Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive158

User:Aperitis25 reported by User:DeCausa (Result:Warned for now)
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: here, and here on User's Talk page (because User is relatively new, I thought it best to do it there rather than on article Talk page so I could explain WP policies in greater detail.)

Comments:


 * Try and take the chap to the discussion page. I've left a warning. Come back if this continues. The user will be blocked then.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:44, 11 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

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. The reverts above were done 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)
 * Bullshit, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics a notice that was posted over a month ago. Such over usage of non-free content violates our policy and which enforcing it is exempt from 3RR. The burden of proof to include them falls on those who want to use the material not those who remove it. ΔT The only constant 02:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The triangle character seems a bit hot under the collar. he's clearly edit warring. I edit the article once a moment ago and he threatens me with a block (his edit summary), and slapped on a trite boiler plate warning. This has been going on for days. Time for it to end. --Merbabu (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, stop violating the non-free content policy. Enforcing NFC is exempt from 3RR. ΔT The only constant 03:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page discussion clearly support it's pd status. Arguements against that are weak to put it mildly. Your suggestion that my revert to the status quo version is a copy vio and I should be blocked is, well, rubbish. Enforcement of NFC does not excuse incivility and hot-headedness. You all need to take a break. --Merbabu (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 (UTC)
 * Last revert was over 24 hours ago, so debating the applicability of the 3RR and the NFC exemption is meaningless at this point, we're not blocking someone for an edit war that's been cold for 28 hours now. Courcelles 03:31, 11 May
 * Oops - silly me. I thought we were talking about this very similar article (same players anyway) --Merbabu (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles, I think you missed the note above, moved below for reference. So the report was filed within 24 hrs of the 3RR, it was just deleted by another user. Jpatokal (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This report was originally filed at 10:45, 10 May 2011, but it was removed from the page by.
 * No, I undid a second report done by Jpatokal which modified an existing report, changing its context, and deleting other people comments in the process. I restored  the original version, and posted a note to Jpatokal's talk page  to that effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:86.162.117.177 (Result: article protected)
Page:

User being reported:


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

User continues to war to remove images that have been in place on the article for years illustrating currently circulating currency in Indonesia according to standard Wikipedia currency article practice. He removed them on 8th May and has continued since then to aggressively revert while a discussion is still ongoing.

He has been advised of WP:3RR policy and it has been pointed out to him that his own personal interpretation of 'overuse' of possibly unfree, possibly public domain images is not sufficient to override this. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Long standing NFC policy clearly shows that such overusage is not allowed. ΔT The only constant 11:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not, "possibly unfree" they are non-free. ΔT The only constant 11:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, this is your own personal axe to grind. WP:3RR clearly states that one can only exceed 3RR to remove 'content that unquestionably violates WP:NFCC' (emphasis there in source).
 * WP:NFCC states that 'Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.' Multiple users dispute that it is possible to convey equivalent significant information by removing all the currency images. It is absolutely blindingly obvious that there is no 'unquestionable' violation in illustrating the seven CURRENT banknotes in use in Indonesia (which may in any case be PD), and you are breaking 3RR over and over again in face of this. There is absolutely NO justification for your behaviour. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * take a look at Administrators'_noticeboard/Δ and Beetstra's post we are required to remove such violations. ΔT The only constant 11:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is strongly disputed that there is any violation in illustrating current circulating currency. Ergo you are breaking the rules and should be banned for disruption. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone disputes the non-free status of an image, it doesn't make it free. A dispute over something doesn't suspend policy. User:Zscout370, a copyright knowledgeable previously uninvolved editor, investigated the copyright status of these images and found no evidence that are free. See his posting on the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Note to 86.162.117.177: Do understand that banning Delta does not make the issue of overuse go away. There are likely going to be others challenging the overuse. Do you plan to continue to break the rules on overuse of non-free images and get others who happen to have the same point of view of Delta (and who do try to follow the mission of this encyclopedia) also banned? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly be happy to be blocked/banned for removing overuse of non-free images. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been protected. It might be a good idea to find a central location to hash out more specific parameters for 'overuse' in the NFCC guidelines.  Kuru   (talk)  02:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kenzo400 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
 * Comment:Kenzo400 is just the latest "new" editor to start removing an entire referenced paragraph that he/she doesn't like. Stating "unreliable sources" in the edit summary, yet has not proven that any of the sources are unreliable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment:The latest revertion is from a Kenzo4000(which apparently we are to believe is a "different" editor), and mimics the reverts done by Kenzo400. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tagged and blocked the sock as well. Kuru   (talk)  02:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kostun reported by User:ClubOranje (Result: 48h block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This dates back to beginning of war and technically a WP:BRD by User:Argyle 4 Life


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert (as IP):
 * 5th revert (as IP):
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (IP):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: on article talk page pointing to WikiProject centralised discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football

Comments:

Both editor and IP warned prior to 6th edit, as well as other involved editor, User:PeeJay2K3


 * Comment - As one of the mentioned parties above, I believe it behoves me to comment on this matter. A consensus was obtained at WP:FOOTY to remove all instances of so-called "team flags" from the site. In acting on that consensus, I became involved in removing these team flags from the 1967–68 Mitropa Cup article, where User:Kostun has evidently shown considerable resistance to this consensus. In removal of the flags, I provided considerable examples of Wikipedia policy, including WP:MOSICON and WP:OI, as reasons why they should not be used on en.wikipedia. Kostun argued back that they are used frequently on it.wikipedia and that if they were contrary to policy they would not exist at Wikimedia Commons. Obviously en.wikipedia, it.wikipedia and commons.wikimedia are separate projects and subject to different policies and guidelines, so that argument falls down right there. With all that in mind, I therefore treated Kostun's resistance to the established consensus as disruptive editing tantamount to vandalism; and since reversions of vandalism do not count towards WP:3RR, I believe I was justified in making more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. – PeeJay 13:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Minima ©  ( talk ) 21:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Thigle reported by Neil N   talk to me  (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 04:12, 12 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverting vandalism by non Dzogchen people who think I'm vandalizing the pages")
 * 2) 04:27, 12 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverting vandalism")
 * 3) 04:53, 12 May 2011  (edit summary: "It is sourced.  Try reading it.  Slowly.  Don't claim something is unscourced, when it is.")
 * 4) 05:26, 12 May 2011  (edit summary: "Happy?")


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

-- Neil N   talk to me  05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

One more -- Neil N   talk to me  05:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He's continuing to revert. I agree with Neil that his behavior is inappropriate. Kevin (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, left him a note, come back if he does it again. Prodego  talk  05:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He did so again here. Thanks for rollback btw, huggle really does make killing vandals easy.  (I initially RB'ed that diff, but caught myself and redid it with twinkle.) Kevin (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Avanu reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: template protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There have been extensive discussions on the template talkpage where several editors have told Avanu that the tag should not be changed, but he has nevertheless continued reverting it to his preferred version. There's obviously not a 3RR violation here, but it's definitely an edit warring problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * After discussion on this topic before, I felt I was abiding by Bold, Revert, Discuss. I initially boldly proposed an improvement to the Rescue Template and it was initially *very* quickly reverted (13 minutes later) by Sarek with a reason saying that the template must have the word "rescue" in it. (diff).  The insistence on a *specific* word and no other seemed like an illogical choice, especially for a respected Vulcan like Sarek, so, I explained my reasoning further and waited for discussion.


 * Over 27 hours later, and having 7 editors comment with various pros and cons, I reverted it again since the Talk page commentary was composed of people with no suggestions for improvement, people who seemed to feel this was a losing battle because ARS would strike against any change, and comments saying improvement was a useful thing.


 * Again, after waiting nearly two and a half days, and going out and doing additional research, providing facts and information to back up my proposal for improvement and change, I reverted to the neutral point of view text again.


 * This final change was after I had waited for nearly 10 days, and allowed editors to present alternatives and suggestions, but most editors seem to be falling into the 3 aforementioned camps. (1. No change at all - 2. Give Up 3. Improvement is good).


 * This latest change was reverted by Skomorokh, who is a fairly neutral party in this, and he and I have discussed this (see links below), and it has prompted me to review the WP:BRD guidelines a little closer, so I feel we can work this out positively.
 * User talk:Avanu
 * User talk:Skomorokh


 * Sarek has shown himself to be a *very* involved admin and editor, and this template *directly* relates to a block he issued. I believe that he is a little too involved and is simply being a little opportunistic with this report, and I hope that a review of the facts shows that I am trying very strongly to abide by WP:BRD.  I'm trying to give others time to comment, and after the discussion with Skomorokh, I will also try to propose alternatives, rather than simply saying "no, I insist this is well written".  So, again, if I went against WP:BRD, it was not my intent, and I would hope this is recognizable from the pattern of edits in this case.  Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu, I really don't care all that much about breaking "BRD" - that's just an essay designed to help editors understand how to avoid edit warring. I am concerned about repeated reverts back to the same material despite what appears to be a complete lack of consensus for those reverts.  I don't see Sarek as an involved admin in this instance since s/he has taken no administrative action; indeed I'm very glad to see this here instead of in an unblock request.  Involved editor, sure, that's kind of how it works.  The discussion with Skomorokh appears constructive - can you commit to cease reverting until you have gained consensus for your edits on the template's talk page?  Kuru   (talk)  00:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have no problem committing to that. I've been told I was ignoring BRD, so I made an attempt to focus on that.  Despite making mistakes here and there, I'm not trying to intentionally go against the community or consensus, I'm just looking to make positive improvements. -- Avanu (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then there would be nothing preventative about taking administrative action. As an unsolicited suggestion, it may be better to continue the discussion on the talk page and let one of the other editors there make the negotiated changes to the template; you would then be isolated from any possible edit warring.  Kuru   (talk)  02:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This would work if several of the editors were not completely opposed to any change, despite a clear indication in the tag's guidelines that a 'rescue plan' should be made, many editors do little more than place the tag, and !vote. I even directly quoted policy from the consensus page, and one of the editors flatly contradicted it.  I suggested *and* requested help and guidance in the proper way to solicit outside opinions as per consensus guidelines, these same editors called that canvassing, and this was before I had done anything.  In short, I am dealing with a small group of people who are as far as I can tell, completely opposed to improvement, despite claiming to be members of ARS, whose #1 goal is improvement.  They have demonstrated ownership of this template (see Template Talk:Rescue), and really are being very difficult.  I'm trying new ideas and taking theirs into account.  I would hope this isn't wrong. -- Avanu (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to reopen this as the editor in question has made two significant edits after the above here and here (in two parts). At this point call it a lack of WP:CLUE or WP:COMPETENCE, or evidence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but it's past the point of disrupting progress on that page. Skomorokh  16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Note that these edits came after this final warning. Skomorokh  16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Skomorokh, I have a grasp of what the guidelines say, and I am following recommendations. Am I missing something here, because I am reading the same WP:Edit warring page we all are. Please show me where coming up with a different proposal constitutes edit warring? I have proposed new (and different from before) wording. I'm trying to contribute and trying to incorporate others' comments. It falls in line with what several editors have said they want, and it falls completely in line with Bold, Revert, Discuss.  People are welcome to revert and propose alternatives to my proposed wording, and this was discussed prior to being added.  If the idea is that no one can propose any new wording until everyone gets on *exactly* the same page on wording, it will be a very long time, since some editors want it exactly as it is now, some want changes, and some editors want it gone entirely. -- Avanu (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I came up with another alternative, keeping the word 'rescue' and leaving the words 'deletion discussion' and 'discussion' in place, while still trying to improve the Template *and* make it line up with its own guidelines for use, and you are calling it edit warring. Now, I have presented facts, I have presented discussion, and I have listened to others.  The one thing I have done, that others have not done, is provide suggestions to improve the template, and provided contributions in the Template for that purpose.  It is clear from the facts that things need improvement, and I have just today soliticed outside input from the Village Pump and NPOV Noticeboard.  I'm not sure how waiting days, weeks, or months for others to come up with positive suggestions contributes to the encyclopedia, but could you enlighten me? -- Avanu (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And he removed "help improve the article". That was about as unhelpful an edit to that template as you could possibly make. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I already replied at the Rescue Talk page on the edit comment you left, but I'll include my reply here also, to help others understand the rationale.


