Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive165

User:208.127.239.5 reported by User:Andros 1337 (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (added 01:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC) by   ANDROS1337  TALK)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps on defending his/her edits using random Wikipedia policies to circumvent consensus, a clear violation of WP:GAME and WP:POINT. ANDROS1337 TALK 02:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a purely petty and patently obvious retaliation motivated attempt because User:Andros 1337 was reported by me at the No original research/Noticeboard. The policy is question there is WP:V, which this editor simply refuses to abide by, . Not a "random Wikipedia policy" but a "core content" policy. The editor fails to adher to it and when challenged for that failure, resorts to retaliatory and meritless claims here on ANI. If that isn't an obvious WP:GAME violation, and an enormous abuse and time-waster of the resources and people on this forum, then I don't know what is. But definitely the wrong editor is being reviewed here. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are clearly trying to circumvent consensus, which is on my side. You are overtagging the article with  tags on statements that are common knowledge and cited in other parts of the same paragraph.  You should also read WP:CK and WP:BLUE.   ANDROS1337  TALK 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, admins, please read all of the IP's comments at WP:NORN. He/she is obviously disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.   ANDROS1337  TALK 01:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 31 hours for disruptive editing. The IP has engaged in long-term edit warring on the tags at Delta Air Lines in a campaign which has no support from others. The editor was also involved in a revert war on a BLP article, Doug Lamborn, which led to its being fully protected on August 5. This is an IP who arrived on August 1 and immediately plunged into controversy, knowing many acronyms. I am not clear on whether he is here to help the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:75.10.108.94 reported by User:Robotam (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:

Comments:

Possible sockpuppet of User:Brilliantstring, used to circumvent 3RR -   Ro   Bo   Tam   ice 04:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This wasn't a 3RR violation, but the editor was clearly edit warring after being asked to stop doing so. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Mirwais Hotak (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:

Mar4d is POV pushing and distorting information. He's been here for a long time it seems but is disregarding the 3RR rule. I'm not into edit-warring but this issue about Faisal Shahzad made me very frustrated because the Government of Pakistan explained that he is Kashmiri based on official government records but Mar4d comes and says no that's not true, and asserts that Faisal Shazad should be labelled a Pashtun. It's very frustrating when you are confronted by such an editor, especially during Ramadan.

In his blind and aggresive reverts he did the following: I think you can see that he has some kind of agenda going on.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed Melik Kaylan reported in Forbes magazine --to--> Forbes reported that he is of Pashtun extraction. - I say that this article should mention "Melik Kaylan" instead of Forbes because that's how true investigative reports are written and Forbes is not making the claim but Melik Kaylan is. Mar4d write "Fores" instead of M. Kaylan, because it makes the claim more trustworthy.
 * He added "Kifayat Ali, a man who said he is a cousin of Shahzad's father, insisted that Shahzad's family had no political affiliations, adding that the arrest appeared as a "conspiracy so that the [Americans] can bomb more Pashtuns." ... he used this dead link as proof. - I say this is not even relevant for the article because that guy will say anything in order to defend his relative.
 * He removed this valid and useful sourced information "She and her parents have roots in the Pakistani city of Mardan "
 * He added "Pashtun" after Huma Asif Mian, but there is no source provided. - I say what if she is not really a Pashtun by ethnicity but just happens to speak Pashto as one of her languages and lived in a Pashtun territory? It is established however that she speaks Urdu, Pashto, English and I think other languages.


 * The user above is engaged in a consistent WP:POV-pushing agenda on Pashtun related topics. He has been removing the reference of Mir Aimal Kansi being a Pashtun from his article despite sources to back the subject's ethnicity. Now, he has been consistently removing, changing and modifying sourced information in the Faisal Shahzad article - information that is not only covered in reliable sources, but has also been in the article for over a year. No one has challenged Faisal Shahzad's Pashtun ethnicity, and it is rather clear and well substantiated based on various references. Please see my reply on Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts where I have shown some links. This user does not seem to understand the concept of WP:RS - that if there are reliable sources verifying a claim, then the content stays in the article. Yet, Mirwais Hotak keeps removing referenced content based on a weak and not even well-covered argument (according to most internet sources) of Shahzad being a Kashmiri. Mar4d (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The one engaged in POV-pushing is you because you want readers to follow your ideas and thoughts, and you blindly and aggressively revert all my edits. Stop labelling terrorists as ethnic Pashtuns with non-existing or fake sources. Labelling terrorists as Pashtuns alone is provocation and that usually leads to edit-warring as you have done so here. This here is not the place to argue over the content in articles, but you have clearly and intentionally violated the 3RR. I know about the W:RS, you need to go here from there, Biographies of living persons, and try to understand what source is more acceptable and what is not.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Asteckley reported by User:Steven J. Anderson (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Here are all of the user's edits to the article in the last 24 hours in reverse chronological order:


 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.
 * 5.
 * 6.
 * 7.
 * 8.
 * 9.
 * 10.

Edits 1, 2 and 3 are all reverts of the same material. 4 and 5, taken together, constitute a single revert identical to 1, 2 and 3 (1, 2, 3 and 4+5 are four identical reverts in less than 24 hours.) 6 and 7 are identical reverts to different material. 8 and 9 are harmless edits. 10 is an identical revert to the 6 and 7 reverts, continuing a separate edit war initiated yesterday.

While I was preparing this, the editor continued his edit warring with this revert (for his fifth revert of the same material):
 * 

Diff of edit warring notice placed on user's talk page:


 * 

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite (t) (c) 10:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:99.181.144.107, User:99.181.132.122, User:99.35.14.74 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:
 * 1) (perhaps not, but it's the same editor)

All edits (except possibly the first) revert to add WP:OVERLINKs. Reverts 2, 3, and 4 are explicit.


 * 1st revert: 02:14, August 7, 2011 as IP#1 (added deregulation; partial revert of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inside_Job_%28film%29&action=historysubmit&diff=440221614&oldid=440219079 )
 * 2nd revert: 00:40, August 8, 2011 as IP#2 (explicitly reverted my edit reverting #1)
 * 3rd revert: 00:54, August 8, 2011 as IP#2 (explicitly reverted my edit reverting #2)
 * 4th revert: 00:57, August 8, 2011 as IP#2 (explicitly reverted my edit reverting #3)
 * 5th revert: 01:10, August 8, 2011 as IP#3 (restoring conflict of interest, removed, among other times here)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:59, August 8, 2011 as IP#2, about a different page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page edits of July 21-23; removed most of the links and gave most of the arguments; I actually supported one of the links by this IP-jumping editor, and Bbb23 rewrote the sentence to avoid the need for the link.

