed calmly, but it is clear that something will have to happen to remove the disruption from Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution." Johnuniq to Mystylplx
 * The reporter, User:Sempi has violated 3rr, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 reverts, And the reporter is on notice of the 3rr rule, warning from before the first revert on a related incident. I was not going to report them because they had stopped, but in light of bringing this to the venue, it seems necessary to raise it. I would also mention there was a fruitless attempt to have one of the editors being reported here blocked at AIV. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see a couple of 3RR problems here, but it appears to be stale at this point. There's no such thing as "group edit warring"; it usually just means consensus is against you.  I'm sure this article is a conspiracy theory magnet, but I would encourage regular edits not to get drawn into edit wars with new users.  Kuru   (talk)  23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If by stale, you mean they appear to have stopped at the moment, then yes. However, the main point of filing this is because of the history of deletions going back months, involving the deletion of contributions from multiple people on the exact same specific content. I was expecting an admin would at least review the history to see what was really going on, and for how long, rather than only drawing a conclusion based merely upon the most recent week. Maybe I should have made that more clear. This was not an "edit war with new users," but an edit war against any users that sourced the Law of Nations.


 * As for not following the standard template, I thought it better to consolidate since all four are doing the exact same thing, in the exact same article, and appear to be working as a team to game the rules, i.e. one would make a deletion, then another the exact same deletion later, and so on. My thought was also that multiple reports would have been even less likely to result in anyone taking the time to research what was really going on between these users; this report already appears to have been ignored or overlooked as is. Would multiple reports have further complicated things? Nevertheless, I'm glad they at least appear to have stopped doing it for the time being. Maybe, in a way, reporting it did work!


 * I was wondering if a single user using multiple proxies and accounts could create the illusion of consensus on articles or use dummy accounts to cause mischief? Not that I suspect that in this case, but the question arose. Is that possible?


 * I see User:Mystylplx has now been blocked for a history of edit warring.  Is this permanent? IP based? Sorry for the questions. I hope someone has a few seconds to answer. Sempi (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IP Editors are not able to issue blocks. User:Mystylplx has never been blocked. Check the block log. I find the timing of this very ususual... Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. So it was just someone faking it. What about someone using proxies? Couldn't they pretend to create consensus? Sempi (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP-anon was accusing Mystylplx of being a sockpuppet of a long-ago-blocked user (Griot). I advised the IP-anon (on the IP address's talk page) that in order for such an accusation to be properly investigated and acted upon, it needed to be posted at WP:SPI — something which has so far not happened.


 * While it is most certainly possible for a single user to create an illusion of consensus through "sockpuppetry" or "meatpuppetry", this is not usually the explanation for a situation like this one. When a bunch of editors agree (more or less) on one position, and a single editor vehemently and intransigently disagrees with that position, it is very unlikely to be sockpuppetry, or a collusion to game the rules, and much more likely to be a bona-fide consensus which the lone holdout is refusing to accept.


 * Although WP:3RR does include an exemption for repeated reversion of obvious vandalism, most people are going to view this case, not as vandalism, but as a content dispute that has turned into an edit war. And editors who repeatedly and determinedly go back to their preferred version of the article, accusing those who disagree with them of bad faith and rulebreaking, are at risk of getting blocked for 3RR or edit-warring (and are unlikely to find any sympathy by trying to claim the exemption for reverting obvious vandalism).