 * TEXT OF REPLY: Yes, I did (in this suggested iteration), because nowhere does the 'Article for deletion' demand people delete the article. So in fairness, why should this tag have a declaration that people "help improve it"? What you didn't mention yet, is that in my proposed wording, I called for people to review the rescue nominator's rationale (in light of the guidelines for its use). Such a rationale would have much more detail and offer a better chance for true improvement than a vague "help improve". -- Avanu (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So after all of this another editor finally proposed a tiny change. Dream Focus - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Rescue&diff=429114299&oldid=429114290 Progress achieved!  Change inserted, we'll see if others revert it because *I* added it, or if they leave it alone.  Either way, maybe a tiny step forward. -- Avanu (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your mentality is clear in your above statement, and the constant statements on the ARS talk page. No one is against change for its own sake or because they don't like you.  They are against the specific changes you have previously made.  A minor change from the word flagged to tagged doesn't make any difference at all.  The other changes were quite major, and every single other editor who commented on these specific changes has been against them.   D r e a m Focus  19:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would dare say that most independent observers would probably say the changes I made were minor but significant in important ways. If the tag is going to be misused, and if ARS or others are going to insist on it working this way, then something in the wording of the tag should be changed.  If people are willing to remove the tag when it is misused, then I have a lot less of a problem with the tag as written. -- Avanu (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've protected the template while the content dispute is worked out. I'm very disappointed you broke your commitment to me, Avanu.   Kuru   (talk)  20:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My committment to you was this "can you commit to cease reverting until you have gained consensus for your edits on the template's talk page?" I've not reverted since.  I've been discussing and proposing new language. "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." None of the other editors have made any effort to propose changes (save 1 word by DreamFocus), so I've been working within the guidelines *they* set and proposing new material. The only reverts of work have been the work I've done back to the work that was in place before I began editing the template, which has generally been in place since 2009 and earlier.   WP:BRD indicates that proposing new material is an acceptable practice.  "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a proactive method for reaching consensus on any wiki with revision control."  I'm certainly not the first to propose these sorts of changes, in fact, looking at the revision history, it generally seems that this same small group of editors pushes out editors who try and improve this template. I'm making good faith efforts and that doesn't preclude others from reverting or proposing other material instead.  The nature of this discussion shows they are VERY VERY protective and ownershippy of this template and that isn't in line with Wikipedia policy.  I'm doing my best to work within the ever contracting box you guys are drawing, but honestly soon it will be hard to call your efforts good faith. -- Avanu (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're confused about what a revert is, please ask next time. Let me be clear: if the protection expires before you have arranged a consensus on the article's talk page, 'do not continue to make changes.  At this point it is very clear that there is significant opposition to your changes.  You are free to use any avenue to resolve your dispute (see WP:DR), but continued edit warring is not acceptable.  Good luck.  Kuru   (talk)  20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a result of my actions, DreamFocus finally proposed a small change, which was implemented before you protected the Template. I'd call that progress.  As far as significant opposition, I would characterize it more properly as very vocal and strident opposition.  I'm incredibly chill about the way this turns out, I'm not emotionally tied up in its outcome, I just don't like it being used as a tool for bias.  Since these particular ARS members feel it is OK to disregard the tag's own guidelines and will fight for the tag to be included despite its misuse, I have to work on the template itself.  I'm not opposed to improvement, but for some reason the improvement-minded ARS seems to be.  Oh, I forgot to mention, I won't edit the Template:Rescue again without your leave. (but I will push for process to be improved) -- Avanu (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm taking Avanu's side in this template usage discussion, but I endorse full protection at this time. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note left at Admin Kuru's Talk page regarding Template documentation edit by Avanu. -- Avanu (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Attempts to resolve dispute on user talk page:
 * Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is under a 1RR restriction. Darkstar1st has been blocked for violating it once before. I asked him several times to self-revert.  Will Beback   talk    02:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Duration due to previous block for same issue. Kuru   (talk)  03:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by User:Odiseo79 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

User has been warned already three times about edit warring in the article in cuestion Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User deleting sourced content at will. Not willing to reach any consensus and only trying to impose his own version. The user ignores verifiable sources and keeps reverting content and now unilaterally has tagged the article for notability, ignoring again sources provided. The user has been warned three times about the same issue and that didn't work.

--Odiseo79 (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User Fleetham has a long history of contentious and disruptive edits, and a marked inability to cooperate with other editors. When thwarted, he will often respond by a steady stream of challenges to those who he considers "hostile". There is a long frustrating discussions here (share taxi), which shows some of Fleetham's usual habits of continued arguing coupled with constant reverts to the article, claiming there is no consensus. At Roewe another losing argument can be seen, followed by a possible vendetta: an attempt to remove a perfectly reliable source used by one of his opponents. Fleetham's targeted articles (all listed on his userpage) are all gutted and broken up into very small fragments, studded with countless references. Tons of useful and often referenced content is deleted without any discussion or respect for other editors, and never ending arguments follow. Most editors give in after a long boring battle, but Fleetham really must be made to adopt community standards of civility and style practices.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kuru blocked Fleetham for 48 hours (as this is his/her second 3RR violation) and Odiseo for 24 hours. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 11:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be a good candidate for protecting the article, but it appears that tactic has been tried back in April on this same article to alleviate an edit war with Fleetham. I've blocked Fleetham for 48 hours for significantly exceeding the 3RR (his second edit warring block), and Odiseo for 24 hours for the same (his first block). Attempting to work out the dispute on the article's talk page is fantastic, but it does not mean you can continue to revert war on the article. Kuru   (talk)  11:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:117.206.107.58 reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: 31h block)
Page: and many more 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:

massive edit war with Sodabottle and some other users, also reverted the cluebot and this IP is an indef blocked sockpuppet-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Minima ©  ( talk ) 11:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:GEAT BEOWULF reported by User:Crashdoom (Result: 24h block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATelevision_in_England&action=historysubmit&diff=428945325&oldid=428740638


 * 1) 15:46, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 428906693 by AxG (talk)")
 * 2) 16:14, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 428939735 by Rangoon11 (talk)")
 * 3) 16:22, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 428943452 by Crashdoom (talk)")
 * 4) 16:31, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 428944791 by Crashdoom (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Talk:GEAT BEOWULF

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template_talk:Television_in_England

Comments:

The user has failed to be willing to discuss this on the talk page and failed to understand a secondary article for the same subject is not required. They have failed to abide by the 3RR policy preventing them from making more than 3 reverts on a single article and for this reason, they are being reported for this violation. This is currently happening on the template and on various other articles edited by the user.

-=- Adam Walker -=- 16:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * -=- Adam Walker -=- 17:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Banzoo reported by User:Owain the 1st (Result: meh)
There seems to be some dispute on this thread 1996 shelling of Qana .We have both reverted the work of the other, I have only reverted back to the original.The debate seems to be if changing the title of a sub article from Israeli response to Israeli spin is fine. I believe that Israeli response is fine and that changing it to Israeli spin is not a NPOV, obviously the other editor feels different.I would like an admin to come and sort it out please.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be considered Edit Warring, but wont fall under the 3RR rule (Only a single revert in 24 hours). Have you considered attempting dispute resolution before reporting the user here? As stated in the template for edit war reporting: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too" -=- Adam Walker -=- 19:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Adam. This is pretty mild, and it appears others are now involved in the discussion on the article's talk page.  Kuru   (talk)  19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is mild but it was going nowhere, as it happens I did discuss it on the talk page here but cannot come to agreement.Others have since come and reverted the change and commented that his POV was not NPOV.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Thigle reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 48 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:

Comments:

User is adding overly-technical writing into the article, without explaining what it means (chulen). His response was that ''It doesn't matter what chulen is. The point is that it is a secondary condition for rainbow body. If you want more info, reference the source.'' He just got off of a block for edit warring in the same article yesterday, and the only reason he didn't try to restore his original text in its entirety, I suspect, was because I pointed out that it was a copyright violation.

It also seems that the information he is currently adding is taken directly from here, most notably ''chulen is a necessary secondary condition for attaining rainbow body. This is not just their teaching however, chulen is mentioned in the sgra thal gyur etc. '', which is a word-for-word match to what is being placed in the article. The other sentences in the whole paragraph he inserted are also in that forum posting, some being slightly reworded at the beginning, most not. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. These are not all reverts. Way to lie SudoGhost. Hopefully the administrators will catch you. I only have 2 reverts. The rest added material and references. Thigle (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What? You are the one who reverted my SOURCED MATERIAL THREE TIMES!!  You did not add any material into this page at any time.  Thigle (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the additions that Thigle is adding is a copyright violation of this forum, which I am reverting as per WP:COPYVIO and WP:3RR. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

'''He just did it a fifth time. SudoGhost should be blocked automatically.''' There is no copyright violation. Refer to the source I referenced. When he ran out of legitimate reverts, he trumped up a copyright violation. This user should be permanently banned. Thigle (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverting copyright violations is exempt from the WP:3RR rule. Unless you mean to suggest that you happened to add a word-for-word match of a forum, without meaning to, explaining concepts which you yourself don't understand?  Adding a source (which you likely haven't checked) does not exempt you from adding copyrighted materal. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no copyright violation. You just ran out of legitimate reverts.  Thigle (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For something that isn't a copyright violation, there's a strange similarity between the two. The first forum post mentioning 'chulen' occurs on May 10.  Thigle's first edit including 'chulen' occurs on May 11 (which includes verbatim information taken from the forum).  Each time the forum adds more information, Thigle's edits become more informational.  I don't see how it's anything but a copyright violation. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * CHECK THE SOURCE. JESUS CHRIST.  Thigle (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tacking a book onto the end of a copyright violation does not make it a "source" and does not give you license to violate copyright. Also, you seemingly "forgot" to include your source until (at least) your 7th reinsertion of the material.  Seeing as how you've had a problem with not having sources for some time with your edits in this article, I doubt that's a valid source for the material. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Kuru  (talk)  19:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do see the oddity with the forum posts; I'm not sure if it's a copyright violation until it can be looked at in more detail, but the mere question of it should have stopped the re-insertion until that could be cleared up. This seems like a good exception from 3RR.  Kuru   (talk)  19:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if its relevant, but this is the second time this oddity has occured, which is why I looked into it. The first here this, in which this diff is even more verbatim from this than the one above.  It also has the same timeline, with the forum post first, and the first diff showing up a couple of days later. The copyright notice at the bottom of the forum, and the lack of attribution was the concern for me. - SudoGhost (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Nuthos reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I've attempted to discuss this on the talk page but this editor is not inclined to discuss it.


 * Fixed template error. Page protection request has been submitted here on the same issue. -=- Adam Walker -=- 22:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that both editors are guilty of warring. I considered blocking both but determined that page protection combined with reverting the most recent edit appearing to be a BLP concern may start them discussing things. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Indépendance des Chercheurs reported by User:Drmies (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, and after the fifth revert,


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

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

I've presented arguments for the tags on the talk page--see lengthy discussion, particularly for the COI tag. I've also indicated the problems with sourcing in the edit summaries of a number of edits to sections of the article--but those few edits only scratch the surface.

There is currently an ANI thread as well, Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, where I called for attention early on in the process and also touched upon ownership and COI issues. See also Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) (I was first drawn to the issue by this edit).