Comments: Note that IP#2 stopped and IP#3 started just after the warning. Other pages with edit warring, without attempting to justify the edits, include Talk:Climate Audit and Climate change mitigation scenarios ‎. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The IPs are too dynamic for blocking to be much use, it's probably best to report issues at other articles to WP:RFPP. I suppose a rangeblock could be considered if the issue gets worse. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rawalpindi Express and User:Alamsherkhan reported by User:Palltrast (Result: Page protected)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_(Pakistan)&oldid=442977802

etc.
 * 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=442993682&oldid=442977802
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443166705&oldid=443099762
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443171701&oldid=443171361
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443281803&oldid=443265508

etc.
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443099762&oldid=443095868
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443290007&oldid=443281803
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443406150&oldid=443324964
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443633152&oldid=443503802

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlamsherkhan&action=historysubmit&diff=443634480&oldid=443632373
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rawalpindi_Express&diff=prev&oldid=443634423

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

Comments:

I am an uninvolved editor. I came across this page at Recent Changes. These two editors have been carrying on a simmering revert war for the last four days, persistently altering the article back and forth to their preferred version. This morning it has escalated into a full out edit war. Please see the article's history for the full picture. I don't have the expertise in the subject to know which version is "correct" but the edit war they are pursuing is not doing the article any good and I believe admin intervention is required. Palltrast (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Whilst I am tempted to block both editors as well, at least they're actually discussing it on the talkpage now, where I have left a warning. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bokan995 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 72h )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:15,  7 August 2011  (edit summary: "Removing POV by Tabande by giving the article a two sided viewpoint about the Kurds and Medes")
 * 2) 00:03,  8 August 2011  (edit summary: "Cleaned the article")
 * 3) 12:01,  8 August 2011  (edit summary: "Tabande, you are giving it a negative view about the Kurds being the ancient Medes in article. Stop it!")
 * 4) 16:58,  8 August 2011  (edit summary: "Removing vandalism by Tabande")
 * 5) 17:02,  8 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 443708022 by Tabande (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

This editor was blocked for 31 hours on the 4th for editwarring. Note the 'vandalism' comment also. —Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed his redaction of other editors' comments on the talk page.


 * Black Kite (t) (c) 21:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:71.226.23.207 reported by Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)]] (Result: Semi-protected for 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

For several months, this anonymous and single-purpose editor (who fails to sign his posts) has been operating under several IP addresses (71.203.85.14 and possibly 99.103.174.55 for example)while taking the position that he is the sole person who will determine what is appropriate to this article and what is not. He threatens and attempts to intimidate this editor to promote his POV. He stated, "In short, I'll just bury the criticism with the opposite effect to bring balance....and we can make the article ridiculously long.", and "....unless you can drum up a consensus for keeping the material I will be deleting all entries- sourced or otherwise- that deal with mere individual acts that do not affect the agency as a whole." In my opinion, making these statements have no place on Wikipedia.

This editor has refused to register and sign his posts. Further, he seems unable to properly post citations and simply embeds links.

Certainly, ATF as an agency is under severe criticism at the current time (see Fast and Furious). Inappropriate actions of individual agents and the agency reaction to these incidents directly reflect on the agency as a whole.

I've attempted to compromise with this editor, but to no avail. Reverting postings not backed up by the citation is met with immediate reverts.

If I'm editing inappropriately, then please let me know and I'll back off. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no requirement for a user to register to edit. There is, however, a requirement for all editors to abide by Wikipedia policies when editing. Looking at the edit history for the article, the IP editor appears to be keeping just outside the strict limits of WP:3RR, but to me, that's WP:GAMING the system. And the commentaries are certainly not consistent with collaboration or collegial editing. So while possibly not violating the letter of 3RR, there's definitely a violation in its spirit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, where do we go from here? Computer Guy 2 (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Black Kite (t) (c) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems the edit war is continuing - this time with some other editor (possible sock puppet?). The undersigned revised the paragraph to reflect a more NPOV, since it was being turned into a cluttered narrative about the shooting and trial.  It has now been reverted multiple times by User:AceD.   Computer Guy 2 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've issued 3RR warnings to AceD & Computer Guy 2 as both are involved. I have reverted the page back to the state it was in before the edit war broke out. Computer Guy, you should make sure to give warnings on the user's talk pages before posting here. As AceD appears to be a new user, he must be warned of our policies. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  20:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems a most unusual coincidence that User:AceD, who previously posted only once back on 5 February 2006, decided to post today after being silent for over 5 years, to continue an edit war begun by User:71.203.85.14 and earlier by User:99.103.174.55. Most unusual - but we should assume Good Faith.  However, "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary."  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bge20 reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 10:26, 8 August 2011
 * 2nd revert: 14:15, 8 August 2011
 * 3rd revert: 17:02, 8 August 2011
 * 4th revert:  21:33, 8 August 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  18:24, 8 August 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first revert included removing an entire section (Political parties in the political spectrum). The first three reverts were reversed by three different editors. TFD (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The "first revert" was of older material in the article - not properly counted as a "revert."  The "third revert" (actually second) etc. appear if anything to properly seek to reach a compromise from what I can see.  Hits 2RR for sure. The 3RR is a maybe. The 4RR claimed is not there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)   I also note the editor in question did, in fact, use the article talk page each time. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.

So, I removed a lot of un-sourced and poorly sourced POV, riddled with basic factual errors (like mis-dating a party's foundation by a century) on an article with no discussion since 2009, accompanied by a detailed talk post.

I got reverted without comment or engagement. That's, well, rude, and I've not seen that in in 5 or so years on wiki. So I reverted back. Frankly, it looked as much like vandalism as editing.

OK, maybe I was hasty. No talk since 2009, but some recent edit activity. Sorry. But very odd to see no discussion at all.

Then I made some largely new, small, specific, annotated changes with discussion, and they were bulk reverted without comment or discussion - just an assertion for needing sources on edits that are either sourced or unsourcable. At that point I start to lose respect for this.

Next, I fixed some blatant factual errors (with sourcing) and frankly bizarre unsourced POV, with comment and source, and got reported here.

At no point has anyone actually tried to claim that there's anything wrong with the stuff I added, or defend the junk I removed.

I've talked on the article page, my talk page and the talk page of the guy who's decided that saying the Whigs were founded in the 18th century and linking to the Whig article is unacceptable. The discussion is entirely one way - I make points about the article and i get bot-like quoting of the wiki rule book - which my edits are complying with - and bot-like deletion by editors who refuse to discuss the issues that need fixing in the article or even, it would seem, actually read my edits.

Or, do you think the line "The main factor dividing left and right in Western Europe is class" is non-POV, uncontroversial and doesn't require a source?

I love discussion. Can we have some?

