Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive163

User:ClaudioSantos reported by User:Xanthoxyl (Result: No Violation)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Talk:Action T4
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Talk:Jack Kevorkian (Note: the article itself is protected because of this user.)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (another user pointed out that he was deleting their own comments simultaneously; he ignored this)
 * False, I was not deleting someone else comment, but a comment signed by the sockpuppet Jabbsworth see: -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

The level of disruption by this anti-euthanasia editor has gotten beyond a joke. An old enemy, User:TickleMeister, who has an indefinite block, occasionally turns up in sock-puppet form, and ClaudioSantos responds with a flurry of hamfisted reversions each time. At the moment he is trying to delete or strike through every comment ever made by that user. As usual, he simply will not listen to anyone and will not cool down, and his grammar and reading comprehension leave a lot to be desired. I am not sure how to deal with this. Xanthoxyl &lt; 16:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see at this time that the edit warring itself is clear-cut enough to warrant a block. The disruption that you're describing, on the other hand, may warrant a look, but I would recommend taking that to WP:ANI. It is too bad we no longer have a long-term abuse noticeboard (which they axed like 4 years ago) because this is a perfect case. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believed that it is not 3RR when reverting the editions made by someone who actively and repeatedly comes back here using up to 6 sockpuppets to evade his block. 3RR Exemption: "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts." from 3rr. I was wondering if I was the only one who find disruptive and vandalic the actions of someone who comes using up to 6 sockpuppets to evade his block and to push his agenda, like TickleMeister who few days ago came back with another sockpuppet to do the same. And may I question if it is also not enough disruptive that someone else be engaged in restoring the actions of that 6xSockpuppeter-evading-his-block, as this someone else is helping to circumvent the block of the expulsed 6xSockpuppeter? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack Kevorkian is currently fully protected. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Colincbn reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: One of many.

Comments:

I am sure that either User:Colincbn or User:Lithistman will attempt to muddy the waters claiming I have been edit warring but after 3 reverts of their tag team edit warring I made a firm commitment to stop reverts. They have continue to edit war in the most ridiculous manner repeatedly removing a tag where a children's author Frank R. Stockton is presented as a noted and reliable Historian. I am bemused why a simple content dispute can elicit such behaviour as it is an utterly WP:LAME dispute that could so easily be resolved by a mature discussion on the talk page; particularly as this is an editor of some experience and an otherwise respected contributor. I earnestly hope there can be a little common sense rather than recourse to a block. I am walking away from the article for 24 hrs to hopefully allow tempers to cool but despite the accusations on the talk page I really WP:DGAF and would just like to see quality work on the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above, I note here an apparent indication to indicate an intention to force an edit war. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WCM has some apparent ownership issues on the Henry Morgan article. He has thrown wild accusations around at every step of the way, and edit warred against now two different editors at the article. He has accused me of stalking him, after I simply posted a reply to one of his comments at a user talk page I had on my watchlist. He is out of control, and if there are sanctions to be leveled, they should go in the direction of WCM, not Colin. LHM 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that WCM is engaging in blatant original research (while accusing OTHER editors of doing so), with edit summaries like "many sources apply the term inappropriately - removing tags without resolving dispute is disruptive." We report what can be sourced in our articles, not what some editor believes the source got wrong. LHM 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted exactly three times. Adding the two of us together does not make a violation of 3RR. But I am glad this was brought here as any editors can see we are simply quoting the sources. Colincbn (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the first edit in the list above is not the same as the others. Colincbn (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the sources is by David Cordingly who was Head of Exhibitions at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich England. Frank R. Stockton wrote many things for both adults and children, such as The Lady, or the Tiger. He also wrote many histories like the one cited. Colincbn (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

See accusing WP:POINT for stopping all reverts and tagging  instead for the reasons outlined in Talk:Henry Morgan. Not to mention accusation of WP:OWN. And "out of control" and a demand for sanctions against me, when I am really, really hoping to avoid anyone being sanctioned. I am not going into content here but where terms are often confused by authors a little editorial judgement is in order. I note only now is there any discussion of sources, the previous talk page comments basically parrot "it is sourced, it is going in". Sad that this happens after I was reluctantly forced to bring the matter here. And really this is the wrong place for such a discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slapping templates on experienced editors, and then dragging one of us to this noticeboard would seem to put the lie to your claims that you're "hoping to avoid anyone being sanctioned." And you weren't "reluctantly forced" to do anything. You've been combative every step of the way, from the first day I added the sourced descriptor "pirate" to the article. Every step of the way, you've been this way. LHM 19:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is 4:00am in Japan, where I live, so I will be out of touch until I wake up. But before I go I would point out that I brought up sources and posted them into the talk page and article right from the beginning. One of them is from a man who is arguably the foremost expert on 16th~19th century piracy alive today. I have not reverted any one edit more than three times, I have directly answered every question you have posted on talk and all I am doing is adding a term that every single book or article on the man uses. Perhaps if you do not think this is the place for discussion you should not have brought it here. Colincbn (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:TDiNardo reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User appears to have WP:OWN issues with the article, projecting that onto those who disagree with him, as seen here. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * MikeWazowski, who submitted this report, has himself been involved in this edit war, and has himself already been reported for his part in it on the dispute resolution noticeboard, no doubt the reason he turned around and filed this report. I will point out that I submitted this for debt resolution YESTERDAY, but the request was deleted, and the others involved in this edit war have continued their actions without allowing for proper dispute resolution. I would also like to point out that all of my edits have attempted to create a balance between two differing sources, while MikeWazowski's as well as EEMIV's (another user involved in the same edit war) have only allowed for the source that they prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDiNardo (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I have not violated WP:3RR, as you have. Even after you were warned about this, you admitted on my talk page you were going to ignore that and continue to edit war to your preferred version. Remember, the 3RR warning specifically states "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." You're quite clearly in the wrong, here. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked by . --B (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:84.83.32.101 reported by User:JetBlast (Result: Warned Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have reverted only 1 edit, i didn't notice at first how long this had been going on for. I warned the user and they posted this on my talk page. Many Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Warning the user about our no original research policy is more conducive than biting a newbie. I will leave a message on her talk page and remove the claim from the article.  If she reverts again after my message, feel free to open this back up --B (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The warning didn't take.  31 hours. --B (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Indian born reported by User:MikeLynch (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comment: Discussions have taken place on talk pages, with them being kinda fragmented: for one. I had also left a personalized message on the violator's talk page (in Kannada, something I believe he is proficient in, due to the nature of his edits) here.  Lynch 7  19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * User was only warned once for edit warring, and they have not edited the page since. If they make another revert, re-report them here, or leave a message on my talk page and I'll block them. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Justlaugh reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted


 * 1st revert: UK or US release date rules on album pages.
 * 2nd revert: Restored references and album title
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: please add to discussion on the Bon Iver talk page before changing again. (There are no consensus BTW). Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talkpage discussions and RFPP.

Comments:

Five reverts in a day, enough for a block. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  20:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I used talk on the said album article and also the Bon Iver talk page several times. Consensus is that the album title is indeed Bon Iver and the page as is most definitely incorrect as it is now. People have been arguing this for weeks, and i am just trying to correct the inconsistencies and anomalies in the said article. Thank you. Justlaugh (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A) There are no consensus (yet), and b) even if it were one, you must not edit-war over it even when you believe it is correct. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  21:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User:محمد البكور reported by User:Absconded Northerner (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - this is a diff of the user's response to the ongoing discussion.

Comments:

The user simply refuses to consider that other people might have a view about the article. Talking is doing no good, so admin intervention is requested. Absconded Northerner (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting also that the user's edit summaries and other responses have been personal attacks - the diffs are above. I don't know if that is taken into account here or if it's a separate issue. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

DoctorHver has been trying to add original research about a supposed lost scene into this article, using a series of unreliable sources, which he has been warned about repeatedly. This user (as well as 98.254.83.35, possible sock?) have been trying to force this into the article for months, always with the same poor sourcing, based on forum posts and blogs. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not recommend the way that you've gone about it, MikeWazowski. You also made three reverts in a day, and the templates you used against the user were entirely ineffective about warning for the 3RR rule (see WP:TEMPLAR for using vandalism templates). Nevertheless, he broke the 3RR rule. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Catherine Huebscher reported by User:Legolas2186 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, warned by User:(CK)Lakeshade and by Admin Fastily.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Basically I will point the admins to the talk page of the above article and to comments like this, which makes me conclude that this is a case of WP:BIAS. And also started sockpuppetry. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

I've attempted numerous times to improve and decrease the length of this article as well as remove the POV editing which so obviously tries to make the madonna's acting attempt look like less of a failure. An editors who are obvious madonna apologists won't change a thing and this is aganist wikipedia policy. So is the editor lakeshade reverting my work and then telling me "Please stop and wait until the author of the article has replied..." There are no authors on wikipedia.

My edit were 100% fair and in keeping with policy. We do not need the time of day madonna arrived at the film or her workout and so many useless bits of worship. I'm concerned that the madonna fans on wikipedia are running vanity pieces in place of articles. I want to the article tagged and I want to go over the excessive sections which are reading more like a full length biographies than a concise piece on a film that was a flop. I want to discuss this on the discussion page. If I'm blocked I'm still going to come back politely, discussing it as will fellow editors of mine. madonna has been indulged within the media as sacred cow and wikipedia should not follow. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a decency in the way you should address your comments and controversial edits are supposed to be discussed, not removed and then edit war. Also, the case is that you are biased, in your views of teh said artist, in your language, and your behavior is absolutely unacceptable. Your personal insults directed at User:(CK)Lakeshade and in general to the said artist is not tolerated here. You have been previously blocked also for personal insults and harrassment, learn from your mistakes. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And your comment "If I'm blocked I'm still going to come back politely, discussing it as will fellow editors of mine." excessively disturb me seeing that you will continue to edit in the said manner? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:75.227.61.147 reported by User:Erikeltic (Result: Declined)
Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans

User being reported:75.227.61.147 / 75.227.61.174

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:

User 75.227.61.147 and 75.227.61.174 are clearly the same person, using a different IP in the same subnet. The anonymous editor's IP only changed after I warned him after his 2nd revert.


 * Comment - the first comment by an IP appears to be legitmate complaint about content. I see no reason whatsoever to edit war to remove it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I read that post and it does not seem that any harm is being done it. Just let it be. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How about now? Erikeltic ( Talk ) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI (without the B, because it's not technically possible given the IP range). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:76.90.111.117 reported by Mtking (talk) (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 03:40, 10 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 03:47, 10 July 2011  (edit summary: "â†Replaced content with 'William Remington Moses (born November 17, 1959) is an American actor.'")
 * 3) 03:47, 10 July 2011  (edit summary: "â†Replaced content with '  William R. Moses'")
 * 4) 09:43, 10 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 01:30, 11 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 01:31, 11 July 2011 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * for disruption, given the past history. Next block could be longer. Materialscientist (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Miradre reported by User:Aprock (Result: 3 month topic ban)
User being reported:

Miradre has waged an extensive edit war across many pages over the last three days.

Miradre is a single purpose WP:CPUSH sock account created an experienced user for the purpose of making controversial edits. Miradre acknowledges as much himself in this edit: "Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous."

He has previously had two AE cases opened against him, which resulted in him being notified and warned about his behavior:,. (diff of warning: "If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban.")

After an extended hiatus, Miradre returned on July 7, 2011 and proceeded to challenge changes made to various articles where he had been pushing his POV. Because he is an experienced user, many of his edits avoid the bright line of the "24 hour, 3RR" rule. A repeated tactic of his is to use tags instead of reverts to continue the edit war. Likewise, the the tactic of producing of massive walls of talk page text is also used.

Below is a presentation of the most contentious of the edit wars he has been waging.