Comments:

Drmies (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 48 hours for 3RR violation. The fierce advocacy on behalf of the article subject suggests the possibility of a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:98.192.72.29 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Rescinded)
Page:

User being reported:

Temporarily striking this report. Will unstrike and add diffs if the warring continues.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Marking report as Rescinded by reporter -=- Adam Walker -=- 11:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:99.90.197.244 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 72 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 09:13,  4 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 427373357 by HiLo48 (talk)")
 * 2) 22:30,  9 May 2011  (edit summary: "as higlated by Moxy & using 'his' source, see talk")
 * 3) 22:36,  9 May 2011  (edit summary: "spelling")
 * 4) 10:58, 10 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 11:07, 10 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Denisova hominin */ early migration out of Africa, rm misleding link to' recent out of Africa'")
 * 6) 11:18, 10 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Denisova hominin */ {fact} but not realy fact but nonsesne:: Nenderthal if migrated then migrated into Africa (was cold ice age) not out of Africa.")
 * 7) 09:12, 11 May 2011  (edit summary: ""hypothesis of total replacement can be tested, and it is strongly rejected (P < 10^-17)"")
 * 8) 10:40, 11 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 10:41, 11 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 10:53, 11 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 12:23, 12 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 12) 11:18, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "added: around 100,000 years ago as quopted")
 * 13) 11:25, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 14) 11:45, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "there was obscured wikilink (fixed), removing one misquoted source")
 * 15) 11:56, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "Moving left source with words " dominant view" after the words dominanat view. The source, highly here protected (see talk), is a kind of website for kids with ?title? (sic) " SITEMAP for ORIGINS Theology of Creation,"")
 * 16) 22:31, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "old Citation removed (by previous editor, right it was not WP:RS ) - curent {citation neded}. Adding qoute and date to the last one open, remaining  2001 source.")
 * 17) 23:31, 13 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 428999251 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)")
 * 18) 03:50, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "plese discuss changes in talk.")
 * 19) 05:27, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 429032168 by Leadwind (talk) this was silly you expect scientis to put wikilinks in they articles ?")

— Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 06:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This individual has been blocked before on the same article. And we've tried to discuss, but the IP just says the same incomprehensible stuff (seriously, several editors are confused by the comments). Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 06:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed you haven't put a link to a discussion, but I would see why you couldn't with an IP user. Anyway, they have been blocked twice previously for disruptive editing, first for 1 month, second for 3 months, and they still appear to not have learned from this action. An extended/indefinite block may be the best option, at least until the editor understands how to interact and edit alongside other Wikipedia editors. -=- Adam Walker -=- 11:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought about it. But they keep adding the same thing over and over and over again.  I think a couple of weeks ago they were at 10RR.  I don't get why admins don't deal with editors like this.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this is the first 'edit warring' block, albeit a pretty egregious one, I've just set it at 72 hours. I have not reviewed the content of the edits - if there's something disruptive there like his previous blocks, point it out and I'll escalate from the last 3 month block.  Kuru   (talk)  21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 07:30, 13 May 2011
 * 2nd revert: 11:34, 13 May 2011
 * 3rd revert: 12:34, 13 May 2011
 * 4th revert: 05:25, 14 May 201

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for the same behavior just prior to article being locked ~2 weeks ago

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr., Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr. and Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

Comments:

John Foxe is well aware of WP:3RR - in fact, this same behavior a little more than two weeks ago contributed to the article being locked. See also a previous report at that time. I find it telling that despite that previous warning and locking of the page, John Foxe returns to the same behavior. As I commented before, his comments on the talk page indicate a edit warring mindset, issues of WP:OWNership, and editting with an agenda to push and only allow his particular POV. His comments on the talk page now including |this), stating that he would continue inserting the same material that led to the edit war and locking of the page after the page was unlocked (which he did) rather than trying to gain a consensus. Per the advice given at the previous report, since the pattern has repeated after the protection expired, I am reporting again. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User has previously been blocked twice for violations of the 3RR policy, and this is their second time causing a violation of the policy on the same page after page protection. Has the user been warned regarding the latest 3RR policy violation? -=- Adam Walker -=- 14:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for one month. This looks like an extension of the events leading up to the recently expired semi-protection, and should otherwise be amenable to talkpage discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:190.98.48.73 reported by User:Aspects (Result: 24h block)
Page: ,

User being reported:

American Idol (season 10) Previous version reverted to:

Lauren Alain Previous version reverted to:

American Idol (season 10)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

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

American Idol (season 10) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:190.98.48.73#3rr warning on American Idol (season 10)]

Laurena Alaina Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:190.98.48.73#3rr warning on Lauren Alaina]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:American Idol (season 10)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User talk:190.98.48.73

Comments: This new IP user only has edits over the past four days and all of them were to switch the Bottom 2 placement on a results show of American Idol (season 10) to Safe, even though Ryan Seacrest on the show specifically said Lauren Alaina and Jacob Lusk were in the Bottom 2 and then eliminated Lusk. There was a discussion started on the talk page of American Idol (season 10) that had three different editors respond that the IP address was incorrect. Numerous different editor have reverted the changes on both articles, but the IP address has yet to respond to any of the concerns brought up. Aspects (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the reports above, the user in question is also vandalizing Scotty McCreery here. A block here would be helpful in at least slowing down the vandalism here, --RadioFan (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bjmullan reported by User:WizOfOz (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * See also complete edit history to date:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Response

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There has been no 3RR specific violation, but this is a long-term reverting war where consensus for the user's proposed change has not been reached. WizOfOz (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The diffs cited as the first and second reverts are, at the time of writing, identical; you might want to clarify that.  Skomorokh   18:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed it now and added further detail. WizOfOz (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * . A barely plausible claim of WP:BLP has been made, the talkpage and WikiProject discussions are inconclusive, and several parties are edit warring here. I recommend a request for comment if those discussions do not reach a resolution in the next week. Bjmullan, please be careful that you do not "cry BLP", as it can have a chilling effect on discussion, antagonize editing relationships, and give others the impression that you may be more interested in "winning" than in writing the best possible free content encyclopedia. Please be more circumspect in wielding the policy. To everyone: please remember that there is no deadline; waiting to establish a reasoned consensus is often more important than ensuring that your preferred version of the article is displayed at all times. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Alba Illyrian (Result: reporter blocked as sock)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: Diff of 3RR warning: (warned at 02:56). Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (replied at 03:08 to a comment made at 03:01). Comments:
 * 1st revert: (at 02:35).
 * 2nd revert: (at 02:50).
 * 3rd revert: (at 03:09).

User has reverted an edit I made three times, despite having been warned and engaged on the talk page. He has accused me of making three reverts, but I have made only two ( partial revert at 02:47) ( revert at 02:52). was blocked for edit-warring two weeks ago. Alba Illyrian (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reporting user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, as per the report, it appears to have been resolved now on the article's talk page. There was no presence of 3RR violation, there was only 3 edits and 4 are required for violation of the 3RR policy. -=- Adam Walker -=- 20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reporting editor has been blocked for sock puppetry. No further action appears necessary at this time. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:GEAT BEOWULF reported by User:Jevansen (Result: 72 h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Last revert:

Recently blocked for edit warring, reverts article again immediately after expiry of ban. Jevansen (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User is persistantly re-creating pages that are otherwise un-needed and have an editorial consensus on the matter. See BBC Two England and the talk regarding the page at Talk:BBC Two England. User does not appear to understand the 3RR policy or general editing guidelines of Wikipedia relating to discussion of major additions/removals of content, especially in cases of content dispute. -=- Adam Walker -=- 11:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Immediately returned to edit warring on the same article as the other day. Also edit warring on similar pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:66.130.33.84 reported by CapnPrep (talk) (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 21:16, 14 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 22:55, 14 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "wrongly reverted, will stop this please")
 * 3) 13:15, 15 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 429164451 by CapnPrep (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

No 3rr violation as yet, but this is a well-known anonymous editor, previously reported (January 2011, February 2011) and currently blocked from several addresses for edit-warring: 70.82.96.170, 76.65.240.91,… See also this sockpuppet report from 2010 involving still other IP addresses. Operating since May 13 under this new address. Same unmotivated, irrelevant fringe content, same unwillingness to discuss or defend edits.

—CapnPrep (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three months. An IP who must be the same editor was blocked here for three months. The collection of IPs who are reverting this article do not participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fatty2k10 reported by User:Jasmeet 181 (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The user was blocked on 9 May for 72 hours for edit warring and has a history of aggressive behaviour. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * - 2/0 (cont.) 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Johnbod reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * GPM: add A
 * 1st revert: undo A
 * GPM: add B
 * 2nd revert: undo B
 * GPM: add C
 * 3rd revert: undo C
 * GPM: add D
 * 4th revert: undo D
 * GPM: add E
 * Mediation offer by Anneyh (15:33, 14 May 2011)
 * 5th revert: undo E (despite mediation offer)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3

Diff of tag removal:
 * GPM: A
 * 1st removal: 1
 * GPM: B
 * 2nd removal: 2
 * GPM: C
 * 3rd removal: 3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ongoing discussion since 3 May 2011

Comments:

User:Johnbod seems to have a severe case of WP:Own on the article. Since the start of the dispute on 3 May, he has reverted about everything which I contributed to the article. Today, I made five edits (A to D) and not two were alike; every time I introduced different material, not once did I revert him. Still, he reverted every single one of my edits, as if he were the one to decide. Even worse, User:Anneyh has offered today to set up a mediation process. Even though we both independently agreed (1 and 2), he reverted me on the article for a fifth time a few minutes later.

I've warned him three times about his disruptive behaviour (see above). Still, he removed at least three times the tags from the article acting as if a solution has been reached (see above). In fact, a discussion with multiple user has been going on since the beginning of May and nothing has been solved. In view of his continuing intransigent behaviour, I don't see any other venue but the noticeboard here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE This complaint cherry-picks items from a couple of weeks of a dispute which is the subject of a request for comment, also initiated by GPM, and has several thousand words on the talk-page, from several editors. GPM has, as usual, edit-warred throughout, and been reverted by editors other than myself. Today he made some edits, some on new points related to the ongoing RFC, others not. One was referenced (to Hoffman) but did not reflect the source very well, so I reworded the new point to reflect the source, & reformatted the ref to trhe article's style.  One was unreferenced & very-oversimplified, so I just removed it (two words on Brunelleschi).  Another was ungrammatical, and a somewhat misleading version of a point already made lower down, so also removed.  There is no 3RR breach here, or close, in my edits anyway - his are probably worth examining. Many other editors have added things to this fairly high-volume article in the 2 years or so since I re-wrote nearly all of it.  Accurate, referenced and well-expressed material is left, other edits removed.  Many of his edits are very POV, as they are at other articles.  His frequent and blatent misuse of sources he has brought forward is documented in detail on the talk page. I don't see any direct connection between User:Anneyh's various comments - which don't exactly suggest a "mediation process" - and the edits complained of.  Several other editors have commented on talk, including Deacon of Pndapetzim, who said:  "... welcome to Wikipedia Johnbod. ... I'd waste time arguing the case for you, but I'm sure I'd be insulted, WP:OR would be cited, and so on. Best advice is to take the hit to the article and move on. Eventually you may get it sorted, but it won't be worth the effort."  He might be right, but one knows from past experience that if that is how it goes GPM will cite having "proved" his case here in other articles to promote his POV agenda.  Gun Powder Ma mounted a similar attack on the article, a year ago, trying to remove the whole section, but this was opposed by myself, Adam Bishop & Modernist.   I may well be getting paranoid, but he is such a games-player that it occurs to me that some of today's edits (well off-piste for him) were deliberately weak to give him more reverts to complain about.

Taking "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:" When he starts an edit-war, as he often does (see his history here etc) GPM is always very quick to issue warnings. He has been warned himself by others on this - I don't bother, as he takes no notice.

Taking "Diff of tag removal" here:
 * The first diff I removed a tag which complained that the two words "generally wealthier" constituted WP:UNDUE in an article of 67k bytes!
 * The second diff I added several excellent refs, and removed a tag asking for more refs.
 * The last diff here is where he tagged as "failed verification" a particular reference on the RFC point, so I obligingly removed that reference and so the tag, as the point was already referenced to several other historians.   Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is I didn't edit-war and I didn't overstep the 3RR a single time over the past three weeks, while you have been showing this combatitive behaviour since the beginning of the dispute. Your allegation that I misused source are made up of thin air. I've quoted from international authorities like Angus Maddison, Walter Scheidel and others, but you do not want to have none of that.