Frankly, this article would get a fail in an exam - it is riddled with childish errors. And I was probably a little hasty in wading in to zap some really egregious nonsense. But my interest in fixing it is less than my desire to learn the secret rule book. I've had zero edit problems on wiki - I just seem to have run into a few ... difficult editors. Bge20 (talk)
 * If User:Bge20 makes another revert, leave a message on my talk and I'll block them. -- F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Beatthecyberhate reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Article appears to be under siege by a COI editor intent on scrubbing bad press. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Srimalleswara reported by User:Jsorens (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Courcelles 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:92.28.244.21/User:92.28.254.151 reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported: (latest), (previous)

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User above mischaracterized criticism as personal attacks. They have been told by no less than 7 other people that the edits were not personal attacks, including people who reverted him, and people who commented at WT:RD over the matter.  -- Jayron  32  20:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayron, could we have some diffs, instead of 6 links to the full article history?-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. I will fix this. I must've miscopied the link I wanted into my clipboard each time... ✅.  Sorry about that.  -- Jayron  32  20:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is my diff of putting the comment back in after the IP removed it the sixth time. He probably removed it again by now. -- k a i n a w &trade; 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ohnoitsjamie did the honors.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo reported by &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Warring on Objections to evolution
 * 1) 15:45,  9 August 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 16:14,  9 August 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 16:29,  9 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 443890501 by Apokryltaros (talk)user failing to explain his undo")


 * Warring on User_talk:Apokryltaros
 * 1) 16:09,  9 August 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 16:23,  9 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 443894370 by Apokryltaros (talk) Because it is not talk page that did undo but you")
 * 3) 16:27,  9 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 443895123 by Apokryltaros (talk)")
 * 4) 16:45,  9 August 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Comments: No violation of 3rr. However, the user was blocked July 18th for edit warring on this same page, and since then he's done nothing but add inappropriate content to the article, and edit war when it gets reverted. Looking at the talk page, he's worn out the patience of the community with his warring and aggressive, battleground behavior. I believe the crux of this problem is a violation of WP:EW, so I'm taking it here instead of ANI. ( Note, I'm not actually involved in the dispute, except to the extent that I've posted the EW warnings and brought the issue here. )

— &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also left a warning on the editor's talk page against continuing this behaviour when the block expires. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:ConcernedVancouverite reported by User:Nemonoman (Result: Not an AN3 issue)
Can someone please have a look at at several dozen article revisions made today by this editor? Here's the [Contributions Page].

The editor has inserted the words "Cult Leader", and a set of references, preceding the name Meher Baba into the lead paragraph of numerous articles associated with Meher Baba.

It is entirely reasonable that the Meher Baba article include this information and these references, assuming they are reliable sources that identify Meher Baba as cult leader -- which apparently is NOT the case for all of them. But such an addition would be consistent with an NPOV policy, and as one of the article's more active editors, I would support it.

The insertion of "Cult Leader" virtually every time the name appears is, in my opinion, more than disruptive, but vandalism.

Attempts to discuss have been met with little success, and reverting just leads to more reverts.

Dozens of articles are being affected, and the situation is unlike any I have seen before.

I invite your help. Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I blocked today for edit warring for removing the "cult leader" passage from the intro to the Meher Baba article. However, the warning came after that user was repeatedly advised to discuss the matter on the talk page and refused to. ConcernedVancouverite, by contrast, has participated in the discussions at the related articles' talk pages and has not, per my inspection, violated 3RR. I did not see any reason to block CV then, nor do I see a reason to now. I do think that discussion should continue at Talk:Meher Baba on whether to include the phrase in that article; it's probably best to err on the side of caution and omit the phrase for the time being.
 * I'm not going to close the report, because it probably wouldn't hurt for an administrator new to the situation to review it and make sure I haven't overlooked anything. However, I don't see where any action is necessary now, and if discussion proceeds at the talk pages, I don't think any further action will be needed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * CFred -- As mentioned above, I agree that a Cult-leader section could reasonably be included in Meher Baba. ConcernedVancouverite, however, has added the phrase to the lede of dozens of articles, without discussion in all but a few instances, and it is not clear that identifying Meher Baba as a cult-leader is relevant at all to the body of the dozens of articles in question. Certainly including the term, with six refernces, in the lede, suggests that it is not only relevant, but also that the article will discuss its relevance to the article's subject. This is not the case. To place an adjective as loaded as "Cult Leader" in front of anyone's name, without further discussion, is highly POV, in my opinion, and the validity of the term in relation to Meher Baba is certainly arguable. Its use in these articles in this way suggests that the matter is completely settled -- not the case -- and that the subjects of these articles are somehow misguided automatons.


 * My concern is not about the Meher Baba article but the dozens of others currently being, in my opinion, vandalized. If not vandalism, it is very bad editing not consistent with WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, or WP:LEDE. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've spent a good deal of time reading the reliable secondary sources on this topic prior to making the edits, and have realized that they have not been adequately represented in the dozens of articles related to Meher Baba. The additional citations I have added are to both academic articles written exclusively about the topic, as well as popular press in major newspapers.  One example of the sources includes, Robbins, Thomas. 1969. "Eastern Mysticism and the Resocialization of Drug Users: The Meher Baba Cult", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 8,2:308-317.  The Journal_for_the_Scientific_Study_of_Religion is a peer reviewed academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell.  Articles on Wikipedia need to represent a neutral point of view, and the current tone of the writings about Baba have all been ignoring the cult angle, which is well cited, and as such I believe needs to be included to balance out the coverage.  A reader of Wikipedia coming to the various articles may otherwise be presented with a POV that misses one angle of the history each of the subject's activities with and related to Meher Baba.  I posted the same to the talk pages, but instead it being discussed, it was reverted multiple times to the point of one of the reverting editors being blocked for 3RR.  Regardless, I'm going to step away from the articles, as it is clear there are some editors who are quite passionate about defending them, and it is not a good use of energy on my part to engage if other editors are just reverting and attempting to make claims about edit warring (which I have not engaged in) without discussing the merits of bringing an alternative view.  I do encourage any editors who stumble onto this conversation to read the multiple reliable sources which refer to Meher Baba as a cult, led by Meher Baba.  The ones I added are just the tip of the iceberg.  There are literally dozens more.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I very much appreciate CV's respectful tone, but his comments are indicative of why I asked for admin assistance.


 * The peer-reviewed JSTOR article says among other things: "Baba followers tend to shift their emphasis from passive-contemplative to active-service-oriented..." The word "Cult" has both a precise technical definition, and a highly freighted connotative aspect. The article refers to the technical term. "Cult Leader Meher Baba" does not. The explanatory and ameliorating statements in the article are not referenced.