Page:


 * 1st revert: 2011-07-07 18:45:49 restores deleted section
 * 2nd revert: 2011-07-08 09:34:02 restores deleted section
 * added tag: 2011-07-08 11:28:36
 * 3rd revert: 2011-07-08 23:46:41 restores tag
 * 4th revert: 2011-07-09 14:51:14 added different version of content
 * wall of text on talk page generated by Miradre as one advocating against a consensus of eight:

Page:


 * 1st revert: 2011-07-07 19:49:09 restores deleted content
 * 2nd revert: 2011-07-08 07:52:57 restores deleted content
 * 3rd revert: 2011-07-09 16:30:38 different version of the same content
 * 4th revert: 2011-07-10 08:48:18 restores deleted content
 * talk page:

Page:


 * 1st revert: 2011-07-07 18:41:51 restores deleted entry
 * 2nd revert: 2011-07-08 07:46:26 restores deleted entry
 * 3rd revert: 2011-07-09 07:03:29 restores deleted entry, adds a dozen refs
 * wall of text on talk page, Miradre against a consensus of four:

Page:


 * 1st revert: 2011-07-07 19:07:12 restores deleted content
 * 2nd revert: 2011-07-11 01:58:57 restores deleted content
 * 3rd revert: 2011-07-11 03:33:39 restores deleted content
 * added tag:
 * talk page:

Page:


 * 1st revert: 2011-07-08 07:42:21 massive revert
 * 2nd revert: 2011-07-09 06:15:07 different version
 * talk page wall of text,

This case is unusual in that Miradre was the one repeatedly posting conduct warnings:
 * Miradre notifying :
 * Miradre notifying :
 * Miradre notifying :
 * Miradre notifying :

Naturally, someone warned him that the same conduct policies applied to him as well:

Note: I am an involved editor on three of the five pages.
 * Sorry but I cant see a single case where WP:3RR has been breached. If you think the editor is a WP:SOCK then maybe a WP:SPI would be a better route, however you should be aware that WP:ILLEGIT does allow a second account for privacy reasons in controversial topic areas. Mtking (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that of edit warring and going against consensus across multiple articles at once. Miradre is too smart to blatantly trespass on the 3RR policy on any single article. But three reverts are not a privilege, but rather a bright line one shouldn't cross. And the evidence above does establish that s/he is edit warring (against quite a large number of established users) in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia bureaucratise is a pain and a labyrinth but I think the most appropriate venue would be WP:AE. The whole mess that led to the arbitration has been a giant time sink start to finish - unfortunately, Miradre's efforts seem eerily calculated to expand this time sink even further. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let it be noted that the above editors except Mtking are involved in content disputes with me and are by no means uninvolved.Miradre (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrug...at what point have I tried to capitalize by labeling myself "uninvolved"? I was pulled into this morass via one of wikipedia's recommended dispute resolution notice boards, the WP:NORN.  As such I, like I'm sure innumerable volunteers here, intervened which automatically makes me party to the disputes at issue whenever the ICANTHEARYOU arguments kick in.  I think it's a ridiculous waste of time here to argue about who is or who isn't "involved" when it's your distractionary and polemical misuse of sourced material I'm concerned about.  Professor marginalia (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Aprock makes numerous misleading and false accusations (many quite unrelated to 3RR)
 * Aprock takes up as offenses adding disputed tags to the articles and having talk page discussions.
 * I am not a sockpuppet. I have not edited under another name for years. That I did once have another name does not make me a sockpuppet.
 * I am no single purpose account but edit a rather wide array of articles, mainly within psychology. I have received praise by an expert in the field for my edits to IQ article.
 * I have not been warned but notified regarding the sanctions in the first AE. Also the second attempt AE to get me banned from the topic area failed. This is yet another attempt by Aprock after his earlier attempts have failed.
 * I edit an controversial area so those interested, please see my motivation for doing so, as stated in the second AE. In the section Discussion concerning Miradre -> Statement by Miradre -> My motivation for editing these controversial topics
 * I will also note the numerous cases of incivility by Aprock against me when he accuses me of vandalism for what are content disputes and with clear explanations in edit summaries and on talk for all edits:
 * Aprock seems to be Canvassing editors who supports his views to come here and comment:
 * One of the claimed reverts is false: "4th revert: 2011-07-09 14:51:14 [48] added different version of content" for the Guns, Germs, and Steel article. That is completely new material.
 * Several of the edits Aprock lists as reverts consist of well-sourced material that had not been in the article for months. They had been removed while I was taking a wikibreak (usually by Aprock) without any "consensus" for this removal. Note that he has not listed what version of the article is first (very partially) reverted to ("Previous version reverted to:") likely because this would show that the added back old material, while beings partial reverts, were not of currently disputed material.
 * His other descriptions of the edits are also misleading. If I have been reverted I have in every case and asked on the talk page for clarification why this occurred. If I have received feedback I have tried to modify the material according to this before adding it back. If there has been no feedback on the talk I have added back the material. That can hardly be described as edit warring. Like when was I reverted for the stated reason of the material only having a primary source and added back the material, now with a secondary source.Miradre (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This editor is clearly being disruptive and editing contrary to multiple wikipedia policies. (On Malaria, for example, I had to point out a copy-vio where a whole sentence with only minor changes had been copy-pasted from an abstract. This was immediately identifiable because their talk page contributions indicate that English is not Miradre's first language.) Almost all their edits are being reverted at the moment by multiple editors. They have been reminded of policy by at least two administrators, although with little or no effect. Their editing has been tendentious. Although technically they might not yet have broken 3RR, they have clearly been edit warring against consensus. It's hard to know where to report problems with their editing: here, on WP:ANI or WP:AE? There is circumstantial evidence pointing to them being yet another identifiable meatpuppet of two users under ArbCom sanctions, this time editing from Sweden. In that case a direct appeal to ArbCom might be necessary. Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Matsci is also obviously involved in content disputes with me and have unsuccessfully tried to get me banned using AE. He himself has earlier been topic banned from the area by the ArbCom. If he accuses me sockpuppetry, then this is the wrong forum.Miradre (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good illustration of Miradre's disruptive and tendentious editing. Miradre uses the word "disputes" when in this case Miradre revert-warred content to List of international rankings under the heading "demographics": the content was unrelated to demographics in any way at all. It was removed as irrelevant spamming in the single edit I made.
 * Miradre's statements depart markedly from what is on record: it was ResidentAnthropologist who reported Mirardre at AE and it was Aprock who requested clarification from ArbCom. Issues of meatpuppetry in this case would be taken up directly with checkusers on ArbCom and not at WP:SPI. Much the same thing has happened during disruption by Mikemikev: recently one offensive image he created through the sock was removed from commons directly by a staff member of WMF. The aggressive tone and distortion in Miradre's comments at this public noticeboard are not very different from those of already confirmed meatpuppets connected with WP:ARBR&I and their operators.  Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition an ipsock of Mikemikev has given Miradre this advice on their talk page. (This IP range was blocked for 3 months by a checkuser because of persistent socking by Mikemikev.) Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

On a more general point, several of the articles Miradre has been involved with recently come under of the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence prescriptions, which state the following:


 * '''Single purpose accounts


 * 7.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.


 * ''Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Miradre would be hard-put to argue that his isn't a 'single purpose account', and his 'own agenda' seems self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You yourself certainly have an "agenda" in your edits on this topic as well as in your participation in the previous failed AE attempts to get me banned. My own POV is to present what reliable sources state in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Currently some views are underrepresented in Wikipedia compared to the scientific literature. If the same views were overrepresented in Wikipedia I would work to correct that. Furthermore, I have improved a rather broad range of articles in areas which I have some knowledge of, mainly psychology, many of which are not in the intersection of topics covered by the ArbCom case.Miradre (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide diffs to demonstrate my supposed 'agenda'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This 3RR report shows 16 reverts by Miradre in the last four days on a variety of articles but all concerning material related to race and intelligence. He has multiple reverts on each article, and he seems to be restoring his material after it is removed by other editors. Miradre has no exemption from the rule that consensus is needed for controversial changes. I recommend a 3-day block for edit warring which would be logged in the Arbcom case at WP:ARBR&I. As an alternative to a block, Miradre could accept a voluntary restriction for three months from adding any R&I-related material to any articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the incivility displayed towards me by Aprock? Regarding reverts so has Aprock also done a large number over this time period so should not the same apply to him? I also fail to see how Explained variation or Dysgenics are under the ArbCom sanctions as you claim.Miradre (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide diffs showing Aprock repeatedly reverting to restore content against consensus? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are going to count every revert he has made over that last few days I can certainly add a list. Just give me a little time.Miradre (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need 'every revert' - just the ones against consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A total of 20 reverts. Clearly also wikistalking of me.Miradre (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And which of those do you suggest demonstrate reverting against consensus? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see an exception in WP:3RR for "consensus" reverts (which sounds like a contradiction). I imagine such an exception rule would immensely increase the amount of discussions here with everyone claiming to be restoring the "consensus" version.Miradre (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And which of those do you suggest demonstrate a violation of WP:3RR? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aprock and I have not violated WP:3RR. But the number of reverts for all articles for all the last days was mentioned above regarding me so it is appropriate to mention the same for Aprock.Miradre (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not the number of reverts per se that is necessarily the problem (or at least, it isn't if one applies WP:3RR to the letter). Rather it is that you have repeatedly reverted against consensus - Aprock hasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the first so called "reverts" were adding back some well-sourced material that had been removed many months ago by those disliking the views. So there was no current "consensus" against this sourced material. After this was removed by those disliking the sourced views I tried to discuss the reason for this on the talk page. In some cases I received no answer, in some cases some feedback I tried to incorporate before adding back the material, or a modified version, in order to resolve the issue. I never added back material so long as there were ongoing talk page discussions. If someone else, who had never before participated in the discussion then appear and revert the material I add back, then that I something I cannot predict. That is not editing against a "consensus". Let me ask you this. Exactly which of my reverts, at the time I did time them and not later, had a strong "consensus" regarding the issue on the talk page? Miradre (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also again point to the incivility and wikistalking by Aprock I have described earlier.Miradre (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the first so called "reverts" were adding back some well-sourced material that had been removed many months ago by those disliking the views. - no, what happened is that couple months ago you tried adding stuff in against consensus and got reverted. So you decided to wait a month and try again. Now, I guess this could be just barely justifiable under the "consensus can change" scenario IF you had stopped with the reverts immediately after you you got reverted and it was made plain to you that the consensus HAD NOT in fact changed. Instead what we have here is you trying to achieve your POV by force once, and then when that didn't work, trying again a little bit later (perhaps with the hope that this time around no one would notice).
 * As to the accusations of incivility and wikistalking they're bunk. Obviously Aprock has been active in this topic area for a very long time so this is nothing more than your mass reverts showing up on his watchlist. Likewise, I see no incivility but just frustration with your IDIDN'THEARTHAT attitude and stubborn persistence to try and force your POV into these articles, despite unanimous disagreement from a large number of other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the accusations of incivility and wikistalking they're bunk. Obviously Aprock has been active in this topic area for a very long time so this is nothing more than your mass reverts showing up on his watchlist. Likewise, I see no incivility but just frustration with your IDIDN'THEARTHAT attitude and stubborn persistence to try and force your POV into these articles, despite unanimous disagreement from a large number of other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Miradre, than you for making your position clear. You are suggesting that 'consensus' somehow disappears ater a few weeks for no apparent reason, and you can then revert content previously deleted by (then) consensus, and continue to reinsert it if it is then removed on the basis that there is no consensus for inclusion? Can I suggest that at this point, an admin steps in and enacts sanctions against Miradre, as he/she has now made plain that he/she does not accept Wikipedia policy regarding the way disputes regarding article content are settled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The material was removed while I is was taking a wikibreak, not before, by Aprock in four cases and another user in the other case. In none of the cases was there a "consensus" for removing the well-sourced material at that time.Miradre (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, exactly which of the reverts had a "consensus" against them on the talk page at the time of the revert? In every case I started talk page discussions if I was reverted and tried to modify the material if there was feedback. if you accuse me of reverting against a consensus, it is you who should demonstrate it.Miradre (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre, you seem to be suggesting that if your content is reverted, you can come back a few weeks later, reinsert it, and then expect contributors to go through the whole talk-page debate again before you will accept that your contributions are against consensus. This is tendentious at best - you are assuming that consensus has changed (for no obvious reason), and expect others to have to endlessly provide proof that it hasn't. As I pointed out previously, this behaviour is precisely that addressed at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence: "Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral...". Assuming you have the right to endlessly dispute consensus isn't 'neutral' by any stretch of the imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement is false as I have already pointed out. Desist from further repetitions. Again, the material was removed while I is was taking a wikibreak, not before, by Aprock in four cases and another user in the other case. In none of the cases was there a "consensus" for removing the well-sourced material at that time.Miradre (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which statement is false? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained it above.Miradre (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, this is getting us nowhere. It seems to me that a clear violation of Wikipedia rules against edit warring, and a probable violation of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence is evident from your recent editing history at Guns, Germs, and Steel alone, where you have attempted to coatrack a section on 'Race and intelligence' into the article against an overwhelming talk-page consensus (and while you are at it, inserting a fair degree of OR/Synthesis). In my opinion it is unnecessary to discuss your edits elsewhere. You are a single-purpose editor, pushing a POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange that you take up the discussion at Guns, Germs, and Steel since I never attempted to reinsert material for which there was stated consensus against this on talk. (Ignore the false 4th revert claim). Again, exactly which of the reverts had a "consensus" against them on the talk page at the time of the revert? In every case I started talk page discussions if I was reverted and tried to modify the material if there was feedback. if you accuse me of reverting against a consensus, it is you who should demonstrate it.Miradre (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that an uninvolved admin looks at the Guns, Germs, and Steel edit history, and at the talk page, and then decides for him/herself. It seems self-evident that you were attempting to insert material against consensus, and in support of your POV, into an article which was only marginally related. Again, not neutral. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * If you have any evidence, present it. Again, when there was a stated consensus against this on talk I never attempted to revert any material. (Ignore the false 4th revert claim). Anyhow, after a long debate is seems that we have agreed to include something from another source, so it seems to have been a productive discussion.Miradre (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Topic ban applied per WP:ARBR&I. This discussion should have taken place at Arbitration enforcement. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Hudavendigar reported by User:Fastily (Result: blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's past history should be more than sufficient.