 * In fact, you have long admitted that the whole debate is a kind of abstruse "test case" for me, meaning that at no time in the discusion you have had a sincere interest in resolving the dispute and that you have hold hostage all the others users in the debate just to make a WP:POINT! For this, and your unwavering WP:Own and WP:WAR attitude you need to be blocked. Then we can talk again like adults to solve the debate, if you calm down. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My "point" is that a statement that can be impeccably referenced should not be removed at the behest of a POV warrior, no matter how persistent. I have given details of your falsification of what both Maddison and Scheidel say on the talk page, and provided many references from Fernand Braudel and others, which you as usual ignore. These:, , ,  are 4 clear reverts by you within 24 hours! Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to mince words, Johnbod is a highly and widely respected editor, author of several FA's and numerous DYK's, and known to be thoughtful, considered and knowledgeable. Gun Powder Ma is an agressive, litigious crank, who digs a position, and fights from there come hell or high water. He is diven by agenda, the basis for which are known only to herself and her maker, and apparently by gruge. This report is a device, born of no other option left to Ma in this latest battle, and best ignored. I've followed the dispute, as it involves a few of my associates, and its extreamly tiresome; Ma vs the world. Ceoil  21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you are 83, I'll look kindly over your words. You can ask your grands-sons if your choice of words is proper. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnbod has added valid referenced material to the article and GunPowder Ma is behaving like a troll who WP:OWNs the article. Keep in mind Johnbod has added more than 430 edits (more than anyone else) to the article, (I've added 49) while the GPMa has added a whopping 31 edits and many of those have been reverts and tags. I warned GunPowderMa here after she had four reverts earlier in May, on May2nd and May 3rd all within a couple of hours -, , , ...Modernist (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reporter has had 3 blocks for violation of the 3RR/Edit warring rule, as well as revokation of talkpage usage during their block for "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: uncivil comment in edit summary". Report appears to have been made by and for the wrong users. -=- Adam Walker -=- 10:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The issues involved seem far more complex than has been presented here. I have locked the page from editing for one week in the hopes that a few days of uninterrupted discussion will allow for threading the needle so that article development can proceed once more. If this does not work, I will consider protecting it for considerably longer so that edits may be made only with verifiable consensus via editprotected. Please, everyone, try to avoid personality clashes; another dispute resolution venue may be of use. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:ANDROBETA reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24hr block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 19:34, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "Until the dispute resolution will be answered")
 * 2) 19:39, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "Dispute templates")
 * 3) 20:48, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 429129976 by Guettarda (talk)")
 * 4) 21:06, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 429137935 by Snalwibma (talk) Well why don't you make an effort and READ the talk page? Removing the templates before the dispute is resolved constitutes vandalism.")
 * 5) 14:00, 15 May 2011  (edit summary: "Dispute templates")
 * 6) 16:16, 15 May 2011  (edit summary: "The problems of the article have already been articulated with very clear arguments on the talk pace, the opposition of users does not compensate for their lack of counterarguments.")
 * 7) 17:10, 15 May 2011  (edit summary: "Dispute templates")
 * 8) 17:20, 15 May 2011  (edit summary: "Excessive? Does that mean that there should be none? Express your disagreement in the "Evolution=belief?" section on the talk page, where the discussion concerning these aspects took place.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

ANDROBETA has made 6 reverts, and had been warned previously about 3RR. In fact, he did a reversion while I was posting the warning to his page. The editor has made over 5 reverts (can't tell if #6 should be counted, but it's 5 at least) in 24 hours. They know better. They aren't getting support from other editors who feel the tagging is frivolous. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 16:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, can someone deal with this? He's at 8 or 9RR, now making personal attacks. Do any admins watch this page? Frustrating. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please somebody block this disruptive user. S/he has now reached about 10 anti-consensus edits in 24 hours. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs</b> ) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You just have to use loud enough edit summaries :) 24 hour block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ANDROBETA is back at again here, here, and here. It is clear that a 24 hour has no impact.  Go for indef.  Please.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:99.120.1.227 reported by User:ברוקולי (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

In the first revert IP removes information added by me.He removed the same information before also.
 * 1st revert: ;
 * 2nd revert: ; In the second revert IP removes the same information added by another editor.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The article is the subject of 1RR. IP made many more reverts but the last two were made after I warned him. Broccolo (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am the IP. I've done a lot of work stripping outright falsehoods from that article (the original first three sentences contained six) designed as part of what appears to be a pro-Israel propaganda campaign. If you're worried about "reverts" that remove false information that skew articles, then it can't be helped. I've explained on the talk page just why that source and paragraph was so bad, in the section titled "removing information." The analysis of the original state of the article (uploaded by the complaining user) is in the section "so can rename it already." I would hope the fact that someone is generating false content in the service of a political agenda would be a bigger concern than 2 "reverts" of bad information (days ago now by the way). A massive amount of work for honest editors was created here, and now apparently some obscure wikipedia rules are being used to prevent reasonable improvement of content (and what i assume is coordination between the complaining editor and the "other" reverter). Don't believe me? Look at this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poison_affair_of_Palestinian_schoolgirls&action=historysubmit&diff=429267134&oldid=429260917 by the complaining user. Then look at this cleanup once i found the actual source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poison_affair_of_Palestinian_schoolgirls&action=historysubmit&diff=429276025&oldid=429273934 That's the sort of thing that should be delt with, not 2 "reverts."Westbankfainting (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:EW says "Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion." Here is Broccolo's entire contribution to the "discussion" he links to above: "I just re-added into the article Khaled Abu Toameh thing. Could we please discuss the information that is getting removed from the article before it is actually removed?" Not a lot of information there about what Broccolo added, so here it is from one of his diffs above: "Khaled Abu Toameh wrote that the girls were trying to avoid exams. They claimed Israel had put poison in the tanks that supplied drinking water to their school and began 'fainting' in the school yard when photographers and TV crews arrived. When medical tests found there was nothing wrong with them, the girls were released from the hospital. According to Abu Toameh, 'the exams were postponed indefinitely and Israeli 'occupation' was once again blamed for perpetrating a 'new crime' against Palestinians."

Discussion continues, but Broccolo takes no part. The IP asks for more information about why this material should be in the article and gets no reply. The IP then documents all the problems with its disputed source: an editorial written decades later by an activist, not a scholar, vague about some facts and simply wrong about others. He sums it up " none of the volume of work dedicated to this instance, by the CDC, Israel's health ministry, The American Journal of Psychiatry, articles in the New York Times, etc... reports any of the things that Toameh wrote in August of 2010. That's why it's an unacceptable source for the article." No reply from Broccolo to the discussion, but another editor commends the IP for "Excellent analysis." Not one person supported Broccolo's attempt to represent Khaled as WP:RS for a slanderous claim implies that all the girls sickened were liars.

So who is discussing here and who is fighting here? Who is trying to improve Wikipedia and who is using this noticeboard to sabotage those who oppose him in content disputes? betsythedevine (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Fully protected two weeks. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. The IP could be scolded for reverts, and the other side may be guilty of  accepting weak sources. The use of a book from a vanity press could be questioned. Wikipedia has noticeboards where questions of sourcing could be worked out. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Nickelbackrules1518 reported by User:Moxy (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Same page old 3 revert break
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (user unwilling to engage in talks either on user page or article pages) have even tried a nice welcome to no avail as see here

Comments:


 * User has also been mentioned at Wikiquette alerts...Moxy (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Icerat reported by User:Financeguy222 (Result: Moot)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor Icerat has also been involved, warned and temp banned within the last week by other editors for 3rr

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User Icerat is currently involved in COI case, and has been accused of POV editing my many in multiple separate cases and articles related to MLM/Amway. This appears to be another case of pushing POV to subtly sanitize the image of MLM companies.

The statement being reverted out is: Through Network Twentyone senior Amway IBOs promote BSM (business support materials) to the captive market represented by the lower levels of the pyramid providing the IBOs at the top with an additional and independent source of income to that derived from bonus payments arising from the sales generated by the lower levels of the organisation.

This particular edit reversion has been brought to discussion after 2 reverts in 24hr without talk (then reverted again once period lapsed) with no decision made and skirting the 24hr rule, yet consensus seems to be that it is an allowed statement/source, however the user reverted again anyway. User Icerat was also reported and temp banned for 3rr on the Amway article last week.  Financeguy222 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit: He's at it again, stuck in an edit war now, reverting out all my edits, where I am trying to address his issues stated in comments with each reversion edit, replacing links with better sourced/multiple refs, only to have multiple reverts made by Icerat including several that reverted back in a dead link multiple times. He seems more concerned with reverting than quality of article.

From 3rr helper tool:
 * 1) 12:29, 11 May 2011  (edit summary: "rmv primary source opinion")
 * 2) 13:17, 11 May 2011  (edit summary: "primary sources should be used with care, certainly not for opinions of a judge about parties not involved in a case")
 * 3) 02:53, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Court_Judgements_as_Primary_or_Secondary_sources")
 * 4) 02:57, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "primary source shows secondary source in error")
 * 5) 03:00, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ transferred from consensus on amway article")
 * 6) 03:00, 14 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
 * 7) 17:07, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "issue resolved on noticeboard, where you decided not to participate")
 * 8) 17:09, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ as per source which FG222 now accepts")
 * 9) 18:26, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "removed POV edit based on opinion in letter to the editor")
 * 10) 18:59, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "please (a) stop reverting sourced additions (b) reverting removal of material Noticeboard consensus states is inappropriate")

Also having same problems in Amway article
 * 1) 17:13, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Welcome to Life (Poland) */ FG222 please stop")
 * 2) 17:13, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Welcome to Life (Poland) */")
 * 3) 17:14, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Welcome to Life (Poland) */")
 * 4) 18:19, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "a highly POV opinion from a letter to the editor is not RS")
 * 5) 18:23, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Welcome to Life (Poland) */ remove unnecessary dead link")
 * 6) 18:42, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "/* Nutrilite */ remove as per WP:COATRACK discussion on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research")
 * 7) 18:53, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "again, it was a letter to the editor. That is not RS. Please get someone who can understand polish to read it to you. Also, watch out in history for multiple edits")


 * I decided to chime in after my watchlist started increasing from the edits between the two of you on Amway and apparently Network TwentyOne as you mentioned here. Instead of "reverting", you are merely adding/changing text that fits your POV repeatedly in what appears to be a way to get around your edit summaries saying "rv".  From what I can see, Icerat has gone to seek opinions from noticeboards and then has edited the article appropriate to break the edit warring.  Instead of participating in those noticeboards, you have reacted by edit warring with him.  I have posted a warning on your talk page - if you have issues with the edits that seem to be based on his noticeboard feedback, then take it to the article's talkpage, or make your opinion known on noticeboards.  Edit warring is not the answer.  Leef5  TALK &#124;  CONTRIBS 19:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose my response is covered here - Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring--Icerat (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that it pertains to the 3RR violation, but in the interest of fair balance it should pointed out that Leef is not a disinterested party with regard to Icerat. They share the same narrowly-focused editing interests, primarily focused on articles related to a 2 or 3 multilevel marketing companies (USANA for example), and often seem to buddy up on controversial issues, etc. I wouldn't even mention any of this if it weren't for the fact that Leef saw fit to chime in with that unilateral criticism of FinanceGuy rather than anything relevant to Icerat's alleged 3RR violation. And in the interest of full disclosure, I too have a history with Icerat -- a decidedly unpleasant one. Twas I who reported Icerat for 3RR violation just last week, and I have witnessed a long history of contentious editing and POV pushing from this user. Now, shall we get back to letting the admins investigate without any further noise from the back benches. On that note, I'll bow out and let nature take its course (but not before quickly recommending a longer block for the next 3RR violation). Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rhode Island Red reported me because he kept removing a tag over concerns I had (still have) over a section of an article. He removed the tag 4 times and only avoided a ban himself as the first edit was considered not a revert since it had been a while since the tag was removed. Funnily enough he neglects to mention the minor smack on the hand he got himself for such "silly" edit warring. Rhode Island Red, though not to the extent of Financeguy222, also spends a deal of time POV editing articles related to multi-level marketing with a very clear "negative" POV and rarely is willing to develop consensus, preferring instead to edit war and delete sourced material he doesn't like with spurious claims of "failed verification" - in other words falsely accusing me of making up sources. But that's an argument for another page. --Icerat (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Moot. Both editors have been blocked 48 hours per WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:RolandR reported by User:46.38.162.18 (Result: Reporter blocked as a proxy)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: HE warned ME already!

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He looks like an experienced user, I'm sure he knows what he's doing.

Comments: According to his/her "contributions", he is a long-term user of Wikipedia, and has been blocked many times for edit-warring - as recently as last month. 46.38.162.18 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP editor is part of a disruptive sockfarm, already under investigation at ANI. S/he and various sockpuppets has been persistently adding unsourced material, removing sourced material, deliberately misciting sources, failing to read correctly cited sources, and engaging in other disruptive activity. It is clear that this article, and others including Nakba Day, has been the target of a deliberate attenmpt to remove well-sourced material and to insert unsourced text, in a tendentious manner, and also to entrap good-faith editors. The reporting editor is not acting in good faith, and this report should be rejected.