 * The article above is so far as I can tell the only one of the references available on line. I'm rather surprised that CV, who has seemingly had no interest in the subject date has suddenly appeared with numerous references that have not been apparent until now, although many people looked for non-positive references during the peer-review of Meher Baba for good and featured article status. It is not all clear to me that the references cited specifically refer to Meher Baba as Cult Leader (the JSTOR article does not), and while JSTOR is a Reliable Source, newspapers would probably not be regarded as such in this context. Nor would an (apparently) unpublished doctoral dissertation.


 * In any case, is Meher Baba's primary descriptor to be "Cult Leader"? Is that to be a required modifier of the name in every instance where it occurs? CV states "A reader of Wikipedia coming to the various articles may otherwise be presented with a POV that misses one angle of the history each of the subject's activities with and related to Meher Baba." This might be so if these articles even actually referred to Meher Baba's life or activities, which most do not. We might not also learn that he was silent, or a Parsi, or whatever. Once one POV has been added -- why I can't imagine -- must all the rest then follow. There's a link to the Main Article in each case -- let's put the the Cult-Leader stuff there where it belongs. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Idwal2000 reported by Renseim (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff=443941852]


 * 1st revert: [diff=443956466]
 * 2nd revert: [diff=443951077]
 * 3rd revert: [diff=443947238]
 * 4th revert: [diff=443943718]

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

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

Comments:

Not on talk page, but clear consensus against obvious POV wording expressed in edit summaries.


 * No previous warnings on talkpage, and account only created at 22:35UTC tonight, but I am unable to conceive that an account which immediately starts tag-bombing an article with completely correct syntax is a new user. Thus -  Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

IP hopper on S.R. Nathan reported by User:La goutte de pluie (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:
 * (both IPs are linked, in the same subnet, and are suspected sockpuppets)
 * (both IPs are linked, in the same subnet, and are suspected sockpuppets)

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The IPs involved are public IPs, often used in conjunction to edit articles on Singaporean politics, among several other IP ranges. There are long-term problems with this IP.


 * Page has been semi-protected by Fastily. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 06:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Nemonoman reported by User:ConcernedVancouverite (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I stepped away from editing any articles related to the edit in question, because the articles related to this topic are being defended by a group of very passionate editors that do not appear to be engaging in discussion and calling my well cited additions vandalism. But this editor continues to edit war with other editors on the page, and has now passed the 3RR mark after being told by an admin that they were at the 3 mark already.


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Mann jess reported by 81.107.150.246 (Result: No action)
Hello. I am an internationally recognized scholar in the field of comparative religion who has been invited to speak by the United Nations and the International Association for the Study of the History of Religions. I have made many edits to this encyclopedia to the best of my ability particularly in the sphere of interfaith understanding. Unfortunately much of my recent work is being destroyed by someone who seems to be a militant 'atheist activist'. This is User:Mann jess. Some of the articles in question include Theism, Privatio Boni, Idolatry and others in the sphere of Buddhism (an area where my work has been highly praised by leading scholars in the field). The User is making it very difficult for proper good faith edits to remain because he is automatically reverting any work that is done to improve various articles. I would beg someone to look at the recent history of the Theism article and its discussion page there where a consensus has been reached that the current article does not accord with the accepted scholarly definition of theism. This is the definition you will find in the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Oxford Dictionary of World Religion, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and other recognized reliable authorities. Unfortunately, User:Mann jess is reverting all good faith edits for what reason I have no idea. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For reference, here are all of the diffs of changes made by 81.107.150.246 (talk) that have been reverted by User:Mann jess:
 * Peter Power (crisis management specialist)
 * Privatio Boni
 * Buddha-nature
 * - "restored recent edits. User: Mann jess has been vandalising other articles in the religious studies wiki projects."
 * Idolatry
 * Theism
 * - "added templates for improvement"
 * Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 81.107.150.246, from what I can tell, Mann jess hasn't violated any Wikipedia policies, such as 3RR in reverting your edits. Also, Man jess has provided rationales in the form of edit summaries for the reversions. It appears that Man jess is attempting to engage you in communication on the article talk pages, as the foundation of contentent on Wikipedia is a consensus among editors. Please remember that even experts do not own the subjects in which they are experts. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but the rationales do not accord with universally accepted standards of international scholarship and academic consensus. If you have an article whose main body does not contain one iota of information that could be found in any common definiton of any reputable encyclopedia and completely deviates from the topic then you have an article that is in serious need of revision. Hence the templates. The need for revision of this article had already been announced by another user on the discussion page back in April who actually posted information from scholarly sources to show that what he was saying was true. I am simply following up what this editor had tried to draw people's attention to. As it stands this article does not accord with the universally accepted definition that can be found in any reputable source. If you do not want wikipedia to be a reputable source for scholars then so be it but I myself try to do my best to make wikipedia authoritative. I am interested in improving human knowledge. It is to be greatly regretted that you are turning away people who have something of value to offer. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, the "other user" that you refer to appears to be you based on the IP addresses used and the editing habits. Secondly, as it says right at the top of this page, "do not continue a dispute on this page", which is exactly what you are trying to do; this is not content dispute resolution. Thirdly, please read the definition of edit warring at the top of this page and try to understand that what you have reported here is a content dispute, not an edit war. Finally, please go read WP:OWN as it's quite clear that you do not understand it based on the above diatribe. It says: "No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so. Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 81.107.150.246, from what I can tell, Mann jess hasn't violated any Wikipedia policies, such as 3RR in reverting your edits. Also, Man jess has provided rationales in the form of edit summaries for the reversions. It appears that Man jess is attempting to engage you in communication on the article talk pages, as the foundation of contentent on Wikipedia is a consensus among editors. Please remember that even experts do not own the subjects in which they are experts. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but the rationales do not accord with universally accepted standards of international scholarship and academic consensus. If you have an article whose main body does not contain one iota of information that could be found in any common definiton of any reputable encyclopedia and completely deviates from the topic then you have an article that is in serious need of revision. Hence the templates. The need for revision of this article had already been announced by another user on the discussion page back in April who actually posted information from scholarly sources to show that what he was saying was true. I am simply following up what this editor had tried to draw people's attention to. As it stands this article does not accord with the universally accepted definition that can be found in any reputable source. If you do not want wikipedia to be a reputable source for scholars then so be it but I myself try to do my best to make wikipedia authoritative. I am interested in improving human knowledge. It is to be greatly regretted that you are turning away people who have something of value to offer. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, the "other user" that you refer to appears to be you based on the IP addresses used and the editing habits. Secondly, as it says right at the top of this page, "do not continue a dispute on this page", which is exactly what you are trying to do; this is not content dispute resolution. Thirdly, please read the definition of edit warring at the top of this page and try to understand that what you have reported here is a content dispute, not an edit war. Finally, please go read WP:OWN as it's quite clear that you do not understand it based on the above diatribe. It says: "No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so. Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 81.107.150.246, from what I can tell, Mann jess hasn't violated any Wikipedia policies, such as 3RR in reverting your edits. Also, Man jess has provided rationales in the form of edit summaries for the reversions. It appears that Man jess is attempting to engage you in communication on the article talk pages, as the foundation of contentent on Wikipedia is a consensus among editors. Please remember that even experts do not own the subjects in which they are experts. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but the rationales do not accord with universally accepted standards of international scholarship and academic consensus. If you have an article whose main body does not contain one iota of information that could be found in any common definiton of any reputable encyclopedia and completely deviates from the topic then you have an article that is in serious need of revision. Hence the templates. The need for revision of this article had already been announced by another user on the discussion page back in April who actually posted information from scholarly sources to show that what he was saying was true. I am simply following up what this editor had tried to draw people's attention to. As it stands this article does not accord with the universally accepted definition that can be found in any reputable source. If you do not want wikipedia to be a reputable source for scholars then so be it but I myself try to do my best to make wikipedia authoritative. I am interested in improving human knowledge. It is to be greatly regretted that you are turning away people who have something of value to offer. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, the "other user" that you refer to appears to be you based on the IP addresses used and the editing habits. Secondly, as it says right at the top of this page, "do not continue a dispute on this page", which is exactly what you are trying to do; this is not content dispute resolution. Thirdly, please read the definition of edit warring at the top of this page and try to understand that what you have reported here is a content dispute, not an edit war. Finally, please go read WP:OWN as it's quite clear that you do not understand it based on the above diatribe. It says: "No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so. Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: declined)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Already discussed at:
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * User_talk:Andy_Dingley