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

Comments:


 * This has to be one of the more lame edit wars I've encountered IMO. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 09:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tevfik_Fikret&diff=438871130&oldid=438866497\ 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tevfik_Fikret 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tevfik_Fikret&diff=438699368&oldid=438698603 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tevfik_Fikret&diff=438871203&oldid=437662486 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tevfik_Fikret&diff=437655092&oldid=437425515 The discussion page indicates the effort made to convince this editor that one of the most famous Turkish witers, Tevfik Fikret belongs in the "Turkish poets" category, while the disruptive editor in question engaged in multiple and back to back reverts to remove this category.Murat (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An attempt was made to explain and warn Takabeg in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and searched for a resolution in vain. I am the one who started and continued discussion on the talk page.  Takabeg is the editor which repeatedly deleted edits without discussion or looking for concensus.  All edits have been made by myself with added explanations and references. Takabeg reverts in this article alone:
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: N/A article under 1RR General Sanctions -- Abortion
 * 4th revert: N/A article under 1RR General Sanctions -- Abortion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

appears to be on point as to name of priest and reason for dismissal from the Jesuits. No crime is alleged or charged, which would be a legitimate BLP issue. Collect (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was what the article originally had (that he was dismissed for this baptism), but JorgePeixoto and Mamalujo insisted on adding unsupported text which said he was dismissed for other reasons. I had originally tried to restore the original explanation, ie. the one you're saying is correct, but then JorgePeixoto and I compromised and decided to remove discussion of the background, since we couldn't agree on what to say about it. The first supposed "revert" above is the implementation of that decision. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese is edit warring with Mamalugo and JorgePeixoto at article claiming exemption under WP:NOT3RR for BLP. I am uninvolved. However the source supports the content she is reverting. Note that the policy states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial" and recommends "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Her assertion that the content is libelious is far from conclusive: she should have erred on the side of caution and taken this to BLPN. – Lionel (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The first wasn't a revert - rather, it was the result of a discussion with JorgePeixoto where we agreed that rather than dispute over what we should say the reason for the defrocking was, we should provide a minimum of information and let the article on O'Rourke explain it, since he has his own article. BLP [ed. Verifiability!] is an issue, since the source doesn't support the claim JorgePeixoto and Mamalujo are making about O'Rourke (that he was defrocked for a long series of events, rather than for this baptism - the source explicitly states in several places that he was defrocked because of the baptism - yes, it was "after" a long series of events, but it was also "after" becoming a Jesuit and "after" performing a lot of other baptisms, and the phrasing implies and is meant to imply causality), but I'm not claiming any exemption, since the first was not a revert and was a compromise solution after a discussion with the other user. You know, the sort of thing one is meant to do. You're really determined to get me blocked, aren't you, Lionelt? Why is that? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon, I took a look at O'Rourke's article and he died in 2008. And I know I knew this a while ago, so I apologize for forgetting. Luckily, I hadn't claimed an exemption on the grounds of BLP. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Unblocked, as it was not a 1RR violation. Note sure what ANEW protocol is; do you revise the heading or something? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Typically no - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Obhave reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Mediated)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

In addition to edit warring, editor is deleting huge chunks of the article, and was also warned for vandalism. (I am uninvolved in the edit war.) – Lionel (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lionel is the one that accused me of vandalism, which is a false accusation. All I have done is to draw attention to the fact that the term "militant atheist" does NOT have a fixed meaning, in fact it is a highly contested and controversial term. It's most frequent use today is as a cheap slur thrown on anyone who expresses atheism or criticizes religion in public. This political cartoon nicely demonstrates the abhorrent double standards in the current use of the terms "militant christianity", "militant islam" and "militant atheism".

However, I will own up to the fact that I am rather new on Wikipedia... and that I have now realized that I should modify the wording around the polemic anti-atheist references, and instead provide side-by-side examples to illustrate why their use is unfair and biased. Obhave (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD is interesting - but it is clear that it specifies "do not rinse and repeat" (not a quote) . Making gnormous changes to articles without getting some feedback is exceedingly ill-advised. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see how the second edit is a revert; can you explain this? Also, if I see one more freaking person refer to a content dispute as vandalism, I may lose my sanity altogether. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 2nd diff, he changed "Terms" to "Criticism of the term." – Lionel (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is vandalism how exacly? I was merely attempting to fix the militant anti-atheist POV that the article currently has (we have to be consistent with our terms, see... anyone who criticizes anything is militant). Obhave (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sysop comment I'm not blocking anyone for now, due to Obhave's inexperience with Wikipedia policy. I'll be settling this matter on said user's talk page. m.o.p  12:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Obhave is seeking an RfC to develop consensus on this matter and has stated that there will be no further edit warring on their behalf. Marking this one as resolved. m.o.p  06:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:178.84.115.106 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: blocked for 72 hours for edit warring and legal threats)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: which was deleted and restored by another user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * this will be my respons to these accusations. this user, User:DeCausa, has twice reverted my changes on article bulgarians conceirning the rephrasing of "european turkey" into its proper geographical name which is "thrace". Even a child would understand that this change improves the article, but still he is acting irresponsible by reverting it. 178.84.115.106 (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, he continues to delete my warnings on his talk page to cover up his own mistakes, and thuss I accuse this user of vandalism. 178.84.115.106 (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * for edit warring and making a legal threat after discussion at WP:ANI. Furthermore, User:DeCausa is perfectly within his rights to delete those warnings from his own talk page (as per WP:OWNTALK), especially as they seem to be unwarranted. &mdash;BETTIA&mdash; talk 10:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:TomPaul67 (Result: TomPaul67 blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurmi&diff=439053957&oldid=439053494


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

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

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

Talk:Kurmi

Please check the above link too on the talkback page: Edit request from TomPaul67, 12 July 2011 Comments:

TomPaul67 (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TomPaul67 (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I got to know about the 3RR procedure after visiting Sitush's page today. So I don't agree with your argument that my knowledge about the process seems to prove that I am guilty. TomPaul67 (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Sitush was reverting what looks like a concerted socking war, which has been going on at that and other articles for some time, so if there's a technical violation of 3RR I think it is a valid one. User:TomPaul67 was only just registered today, seems to know quite a bit about dispute procedures judging by the links he's added to User:TomPaul67 and his knowledge of the 3RR procedure, and is very likely himself a sock - see Sockpuppet investigations/Ajneesh Katiyar -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - this is a BRD situation and happen while this report was filed I had already begun drafting an SPI request. That request is now at Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajneesh_Katiyar and the lead up to it can be seen at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User Sitush has been haressing other users by reporting them without any basis. Any user who doesn't agree with him or her is being accused of being a socketpuppet. I would request you to look into the conduct of this user Sitush for falsely reporting editors. Sitush is not going into resolving difference of opinions, but is playing with the rules by falsely accusing users of being in a grand scheme to prove that this user is wrong. Let me know if you need my mobile number to verify that I am a US resident.

TomPaul67 (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

IS there any basis to prove that I am a sock. Just that I know the rules doesn't mean that I am a sock. I went through the contents that Jasper Deng has posted on my page. Also, I got all this information as to how to report users by looking at Sitush's page when he first tried to post a comment on my page. You need to look at this link to see all the information I was given by this very helpful admin : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomPaul67

My comment on that sock puppet page: The user User:Sitush has been making unwanted changes on the page:Kurmi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi. Though this user has been been warned multiple times, this user is not respecting the guidelines of the forum. Instead of agreeing and getting involved in a constructive discussion, and going through a resolution process, this user has reported me twice for being a socket puppet. I am very unhappy to see such a response from this user. I would like to report this user for violating the policies of Wiki.

I believe that I have been reported as I don't agree to Sitush POV. TomPaul67 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, I make a sworn statement as given under:

I Paul declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 7/12/2011.

I am making a sworn statement. Let me know what more you need. Sitush has been violating the policies right from state and he is reporting other users.

TomPaul67 (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Agree with Boing! said Zebedee looks like a case of WP:IAR due to actions of a likely sock and User:TomPaul67 you may like to read WP:BOOMERANG. Would like to think an admin could close this down as nothing to see here. Mtking (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now indef blocked User:TomPaul67 as a blatant sock of User talk:Prashantv79 - the quacking was deafening -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Haymaker (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: this edit at 3:29 is a revert of this edit by 124.169.157.189
 * 2nd revert: this edit at 17:04 is a revert of this edit by TheologianOfSatan and this edit by ZHurlihee
 * 3rd revert: this edit at 17:05 is a revert of this edit by TofS
 * 4th revert: this edit at 17:23 is a revert of this edit by ZHurlihee
 * 5th revert: this edit at 3:54 is a revert of this edit by TofS

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning by Hoping to Help

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this is the only edit by Roscelese on the article's talk page, it takes place in between her 4th and 5th revert.

Comments:

User should have known better. She has been involved in multiple 3rr situations, I believe there is still a 3rr report that she was blocked for above this one in the queue. She was particularly combative on this article, the edit summaries for 3 of her reverts merely read "rv wrong". She also left this gem on the talk page on one of the other involved editors. - Haymaker (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected three days. This is a minefield of BLP issues. I encourage anyone who has opinions on the matter to join the discussion at WP:BLPN. TheologianOfSatan has been blocked as a sock by MuZemike. Thanks are due to MastCell and other experienced editors who've been trying to keep this article compliant with our policies. See 3rr for the BLP exemption to 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. Obvious BLP exemption there, but you just keep trying to get editors blocked who oppose your POV-pushing, Haymaker. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that Haymaker has never edited the Jamie Leigh Jones article, nor taken part in discussions at Talk:Jamie Leigh Jones. There is no indication Haymaker cares about the quality of the Wikipedia article about Jamie Leigh Jones. It appears that this 3RR notice is the result of the mining of Roscelese's edit history for the pusillanimous purpose of getting her blocked because she continually resists the attempts by Haymaker to put a non-neutral slant on articles that Haymaker is actually interested in. Poor form, deserving of a boomerang. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that the editor has never edited the article, that is not a requirement of reporting at WP:3RR. I have quite a few articles that are of interest to me, are on my watchlist, yet I've never edited.  If I get on Wikipedia and find an edit war on such an article, is it bad form for me to report it?  Try to WP:AGF. - SudoGhost&trade; 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's background you may not be aware of at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive704.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * SudoGhost, you were active on ANI during the time that Long-term_harassment_by_Haymaker was up there. You did not comment in that thread, but you may remember seeing it. Anyway, based on Haymaker's behavior, my AGF has been changed to alert wariness. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:TomPointTwo reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:45, 12 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 439148882 by HandThatFeeds (talk) thanks but no thanks, I'll wait for comment by the POTD editor and discuss better coordination")
 * 2) 21:09, 12 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 439153163 by Baseball Bugs (talk) that's easily expressed by comment, not formatting")
 * 3) 21:42, 12 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 439158577 by Tarc (talk) It DOES require admin intervention, the front page is protected and I'm asking it to be changed. It will stay unhatted and open until resolved by an admin.")
 * 4) 21:45, 12 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 439159171 by Tarc (talk) Do it. This WILL remain open, this is an admin intervention board and I will get this addressed by an admin.")