Please note that, under the terms of ARBPIA: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". RolandR (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sockfarm? Under investigation? What are you talking about?! You broke the 3RR rule. End of story. I wasn't "vandalizing" the article, as anyone will see. You repeatedly removed a statement, even when clear sources was provided (BBC - "Palestinians living in East Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship after Israel occupied the area in 1967 and later annexed it....Many refused, not wanting to recognise Israeli sovereignty") - which, it seems, you didn't even bother to read! And I'm "not acting in good faith"?! Then you went over and deleted by contributions on "Nakba Day". You have a very poor attitude - and that's the most polite thing I can say about you. Maybe you need to take a break. 46.38.162.18 (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The reporting user 46.38.162.18 (talk) has been blocked for 2 years for: by Zzuuzz, further replies from the reporter should be considered unlikely. The report appears to conform to the reporter being the violator, not the reported editor in question. -=- Adam Walker -=- 22:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Reporter blocked as an open proxy. See WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:78.101.143.111 reported by Mr. Stradivarius (Result: 1 Week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 13:34, 15 May 2011

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


 * 1) 14:15, 15 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 14:23, 15 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 17:35, 15 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 03:44, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 12:36, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 16:52, 16 May 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: 13:21, 16 May 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 08:16, 16 May 2011

Comments

The same content was also added by (diff from 08:46, 16 May 2011). I'm not sure if there's a relationship between this user and.

<span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Hari7478 reported by User:Ichigo0987765 (Result: not an AN3 issue)
I have monited the above users aggressive editing style and stumbled by chance over his/her edits on another users talk page he repeatidly calls me a "paki" a racial slur and he is being supported by other editors of the same agenda (POV against Pakistan) I would be grateful if someone could tell them about the race policy of wikipedia (if it has one) and they actually had the nerve to call me disruptive while they induldge in their racist biased agendas Ichigo0987765 (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you considered taking this to Dispute resolution or the general incidents administrative noticeboard? It doesn't seem like an edit warring/3RR incident from the report. -=- Adam Walker -=- 21:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise that now sorry for any trouble Ichigo0987765 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am closing this report since it does not appear to relate to an active edit war (Hari7478 has not even edited in several days). Quite generally, though, commenting on another editor's nationality or ethnicity is strongly discouraged, and anyone casually using racial slurs should be blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Financeguy222 reported by User:Icerat (Result: Both 48h)
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:

Financeguy222 is a SPA account primarily devoted to POV editing of articles related to Amway (eg Amway, Amway Australia, Network TwentyOne, XS Energy Drink, Adaptogen, Libby Trickett, Peter Island, Chloe Maxwell). Indeed his very first contribution to Wikipedia was to promote an anonymous blog (which I believe to be his) critical of Amway and Network 21. His edits on these articles are universally of a POV nature, from removal of simple facts, (albeit in need of betting sourcing), through to more egregious edits, such as the current dispute, where he is (a) insisting in inserting a judges opinion from a primary source court document, about a company uninvolved in the court case, despite discussion in talk (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) (b) inserting highly POV and UNDUE text from a letter to the editor regarding a Polish film, and removing relevant factual information in a highly POV manner. For example, he has several times removed the fact that a court case was won on appeal, instead leaving in only an earlier judgement. Attempts to reach consensus on issues by reporting both versions of an event (eg including both a newspapers claims about what a sealed court complaint is about as well as the court judgements contradiction of that claim) is a waste of time. In trying to prevent me balancing his highly POV editing, Financeguy222 has fruitlessly attempted to get me banned through baseless COI claimsConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard (supported by a small number of other editors who follow some anti-MLM POV) and has now tried claiming edit warring (above) while essentially refusing to discuss issues in talk and reach consensus. In my opinion this user has such a strong bias against Amway and related companies that he is currently unable to follow WP:NPOV. The user has recently been banned for similar behaviour on the related Amway Australia article. --Icerat (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors blocked 48 hours for violation of WP:3RR. Second block for each in the past 30 days. Icerat seems to reveal WP:BATTLE thinking in the statement he has made above. If the two editors had listened more carefully to the feedback provided to them at WP:COIN they might have avoided this situation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:ANDROBETA reported by User:Guettarda (Result: 31 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Fresh off a 3RR block (not even archived yet!), ANDROBETA has returned to the same article and continued making the same edit. Guettarda (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

How about: diff of last block:

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

Comments:


 * by Rklawton. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by User:Lambanog (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Version before series of reverts:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See edit summary of previous edit which reads "Process has been followed. Consensus is either undetermined or against your edit. Ronz, you are hereby warned of possible 3RR violation should you continue". Ronz is also an old hand at this and even sent me a warning, so he is familiar with the restrictions.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Colincbn, whose edit Ronz first reverted to set off the series of reverts, has tried to get something meaningful out of Ronz. Talk page also shows Ronz insisting on his way at every turn going so far as to edit, hide, and remove other editors' comments without their permission and claiming being attacked whenever his questionable editing behavior is noted. Talk:Mary_G._Enig

Comments:

Ronz brought this to ANI about two days ago since he could not muster support from other editors, and the complaint at ANI expired quickly and was archived:. Although this may not technically be 4 reverts in 24 hours, given that he has not followed proper dispute resolution procedures despite being in the minority (he has not approached a message board or third opinion or mediation, has tried to prevent an RfC initiated by another user ), and has sought and been denied address at ANI, his methods to get his way appear to be without merit and very dubious.

Ronz has a history of invoking consensus he does not have among article editors and pushing his view regardless despite attempts to address issues he brings up. An example of the waste of time I wish to avoid would be a repeat of the experience at Talk:Musical_theatre where Ronz edited against consensus until an arbiter made an appearance and even then Ronz still managed to provoke a block against the content contributing editor he was warring against Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive678. I consider his behavior disruptive and given the nature of his edit (using tags as a badge of shame) I plan on reverting him for vandalism. I do not believe this kind of editing would be tolerated from an IP. I would not want to run afoul of edit-warring restrictions myself, however, and would request input if that course of action is open or not. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lambanog' only edits to the article since 30 March are to continue his edit-warring over tags of all things...
 * At ANI, Lambanog justifies his edit-warring by assuming bad faith, and continues to do so now. Please just block him so others can work to improve the article without his continued disruption.
 * I'm happy to continue to hold myself to 1RR now that it's clear Lambanog is just going to continue edit-warring. Block him, and I'll hold myself to 0RR while we get the disputes currently under discussion settled. Of course, I'll continue to work on the problems with the article and participate in discussions on improving the article, especially discussions over anything related to my editing. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I temporarily ceased editing the article to give time for other editors to work on it since the tagging dispute I had with Ronz had escalated and I wanted to give other editors who had stepped in to offer help with the article a free hand to give it a try. I note when I improved it I had added 18 references including some from the New England Journal of Medicine, Washington Post, CNN, Chicago Tribune and others.  Ronz objects to most of them for unclear reasons.  He also has no article building experience of note.  Another editor has worked out a new version and removed the tags and Ronz still insists on adding the tags back.  From the above comment one can observe that Ronz claims to "continue" to hold himself to 1RR despite the many reverts he has done.  Notice also that at the same time as he is invoking an assumption of good faith he is asking for a block—which is logically inconsistent if you think about it.  My position is more straightforward: Ronz is a disruptive editor that sabotages article development, does not follow consensus, engages in disingenuous baiting and gamesmanship (another case involving other parties illustrating this: here) and damages articles.  For that reason he should be prevented from further wasting the time of other editors and be thwarted in his attempts to place time wasting obstacles.  I ask that another editor restore Colincbn's version without the tags since it is the last version of a third party editor.  If editors think that is improper please give a reason. I plan on reverting Ronz for vandalism if reasons are not given.  Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is another tag war. One of the tags in question is blp-sources, making this slightly less WP:LAME than most tag wars. This is still a half dozen edits over the last few days consisting of nothing but adding or removing tags with various edit summaries. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not only a tag war. This is also a case of an editor, Ronz, actively sabotaging an article. Is this case still being studied? Can I anticipate guidance on the issue? As I said I plan to revert Ronz's edits because I see them as vandalism.  Do any of the admins here think differently?  By the way please identify the BLP issue.  Perhaps Ronz is simply very inarticulate and I just don't understand his objections.  Maybe other eyes can see what he sees.  In my opinion though Ronz's few edits tend to create more BLP issues rather than remove them. Lambanog (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ichigo0987765 reported by User:Homo Logica (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

This is the page as it existed before the edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden&oldid=429348518


 * 1st incident:, -- Second time removing India section with no discussion.
 * 2nd incident: ,
 * 3rd incident:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk:Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

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

Comments:

I have attempted to resolve the issue with the user on numerous occassions. He seems to believe that Indian users are incapable of talking about India, and has been cited numerous times on his talk page for disruptive editing. I would like to re-add the section on India, but that would be violating 3RR. Homo Logica (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * throwing around allegations of so called vandalism is highly regrettable our friend above seems to have convinced himself that consensus has been reached on the above article however in the last week several people have strongly criticised the edits of the section in the talk page and many agree that the mention of a few fire crackers on some streets in india is not a globally significant event and niether is the inclusion of some wanted list relating to so called pakistani criminals it is totally off topic editing and is blatant pov pushing as it has not been covered anywhere besides India before you re-add any section please realise you hane NOT reached any consensus so please stop trying to divert from the ground reality Ichigo0987765 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "Paki" (a derogatory term for a person from Pakistan) has been used repeatedly to describe me [] User:Hari7478 is a racist editor who has a single purpose account to push a pov for India thats why I believe none of the edits by these editors ( User:Hari7478 and Tall.khana should be allowed to stand and it seems Homo Logica is egging them on even though they have been hurling racisl slurs I am not sure about wikipedias racial abuse policy but I think racism should not be accepted in any shape or form I think I should put this in a new section can someone guide on how to report racial abuse? Regards Ichi Ichigo0987765 (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is quite a lot of talkpage discussion, and not all of it is particularly civil. Nonetheless, I think that this single block is the minimal intervention currently required. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:190.98.48.73 reported by User:Robman94 (Result: 48 h)
Page:

User being reported:

This IP was given a 24 hour block on May 14th for continuously editing/vandalizing the American Idol (season 10) page, and other related pages, against consensus. Now that the block has expired, it's back making similar edits. 

Comments:


 * Appears that this report would be better suited in Administrator intervention against vandalism if it conforms solely to repeated vandalism. Also seems like it has calmed down from this specific IP for now (No edits in 5+ hours), if not blocked for persistant vandlism, it may be worth watching this user. -=- Adam Walker -=- 22:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't heard of that forum before. I bought it here because the original complaint was registered here.  I think the recent edit was a test run to see what the consequences were.  I expect at some point he'll start up again editing all the Idol pages. Robman94 (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Since those edits were not pure vandalism, here was a better choice; AIV focuses on quick decisions and purely disruptive material. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:OldBabyBlue reported by User:Xyl_54 (Result: Rescinded)
Page: Operation Zitronella

User being reported: User:OldBabyBlue

Comment:There is a slow edit war building on the Operation Zitronella page. can I request page protection until it is sorted out?

The discussion on the article talk page is here.Xyl 54 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Edit Warring noticeboard is for edit wars currently being engaged in, if you would like to request the page for protection, please use RPP. Also, it may be worth seeking another opinion from an editor not engaged in the edit war to seek a consensus decision for the content dispute. -=- Adam Walker -=- 08:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've taken the request to RPP. I have already sought an outside opinion, here. But I don't think a consensus decision is on the cards with this one. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the matter seems to have been resolved. Thanks anyway, Xyl 54 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking report as Rescinded at request of reporter. -=- Adam Walker -=- 12:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Stanislav8923 reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User:Stanislav8923's only activity on Wikipedia, as suggested by his contribution log, has been: Looks like he is here solely to advertise the said software product. Fleet Command (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Adding a Red link to ReChat, a speedy-deleted article
 * 2) Advertising ReChat in his user page.