User is performing a bulk removal of all links (across many articles) that reference Weebly, justified on the basis of WP:ELNO re: blogs. User contribs history is the simplest way to see this.

However in this case, the link isn't a blog, it's a publisher's site to a book (the "blog problem" just isn't credible here). The book in question is listed under Further reading from some articles related to neo-Victoriana and corsetry. I've reverted this deletion, seeing it as the collateral damage that arises when such simplistic edits are applied wholesale. The editor has now deleted the same link three times tonight from these two articles, despite there being on-going live discussion relating to it.

Since this, several post facto reasons have been given for the deletion (the original deletion was very obviously for a URL that matched Weebly, no more than this). When raised at RS/N, there was little support for any of these reasons.

The suggestion of spam has been raised. Whilst the book was originally cited on four articles, I would myself see it as tenuous and somewhat excessive to have it on two of these - enough to remove it, but not even enough to issue a spam warning (and I remove a lot of spam). It is highly relevant to Neo-Victorian though, and also relevant to Corset.

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3rr refers to reverting more than 3 times. I've have removed the link three times from Neo-Victorian, reverting twice; and in a separate article, I have only removed the link from twice, reverting once.  That's two reverts at the most in the same page (3rr is applied to one page), and three total (even if 3rr was pan-article).  The discussion at RS/N has just found additional reasons, not replacement reasons to remove the link.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you've reverted just as much as I have, so if I'm guilty of violating 3rr, so are you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * for now. Feel free to update or re-report if edit warring on either side of the issue continues. -- slakr \ talk / 03:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:FreemanSA reported by User:Objectively (Result: indefblocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:48, 10 August 2011


 * 1st revert: 18:51, 10 August 2011 (Undid revision 444090704 by Kudzu1 (talk))
 * 2nd revert: 02:09, 11 August 2011
 * 3rd revert: 16:32, 11 August 2011 (Stop giving too much credibility ro rumors proved wrong)
 * 4th revert: 19:22, 11 August 2011 (Undid revision 444295661 by Objectively (talk))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:09, 11 August 2011 (→Khamis Gaddafi: keep reverting and it will get you blocked)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:12, 11 August 2011 (→Regarding the latest claims of Khamis' death: lets try to keep it neutral)

Comments:

The user has a clear side in the ongoing Libyan conflict, and is bringing their POV to this and a variety of articles on the subject. Other users have criticized the user with their reverting edits summaries: "Tisk tisk tisk, POV pushing in its rawest form", and "we compromise: keep tenses consistent, militia≠NLA, "hostile" is a contentious term, "totally" is **nowhere** in the source", and "based largely on UNconfirmed loyalists claims, Because most have not been partially confirmed. But then again, what should i expect from the libyan government's official mouthpiece on wikipedia. Go drink some nescafe." Looking for some assistance here!--Objectively (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While you mentioned the concept of edit warring in one comment, no one ever explicitly explained WP:3RR. I'm going to do so now. If the user continues edit warring after a clear warning, you can let me know on my talk page and I'll block. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hope that helps, but at the moment, the user seems not to have taken the message. Their latest revert:
 * 5th revert: 12:55, 12 August 2011 (Undid revision 444317399 by Kudzu1 (talk) WP:NPOV)
 * They also responded to you on their talk page, accusing me of both "crying" and being "a troll".--Objectively (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I now have reason to believe that the user is using a sockpuppet to try to avoid 3RR. The most recent revert on the article comes from User:Archeopteryx5, which seems to have been created just today, and has edited two of the articles User:FreemanSA was most active on. Additionally, the edit summary (listed below) has the same grammatical style of their previous comments.
 * 6th revert: 17:50, 12 August 2011 (Precedent version more neutral and closer to reality as at the moment the appearance of Khamis show that the rumor was not founded.)
 * Thanks for your help! Objectively (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry case filed here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now blocked and  indefinitely as socks of . Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:William Bradshaw reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:07, 11 August 2011  (edit summary: "re-adding information on personal life per consensus on talk page and BLP noticeboard")
 * 2) 21:11, 11 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444332999 by Off2riorob (talk) - you have stated on the talk page that you want someone to add the info other than you.")
 * 3) 23:33, 11 August 2011  (edit summary: "revert attribution of a quote given in 2011 to a source published in 2010. afterelton is a reliable source in general but it is OBVIOUSLY a reliable source for a quote that IT PUBLISHED.")
 * 4) 23:36, 11 August 2011  (edit summary: "added citation to afterelton back to the quote from afterelton")
 * 5) 23:40, 11 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444352565 by Off2riorob (talk) - reverted disruptive edit")
 * 6) 00:23, 12 August 2011  (edit summary: "given the long and documented history of actors careers suffering because of being gay (start with William Haines and go forward) lack of effect on evans is reasonable to include")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, adding information to an article based on the consensus that I believed had developed on the talk page should not be held against me. The third edit was to repair an edit that incorrectly attributed a quote made in 2011 to a source published in 2010. I don't see how that can be held against me either. The final edit had nothing to do with the disputed source and was by the way made in violation of the consensus on the talk page. The other edits were related to an editor who has been disrupting this article for days and has been reported for doing so. I've apologized for being a hothead about the article and have voluntarily stepped away from it. I've offered to stop editing the article altogether except for vandalism if another editor agrees to do the same. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally blocked here for 24h; however, as has been pointed out and which I didn't realise at the time, the editor was not warned until after the 4th/5th/6th (depending on how many edits you believe are reverts) edit. (At least four are clear reverts).  Therefore I have unblocked the user; however I have not declined this report, especially given that the user's reply to the 3RR warning was this ("Bullshit").  I am leaving this open for another admin to look at.  I have cleared the autoblock. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Recommend letting the associated ANI thread take its course and let user off with a warning considering he is new and likely didn't realize (and wasn't warned until late) that he ran afoul. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion currently underway at ANI - F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Luckyguyinoh reported by User:Old Moonraker (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 9 August
 * 2nd revert: 9 August
 * 3rd revert: 10 August
 * 4th revert: 12 August
 * 5th revert: 12 August