Comments User warned of 3rr in edit summaries and on the page. His goading summaries at the end seem to be indicative of disruption, especially given the large consensus he's opposing. Only posting here so an uninvolved admin can review, since a number of admins have already weighed in / reverted him.

— &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I don't think any admins have actually been involved in the hatting/closing. Monty  845  22:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding 5th revert Monty  845  22:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Already blocked before I saw this, for 24hr, simply unable to let the issue (or non-issue rather) drop-- Jac 16888 Talk 22:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:BabbaQ reported by User:58.164.118.105 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: characterizes my efforts at improvement as "vandalism"?
 * 3rd revert: another unexplained revert
 * 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I asked assistance from an admin here:. He responded by providing me a link for "vandalism"? I just want the article to be correct.58.164.118.105 (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This report only shows even more clearly why I was reverting you. Another user also identified the IPs edits as vandalism see User Fastily warning on the IPs talk page. I rest my case.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Which of the entries of WP:VANDTYPES does this fall under? The IP's edits seem to fall under WP:NOTVAND's definition of not being vandalism.  Your edits do not appear to be reverting vandalism, and thus not exempt from WP:3RR.  It appears that the IP was removing unsourced, apparently contentious material.  There's nothing there that falls under "vandalism".  However, while you were edit warring, I don't see a WP:3RR violation here. - SudoGhost&trade; 00:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick search online I found sourcing on this. The IP could have done that. Anyway I dont have enough interest in the article subject to continuing this discussion if you and the ip think it is for the best then please revert it back. But I want to point out that the IPs edits was identified as vandalism by another established user too, no smoke without fire. Do as you please.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, add the reference then--a reliable one, please. IP was not vandalizing: removing unsourced and possibly contentious content from a BLP is perfectly alright, even encouraged. Both were edit-warring, and I have again removed the disputed content. If Babba wants to reintroduce this with a references, that's a different matter. No one broke 3RR, and if both editors know what's good for them, we can consider this closed. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Not the editor questioning the material.  However, unless the IP's edits falls under WP:VANDTYPES, it is not vandalism, it doesn't matter how many people claim otherwise.  Just saying this so that you are aware in the future, to prevent being blocked due to a misunderstanding of WP:3RR exemptions (not that this report shows a 3RR vio), as well as the fact that incorrectly labeling edits as vandalism has the potential of scaring away potentially helpful contributors. - SudoGhost&trade; 00:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said for me this is no big deal. I will introduce the sourcing when I have the time. This article isnt high on my priority list however. I was wrong about the sourcing and the IP was wrong about the 3RR, lets leave it at that;).--BabbaQ (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I never said this was a 3RR report. I would like an apology from BabbaQ for characterizing my attempts as vandalism, and for being generally unwelcoming and rude. 58.164.118.105 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This IS a 3rr report--look on top of the page. BabbaQ did not break the 3RR line. I reckon you can get an apology if you also apologize for reporting them incorrectly. Or we all just leave it be, acknowledge at least to ourselves that we were wrong (and by "we" I mean both of you), and move on. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At the top of the page it says it is for reporting all manner of "edit warring", including but not restricted to, violations of 3RR. 58.164.118.105 (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is important here, satisfaction or the article? You had your way, now drop the stick. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. BabbaQ is warned against addition of unsourced material to a BLP article and any further misuse of the term vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Readingowl reported by User:GageSkidmore (Result: 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:

The user has continually insisted on reverting my addition of a newer photo, and even previously reverted my addition of the image over a year ago. The user seems to have some ownership issues in the article, as well as a possible conflict of interest with the articke's subject, which has occurred to me personally when I attempted to replace a photo of Patton Oswalt, and representative of Oswalt contacted me instructing me not to change the photo that they wanted to be used in the article. I've attempted to warn the user, and have encouraged discussion of the issue, but they have done nothing but revert my addition to the article. I hope this issue can be resolved. And I do understand that I reverted the article three times myself, but I made sure to stop short of reverting a fourth time in order to try to settle the manner with someone uninvolved in the situation. Thank you. Gage (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty simple--unexplained reverts past the clear line. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Diligent007 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Mediating)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warning came between 4th and 5th reverts)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Cheney Mason

Comments:

Note that myself and another editor are asserting on the article talk page that this is a borderline WP:BLP violation that the user is attempting to insert. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I am the original creator of the article, so I really feel I have a vested interest in keeping the integrity of the article alive. When I came to write the article, I set out to write about the subject in factual terms, and I did, and someone just did not like the inclusion of the middle-finger scandal, which is very much a part of the subject now.

As to the notice of reverting my own article: I just edited the article, I never clicked on the undo button concerning the Cheney Mason article upon receiving the revert message from an editor who has taken on the article I originally created. There are a few-select editors who have not allowed other editors enough time--notably those who wrote the article--to provide their insight about the select-few editors' intention to unilaterally remove a large chunk of content that is very pertinent to the subject of the article. I asked them not to act in haste, but, instead, they have attacked me--the minority in this instance. Help. (I did not know of the 3rd revert rule, and when it was posted on my talk page, I did not press the "undo" button, I merely sought to edit the page in a different way.)

I serioiusly believe one of the editors has a very deep conflict of interest with the article and has, consequently, expedited the attempt to remove the content; you'll notice that at the very, very beginning the content--that I seek to have remain--was initially removed without the initiation of a discussion.

I should not be penalized for attempting to keep the article free of closed-minded interests, as it seems. Please allow the article to remain intact with the middle-finger information until others--those who helped create the article--can have the chance to discuss it.

In fact, please have the article, with the original middle-finger scandal segment, remain intact and locked down until enough time is given for such to be reasonably discussed, especially by all other original creators of the article (who, unfortunately, are unavailable at the very second the complaining editor is--how convenient!).

Someone instill some reasonableness here, and not gang up to defeat a person seeking to maintain the integrity of the article. With good intentions, newbie Diligent007 Diligent007 (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just edited the article, I never clicked on the undo button concerning the Cheney Mason article after the receipt of the revert message. There are a few-select editors who have not allowed other editors--notably those who wrote the article--to provide their insight about the select-few editors' intention to unilaterally remove a large chunk of content that is very pertinent to the subject of the article.  I asked them not to act in haste, but, instead, they have attacked me--the minority in this instance. Help.  (I did not know of the 3rd revert rule, and when it was posted on my talk page, I did not press the "undo" button, I merely sought to edit the page in a different way.)


 * I should not be penalized for attempting to keep the article free of closed-minded interests, as it seems. Please allow the articel to remain intact with the middle-finger information until others--those who helped create the article--can have the chance to discuss it. With good intentions, newbie Diligent007 Diligent007 (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Above comment merged from a duplicate section. m.o.p  07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A few things, Diligent007:
 * Whether or not the original contributors of the article are around is irrelevant. There's no ownership of articles.
 * Now, I won't block you for violating the 3-revert rule, but only because you didn't know of it. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you will be blocked.
 * I'd recommend talking to the other editors involved about this (on the article's talk page); from what I understand, they're concerned that the information you're adding violates our biography policy. If you've got any questions, I'll be watching here, or you can post on my talk page.
 * Also, please use the 'Show preview' function prior to submitting an edit - this way, you can double-check your message, and I don't end up edit-conflicting with you six times. Cheers, m.o.p  07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Skydeepblue reported by User:ZHurlihee (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: .. note that the user also made a cryptic threat with this edit: be aware that i will take this further

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is reverting all changes, even those justified on talk page and displaying aggressive ownership of article. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I encourage admins to come take a look at this article, where the reporter and Naaram are removing sourced information that contradicts a view at least one of them has stated that he is pre-disposed to, ie. that women lie about rape all the time. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am very glad that ZHurlihee has brought this up, because I was going to report him myself. This user has caused very many problems to many editors, has been involved in numerous conflicts, has been repeatedly reverted by many users at several articles  for his unacceptable POV pushing and ignoring of other users' opinions (especially at Jamie Leigh Jones and at False accusation of rape), and has been warned by an administrator to change his behavior. This user has no understanding of WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL. I am not going to add anything else, because I am convinced that this editor's history talks for itself and that somebody uninvolved will carefully analyze his behavior.Skydeepblue (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I do admit that I have removed sorced information and I think that an even larger part of the article has to be either rewritten or removed. I have made very long comments on the talk page naming my reasons and motivations.
 * I am not a regular contributor and every day I read dozens of articles without feeling any urge to change them. But here things were different. I have read the article and had the strong feeling that the article itself creates the impression of beeing POV only because of the structure and the choice of quotes. I have then created a comment on the talk page on how to improve the article. I have gotten an extremly harsh response by Skydeepblue containing threats. I have replied and got no answer. The harsh reply itself has destroyed most motivation on looking further on the article. And I only did return to that because there was some more discussion with ZHurlihee. Later i realized, that the reason why this article creates the imression of beeing POV is, because it is basically a summary of http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf and has the same sources.
 * My goal remains to improve the article and because of this I have offered Skydeepblue twice to collaborate with me. However I don't have the feeling anymore, that this is possible. So I am highly frustrated and do not know how this will coninue.
 * --Naaram (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * for one week. I note that there is also some back-and-forth incivility between various editors at the talkpage. That is not going to help; better sourcing might. Seventeen years is an eternity in most fields of science, and presumably in sociology as well. Jamie Leigh Jones is currently also locked from editing, so I assume that the issues there are being dealt with. Skydeepblue, you may wish to consider opening a User Request for Comment or making a report to the Administrators' noticeboard if you believe that ZHurlihee's edits should be investigated in more detail. Everyone who is not Naaram: that user has made a grand total of 22 edits, and does not appear to be a sockpuppet; we should be more welcoming as a community. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bloggyelf reported by User:Binksternet (Result: User blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:

Bloggyelf's first edit back from being blocked was the exact same thing that got him blocked in the first place. This editor is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * ƒ ox  01:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note that the 60 hours is mostly for the resumption of previous behaviour (as well as the personal attacks etc) rather than that one edit. ƒ ox   01:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Blackie Lstreet reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Warned)

 * Page:

The user continues to edit-war against consensus by posting a POV tag in the Death of Caylee Anthony‎ article. I don't think he's actually broken 3RR. It's just an ongoing problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User being reported:


 * First, I did not violate any rule. I did not engage in 3 reverts.


 * Second, Baseball bugs gave no warning to me prior to making a report. I did not know that there had been any discussion/consensus about the NPOV tag recently and he did not tell me that in a warning note.