 * This may be best suited at Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism, editor has made no edits apart from vandalism to reported page. A report has been added to the Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism noticeboard. -=- Adam Walker -=- 08:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I did consider posting it there but I decided that what he does is not strictly vandalism and they might just tell me to come here. You see, inserting red links into templates may be justifiable with a good reason. But I decided that constant reverts without showing a sign of co-operating certainly fits the bill for edit warring. But I advise we forfeit this issue per WP:SNOW. Fleet Command (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Favonian blocked Stanislav indefinitely as a spam-only account. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 09:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mormography reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Disagreement and most of the above diffs center around a statement of "no contemporary records" for an event. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you considered dispute resolution? Also the report seems to fall under Edit Warring between the two editors more than 3RR against User:Mormography. Reporter has made 3 edits within a 24 hour period, Reported editor has made 4 edits. -=- Adam Walker -=- 08:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct Adam Walker. Reverts began with the reporter (FyzixFighter) NOT the reported Mormography. Furthermore, FyzixFighter has wrongfully listed edits as if they were reverts. I have attempted dialogue with FyzixFighter on the talk page. Apparently, my dialogue was so effective, he was incapable of formulating a response, and chose to wrongfully accuse someone of behavior that in reality FyzixFighter has engaged in.Mormography (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Mormography - I think you have the history reversed. I made the above report of your behavior after I initiated discussion on the talk page and after your 4th revert but before your response on the talk page to the discussion that I initiated. I haven't responded because I'm trying to force myself to cool down.
 * @Adam - In retrospect I should have pursued additional avenues of dispute resolution (and I intend to do so when I have a bit more time) and should have initiated discussion on the talk page before both I and Mormography got to the 3 revert limit. I apologize for my part in perpetuating the edit warring. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Mormography 24 hours for edit warring, FyzixFighter warned. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:YSSYguy & User:124.182.11.125 reported by User:Minimac (Result: Both 12h)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

For the IP
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: with an attack in the edit summary
 * 4th revert:

For YSSYguy
 * 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:

There are probably up to 4 editors engaging in this long edit-war, so maybe protection of the page is required here. Although I'm not involved in this edit war, I've stated the following editors that have made four reverts within a period of 24 hours. Minima ©  ( talk ) 09:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A request for the page to be protected was submitted. Users appear to be consistently fighting with each other, possibly a case of WP:OWN from User:YSSYguy. The edit war is currently being continued by the editors and they have more than exceeded the limit for the 3RR Policy. -=- Adam Walker -=- 10:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ged UK  12:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:FyzixFighter reported by User:Mormography (Result: See above)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brigham_Young&action=historysubmit&diff=429558691&oldid=429521289

FyzixFighter is editing waring on two articles, Brigham_Young and Succession Crisis

I am attempting discussion on the Succession Crisis talk page.

After repeated waring, FyzixFighter has been warned to seek arbitration before removing edits. The edits FyzixFighter is removing are direct, referenced quotes regarding the historical record. FyzixFighter is attempting to censor truths that obviously make him uncomfortable. The proper thing for him to do is discuss on the talk page and then requrest arbitration, but he refuses to do this.Mormography (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: See the closure of WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but I know that it takes two to make an edit war. Also please note that Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution and is very specifically not a remedy for content issues, which is what this dispute is about. It looks like you both need to seek consensus from a wider pool of editors on this issue. Doc  Tropics  17:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:T284 reported by User:Mr. Stradivarius (Result:last warning )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

N.b. There are two things being contested in the reverts - the first is Pooja Gaur's age, and the second is a link to her Facebook profile (authenticity not yet known).

Previous version reverted to: 14:42, 12 May 201112:30, 15 May 2011


 * Revert 1: 12:35, 15 May 201112:36, 15 May 2011
 * Revert 2: 12:43, 15 May 2011
 * Revert 3: 12:48, 15 May 2011
 * Revert 4: 12:53, 15 May 2011
 * Revert 5: 14:42, 15 May 2011
 * Revert 6: 16:32, 15 May 2011
 * Undid revert 6: 16:35, 15 May 2011
 * Revert 7 (just Facebook link, not age): 13:19, 16 May 2011
 * Revert 8 (just Facebook link): 13:37, 16 May 2011
 * Revert 9 (just Facebook link): 12:29, 17 May 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:46, 15 May 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * About age: 13:12, 15 May 2011
 * About Facebook link: 14:08, 16 May 2011

Comments:

It looks like T284 was right about Pooja Gaur's age. I freely admit that I was wrong on this, although my original intention was just to uphold the verifiability policy when I was patrolling recent changes. If this was the only issue then I wouldn't have filed this report. However, it looks as if T284 is being insistent on adding the Facebook link despite fairly extensive talk page discussion. The most recent reverts may not strictly be in violation of 3RR, but to me they look very much like tendentious editing. I'll be glad to accept any advice you have on the matter.
 * Edit - I should also mention that I also listed this dispute at the BLP noticeboard (permanent link here) at 16:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC). <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Had I looked at this yesterday I would have blocked on the spot the cessation of edit warring and time passing makes a block punitive. I have warned the user the next one = a block. Please reactivate this report should there be further problems. Spartaz Humbug! 15:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! They haven't made any similar edits yet today, so hopefully that will be the end of the matter. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 16:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User:PeRshGo reported by User:Roscelese (Result:Warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (I'll instead link the edits that the user is reverting)


 * 1st revert: reverts my removal of a section that's been tagged as OR for six months without any changes
 * 2nd revert: reverts my restoration of this sentence to the last stable version, which does not include the author's name

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (We've been discussing the inclusion of the author's name on the talk page for a little while now, and an RfC has been filed which unfortunately does not appear to have attracted any editors who were previously uninvolved with this article or related articles Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute and Susan B. Anthony List. Consensus for PeRshGo's proposal has not been achieved. After PeRshGo restored the OR section, I started a new discussion for it in talk here.)

Comments:


 * Pro-life feminism is subject to the 1RR restriction imposed by the community on abortion-related articles.
 * PeRshGo has edit-warred at this article before, but got off with a warning because zie claimed that zie didn't know the article was abortion-related. See previous report here.
 * User claims there was only one revert, but this obviously isn't the case.

Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing admin should ignore irrelevant parts of the above conversation, ie. anything that does not pertain to whether or not reverts were made. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Roscelese is attempting to "punish" me for editing the article by gaming the system. A long period of time had passed since the discussion on authorship and the vote read at 3-2 so I gave making authorship changes a shot. Roscelese then reverts those changes in one edit, and removes an entire cited section of text in another. I revert that edit and then we talk about it ala WP:BRD. But I had yet to address the authorship change so rather than changing the whole section, I make an alternate edit which has the content simply back to its pre debate state. I DID NOT REVERT HER EDIT. Reverting her edit would have returned the article to my edit. I added different content entirely. If I was in any way worried about the 1RR I could have simply reverted both of her changes in one edit. But I knew for a fact what I was doing was not in violation. Then conveniently PhGustaf in two reversions changes the article back to the state that Roscelese wants it in. Oddly enough I see no 1RR complaint on here for that user, and for some reason they knew exactly when to edit. PeRshGo (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point it seems like Roscelese can remove any content they wish with no possible recourse or compromise, and any attempts at making a change are met with some form of wikilawyering. I’ve tried everything I can do, but I have seen no indication that they are willing to compromise on anything, ever. I'm sick of all of it. I just want to improve an article, and make it more impartial without someone stonewalling me at every turn. PeRshGo (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: It was "my proposal" but my proposal was simply to keep the status quo. Roscelese was the one who wished to maintain removals of text they had made. PeRshGo (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The veracity of this statement (it's false) is irrelevant; you've still violated 1RR, and you should gain consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit history, there is no arguing this at all. Your argument was to defend a change to the article, the status quo listed authorship. This is not even up for debate. Here is my first edit to the article and you can clearly see authorship listed. That part was written back in February. As for the accusation of edit warring there has been no such thing. Your entire accusation here is based on one reversion of you removing an entire section of the article which is perfectly permitted under BRD, and a separate incident of me adding a line of content based on your commentary. PeRshGo (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly I have no interest in edit warring. I just want to be able to edit this article once, heck maybe even twice in a day without having to be on egg shells because an editor refuses to work with me and does everything in their power to construe everything as a punishable violation to push me away from the article. PeRshGo (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If your only desire is to edit the article in a way that violates Wikipedia policy, please find a new goal rather than complaining that other editors try to work in a courteous and rule-governed environment. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So I take by you moving my comments you admit that the status quo was listing authorship? PeRshGo (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I've already pointed out that that's factually untrue. I moved your comment because, as I said several times, you must not insert your comments into other people's; the two issues are unrelated except insofar as both demonstrate that you are not working in a collegial manner. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing out an obvious falsehood in your report, and provided a link to prove it. There's nothing else to it. PeRshGo (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would you assume that "the article as you found it" was the status-quo, when the text was originally added by an anonymous IP with a stated goal of making the article more favorable to "pro-life feminism"? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it was months old and even you yourself had edited the article without changing it. Why would I assume it was not the status quo? PeRshGo (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And the best part is, now you continue editing the page all you want because you aren't tied up in Wikilawyering. PeRshGo (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather think that editing the article without edit-warring is a good thing. I'm sorry you disagree. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually PhGustaf's two reverts are still present and nothing has been said or done about it, so it appears you do like edit warring as long as you agree with the content. The fact is I made one revert and one edit you didn’t like you you’re once again trying to push me off the article with this garbage. PeRshGo (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don’t think anyone should get in “trouble” here. We’re all experienced editors, none of us are vandals, and we all have our view of the rules. These proceedings do nothing but serve to create drama. PeRshGo (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my report, by reverting my edits on two separate occasions, you made two reverts, thus violating 1RR. Your belief that you were right does not exempt you from rules about edit-warring, nor does it magically make the edits of people you disagree with into edit-warring when they are not violating any policies. I'm sure you have your own personal "view" of the rules, but that isn't really how it works, and the fact that you're still edit-warring after being brought here once before and explicitly warned is evidence that action does need to be taken here. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I made ONE revert, and one edit. I'm allowed to edit. You don't own the article. PeRshGo (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You "reverse[d] the actions of other editors, in whole or in part," in two separate edits within twenty-four hours. I don't know how this could possibly be made any more obvious. You've been warned before about edit-warring on this article; you have no excuse for not understanding. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're using the broadest interpretation in order to see me punished, and using the narrowest interpretation in order to protect people you agree with. You don’t want any viewpoint in that article other than your own and that’s all it comes down to, and you hope what with a punishment on my record I’ll back down entirely. I'm sick of the garbage. I've tried to bring this up under NPOV, and had an admin with a big pro-choice box on his profile dismiss it, and I've tried cordial editing but if I'm not completely on my toes I have to worry about you trying to come after me with your self-serving interpretation of the rules. This is ridiculous. I don't run into this garbage on other articles. You don’t see me coming after you for every snide comment, you don’t even see me coming after you for NPOV. Heck, I haven’t even gone after the editor who did two reverts after this issue started. I just want to be able to edit without some over dramatic situation happening every single time. PeRshGo (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is edit war that involves three people . Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor on this dispute but an involved editor with Roscelese on another dispute here and here, this statement by Roscelese that she conforms to Wikipedia editing guidelines ("please find a new goal rather than complaining that other editors try to work in a courteous and rule-governed environment") is an absolute falsehood. If you go to the first link, you'll find that the user thinks its okay to use her own criteria as a Wikipedia editing criteria despite the fact that there's nothing in Wikipedia editing policies that allow for that. If you go to the second link you'll find that the user okays SPSs (works from think-tanks in actuality) on the wikipedia pages of people she likes, but doesn't okay them on the wikipedia pages of people she doesn't like. You'll also find that the user thinks it's okay that a personal blog/website (IslamToday) with no independent verification qualifies as a reliable source. Sleetman (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * O hai, stalker! Have any more falsehoods to repeat about me, or is that it? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You listed two reverts including the initial one. Is that it? Am closing procedurally as time is passing and no offense has been demonstrated here. This can be reactivated if you have more diffs to include. Spartaz Humbug! 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted in "Comments," abortion-related articles are subject to a 1RR restriction, which PeRshGo has been made aware of. Two reverts are sufficient. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Reading the restriction a formal notification is required. I have done that . Spartaz Humbug! 02:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything on the page requiring a template warning as opposed to a) the warning this same user received the last time zie edit-warred on this same article (see report for link to other incident) or b)the warning I left PeRshGo already about this specific incident. Please understand that I'm not out for blood; it's just that this is the second time this has happened and the user was obviously already aware of the sanctions before your warning, and I don't want to keep dealing with hir edit-warring behavior. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Word Sliver reported by User:Cunard (Result: semied )
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning by Drmies and warning by Cunard