 * I would urge Sempi and the other editors involved in this dispute to back off from the article itself and try to resolve their disagreements through sincere discussion and consensus-building (not haranguing) on the talk page — including bringing other, thus-far uninvolved editors into the discussion in order to get fresh perspectives on the issues. Otherwise, you're likely to just end up eventually getting yourself topic-banned or long-term blocked, and that would deprive the rest of us of whatever constructive contributions you might otherwise have been able to make here.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed the history? This bias against the Law of Nations as a source had been going on long before I got involved. That proves your assumption that this is an edit war between myself, and these four wrong. This has been an edit war between these four and anyone that used the Law of Nations source, yourself included. Sempi (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that there has simply been, for some time, a bona-fide consensus that The Law of Nations is not in fact a very good source for what the framers of the Constitution meant by "natural-born citizen"? Some seemingly valid points have been raised in that regard — such as whether an English translation of the book, actually containing the phrase "natural-born citizens", did or didn't exist prior to the writing of the Constitution.  And the suggestion that the Constitution's phrase "Offenses against the Law of Nations" is obviously, necessarily a specific and literal reference to Emerich de Vattel's book is something over which I believe reasonable people can reasonably differ without our needing to posit a conspiracy to suppress the truth.  I'm not trying to debate the content dispute here — that ought to happen on the article's talk page, not on the edit warring noticeboard — I'm simply trying to show that this may legitimately be a plain old, garden-variety content dispute, and that it's appropriate to assume good faith on the part of those involved.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But the history shows that is wrong too, because this group allowed multiple different sources to be added as possible, most of them without any source showing they were even used by the framers at all. They were trying to hold the Law of Nations sources to much higher standards than all others, even when the Law of Nations sources can specifically be sourced to being used by the framers before authoring the Constitution. Censorship of one specific relevant source and approval of most others, even those without any sourced relevance, is not valid consensus, unless bias is valid. Sempi (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm pretty nominally involved in this (I stumbled on this discussion randomly and noticed my name). Looking at the history, I've reverted this editor exactly once in the last week, which is enough to include me in the "conspiracy" apparently. The article in question is not one I'm all that involved in, I just pay attention to it because it does draw a lot of these fervent types that will fight hard to push their obscure theories into what would otherwise be a dry American civics page. Honestly, I'm surprised this much time is being wasted on this, both in this thread and on the article's talk page.  This is a classic case of WP:FILIBUSTER by one editor. There really isn't that much to discuss in terms of content at this point, that's all been discussed, it's just a matter of behavior now.  I would invite any outside editors who are unsure of the situation to read through as much of this thread and the talk page as they can tolerate and to look at the edit history to really get an idea of whether or not there is a "conspiracy to censor knowledge" or if it's just one person attempting to disrupt the project.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2011(UTC)
 * Here to downplay your involvement. Why? I thought this case was closed. Why would you be worried? From your history in not only the revisions but discussions, you are obviously more involved. You just don't want anyone to look. Sempi (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I may be being blind here, but I just don't see an ulterior conspiracy. The [ current text] of the article does mention Vattel's The Law of Nations (saying it was cited in the Wong Kim Ark dissent).  What people are evidently not willing to do is to see Vattel's work cited prominently as the Framers' self-evident, preeminent, definitive authority on the philosophical nature of citizenship — a position which everyone else currently appears to be dismissing as giving undue weight to a poorly attested fringe theory.  There is, in my view, simply no need to posit the workings of a pervasive nefarious cabal.  If (as appears to be the case) you are flatly unwilling to accept this, then I fear this issue is inevitably going to lead to some sort of forcible intervention — either because you will bring it up on a suitable administrative noticeboard  (as I suggested last night on your [ talk page]), or because some other editor will finally get so fed up with the situation that he/she will choose to report your ongoing conduct.  There are, to be sure, some informal and non-binding avenues for dispute resolution relating to content dispute and/or editor conduct, but I'm sadly skeptical of whether these will accomplish anything in the face of solidly entrenched positions such as appear to be in place here.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It must be politically motivated. There's just no good reason for this silliness. Some people are afraid that somehow if a Wikipedia article about constitutional citizenship were allowed to accurately define and source the clause it might change the world. I don't think it would make any difference, but it would be nice to see actual history correctly represented in an encyclopedia. I'll take your advice and look into further options. Sempi (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * People may wish to take note that I have created an RFC/U regarding Sempi; see here. Anyone with relevant comments may wish to consider adding them to the RFC/U page.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like I was right. No wonder you are defending the actions of this group to unfairly suppress and delete information from this article! You Rich Wales, seem to have a conflict of interest! (removed link) If you still support Barack Obama, then you may not want the truth about the "natural born citizen" clause to come out? I think you should remove yourself from editing this article. Sempi (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)