 * Third, there are very serious problems with the article, as just discussed on the BLP Notice Board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_Anthony_trial But Baseball Bugs and a few others are in denial of these problems. According to the discussions at the BPL Notice Board, there are significant NPOV and BLP and structural issues with this article. A tag is appropriate, per that discussion. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I told you I was going to report you. I changed the text to past-tense once I actually filed this report. And it is you who is in denial about the realities of the case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * False. You gave me no warning, as is required. You simply stated that you were reporting me and you did. That is not a warning. Also, you provided no notice that there had been a discussion about the tag, which I obviously had missed. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I said "I will be reporting you." That was your warning. And there has been plenty of discussion about the tag, you've simply chosen to ignore it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not a warning. You stated that you were reporting me. I did not engage in any revert after I saw your message. A warning means that notice was given of a problem, but the editor persisted in the conduct. I did not. You simply stated you were making a report and then immediately did it, even though I made no subsequent revert. That defeats the whole purpose of the required "warning". In any event all this is a waste of time since I did not engage in three reverts and so broke no rule. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's also worth pointing out that the user decided to remove the notification from the article talk page. Another user restored it. Blackie has no business screwing around with other editors' comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Actually, no warning is required. As per WP:3RR: A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a  template message on their user talk page.  This suggests you are familiar with 3RR, as you yourself have left the template on the talk page of other users. - SudoGhost&trade; 04:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I only made two reverts and violated no rule. The main issues are what are being discussed here    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_Anthony_trial  There are major problems with the article as numerous neutral editors have stated on the BLP notice board. This is what I am trying to fix. Under the circumstances a NPOV tag is appropriate. I simply missed the discussion on the article Talk page about the tag. I brought it up on the BLP talk page instead, looking for feedback there, as well as on the very major problems with the article. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached." One of the most commonly misunderstood things about 3RR is that a violation of it alone equals edit warring, and therefore no violation of 3RR means that no edit warring occurred. 3RR is a strong indicator of edit warring, not the definition of it. I'm not saying you were doing it Blackie, but two reverts can certainly be indicative of edit warring. Doc   talk  05:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, consider the overall situation. Baseball Bugs wants me banned or blocked because he has an opposing POV and very strong feelings about the case. A neutral editor on the BLP Board has even suggested that he stop editing the article due to his strong feelings:

"Baseball Bugs, I can't tell you not to edit articles related to this event, but if that is your attitude, perhaps it would be better for you to step away and let other, less opinionated, editors handle the situation. I assume good faith, and I assume you haven't let your personal opinions alter how you've edited that article, but your comment is a clear BLP violation and probably should even be removed from this page. Chickenmonkey  04:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackie Lstreet (talk • contribs)

Look, you can do what you want. I have to go to bed now and get up for work tomorrow. I would like to help out with the serious BLP problems on this article and discuss remedies and plans with the very impressive neutral editors/admins on the BLP Notice Board. I went to them for help and I think they have come up with some good ideas. Baseball Bugs is upset with them and me. If you want to help him out, there is nothing I can do. But I don't think blocking me would be in the best interests of Wikipedia, since I am only trying to help with the serious BLP and NPOV issues on a poorly written article that is being widely viewed. Good night all. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that these "serious BLP issues" with the article that Blackie Lstreet keeps going on about were already fixed, by even editors from that Noticeboard. He keeps citing that Noticeboard discussion as though nothing has been done since. This editor has been a problem at the article for some days now. He doesn't truly engage in discussion and insists that his edits must stay in because he is right, despite any and everyone who disagrees with him. Per NPOVD, the non-neutral tag is not supposed to be added back once consensus has been reached to remove it. Per Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony, Blackie Lstreet is the only one who sees a POV problem with the article. Everyone else feels he is injecting his own POV, made clear on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As you will see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_Anthony_trial Baseball Bugs and Flyer22 are the two main people resistant to change on the article. The problems with the article are serious. One neutral uninvolved editor on BLP Board is even suggesting stripping down the article to a "minimalist" state to make it BLP compliant. It is a mess and reads like a brief for the prosecution. The article needs a major overhaul per NUMEROUS editors on the BLP Board. Baseball Bugs and Flyer22 are standing in opposition to the good advice being given by numerous neutral uninvolved editors on the BLP Board. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Get your story straight. Now Baseball Bugs is one of the main people, when he only recently started looking after the article? Funny. You still ignore the fact that editors from the Noticeboard looked over the article and made changes to what they perceived as BLP issues. This means they didn't see anything else as necessarily a BLP issue. If there were such serious BLP issues, as you claim, then they would have eliminated those issues as well. And don't speak for that one neutral editor, because you are skewing his suggestion. He suggested to remove one section TEMPORARILY, not because he believes there are BLP issues in it but rather to help work out any BLP issues that may be in it and to appease you. It's not like that's been your main focus anyway. Any portion in the article pointing negatively at Casey Anthony, including the Evidence section, is a problem to you. Flyer22 (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: Sifting through Blackie Lstreet's contribution history as an uninvolved third party (or, from the peanut gallery, as some might call it), it is clear that whatever edits he had been carrying out on the aforementioned article page(s) is nothing short of WP:Gaming the system. That is all. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Which of my edits constitute Gaming the System and why? I find that a ridiculous comment. My edits to the article were fair and consistent with the issues raised by other editors on the BLP Notice Board. Most of my edits have not even been on the article, but ABOUT the article. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I just checked Dave1185's page and he holds himself out as a close buddy of Baseball Bugs. Enough said. Good night all. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When the going gets tough, the tough get going. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you're straying from the topic now. Last check, Bugs and I, we're both straight shooters and has nothing to share except for our love of Wikipedia, a nose for sniffing out rats as well as having a sense of humour and Groucho Marx. Is that something to frown on? -- Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave and I are actually mortal enemies. We just pretend to get along, for the sake of the old wikipedia collegial spirit. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm Not Really Here (1996) – ISBN 0-786-86257-2 & Don't Stand Too Close to a Naked Man (1994) – ISBN 0-786-86134-7 . -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned Blackie Lstreet. Placing a POV tag is subject to consensus just like everything else. Blackie Lstreet has added the POV tag three times and each time it has been removed by others. If Blackie adds this tag again they may be blocked unless consensus for it is obtained on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Indian born reported by User:Sodabottle (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

This new user has been edit warring to place kannada language script in articles. The above report is for Periyar E. V. Ramasamy article. He was warned earlier for the same behaviour here and has been advised by multiple users not to indulge in such behaviour in the Rajinikanth article, but continues to do so.

The previour 3RR report was closed saying, if he continues the behaviour, to report him. He has done that again and i am doing that now along with the above new report.

Both articles where he is reverting have clear established previous consensus on this issue after extensive talk page discussions and he has been told to read them. And three editors have tried to engage him in his talk page and he doesnt listen. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Comments:


 * As this issue is from over 24 hours ago, I am closing it without action. (Had the user been blocked when the violation occurred, the block would have expired already.)  If the user returns and resumes reverting, please make another report. You may also want to try leaving the user a message on their talk page about it.  From looking at the user's contributions, I certainly understand and sympathize with the frustration, but there really isn't any justification for a block well after the fact under our blocking policy.  I have left the user a stern warning and under the theory of three strikes and you're out, if the behavior still continues after this, I think a lengthy block will be in order. --B (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This user just reverted again in both the articles. . He has ignored B's final warning. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

--B (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Tapered reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: at 00:44 on the 14th
 * 2nd revert: at 1:53 on the 13th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was warned about his behavior on the page here, here and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been some back and forth on the page, user mostly just repetes his edit summaries. here

Comments:

This article is under 1RR. Along with the above 1RR violation the user made these two reversions 1 and 2 just outside the 24 hour period, a revert that he had also made day before demonstrating a clear pattern of edit warring. - Haymaker (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tapered has not been warned by Haymaker regarding the Tiller characterization edits, which were done in the presence of multiple editor support. The diffs that Haymaker posted as showing a warning are for other reasons. Tapered has recently been cleaning up his act by removing his earlier fractious talk page entries. With more guidance, he shows promise as a new Wikipedia editor. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Warnings are not required for users who have been here for five years. (No opinion on the appropriateness of a block here.) --B (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 24 hours for 1RR violation and WP:BATTLE editing. It's the second time this month that Tapered has broken 1RR at Pro-life movement. The previous time was on July 10-11. When he was cautioned rather mildly about proper sourcing at Pro-life movement on July 11 he replied "It was most likely, though by no means certainly, an attempt to subtly intimidate this editor to revert his work, by misuse of his position as a Reviewer, and by twisting the rules for ideological reasons."  EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Bob drobbs (Result: Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version:


 * 00:03, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Bob drobbs (talk): Consensus is against you. using TW")
 * 00:16, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Bob drobbs (talk): No clear consensus. using TW")
 * 00:20, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Bob drobbs (talk): Discussion is ongoing. using TW")
 * 01:22, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Bob drobbs (talk): Remove - insulting allegation. using TW")

User warned here:

I tried to resolve the problem here, here, and through mediation here.

Comments:

The issue is related to including a libel case in article, but _censoring_ key facts about the lawsuit. The net-effect is a POV problem where the inclusion of the libel case only serves to promote a POV, making the housekeeper look more of a victim. Adding the facts of the case would at least allow readers to discernible judgment about the merits of the lawsuit.

There is no violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, or WP:NPOV in including the facts of a lawsuit citing from the New York Times. Yet, the user continues to revert the text.

As for his edit summaries speaking about consensus. The first one was a lie. The second one is correct; There is no clear consensus, though things may be tilting against him. But the important point is that there can be no consensus as this user has rejected and/or reverted all attempts at compromise. 

Most recently, the user has refused to try mediation. 

Thanks for your time and input here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There has been a great deal of discord over this article, with several editors insistent on turning the article into a courtroom, so readers can supposedly 'decide for themselves' who is guilty (not our job), and generally pushing for unencyclopaedic content. As for whether Rob has been guilty of edit-warring, I'll not say, as I'm an involved party, though I would suggest that any admin looking at this complaint also looks at the broader context where some contributors are trying to 'negotiate' content as if they are parties to the legal case. This adversarial attitude is totally at odds with Wikipedia's objectives, and in my opinion is a damn sight more harmful than making four reverts (or whatever) in 24 hours... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert #4 may fall into the BLP 3rr exemption, but edit warring, even short of 3rr, using a rollback substitute (Twinkle) is certainly not permissible. Bob drobbs has also edit warred and should have their conduct reviewed. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - In agreement with AndyTheGrump on this. Suggest that if the editors can't agree on a NPOV approach, then maybe the article can be removed from Mainspace OR massively trimmed until such time as the parties can agree that it represents a NPOV. -- Avanu (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure the etiquette of the reporter commenting here. But I have to respond to Avanu.  This edit-war is primarily over one line which is only tangentially related to the main article.  I don't think there is any need at all to remove or heavily trim the article.  I think we can just delete the one line in question, until there is agreement on it's content.   I actually already  did that, but Off2riorob felt a need to repeatedly revert it, and then go on to revert another compromise option too.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This is about a clear a case of WP:BLP problems as we are likely to see. The material is required to be deleted per that policy, and punishing anyone for enforcing the policy in good faith is a "no go" in my opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The rapid succession of reverts. for whatever reason, suggests that more discussion is necessary. In these circumstances possibly the article should be fully protected for a period of a week or more. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Page protected for a week. When content is removed as an alleged BLP vio it is not permitted to restore it until there is a consensus that the content is not a BLP vio. If I had more time to research the history I would see myself blocking Bob drobbs for reinserting a BLP vio. Instead, lets be clear, edit warring over this is a goo way to lose your editing priviledged. Wait and discuss on the talk page. As it is I locked the page for a week to force everyone to discuss this. I'm going out now so complaints will have to wait a few hours to get answered. Spartaz Humbug! 09:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:24.125.59.155 reported by User:Edgarde (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2011-07-14T03:25:46
 * 2nd revert: 2011-07-14T14:34:25
 * 3rd revert: 2011-07-14T18:10:33
 * 4th revert: 2011-07-15T13:28:40

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2011-07-14T15:14:28

Comments:

Spamming a Google+ page. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * --B (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lorifredrics reported by Mtking (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:10, 14 July 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted --Previously removed name referred to in articles. The notoriety of case is in its inclusion in Hansards/Parliamentary Debate.")
 * 22:19, 14 July 2011 (edit summary: "added refs")
 * 1) 17:36, 15 July 2011  (edit summary: "Corrected harassment case outcome, added primary reference for WIPO decision.")
 * 17:38, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "tidying up link")
 * 1) 19:45, 15 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 439650767 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) Added additional reference.")
 * 2) 21:09, 15 July 2011  (edit summary: "restore reference minus link to alleged copyright violation.")
 * 21:14, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Correct ref. article byline and add pg.number.")