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:67.188.201.99 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP has not responded to comment on article talk page, their talk page or on discussion on BLPN. All edits without edit summaries and seems purely interested in reverting information about a specific matter. The editor's history is telling. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This IP has a long history of removing material without explanation, and thus the next block should be longer. I'm watching the page, but the last drama evolved when I was offline. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:IownKudzu reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Indef)
Page: User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments: There's no point doing the whole diffs thing. There's no good place to start. It's blatantly obvious this user is a sockpuppet created to give me a hard time by reverting my edits and vandalizing a whole ton of pages on which I've been active. If someone can please take care of this, that'd be great. Thanks.


 * User blocked by . --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kuebie reported by User:Quigley (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Also refused multiple suggestions to self-revert after 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Kuebie was blocked in May for move-warring on the same article, which was his fifth block for such behavior.

I reverted 3 three edits from you and Benlisquare. Check again. Instead of silencing me, maybe you can actually participate in the discussion about content of the article. Kuebie (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your first revert was of Hkwon and 212.183.128.45, so you made four reverts in total. I've been trying to discuss the edits with you; coaxing you to start a discussion before reverting, but you refuse to self-revert and discuss and instead speak tendentiously about people "silencing" each other. I would have rather liked it if you didn't "silently" (without responding to my warnings or invitations to discussion) revert four different users four times. Quigley (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked indef. Kuebie has resumed edit-warring on the same dispute that led to his one-month block last May. It does not make sense to let him continue to edit this article when he repeatedly shows he is unwilling to accept consensus. He was previously indeffed back in February 2010 as 'a single purpose account dedicated to pushing an agenda', but the block was lifted. Nothing he has done since February 2010 seems to disprove that statement. His talk page is one long catalog of warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:76.186.76.133 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I tried to talk this user into adding reliable sources for the air dates on the IP's user page and posted a discussion on the article talk page. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to resolve the issue, the IP continued to add the unsourced air dates back into the article without explanation and has not responded to comment on article talk page and their talk page. I understand that edit warring is really disruptive to the project. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - A textbook example of edit-warring. This is an obvious SPA just reverting away (with no communication on their part - always a bad sign), and they need a timeout. Doc   talk  04:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we block this SPA if it is absolutely necessary? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A block for edit-warring/failure to communicate before reverting should earn a 24-hour block so they don't keep at it in the short term (remember: preventative, not punitive ;P). This one doesn't seem too prolific under this IP, but it could certainly be a "castaway" from a vandal who hops around. I've seen a few of those. Anything similar to other articles come to mind? Doc   talk  04:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. One example of this IP hopper's target article is List of One Piece episodes (season 13), in which the ip in question restored the unsourced air dates before I moved the rest to the season 14 episode list in the series. If you check the user's contribution page, the IP has done the exact same edits on the season 13 episode list before this. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The differences can be found here and here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 24 hours by User:Daniel Case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Omen1229 reported by User:Nmate (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:59, 11 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444261935 by Hobartimus Definitely related to the topic of the article. Please do not delete References. Matica slovenskĂˇ is not fascist organization. Your original research?")
 * 2) 08:08, 12 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444378527 by Hobartimus Please do not delete neutral sources, it shows extreme POV")
 * 3) 08:16, 12 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444405527 by Nmate Please discuss on the talk page first what is "far from NPOV". Please do not delete neutral sources, it shows extreme POV")
 * 4) 13:00, 12 August 2011  (edit summary: "MS is public-law cultural and scientific institution. Your Original research about fascism is not important here.")

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

Comments:

Within a period of 24 hour, Omen1229 made at least 4 reverts on the article Magyarization ,even though 3 users expressed concern that the source(s) he added to the article is not credible. There is an ongoing disussion on the talk page of the article to resolve this situation as linked above. The 4th revert was the restoration of the status of what was before the article was edited by User:CoolKoon -> --Nmate (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this user Omen1229's good faith at editing articles is questionable (to say at least), which's evidenced (amongst others) by his insistence on sources published my Matica Slovenská. This Matica Slovenská is an organization in Slovakia with spreading history falsifications as one of its main goals. The historians supported by MS are the strongest supporters of various Slovak historical myths (overused by politicians as well) and the books/papers published by MS are usually highly unscientific, lack any reliable sources (or they use other MS sources respectively i.e. the nationalist historians only quote each other) and usually reek of nationalism (especially strong anti-Hungarian sentiments). In short, sources published by MS are heavily POVish materials and try to serve rumors (and "common sense BS") as scientific data. Omen1229 however seems to dispute this, because either he fails to assume good faith, doesn't even pretend to present a NPOV, or neither. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation. There is a suggestion that Omen129 is making edits from a Slovak nationalist point of view. A complaint was previously made at ANI about this editor having an anti-Hungarian user page, though the slur (if there is one) is not completely clear. I am also notifying Omer1229 of the possible sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 reported by User:Davidandkimbenton (Result: Submitter warned)
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:

We have had discussions on the talk page where user's asked specifically for more images which were less advanced. I provided a link to those as requested by other users. Images that were not found anywhere else or on the WIKI, I feel that these images add to the overall value of the page and have had other users thank me for adding them. Jmh649 has not read the entire discussion page and seen the request for more images, or just does not care.