Comments: and  are the same person, who has been repeatedly adding original research to the article. See here. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like this is now moot as this has been redirected but I have semied the page for 3 days in case the user attempts to undo the redirect. Cases like this are better served by semiprotection so a quick trip to RPP might be a better option. Spartaz Humbug! 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Spartaz. I redirected the page several hours after filing this report, as I hadn't yet assessed the article's lack of compliance with notability and verifiability. Cunard (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Deucharman reported by User:Thryduulf (Result: No action)
Page: User being reported: Time reported: 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * 1) 05:34, 18 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 429623208 by Bobrayner (talk) No valid reason provided for edit.")
 * 2) 09:19, 18 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 429683710 by Thryduulf (talk)  Vandalism")
 * 3) 10:19, 18 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid Vandalism revision 429697191 by Bobrayner (talk)")
 * 4) 10:50, 18 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 429702278 by Bobrayner (talk)")

Comments:

Deucharman is repeatedly reinserting a disproportionately large and unbalanced section that has been tagged since December. It is also virtually identical to similar section that was consensually removed from the article last year (also reinserted and I think written by them). Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It is 18 hours since the last revert, and another editor has tried to make a compromise version of the disputed section. File a new complaint if the reverting continues. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Porgers reported by User:Mr. Stradivarius (Result: Porges blocked 24hr by Toddst1)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 04:30, 18 May 2011


 * 1st revert: 05:16, 18 May 2011
 * 2nd revert: 05:26, 18 May 2011
 * 3rd revert: 05:54, 18 May 2011
 * 4th revert: 06:08, 18 May 2011
 * 5th revert: 06:18, 18 May 2011
 * 6th revert: 06:36, 18 May 2011
 * 7th revert: 06:54, 18 May 2011
 * 8th revert: 14:44, 18 May 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:51, 18 May 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 06:48, 18 May 2011

Comments:

In addition to the reverts themselves, Porgers has accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Skol fir (diff here), accused Skol fir of trolling (diff here), and used a misleading edit summary on their most recent revert (diff here). This last revert was also done in spite of a version worked out on the talk page using a reference and some of the language that Porgers was trying to add (talk page diff, added to article at 07:45, 18 May 2011). I know that technically also went above three reverts on this article today, but I ask for leniency for them as they have remained remarkably civil throughout, and were helpful in creating the neutral version of the sentence on the talk page.

<span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The user who is the subject of this report,, has gone out of his way to be obnoxious towards me. I happened to be an editor who stepped up to the plate and left him a level 3 warning on his Talk Page, when he was editing as an anonymous IP (Porgers' previous incarnation was anonymous IP 67.193.59.152). I can prove this connection, by his/her own admission in this edit just minutes after creating his new ID, . My warning to anonymous IP 67.193.59.152 came as a result of his repeated blanking over two days (starting May 11) of large amounts of information with references from the Jack Layton article—including an entire section—and followed this edit :: Revision as of 09:27, 12 May 2011. That edit of Porgers (as IP 67.193.59.152) was done in a subversive manner, pretending to Rv an edit as vandalism, when the editor himself was the actual perpetrator. His deceptive edit summary was just a copy of a previous legitimate reversion by another editor.


 * As a result of my warning, IP 67.193.59.152 (aka Porgers) left me a bizarre note on a random section of my Talk Page, trying to insert his opinion that "Skol after a long review, I agree with parure. "Your own research" is clearly unverifiable.  I write this not to cause conflict, but to better wikipedia. Please improve to help this project.  Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? " The History of my Talk Page reveals his true identity as " 22:27, 17 May 2011 67.193.59.152". Obviously, his intent was to get revenge for my warning him 5 days earlier. I took the next logical step to look at this person's history, and discovered some other examples of his disruptive editing, which I corrected. Then the back lash began, accusing me of trolling, which was totally false. I was merely continuing my task of monitoring articles that catch my eye for improper edits.  then created an alibi (see [time of user account creation]), presumably to continue his disruption under a new disguise.


 * Early this morning, he continued to remove content from the article Jean Chrétien, despite warnings from myself and others that he was biasing the article to favor his own opinion. He has also just recently blanked a section at Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada -- see edit here -- against the advice of other editors, and against the consensus on the topic at that article's Talk Page, which he himself did not even participate in (either pro or con). In conclusion, obviously has a strong bias against a particular political opinion and he is determined to use underhanded and deceptive methods to get his way. This goes against the principle of WP:NPOV. I propose that this editor and his sock-puppet, anonymous IP 67.193.59.152, be blocked from further editing and disruption here at Wikipedia. --Skol fir (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please look into this matter. Also pay close attention to the history of skol fir. It is clear who provides POV edits and will defend at all cost - I am not the first nor the last to point this out. Thank you. Porgers (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Further, I would like to bring to light the following:

Porgers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – Personal attacks or harassment --75.47.157.136 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 67.193.59.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – Disruptive editing --75.47.157.136 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Looks more like constructive editing to me, based on the articles' Talk pages. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. 5 albert square (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC Porgers (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Porgers for 3RR, for obvious sockpuppetry and disruption. It appears that 75.47.157.136 is very likely per WP:DUCK. Toddst1 (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:TheTrueChAoS reported by User:Zombie Hunter Smurf (Result: No violation)
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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have been edit warring with another user in the article linked to above. Admittedly I might be as much as fault as he, but my attempts to cut the plot in the article is causing nothing but reverts and personal attacks against me. I do not know what to do anymore, so I am contacting the admins to see if they have a suggestion. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation. User:TheTrueChAoS did not make more than three reverts. Though the submitter presents seven diffs, the edits were made by a variety of different people. The submitter failed to warn the other party about 3RR, and did not notify him of the filing here. Notification sometimes leads to a discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Hillcountries reported by User:Snowolfd4 (Result: )
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: Discussion here, and diffs

Comments:

User has twice stated "It would be a waste discussing with you" and "Yes, it is a waste of time" (the latter in reply to this). -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 03:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by  Will Beback    talk    (Result: Withdrawn )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 23:43, 18 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Public opinion */ updated polling data from gallup")
 * 2) 10:10, 19 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Public opinion */ rewording.  will delete the other polls until they can be reworded as well.")
 * 3) 10:22, 19 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Public opinion */ added more recent poll from cbs")
 * 4) 10:23, 19 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Public opinion */")
 * 5) 08:44, 20 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 430011864 by Xenophrenic (talk)restoring sourced content, please discuss in talk")

The article is on a 1RR limit. Darkstar1st has been blocked twice for violating it, most recently on 2011-05-13, a week ago.  Will Beback   talk    09:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * did i break the 1rr? i only made one revert to restore sourced content from a poll more recent than the other polls.  Darkstar1st (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Put most simply, you replaced the text with the poll that had 28% in it with a poll that had 7/10 or 70% in it on four times in 24 hours.   Will Beback    talk    09:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

i see your point. it was not my intent, rather i meant to restore the poll i added, which is more recent from the exact same source, that was deleted for no reason. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC) i self reverted and restored the old data, apologies Darkstar1st (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it's only four days since your last 1RR block expired, it seems like you can't control yourself. If you'd agree to 0RR for a month I'd withdraw the complaint. Otherwise, I don't see how you're learning not to edit war. A week ago I asked you several times to self-revert, but you never did. User_talk:Darkstar1st What else are we supposed to do?   Will Beback    talk    09:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

yes i agree, 0rr 1 month Darkstar1st (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That means no reverts on this article until June 17 10:32 UTC.
 * If that's agreed then I withdraw my complaint.   Will Beback    talk    10:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC
 * thanks for the clarification, yes agreed. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Request withdrawn. Darkstar1st has agreed to 0RR on Tea Party movement for four weeks in lieu of a block for the 1RR violation.   Will Beback    talk    10:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Rajk2011 reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result: Rajk2011 and Intoronto1125 blocked 24hr by Golbez)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - A third opinion on the subject was given.

Comments: So this editor has reverted my edits, even after a third opinion and discussion on his talk page. Also it seems to me he is having ownership issues with the article, as he claims to know the subject of the article. Also the editor accuses me of vandalism, when in fact I am just putting in the result of a third opinion. Please take action. Intoronto1125 <big style="color:Orange;">Talk  Contributions  16:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Both parties blocked 24h and article protected by User:Golbez. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by Nomoskedasticity (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:49, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "removing - atticking comment is unverified by the user that added it")
 * 2) 18:54, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity (talk); User is replacing content that he has not verifiesdd and that is disputed and complained about at BLPN. using TW")
 * 3) 19:04, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 65.202.237.158 (talk); Sock revert. using TW")
 * 4) 19:11, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 65.202.237.158 (talk); Disruptive sock . using TW")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: as discussed on my own talk page.

Comments:

I appreciate that my own editing will be looked at and have no worries on that score, with only two edits to the article in question. O2RR alleges "sock reverts" in relation to the actions of an IP address subsequent to my own edits, but geolocate puts that IP address in the USA, where I am not (and never have been) located. So, to add to 3RR, O2RR is making false sockpuppet allegations. Please note as well the discussion at BLPN, where other editors attempt to help O2RR understand the misguided nature of his editing.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please review the discussion of this disputed content at the BLPN Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - also An IP User talk:65.202.237.158 from a DC law firm Baker Hostetler - District of Columbia appearing from out of nowhere, to replace this disputed content twice, without any discussion at all is a disruptive contributor - a sock-puppet or a meat-puppet disruptive contributor and as such a vandal. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected. Removal of 'poorly sourced contentious material' from BLP articles is an exception to WP:3RR. The material supposedly from Richard Marson's book was first added by an IP in November, 2009. That IP is no longer active. The content of the book can't be checked online, but the book does exist. The WP:BURDEN for verifying material falls on the editor who wants to add it. Has *any* recent editor seen this quote in the book? The quote gives no page number. On a small article that may just barely hang on if challenged at AfD it seems curious to take a large percentage of the space for negative material. Editors can of course reach a consensus to include it if they want (subject to review at BLPN), but somebody should take responsibility for having verified the quote themselves. Marson's critique (if it can be verified) would be more convincing if corroborated by press coverage. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:59.177.38.207, User:59.177.38.137, User:59.177.165.150 reported by User:Macwhiz (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP-only user from 59.177 netblock has repeatedly added inappropriate contentious material to this article, including statements that cast aspersions on a living person. None of these statements are sourced. Despite explanations in my edit notes, the Talk page, and the user's most recent IP talk page as of the last incident, this user persists in restoring the controversial text without so much as an edit log. I don't want to continue removing the inappropriate material for fear of running afoul of 3RR. While the user hasn't violated 3RR yet, it's still edit-warring given the utter lack of dialogue. I request that the page be semi-protected and that the controversial text be removed.

// ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. IPs have been adding an unsourced claim about pending legal action against the Director General of this organization. This is 'poorly sourced contentious material about a living person' under WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Corner benchmark reported by User:Eisfbnore (Result: )
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: Well, the "article" is a talk page itself, but I tried to explain in the edit summaries, at ANI and at the user's talk page.

Comments:

-- Eisfbnore talk 14:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've written to Eisfbnore and Rettetast about this. See Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive for what this could be about. May not be able to close this without help from editors of the Norwegian Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Yourfriend1 reported by User:Mr. Stradivarius (Result: Jahlove1234 blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 07:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 02:42, 20 May 2011 (edit summary: "press conference")


 * Revert 1: 03:49, 20 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
 * Revert 2: 04:59, 20 May 2011 (edit summary: "") 05:19, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * Revert 3: 06:31, 20 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
 * Revert 4: 06:46, 20 May 2011 (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: 06:40, 20 May 2011


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 04:24, 20 May 2011

Comments:

Yourfriend1 accused me of vandalising the article through the use of an HTML note in the article itself here and at WP:Editor assistance/Requests here. This article has become a bit of a hot button issue since von Trier's controversial comments and ban from the Cannes film festival, but I don't think that's an excuse for edit warring. Also, apologies for the number of reports I've made here in the last few days - it seems that I have been attracting controversy myself, and I think I will take a short break from recent changes patrolling after this.