—Mtking (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Note: I do not wish even the appearance of forum shopping so please be aware that this editors edits to Peter Scott (educationalist) and to Kingston University are also subject to thread on WP:ANI here, I am submitting this here as a formality.. Mtking (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no editing war going on. There may be editing harassment/bullying by some editors, as I have adhered to the recommended policy that users with an alleged COI propose edits via Talk page.  I did this, and did not make reverts to edits that were opposed by consensus, but did make reverts of edits that were not opposed and/or not addressed by other editors following my having proposed them.  I waited about 24 hrs before making the proposed edit following lack of opposition/response to specific elements added.  It appears that the reporting here was done out of spite rather than out of any genuine concern for any content issues.  The edits I made were of a purely factual nature or of the addition of a non-controversial reference in a mainstream publication.  I encourage an admin to review the exact content of what I did edit/revert for its reasonableness.--Lorifredrics (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While I don't believe it was wholly inappropriate to bring this edit war to the attention of this board, I do think it's a bit redundant. Lori appears to be on the edge of receiving a topic ban from this article and related articles, which I think would do a lot more to curb future edit war behavior than a temporary block. The current discussion can be seen above, in Mtking's link to ANI. --  At am a  頭 00:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * per above, and per ongoing events at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents - F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Santista1982 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:34, July 16, 2011
 * 2nd revert: 15:05, July 16, 2011
 * 3rd revert: 15:09, July 16, 2011
 * 4th revert: 15:12, July 16, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is removing cited text which blames Hitler for 40 million deaths. User blames WWII, Stalin and the Jews for many of these deaths, and calls for an "impartial" article. However, the cite fully supports blaming Hitler for the deaths. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The WWII was responsable for these deaths, or the allies did not killed nobody in this war? If they not killed nobody how they manage to win the war? I think is no sense saying that Hitler killed 40 million people. And this edit war was started by you and not by me. --Santista1982 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All you had to do was take some time tlak this out over 'reverting only 3 times I would like to add. That said I think we can all agree that if " Hitler" did not start the war this lives would have not been lost in this way. Hitler's orders/action/rule resulted in this deaths as stated by the refs.Moxy (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Santista hasn't reverted since being warned, so I'd be inclined to let this one go for now, but would block if he/she continues reverting. Who "started it" is hardly the point here, as it's Santista who's warring against every other participant in the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did use the talk page. Hitler did not start the war and mostly of these deaths were caused by communist army of Stalin. Is the same to saying that Hitler now caused 500.000 japanese deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. England, France, URSS, USA have the same guilt of these deaths as the Nazi Germany have. --Santista1982 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Although this view is way off in my opinion - this type of talk is what we like to see - Please come back to the articles talk page so others (over time) can comment. I would suggest that you backup your statement with references as the current wording (that you are refuting) has references that would need to be rebutted by other references. Moxy (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Santista1982 has not edited the page since they received a 3RR warning. Re-report if edit warring resumes. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:$1LENCE D00600D reported by User:Karanacs (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

This was the version before this user began making changes:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * my request to follow procedures and discuss
 * 2nd request to please discuss and not unilaterally make changes

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * There was already a section on the template talk page addressing this issue from 2010:  This user had originally made the same change then


 * I attempted to engage on template talk again on 16 Jul

Comments:

User:$1LENCE D00600D is also move-warring on this page:

Battle of Matamoros
 * Moved by another user per old AfD Discussion in May 2011 to a more accepted name:
 * July 12, this user moved it back to the original name
 * July 12 I reverted the move: with edit summary about AfD
 * July 15, this user moved the article again to an almost identical made-up name
 * Jul 16, I reverted the move and left a note on user's talk page, thinking he didn't see the edit summary
 * Jul 16, he made the change again


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lightpositive reported by User:Dave1185 (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:01, 16 July 2011
 * 2nd revert: 16:49, 16 July 2011
 * 3rd revert: 17:07, 16 July 2011

Note: The said user did almost the same thing yesterday on the article page of
 * 1st revert: 19:52, 13 July 2011
 * 2nd revert: 19:18, 15 July 2011

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (he didn't discuss this but chose instead to ask for help on his talk page and was helped/explained by two other uninvolved editors (including an Admin!)

Comments:


 * FWIW, I've warned the editor about his potential 3RR problem twice including today's, his reaction to my comment was "nonsense" and his contribution history clearly shows that he is not a newbie. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you stalking me evrywhere in wikipedia all the time ?! i have done nothing, the first edits were no reverts they were all additions and it feels like Dave1185 is doing some kind of bulling on me, just look how he nearly reverted most of the things ive contributed and accusations Lightpositive  talk 16:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:JorgePeixoto reported by User:Binksternet (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Changing the word "advocacy"
 * 2nd revert: Changing the word "advocacy"


 * 1st revert: Adding the paragraph "Critics of Catholics for Choice argue..."
 * 2nd revert: Adding the paragraph "Critics of Catholics for Choice argue..."


 * 1st revert: Adding hidden comment, "I ARGUE THE TEXT BELOW..."
 * 2nd revert: Adding hidden comment, "I ARGUE THE TEXT BELOW..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * * This is very bogus. Changing "advocacy" to "militancy" is not a revert, since the article was not changed to a previous state. After this change, another user reverted the word "militancy" (which I feel honestly describes the situation and I was also searching secondary sources to confirm, but the user edited before me) back to advocacy; I then changed "advocacy" to "activism", as a second proposal and clearly not a revert.
 * That was an honest attempt to reach a word people agreed on, and it seems to have worked; no one challenged "activism". This is dialectics, not "edit warring". What, in fact, do you suggest I should have done here? Counting this change as part of "edit warring" is not only bogus, but downright frivolous. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * * Second, when I edited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholics_for_Choice&diff=next&oldid=439785913, I added a good edit summary and comments to explain my action. But most importantly, I immediately followed by partially reinstating Roscelese's edits - I reinstated the one which was easiest to on (the one which we would most likely keep after reaching agreement in the talk page) but kept my partial revert of the portion of the text she deleted on the bogus reason of "we must delete 'far-right' sources from wikipedia". I don't think partial revert counts as revert anyway. And see that this wasn't done in an edit-warring mood, but with explanations and trying to reach a compromise.
 * * Third, I am honestly not aware that reverting a comment, which does not affect readers and is an honest attempt to keep information organized in the wiki text until we resolve issues in the talk page, would count as one revert towards this policy. Of course, I wouldn't revert the comment 5 times; I reverted it once (AFAIK), but the problem is that you are counting this one supposed "revert" (of a comment) with the following one, which was one actual revert.
 * * Fourth, please read the talk page, and tell if I am the one with the worse attitude. In particular, see the section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholics_for_Choice&action=historysubmit&diff=439819650&oldid=439788924#Recent_edits_by_JP . That edit summary (in which I duly called bogus the idea that merely because a source is pro-life, it is therefore "far-right" and must be deleted from wikipedia) is not nearly as "combative" as the attitude the other user demonstrated in the talk page. And in fact, if someone deletes your source because she says pro-life is judged to be "far-right" than saying "it is not your job to judge sources as far-right" is very appropriate, yes?Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

JorgePeixoto is well aware of the 1RR nature of this abortion-topic article, yet he continually reverts others' edits, multiple times per day. Though there are vigorous talk page discussions, he restores commented-out warnings that he places within the article body. He engages other editors of the article with a battleground attitude. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 1RR restriction imposed by the community is clear, bright line. The commentary I see in the diffs is what I'd call downright belligerent. 1RR and 0RR restrictions aren't placed arbitrarily or lightly, and when they are, editors do well to heed them. This isn't happening here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - Concerning the paragraph starting Critics of Catholics for Choice argue that, revert was to the text originally removed here, and reinstated in revert 1 and revert 2. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Abhijeet3 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (user blanked)

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

Comments:

No attempt to resolve on article talk page because it is uncited addition of a primary source. Several warnings were issued with explanations, and at least one of the edit summaries included sufficient detail & ought to have been seen when the user undid.


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:PTJoshua reported by User:Verb4i roby (Result: both blocked 12 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 00:51, 17 July 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")

—Verb4i roby (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cossde reported by User:Adamrce (Result: Not blocked for now)
Page:

User being reported: engaged with

Previous version reverted to:

The editor first removed a see-also link here
 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: A slight warning to remind him that his edit summaries and reasoning are incorrect again, here, because both editors are involved in the same argument in multiple article. However, he replied on my talkpage as if he never did anything wrong, here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've told the other editor involved here that an invitation to open a discussion is not enough, as he reverted 5 times and was just blocked last week for the same mistake.

Comments:

The reason I'm reporting this is based on the ongoing warring on the same topic in multiple articles. I'm still trying to work with both editors with a very little response.   ~ AdvertAdam   talk  19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * has not reverted in over 24 hours and he has edited since HudsonBreeze's most recent reverts.  has not edited in 21 hours.  If the revert war resumes, please reopen this request - revert warring across articles is inherently disruptive. --B (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stated to user AdvertAdam 24 hrs back, that I shall refrain from editing War crime. Cossde (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow... This user is trying to be smart, thinking he can game the system. He made the exact same edit here with his socketpuppy (Gira2be). This SPI shows that they're the same user. Is this still considered an edit-war or shall I open a new SPI (or both, I have more evidence)?     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd run it by SPI with a CU request on these two specifically. In posting also note that the SPI from 2 years ago on TruthInNews was inconclusive in linking the 3 and the request is primarily about these 2. - J Greb (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Phanuruch8555 reported by User:GameLegend (Result:no action (yet))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User started to remove the image from the article's infobox without any reason. When asked on his talk-page to stop this behaviour, rather than comment on his actions, he started mocking the request to stop on his user-page and announced his intention to continue this disprutive behaviour.

To quote his user-page: "I deleted his picture everytime when someone gonna puts it back, here is something appears on my talk page." GameLegend (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This editor is behavingly slightly oddly, but when I placed the 3RR warning on his page, he replied on my talk page, asking what 3RR is . Given that he was not aware of 3RR, and so far he has not reverted again since I explained 3RR to him, maybe we should wait to see if he offends again before taking any action against him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say I don't see any mocking, or an intention to continue the disruptive behaviour. I think his English is poor and while it looks odd that he's copied the warnings to his user page, at the moment there does not seem to be any further problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree that, for the time being, this is not quite ripe for a block, as the user has not reverted since being warned. Another revert would probably be grounds for blocking, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In hindsight (beautiful thing isn't it) you're correct and I might have jumped to conclusions a little early. But at least the case is on record now. GameLegend (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that the subject's user page does now show clear intent to continue the edit war - in fact he seems quite proud of it and has even made himself a flag boasting about it . I suggest blocking at the first sign of a continuation of any edit warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Magnagr reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:20, 17 July 2011)
 * 2nd revert: 04:47, 17 July 2011
 * 3rd revert: 05:03, 17 July 2011
 * 4th revert: 07:54, 17 July 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user was unable to gain consensus in previous discussions (Talk:Radio, November-December 2010) for the same or very similar changes, and was warned about edit warring in December at User talk:Magnagr. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added my contributions to radio article (english) with rigorously sourced informations immediately after a section of the article describing a supposed verdict of the us supreme court stating that Tesla invented the radio and not Marconi. This assertion is against the historical truth and has no ground for consideration among the scientific comunity. I've just added passages of the verdict and described Tesla's plant according to the desciption issued by the supremee court, moreover I've detailed the technical description of the 2 plants (that one of Tesla and that one of Marconi)according to serious references. I've also remembered why Marconi has been (and is) adversed (also this one sourced) and why should remembered (also referenced). Before ending my comment I'd like to puntualize:

1)The fact that at the beginning of the article was present the following sentence: "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue". shows how wikipedia already considered umbalanced (in favour of Tesla) the article. I've just improved the article as required

2) I didn't erase any other contribution (even if I would had)

3) On the contrary my referenced contribution has been deleted without any valid justification, so I didn't revert any article.