Davidandkimbenton (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This user has repeated added links to his own website. If he would like to contribute to Wikipedia I would suggest that he add images to Wikimedia Commons. He would need to owns the copyright of course. Per WP:ELNO Wikipedia is not a collect of external links. I have suggested that the user start a discussion at WT:MED if he wishes a further opinion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Submitter is warned about spam. The four reverts he lists above extend back to 2010. The history shows he repeatedly tries to insert links to what appears to be his own website. As Jmh649 points out, the photos may be submitted to Commons, provided he owns the copyrights. Addition of a link to http://www.hpv-genitalwarts.com  or to http://genitalwartshelp.com to medical articles is probably not going to be accepted and may lead to sanctions under our WP:SPAM policy. These web sites have no listed owner and there is no way to check the copyright of their images. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Edsonbradley apparently feels that he must "clear up the damaged reputation of the lovely Mrs. Herbert Shipman" by adding a large amount of unreferenced original research into the article, and has continued to edit-war to retain his version. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Edsonbradley has admitted a conflict of interest (but still provides no sources) in this edit. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

for 24 hours by Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Edsonbradley reported by User:Velella (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 19:18, 13 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444648294 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
 * 2) 19:27, 13 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
 * 3) 19:30, 13 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
 * 4) 19:37, 13 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
 * 5) 19:55, 13 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notes */")
 * 6) 19:57, 13 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")

—  Velella  Velella Talk 20:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I have come into this as a by-stander editor - I have no knowledge of Carey Mansion or either editor involved. Unable to provide mediation on article talk page without some knowledge of facts. Original reverting editor simply sought supporting refs and notes that in edit summaries.

by Dabomb87 (see above - I'm not sure why this was reported twice) Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:REGICUAZA reported by User:BalticPat22 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I have sent a comment to the user's personal page and on the discussion board of the article, Mariah Carey. This user has had a history of vandalism and violating the three-revert rule. They have been warned before, but have made no visible effort to change. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." All 5 of those edits count as a single revert for counting towards 3RR.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments:

Experienced editor who has been previously blocked for edit warring made 4 reverts in 10 hours. - Haymaker (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Our policy on edit warring states that "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required." The article in question is a biography of a living person.  An IP editor tried repeatedly to insert wild mischaracterizations of Bachmann's views on science, and Roscelese reverted those additions three times.  That is not edit warring.  The fourth reversion was a routine matter of no consequence.  Especially because Roscelese clearly disagrees so strongly with Bachmann on so many issues, this editor should be praised rather than chastised for removing unsourced, defamatory additions to the article.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  17:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The EW page also states; "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.". None of the above tripped the BLP exemption.  Ros has been in this situation before and has been blocked for it before.  If she had concerns she could have reported those other parties to AIV, asked for the page to be protected, reported the page to the BLP noticeboard, contacted an administrator or any combination of the above.  Instead she made 4 reverts in 10 hours.  She is old enough to know better. - Haymaker (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How are these first three reverts "controversial" in any way? Please explain clearly why you believe that the first three reverts you listed were not valid exceptions to the 3RR rule.  To me, they appear to be clear BLP violations and therefore unambiguous exceptions to that rule that show Roscelese's good faith in this particular matter.  What am I misunderstanding?  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, how do you know how old she is and why is her age relevant in any way?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  18:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an expression, she has edited long enough and gotten in trouble for this before, she knew better. The above do not constitute blatant vandalism, she should not have crossed the 3RR. - Haymaker (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) It can be controversial, but in this case it wasn't. I agree with Cullen that Roscelese "should be praised rather than chastised". And praising Roscelese surely implies upbraiding Haymaker, too. His and his buddies' forum shopping to make trouble for Roscelese has become harassment.. The next person who moves these baseless complaints to yet another board, or otherwise pesters Roscelese, will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC).
 * How is this forum shopping? - Haymaker (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is forum shopping because your complaint was utterly without merit, and pursued because of your obvious dislike of the editor. The first three edits listed were to revert the worst sort of vandalism of a BLP, namely, plausibly written lies that might actually fool some readers.  She was right and you are 100% wrong here.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 - It is your opinion that this is without merit, I have seen plenty of editors blocked for similar behavior.
 * 2 - Are you familiar with the definition of forum shopping? - Haymaker (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Formally closing this, per the consensus that Roscelese's edits were appropriate under BLP. Nominator is advised to conduct a self-experiment on whether the impact of a wet fish in one's face is a harmful or rather beneficial by-product of nature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet another frivolous attempt by this user, who's been harassing me since November, to get me blocked for enforcing BLP. See the similar report of a couple of weeks ago, when he reported me for removing a "hoaxes" category from the biography of Jamie Leigh Jones. I'm glad that everyone's been able to see this, too, for what it is. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling this the removal of a "BLP violation" is a real stretch. It's just personal commentary added by a user who agrees with and wants to elaborate elaborating on Bachmann's views. On the other hand, since most people wouldn't think of objecting to these edits if they were spaced out over the course of 48 hours, it's not appropriate to describe this as "edit warring". Quigley (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope the bit about it being a Bachmann supporter was sarcasm, Quigley! (I can't always tell over the internet.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I just misread it (I see now that the user was using sarcasm). Still, you don't have to frame removal of personal commentary as 'BLP violation', just because it's one of the few listed 3RR exceptions. In practice, reverting that user was entirely reasonable, and administrators can see that. Quigley (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As Bishonen and Cullen have written, this was a frivolous request and transparent forum-shopping. Mathsci (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Knowzilla reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, and

Comments:

This is a one-sided edit "war." I.e. I add content, and the editor deletes it. They have effectively blocked me from editing the article. The editor has been warned twice in the last few weeks not to edit war. Been editing since 2007. – Lionel (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you've done this purposely to get me into trouble, you've been extremely uncivil in the past, and more and more it's beginning to look like you're stalking me to articles and purposely looking for fights. --~ Knowzilla  <sup style="font-size:x-small;">(Talk)  10:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have been abrupt in informing you of WP policies. I'll try to be more gentle in the future. It may seem like I'm following you, but in virtually all of our encounters I was at the article first. That still does not excuse the fact that you were warned twice to stop edit warring and you continued to be disruptive. – Lionel (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Continuously you've followed me to articles and reverted my edits so many times and then placed unwarranted warnings on my talk page only to be informed by other editors that the warning was not warranted. Both of the edit warring warnings you've linked to are from you - no other editor. Finally 3 of the "reverts" you've linked to are not reverts at all, and the other 2 were due to unsourced material placed in the lead of the article which aren't mentioned in the rest of the article - a lead is meant to be a summary of the article. This entire episode looks like it was for the sole purpose of reporting me here. --~ Knowzilla   <sup style="font-size:x-small;">(Talk)  11:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * for two reasons; one, not all of Knowzilla's edits are reverts, and those that are include removing unsourced content that you have added which is completely correct; and secondly, since you've started a discussion here, it may be better for the article for you both to continue it on the talkpage, rather than going down the punitive route.  I will watchlist the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Black Kite, the addition you're referring to is an accurate summary of content found in the "International governments" section: "In December 2009, the neighbouring countries of Rwanda and Burundi also discussed legislation that would criminalise homosexuality." The other addition was also an accurate summation of content in the article. The edit summaries Knowzilla left were erroneous. He has a POV to push and he's edit warring and shutting down the article. – Lionel (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw this is not a BLP issue: you cannot edit war to remove unsourced content per WP:3RRNO – Lionel (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RonaldMerchant reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported: : Keeps changing numbers of victims without supplying sources. He does not engage in talkpage discussion despite being twice told to do so (check 3RR warnings issued). Has also resorted to personal attacks in edit summaries Note harassing/nonsense notes on the talkpages of the editors who warned him: User talk:Seb az86556 and User talk:Dr.K..