<span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 07:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. Editors who perceive a great cause that justifies reverting an article should be aware they can be blocked. So much time has passed that a block would no longer be reasonable. If the war resumes, please reopen this request. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I think I shall limit myself to one revert per day on this article as well. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 19:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am reopening this request because the user has resumed edit warring to push BLP-violating material into the article, but now using their sock account User:Jahlove1234. Actually, historically Yourfriend1 started as a sock of Jahlove1234 after Jahlove1234 was warned for edit warring to push copyvios into an article 2 years ago. For further details see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourfriend1. Hans Adler 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Jahlove1234 blocked one week. Left a note in the sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Quentin X reported by User:Sisman Yanko (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I have asked Sisman Yanko to engage in debate on the issue that we disagree with over the article but all they do is undo my edit. After most of my own edits I have added information to their talk page, whereas all they have done is add vandalism warnings to my talk page. I have asked adminsitrator Ged UK to have a look at the issue. Quentin X (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Having looked further at this, it appears that I have edited Sisman Yanko's edit at 08:24 to include both their and mine information. They then reverted my edit and have since done so twice, therefore falling foul of the 3RR themselves. Quentin X (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Captain Screebo reported by User:Mtking (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 07:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:01, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Kauffner (talk); Irrelevant to this bio, see WP:BLPNAME and talk page. (TW)")
 * 02:03, 20 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Redundant")
 * 1) 03:05, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Mr.grantevans2 (talk); WP:NOTNEWS, see talk, WP is not about scurrilous detail and allegations. (TW)")
 * 2) 03:49, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Mr.grantevans2 (talk); I have posted at the top of the talk page, do not put this information back please. (TW)")
 * 3) 03:56, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 429989467 by Yug (talk) Undue weight, irrelevant, not English")
 * 03:57, 20 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2011 arrest and charges */ Detailed list of allegations has no place here, see talk WP:NOTNEWS")
 * 1) 04:19, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 429990001 by Captain Screebo; Reasons are detailed on talkpage WP:NOTNEWS, this is getting tiring. (TW)")
 * 2) 06:22, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 430000526 by Epeefleche (talk) Please see talk and stop deciding wiki policy on your own, consensus is against you")
 * 3) 06:42, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Coolcaesar (talk); We do not need all the details of his bail conditions, thank you, see talk, WP:NOTNEWS. (TW)")
 * 4) 06:52, 20 May 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 430003245 by Epeefleche (talk) I already asked you to stop deciding wikipolicy, this is undue weight and trivia")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Mtking (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have come here to claim exemption due to this being a BLP article about a very high profile figure and also apologize for my miscontruing the 3RR rule to mean 3 reverts to the same editor's material in 24 hours. As I do more cleaning up, wikifying and so on, I don't usually get into disputes as, in general, I avoid adding controversial content and try to rewrite what is already there. So this means that up until now, I had not fully read the 3RR page. As you will see, after the second revert to an editor's edit, I stopped. I also posted to the article talk page [1 ] with the express purpose of trying to get people to read the policies relevant to BLPs and stop posting trivia and scurrilous details. I also posted to the user's talk page here and also opened up discussion on my talk page, the last two subjects. I went over to the BLPN to encourage some people to come over and take a look but that didn't seem to happen (see here).

I would like to point out that this man's image is on the front page, so easily clickable, and several editors, myself included are just trying to keep the article neutral, avoiding undue weight, recentism, trivia and shock-horror tabloid reporting. As I/we have tried to point out Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not Wikinews or a celebrity gossip website.

As to the edits, the first concerns addition of non-relevant material about his two first wives who have nothing to do with his notability and WP:BLPNAME. The next two concern an editor's obsession with the fact that a couple of news sources are reporting "sodomy, anal sex" and so on which the editor absolutely wanted to get in the article. All I can say is that these are unfounded allegations for the moment, rumour and WP:BLP.

Okay, next Yug added a large new section to this already UNDUE section about the consequences to DSK's career (written in pretty poor English I must say) and while removing said material (as it had just been added without any discussion and there were already three or four threads on the tp concerning the relevance, the trivia and the weighty nature of this section) I also removed the section that detailed every single charge against him. Come on, we are an encyclopaedia not court reporters. Yug then moved this stuff over to here where it promptly got severely pruned by User:Wikiwatcher1, who if you look at the edit history, would be guilty of edit warring as he had to delete content, then revert because Yug put it back, ignoring any discussion on the talk pages (of either article). Or was Wikiwatcher1 correctly deleting material that has no place in a BLP and which is just obsessive trivia and blow-by-blow accounting?

And finally, probably the reason this arrived here, is that I dared cross swords with Epeefleche (no pun intended) who reverted 3 times in the space of 50 minutes, was not very open to dialogue on the talk page, see this subject and the following two, and informed me that perhaps given the number of editors of long-standing with whom (you are) finding (yourself) in disagreement (you) might slow down (your) reverts and use the talk page more where there is the possibility that their (the long-standing editors) views might be meritorious.

Well I'm sorry, but if you go through the talk page you will find on numerous instances that I have tried to engage in dialogue and some people are just being bloody-minded and refusing to respect policy (and this is a BLP). Also, I find this kind of attitude quite unacceptable, "I've been here longer than you have, I've got a bigger edit count than you have" is fit for the playground and that's about all. Oh and he came to my talk page and said "please stop edit warring". Funny really, as such an experienced editor covered with glory and barnstars and a bazillion articles created accuses me of edit warring when they reverted three times in 50 minutes without reaching consensus? As if they didn't know the policy.

Ok, (God this goes on doesn't it), you will also see that once users like User:John lilburne, User:ErrantX or Kevin started to turn up a couple of hours ago on the talk page that they backed me up, informed people about NOTNEWS, trivia and so on, Kevin even replying to Epeefleche "Looking at this page, it does look like he's been engaging in discussion here". And I specifically posted at BLPN and on the talk page in my WP:NOTNEWS edit summary that I was trying to avoid conflict by making policy clear and flagging troublesome individuals.

I would just like to reiterate that I assumed 3RR to pertain to a particular editor's edits so I'm sorry for that but if I'm guilty then so is User:Wikiwatcher1, or were we just protecting the articles from trolling and bad faith edits to avoid spurious or defamatory material being posted in a high-profile BLP. And are other editors at fault?

Finally, a last quote from the talk page "It seems like every user inthe past week cares more about updating the nitty gritty about the case--when the trial hasn't even started--rather that DSK's political history. Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)". I rest my case, now for you to decide which side I'm on. Thanks for hearing me out.  Captain Screebo Parley! 10:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Being a BLP allows an exemption for "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material" (per WP:3RR). How that applies can be a matter of interpretation, but the exemption usually does not cover the removal of content sourced to major news organizations (as was involved in many but not all of your cited reverts).  The question of what content from major sources to include is still a very important issue for BLPs, but edit warring over such decisions would usually be treated as a normal content dispute, and hence not immune from 3RR.  I actually agree with you on a number of content points, but in general I would note that if a consensus exists then there should be plenty of people prepared to defend it.  If a single person feels the need to do a lot of reverting to enforce a consensus then the odds are they have misjudged the consensus.  Personally, I think it is pretty clear you crossed the 3RR line in this case.  That you meant well and didn't know where the line was, is perhaps a reason for leniency.  As a peripherally involved user, I'll let some other admin decide what - if any - response is warranted.  For the record, I skimmed the edit history and I don't think anyone else crossed the bright line of 3RR during the same 24 hour period.  However, there are any number of other editors that have racked up a significant number of reverts over the last week.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked Captain Screebo if he is willing to take a break from editing the article. This may not be the last edit war before the case is over, and we should try to be even-handed if more such disputes get reported here. Captain Screebo has not reverted since this 3RR case was opened, nine hours ago. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm here. I would like to respond to some of the points that Dragons flight made above. The consensus is strong to not include trival details and so on, with the likes of Andy the Grump, ErrantX, Wikiwatcher1, John lilburne, Xionbox, Sandstein, Fighting Mac being of that opinion, along with myself. Unfortunately I found myself alone and confronted with fairly agressive behaviour and people misquoting policy or refusing to read the reasons people had given on the talk page to remove or prune content.
 * I agree, one person does not a consensus make, but you will see that I left a message at Andy the Grump's talk at 4.10 am (GMT) asking him to come over and check the article as I was planning to go to bed. I guess he was already away as he didn't show. As I said above, I also posted at the BLPN half an hour later, hoping some other editors would come over and deal with the disruption, nobody did and that's when Epeefleche turned up.
 * Well as for 3RR apparently I did sort of cross it, unintentionally and I'm sure that some of those reverts are valid under BLP exemption, but the above reverts were over a pêriod of five hours and I never reverted the same user three times (which was my understanding at the time). Please go back and recheck the edit history here, you'll need to click through to the 8th edit, Epeefleche reverted the article 3 times in 51 minutes, now if that's not 3RR I must be blind. I would also like to say that he came and posted "please don't edit war over at DSK" while doing exactly that, I knew it was bait and I was at two reverts (concerning him) so I left it (but I got reported anyhow, strange eh?)
 * So I would like to know what (if any) action you are going to take against this user, as they were highly provocative and inflammatory?
 * And I think this comment by Andy the Grump in response to my lead talk page WP:NOTNEWS section is pertinent:


 * "I agree. Concise, and to the point. This is not Wikinews. Neither is it a down-market tabloid, or a forum for debates regarding what exactly 'Jewish' means. We already have policy regarding content of BLPs, and if people disagree with the policy, this isn't the place to debate it. This article has enough problems with POV-pushing and drive-by antisemitism, and that experienced contributors chose to raise issues of content where policy is already clear only makes matters worse." AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC) (my emphasis)
 * And of course I'll not edit the article for a week if that's what you request, I got involved at DSK through the BLP noticeboard and Anne Sinclair, helping a couple of editors protect from ethnic-taggers and POV pushers, over at DSK on Wednesday we had some serious anti-semitism which resulted in at least two blocks for the users involved, but that time there were a lot more people around and admins too (sorry admins are people too, it just came out that way.) I am really not interested in wasting my time on pathetic back-and-forth tug-of-wars like this and think it seriously undermines Wikipedia. I will go back to wikifying articles on cetaceans and other such non-controversial stuff for a few days, okay?
 * BTW, I think someone should clean up the talk page, as WP:BLP applies there too, I believe. When I went to check (I didn't want to edit over there before doing this) someone has created a new section "WikiJews working overtime on this one", charming Wikipedia is a zionist conspiracy to hide the ethnicity of the New World Order, plus there is a lot of offensive material, derogatory comment and so on. IMHO.  Captain Screebo Parley! 18:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * By way of clarification, the bright line rule is more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Hence Epeefleche did not actually violate 3RR.  However, I agree that making exactly three reverts in less than an hour is really bad form, and it could be interpreted as edit warring even without crossing over the 3RR limit.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since the editor has stopped reverting. He stated above "..of course I'll not edit the article for a week if that's what you request.." I observe from the discussion that Captain Screebo may not have fully absorbed the policy on WP:Edit warring, but if he has stopped, that is sufficient. "I am really not interested in wasting my time on pathetic back-and-forth tug-of-wars like this.." I hope it is obvious how to solve that problem: stop reverting and wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Final comment: thank you, there was no intention to edit war, as I stated in my first response, I don't usually get involved in content disputes and so my understanding of 3RR and so on was a bit limited and misinformed, I will go and read up fully on it, but I would just like to make the point that some editors appear to know the system very well and, while not crossing the line, act in a provocative and singular manner.


 * I would also point out that I had confidence in the consensus and correct application of BLP, NOTNEWS and other policies or guidelines, so I have not felt the need to go back and edit, as others have continued the good work. The three editors who I reverted have since given up and gone elsewhere, the DSK article is even cleaner than when I left it and the sex-assault article pruned and up for deletion. Thank you for hearing me out. The Dude abides!  Captain Screebo Parley! 11:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)