4) It seems impossible to add any contribution in wiki that slightly dare to criticise or put in doubts Tesla achievements in all the articles, regarding directly or indirectly the serbian scientist, without the violent reaction of the powerful "Tesla club auctors" which sistematically refuse to accept referenced and detailed contributions going against the "main stream ideology". Should we call it wikipedia or wikitesla?

5)This is not an article about radio but just a groundless apologetic description of Tesla and a defamatory one of Marconi, I've just tried to balance it.

6)Despite my comments on talk I've not received any reply yet.  Magnagr (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 8:20, 8:47, 9:03, 11:54 are clear reverts. An after-the-fact attempt to finally start a conversation after four different editors have reverted you is not sufficient. You should start a discussion and wait until consensus is formed.  Kuru   (talk)  16:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fistoffoucault reported by User:Dave3457 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fistoffoucault#I_am_accusing_you_of_edit_warring

User:Aronoel is a partner of Fistoffoucault in this edit warring she has been notified, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aronoel#I_am_accusing_you_of_edit_warring

I’m user Dave3457 we have an editor at the femininity article that is making changes to the page against clear consensus. This article is in serious turmoil. The latest dispute has been among three images that are below and the history section. Besides Aronoel, the only other person that seems to support the Shaman image and deletion of the history section is an individual Fistoffoucault who’s account only came into existence recently and has edited the femininity page almost exclusively. While Fistoffoucault and Aronoel seem to work in tandem Fristoffocault does not seem to be a sockpuppet of Aronoel’s

With regards to the history section (which is a lesser issue for me) and the false claim that consensus was met for its deletion, below is a summary of a section I created to discuss its removal. Note: I later changed my mind. USchick created the history section.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Femininity#Suggest_removal_of_History_section. Suggest removal of History section.]

....Any support? Dave3457 .... Aronoel, you don't think it's important to explain how the concept of femininity came about in history? USchick Yes, I think it's important. ...--Aronoel I think we need to find more sources for this section, and we need to make sure those sources are talking specifically about femininity and not just women. --Aronoel Unless someone can rewrite this section into ... then we should delete it. Fistoffoucault I have to be honest, since creating this section, my view has changed some what. ....Dave3457 Dave, what do you recommend? USchick To be honest I’m not sure I want to invest much time on this section, I can easily see this debate about the difference between being female and being feminine going on forever. I will say, for the reasons I’ve stated above, I object to the statement “females were defined simply by their biological attributes.”Dave3457 xxxxxxxxxx

In summary, Aronoel, in spite of seeming to be prepared to work out the problems with the section, saying "Yes, I think it's important" deleted it. She deleted it after after Fistoffoucault deleted it and it was restored. The diffs are below.

Against talk consensus, Fistoffoucault changed the image to the Shaman one and deleted the history section.diff diff] I reverted the changes with the edit summary "Fistoffoucault, There was nothing in the talk, you're going to get yourself banned", Two day later Aronoel, did the same thing as Fistoffoucault. diff Again claiming consensus in the edit summary with "There is plenty of discussion and support for both these changes on talk. Both Fistoffoucault and Aronoel claimed consensus, but again, there clearly was none. USchick, had put serious time into this section, their out of hand deletion of it without consensus is very discouraging to the other editors. Myself included. Unfortunately Uschick seems to have submitted to their bulling tactics and wrote "This discussion is to remove the ancient history section. The modern history section talks about where the notion came from, I reinstated it."

Concerning the changing of the images without consensus which is really the bigger problem.

Below is what I believe to be a fair summary of the discussion about who supported which lede image. The discussion was 4700 words long. The below does not begin to reflect how many times the lede image of this article has changed.

The three images are to the right and are the Venus, the Shaman, and the Young Woman Drawing.

The Venus was posted by USchick and remained untouched for several months before Aronoel took interest in the article and changed it to the Shaman. The below shows how Uschick and myself gave into consensus for the ''Young Woman Drawing” image.

Main picture

Aronoel (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC) What is so important about the Venus picture? From my understanding, there are 3 advantages to the shaman picture over the Venus. .... Dave3457 (talk) Below are your three points and my response to them.... Death by fugue (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)I would agree that the shaman picture is probably not the best picture to depict femininity since....I would like to propose that a collage.... Nick Levinson (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC) A collage sounds good. Death by fugue (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC) I don't really understand what you mean by Venus being a positive portrayal of femininity. Roger6r (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)...and is one example of why the Venus picture is a poor lead for the article's subject. USchick (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Using an image with a caption like ... shamanism ... I'm removing it. Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC) In summary, I'm reverting to the Altai shaman picture. Avanu (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC) How's the painting from Marie-Denise Villers (Young woman drawing) strike you as a choice? Aronoel (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I think it is really smart to use a woman's self-portrait, and I like where you're going with this. However, I think this picture might be somewhat problematic. Fistoffoucault (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I also think Avanu's idea of a self-portrait (young woman drawing) is inspired.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx end

Not seen in the talk, through reverts and so forth which change the image from the Shaman to the Young Woman drawing picture Dave3457 and USchick who initially supported the Venus picture displayed that they were willing to live with the Young Woman Drawing picture.

When all is said and done, Dave3457, USchick, and Avanu, all very active editors, definitively supported the Young Women Drawing picture and Aronoel and Fistoffoucault supported the Shaman picture.

Also...

In this extremely long discussion (21,000 words) in an attempt to get consensus for the lede, while the Young Woman Drawing was up, several people chimed in and made no comment concerning the lede image. Avanu Very active editor Aronoel Very active editor Dave3457 Very active editor USchick Very active editor (50.16.132.13 talk) Kaldari Very active editor (70.26.24.50 talk) Noleander (209.226.31.161 talk) Very active editor (Darkfrog24 talk) Septentrionalis Darkfrog24 (70.26.24.50 talk)

While the discussion was about one sentence in particular the lede image never changed in that time and it was felt the after all the turmoil over the lede, we finally we had a lede that was going to stick. In fact the following section with the following heading was created by me. Ideas on how to give stability to the new lede which was reached through consensus.

No one objected to the idea that we had a consensus except Aronoel. Avanu had second thoughts about the sentence but then changed her mind. The following people commented in this section. Dave3457 USchick (209.226.31.161 talk) Kaldari Avanu Also a new editor chimed in with “I bow to the decision of the editors that have been discussing the matter, Diego Moya The discussion about the lede has not continued. However Aronoel wrote the following in this section.


 * I've been away for a few days, so coming back here I'm surprised that people are saying there is consensus for the lead. I'm pretty sure a lot of editors here do not agree with the lead. Maybe we can do an informal poll or something, so that it will be easier to keep track of which person takes which position? --Aronoel (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No pole was taken and Aronoel and Fistoffoucault began reverting the Young Woman Drawing image to the Shaman one.

In spite of my repeated requests, Fistoffoucault often refuses to use edit summaries.
 * [] Fistoffoucault, When you make changes to a wiki page you need to include an edit summary along with your edit. That way the other editors can follow what is going on without having to go to the page. This is Wiki policy. I noticed that you deleted the above comment with no response when I put it on your talk page . Do you disagree that it is Wiki policy? Please tell me your position on the matter. I have to be honest, I find it odd that you are "Looking forward to more productive discussion!" but then you change the lede image without so much as an edit summary. We had come to a consensus as to what that image would be.

Fistoffoucault, did not respond even though I used his name in the edit summary when I wrote the above.diff

The article’s subject matter is very emotional for many people making things very difficult at times. However when people edit the page contrary to clear consensus the task grows much more difficult. I am personally on the verge of giving up trying to create balance on this page, I know of others that share my views and already have given up.

In the interests of full discloser I must mention a past incident between Aronoel and myself as we got “off to a rocky start” due to poor Wikiquette on my part. While Aronoel lodged a Wikiquette complain against me and the ruling was “in my favour”
 * : I'm not seeing any obvious Wikiquette issues here. It's clearly a content dispute, and Dave3457 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I believed and expressed the view that the ruling was wrong, at least when it came to my conduct and wrote.
 * In short, while you ruled in my favor in a big way, I suspect that I may have been in the wrong when I publicly accused her of having an agenda even though she did.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Femininity/Archive_1#Response_to_being_accused_of_.E2.80.9Cattacking.E2.80.9D_a_fellow_editor. I later apologized]
 * For what it is worth I apologize to Aronoel for getting personal on this talk page, but I don't apologize for trying to counter act .... I will go about it within the rules of Wikipedia in the future.

Here is the latest edit of Fistoffoucault, in which she removed a paragraph from a section without even an edit summary | diff.

It has taken me several hours to write up this complain. Among other things could someone with authority please provide me with a statement that I can refer to that says something along the following lines...


 * Do to the emotional nature of this article, it is insisted the editors of this article provide Edit summaries describing the changes that have been made and the reasons for doing so.

This would at least force people to be a little more honest and cut down on the volatility. It would also make it a lot easier to make a case against a future Fistoffoucault. Maybe the statement could go at the top of the talk page in a template.

Dave3457 (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave,

I'm sorry for forgetting to include edit summaries. I can see that this has bothered you.

I think that this entire dispute shows the difficulties involved in any endeavor like Wikipedia. Perhaps there was consensus between you, USChick, and Avanu. You all agreed. But when Aronoel and I provided well-reasoned arguments, sources, and plenty of understanding, users like USChick and others seemed to be bent on advancing their own personal ideological agendas. I've been told by other users that you have mentioned on other pages that you hate feminism because it destroys romance. I wonder if you should continue to be involved in this particular area if you feel so strongly about something that is a generally accepted part of academic discourse--and an essential methodology for writing this article.

I resent that you have used this means of resolving this issue. I think this is the first time I've "undid" any of your work. It doesn't seem much like an edit war to me. Perhaps you're angry because I deleted the empty section about women's athletecism? It seems to me like the edit war here is being waged by USChick, you, and other IPs against myself, Roger, Aroneol, and a number of other contributors.

I find it revealing that you assumed I'm a woman. I'm not, but I attempt to represent a feminist, non-discriminatory, and ultimately progressive set of viewpoints. These are just the sort of viewpoints Wikipedia seeks to create a more neutral, encyclopedic database of knowledge--see numerous articles in various media outlets on Wikipedia's overwhelmingly male group of editors.

Again, I think that calling this an "editing war" after a single set of "undos" is excessive. I wish we had talked about this with each other and used a more human, civil way of resolving the issues on the page. Since the consensus on the history section seems to be that the parts I removed should have been removed, that just leaves the picture--perhaps we could use a collage, as proposed before?

Looking forward to your reasoned arguments.

Foucault. Fistoffoucault (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We are not suppose to proceed with the dispute here. What I did say about extreme feminists on a user talk page about femininity was "Of course the extreme feminists have already given up on romance and their main target group is the disenchanted." My full contribution to the discussion on femininity is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unimpeder#Femininity.

It is true that I believe there is a agenda among extreme feminists to discredit femininity. Here is a classical example from Aroneol...

Aroneol wrote in the article...
 * Being highly emotional, weak, and irrational are also characteristics associated with femininity.

Which I changed to...
 * diff Being more emotional, and less rational are also characteristics associated with the feminine nature in comparison to the masculine.

And no, I think it is important that Fistoffoucault be blocked. It took me several hours to write this complaint, I shouldn't have had to. I gave Fistoffoucault plenty of warnings. If you do not block Fistoffoucault, Fistoffoucault and others like him will learn that if someone does take hours out of their life to stop him, all they will have to do is say sorry and they will not have to experience any consequences.

By the way here is another edit of Fistoffoucault and some details of the war.

Removed “inborn or socialized” from lede without an edit summary. This is a very provocative edit as many don't like the idea that femininity might have some biological roots and so they reject the use of the word "inborn". It is an uphill battle to get that view expressed in this article. In my opinion, when Fistoffoucault wants to “sneak” a change, He is careful not to leave an edit summary. Aronoel, then fine tunes his edit here. 

diff USchick, removes image with full explanation. Then Fistoffoucault, reverts it with no comment. diff

diff Fistoffoucault changed image from Young Women Drawing to Shaman with no comment. USchick then reverted it with an explanation and Fistoffoucault reverted with no explanation. I changed it back referring him to the talk page. He then again changes it back, with no comment and deletes the history section while he is at it.

Dave3457 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see only two reverts in the recent history of the article. Disupte resolution may be a better avenue, but this is not the place to argue your content dispute.  Kuru   (talk)  16:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rabbikillinger reported by User:Satori Son (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 09:11, July 15, 2011
 * 2nd revert: 03:34, July 17, 2011
 * 3rd revert: 04:49, July 17, 2011
 * 4th revert: 15:21, July 17, 2011

Diff of edit war warning:

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

Comments:

Single-purpose user account continues to edit war over this list item issue despite an emerging consensus against including it. Prior to most recent revert, user was warned against edit warring and asked to participate in discussion (this user has zero talk edits). Thus, a block seems necessary at this point. Thank you. — Satori Son 15:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just mindless reverts from a SPA. No objections to unblock if he begins to communicate. Kuru   (talk)  16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Roberthode reported by User:Rostz (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Repeated attempts to explain policies of verifiability, notability, and consensus ignored. Rostz (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear reverts at 3:03, 3:53, 4:06, 16:04, and 18:50 the previous day. Kuru   (talk)  16:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Anna Shvets reported by User:Ace111 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to this version:


 * 1st revert: 04:37
 * 2nd revert: 04:38
 * 3rd revert: 17:53
 * 4th revert: 20:30

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Article ru:Сага Вишневецкая (aka "symphony dedicated to Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki", also "symphony dedicated to Jeremi Wisniowiecki") about a saga written by Anna Shvets, a student of Kiev Conservatory, was nominated for deletion in Russian Wikipedia on July 11 here. All voices were in favor of deletion except who made extensive comments in the discussion, including a comment "besides, fortunately, there exist also other languages of the world" (Впрочем, к счастью, существуют и другие языки мира). The article was deleted today due to lack of notability. Deletion of the same article is still on-going in Ukranian Wikipedia, most of the users are in favor of deletion (if not count multiple voices of Anna Shvets herself). Today Anna Shvets started posting links to her saga to 11 other Wikipedias which was considered as a spam, an entry in meta has been filed meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist. The user was banned indefinitely today in Russian Wikipedia. - Ace111 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear reverts at 4:37, 4:38, 17:53, and 20:30. Kuru   (talk)  21:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:71.125.132.42 reported by User:Kgorman-ucb (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't done so on the article talk page, but the IP has not responded to requests for explanation on his talk page

Comments:

An IP user keeps changing a page (up to four or five times in 24h now) to a redirect without explaining, and has not responded to requests to explain the change on his talk page, or to 3rr warnings. Kevin (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 03:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo reported by &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * EW over NPOV tag
 * 1) 01:10, 12 July 2011  (edit summary: "For objections against neutrality review the "Add. "Too specific" or actual argument not welcome?" in discussion")
 * 2) 01:18, 12 July 2011  (edit summary: "drawing editors into an existing discussion-that's exctly what I'm after (see new topic there), pls. do not use appeal to the stone argument")
 * 3) 22:31, 15 July 2011  (edit summary: "/* Violation of the second law of thermodynamics */ Adding Gibbs: Contrary to popular belief, it's the talk page rather than the undo link that should be used for resolving content disputes -Discuss means discuss.")
 * 4) 16:20, 18 July 2011  (edit summary: "/* Violation of the second law of thermodynamics */")
 * 5) 17:50, 18 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 440152518 by 66.46.213.4 (talk) "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2011)"")


 * EW over new content
 * 1) 23:31, 11 July 2011  (edit summary: "/* Violation of the second law of thermodynamics */ Full version of objection on 2nd law of thermodynamics")
 * 2) 00:22, 12 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 01:01, 15 July 2011  (edit summary: "/* Violation of the second law of thermodynamics */ original nonmanipulated argument")
 * 4) 13:25, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "(Undid revision 439558691 by Hrafn (talk) undo was referenced to "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources." but it was not identified what a sensational claim should be in given text.)"
 * 5) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "(Undid revision 439649883 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) Text reflects mainstream research status, please identify first specific text section that you regard for self-pub in talk.)"
 * 6) 22:31, 15 July 2011  (edit summary: "/* Violation of the second law of thermodynamics */ Adding Gibbs: Contrary to popular belief, it's the talk page rather than the undo link that should be used for resolving content disputes -Discuss means discuss.")
 * 7) 02:30, 17 July 2011  (edit summary: "/* Violation of the second law of thermodynamics */")


 * Other combative EW edits
 * 1) 00:28, 17 July 2011  (edit summary: "/* Violation of the second law of thermodynamics */ See talk page - I believe the whole section should disappear because it is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Wikipedia reader")
 * 2) 11:17, 15 July 2011  (edit summary: "/* Violation of the second law of thermodynamics */ unduly self-serving" WP:SELFPUB & WP:REDFLAG respectively")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments 3rr has not been violated, but the user is continually edit warring disruptively. (3rr broken on the 15th). He has been repeatedly warned, with no change in behavior. See my talk, the article talk page, and revert edit summaries for a slew of examples.

— &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I noticed this section on my watchlist and would like to inform the reviewing administrator that User:Stephfo sought direction by posting on my talk page. As a new user, he/she may not be familiar with Wikipedia policy and rather than blocking him/her, I would recommend that an administrator talk to this user about the content dispute he/she is involved in and explain to him/her Wikipedia policy. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If so, then the bottom of Talk:Objections to evolution and my (archived) talk are worth looking at too; he's received direction by nearly every user he's interacted with for over a week, including the explanations of WP:EW I've provided him myself, and yet he's still warring and refusing to take input. I didn't read his post on Anupam's page as "seeking direction" as much as canvassing for support, and even if he was seeking direction, that hasn't gotten us anywhere.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Musicalcrossbow reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User was blocked for WP:3RR, but after discussing with the blocking admin that the user did not make any further reversions after the warning message, the user was unblocked, with this message explaining that reverting would likely result in being blocked again. The 4th and 5th reversions above took place after that message. - SudoGhost 18:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have been reported according to invalid reasons. Upon each contribution, I have posted only a maximum of 2 words each edit to "The Age of the Earth". I believe I have been enforcing the Wikipedia Posting Policy of Neutrality, and the words I have posted are completely correct factually, inserted into the sentences which I placed them in. I must insist that every time I make an edit, my contribution is reverted and deleted by either an admin or another user. I do not understand how the words I posted are so controversial that they are removed 5 seconds after I post them. Please tell me why exactly I have been labeled as edit warring. Musicalcrossbow (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As it states in the notice you were given here, Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.  In addition, you were warned that reverting to your preferred version may end up with being blocked, especially that you did not attempt to use the article's talk page until after you had made five reversions. - SudoGhost 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - Added a 6th revert, which was made after the editor was made aware of this report and responded on this page. - SudoGhost 19:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple blind reverts at 3:51 and 3:55, partial reverts of various shapes and sizes at 17:57, 18:10, and 19:18.  Kuru   (talk)  20:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Daria Montella reported by User:Piriczki (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user has repeatedly reverted all attempts to correct information in the article and continues to cite sources that have been shown to be incorrect. I have tried to explain how and why his/her edits are incorrect and have sought a third opinion and followed the advice given but the reverts continue. Piriczki (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User has not made any reverts past 3RR warning. If they make another revert, please re-report them. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They have been reported to this page already but you haven't approved their request yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Furtie fert ferts reported by User:JamesAlan1986 (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Scooby-Doo!_Mystery_Incorporated_episodes&diff=440223598&oldid=440218811.

Previous version reverted to: List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes


 * 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: Me and Black Yoshi have both talked to her about her edits and she just won't stop. She's constantly removing or changing things that are unnecessary and though we've tried talking to her she still does it.


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fistoffoucault reported by User:Dave3457 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I am not contending that Fistoffoucault broke the 3RR rule but I am claiming that he is still engaging in edit warring on the grounds that... "The three revert rule is a convenient limit ... but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means"

I just reported Fistoffoucault for edit warring and got a "No violation" result however I do not wish to rehash that but to report on his behavior since that result. The most significant act being that he wrote the below taunting message at the top of my talk page...
 * Dave, I noticed you have some trouble spelling English words, if you need help with your English, just let me know.Fistoffoucault (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is not about Wikiquette, but part of the reason that he was not blocked was because he was somewhat apologetic and wrote in part...
 * I'm sorry for forgetting to include edit summaries. I can see that this has bothered you.

Note that I asked him several times to include edit summaries but he refuses to, he doesn't "forget".

He also wrote..
 * I think that this entire dispute shows the difficulties involved in any endeavor like Wikipedia. Perhaps there was consensus between you, USChick, and Avanu. You all agreed. But when Aronoel and I provided well-reasoned arguments...

The fact is, as I explained in my initial edit warring accusation, of all the present active editors, he and Aronoel are the only ones that want the image of the female Shaman while everyone else seems happy with the Young Women Drawing.

Note that he wrote the above in response to my accusation of edit warring fearing he was going to get blocked, however when he received a "no violation" result he immediately went back to his old ways and made the following edit diff where he gave no edit summary and removed the image, Young Woman Drawing, which is the present consensus as explained in my original edit warring complaint.

He also made these significant changes, again without any edit summary. diff

While its not my responsibility to argue his position, I will never the less point out that he made the following contribution to the talk page.diff I will also point out however that his contributions are very rare compared to the other interested parties. Newest section of discussion

In short I just don't understand how his behavior is in any way acceptable, which is in summary... and If you do read my other edit warring claim, in light of the fact that my argument was long winded, be sure to skip over the History section stuff and jump to the sentence that is in bold and reads...
 * taunting
 * refusal to be considerate of others and use edit summaries to describe and explain his edits.
 * refusal to accept apparent present consensus.
 * Concerning the changing of the images without consensus which is really the bigger problem.

Dave3457 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum. Make this report at WP:ANI - F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 00:10, 19 July 2011  (edit summary: "restored mention of MLM and resume controversy; lightened up on Minkow content (article is about USANA not Minkow)")
 * 2) 18:24, 19 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 440331797 by Leef5 (talk)--restored deleted content")
 * 3) 21:56, 19 July 2011  (edit summary: "According to the background section, USANA is an MLM company, not a "direct selling" company. MLM and direct selling are not synonymous -- see multilevel marketing")
 * 4) 22:01, 19 July 2011  (edit summary: "The resume controversy was significant, led to resignations, and was widely covered in secondary sources, as described in the article (see Background section)")
 * 5) 22:03, 19 July 2011  (edit summary: "Minkow was not the only one who has suggested that USANA is a pyramid scheme; the settlement included USANA paying Minkow's legal fees -- let's not be misleading about outcome")

User:Rhode Island Red is an experienced editor, and is very familiar with the 3RR and edit warring in general. He has reported two other users on this 3RR noticeboard in the past that edit warred, and thus understands the 3RR policy.

Discussion I started before I even made the original edit to give a head's up on the wording issues in the lead :

Comments:

I made an update to the lead of this article here: 18:36, 18 July 2011 (edit summary: "Lead updates to reflect WP:LEAD guidance") And I immediately posted on the talk page to elicit feedback to engage discussion since the lead to this article is controversial: # 18:40, 18 July 2011 (edit summary: "Took a stab at it") Instead of engaging in the discussion, User:Rhode Island Red responded with a series of reverts, and uses edit summaries to attempt to justify the reverts. There is a long history of WP:OWN with this editor and this article.  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 00:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Attilios and User:Daufer (Result: Both 48h)
Hi there is a edit war ongoing at Battle of Cortenuova between two editors.

can they both be blocked for a short time to allow them to cool off. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Eolai1 reported by User:EricValley (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

These diffs are over the course of two years. I think you may want some other dispute resolution process, such as third opinion. Actually, scratch that. The link you removed was a wholly inappropriate link - you were 100% right to remove it. You should, though, see our policy regarding editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest. Again, removing this link was 100% correct, but you should be aware of the policy for future reference. --B (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)