Previous version reverted to:

Time reported: 11:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:52, 13 August 2011
 * 2) Revision as of 00:43, 14 August 2011
 * 3) Revision as of 06:49, 14 August 2011
 * 4) Revision as of 07:03, 14 August 2011
 * Diff of warning #1: by Dr.K.
 * Diff of warning #2: by Seb az86556

Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 11:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Favonian (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Favonian. Take care. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 11:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Enok reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

This is a report of sustained edit warring while an attempt is being made to resolve the matter on the article's talk page, and not a 3RR violation:


 * 1st revert: (3 August - a source had been provided on the article's talk page in a discussion Enok was participating in)
 * 2nd revert: (4 August)
 * 3rd revert: (13 August)
 * 4th revert: (13 August)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * (4 August)
 * (13 August - note that this was before the most recent reversion)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Long running discussions at: Talk:Amphibious assault ship and Talk:Amphibious assault ship involving multiple editors with no clear consensus. Despite this, Enok keeps on edit warring. Comments:

As demonstrated by the article's history Enok has been edit warring over this article on several occasions over the last few weeks. He or she has also been repeatedly warned for other edit wars on their talk page in the past, and was blocked for this last September. Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up on this Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Michael Fontenot reported by andy (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 10:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:01, 12 August 2011  (edit summary: "unwarranted deletion.")
 * 2) 03:35, 13 August 2011  (edit summary: "unwarranted deletion")
 * 3) 23:32, 13 August 2011  (edit summary: "unwarranted deletion.")
 * 4) 03:46, 14 August 2011  (edit summary: "unwarranted deletion.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—andy (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Silverneedle reported by Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:53, 12 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* World Championship of Online Poker */")
 * 2) 23:10, 14 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* World Championship of Online Poker */")
 * 3) 23:51, 14 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* World Championship of Online Poker */")
 * 4) 00:00, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "The information has been removed because it is based on allegations - as i have made clear in the discussion.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

User is removing what appears to be properly sourced and cited material, possibly in an attempt to "sanitize" the article.

—Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No reverts since 3rr warning. Re-report if the user continues reverting. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Raulseixas reported by jcgoble3 (talk) (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:41, 14 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* Current squad */")
 * 2) 00:21, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 00:51, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444891428 by Doomgaze (talk)")
 * 4) 01:01, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444893522 by Jcgoble3 (talk)")
 * 5) 01:27, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444896485 by Jcgoble3 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—jcgoble3 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Zbrnajsem reported by User:Cimmerian praetor (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Zbrnajsem

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2011_Chilean_Pen_Incident, User_talk:Cimmerian_praetor, User talk:Zbrnajsem

Comments:I have tried to resolve the situation with the user, however to no avail. His arguments are within WP:IDL stating that it is offensive to Czech nation and that it is a "only a part of a large scheme against the Czech President, initiated by his enemies in his own country". Basically no discussion takes place from his side, he is only reverting the part he doesn't like.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag reported by KoshVorlon (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

He's got a message on both his userpage and his talk page that violates WP:UP#Polemic. I've removed it, as has NYTend,, he's reverted and has hit 3rr. This is happening right now. Take a look, if he needs a timeout, feel free. @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ► Markab -@ 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Time reported: 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Revert to revision 444957333 dated 2011-08-15 11:27:05 by TreasuryTag using popups")
 * 2) 16:03, 15 August 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted edits by KoshVorlon (talk) to last version by TreasuryTag")
 * 3) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted edits by KoshVorlon (talk) to last version by TreasuryTag")


 * Diff of warning: []

— @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ► Markab -@ 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that there is an ongoing ANI discussion about this, Kosh seems to be painfully unaware that WP:3RR states, "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ... Reverting edits to pages in your own user space..." I would also suggest an admin warn him for reverting the same content three times, as per WP:GAME. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► high seas ─╢ 17:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And there's the rest of that clause, which you didn't see fit to quote: "..., so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines."-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And my "list of diffs detailing Sarek's stalking of my edits" file had been dormant for almost a month. Pity. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► condominium ─╢ 17:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no, you don't get to claim that noticing an edit to a page I've had watchlisted for 4 years is stalking. Nice try.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This needs to go to ANI for discussion - a User that feels a comment about him is a personal attack has been removing and other users have started jioning in so we need to see if it is really a PA and ask him to remove it if it is. I can't see any benefit in reporting the user for blocking at this time.
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Elvellian (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Whilst the user has not violated WP:3RR, I do nevertheless believe that her actions constitute edit warring for the following reasons.

A few months ago, a lengthy discussion took place in which it was felt by every editor who contributed, except SlimVirgin, that the lead of the Ian Tomlinson article was out of date and in need of improvement; although of course people disagreed on how this should best be done. Nevertheless, a consensus was reached and the new lead was inserted a couple of months ago without complaint.

A few days ago, a completely separate editor raised an issue with the new lead on the talk page, as a result of which SlimVirgin immediately reinserted the old lead, without waiting for comment from other editors and without justifying why that lead actually addresses the concerns the editor made. In my view, it does not address them at all. Also, I believe that the new lead could be tweaked quite easily to address the editor's concerns, and I set out my suggestion for this on the talk page.

I have since reverted SlimVirgin's insertion twice. Both times I explained my reasoning clearly on the talk page and invited her to explain hers. Given the lengthy discussion which did produce the new lead, I felt that it was right to ask her to explain her reasoning before effectively overruling every other editor who had previously contributed. However, she has reverted back both times without providing any explanation. I should also say that I have no intention of editing a third time in the immediate future because I think (probably rightly) that such action would be deemed edit warring on my part, despite my activity on the talk page.

Therefore, by inserting an old version of the lead that currently has no consensus - as evidenced by the discussion of a few months ago - and by repeatedly reverting to protect that version without providing any explanation on the talk page, despite being asked to do so by myself and another editor, I therefore believe that SlimVirgin's actions constitute edit warring.

On a technical note, I should also say that I have not attempted to formally warn SlimVirgin for edit warring; hence why I provided no link for that above. Apologies if I haven't followed strict protocol, but given that I have made two reversions myself, I felt that such action would probably not be helpful. Elvellian (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Elvellian, it appears that User:SlimVirgin actually wrote most of the Death of Ian Tomlinson article, and brought it to Featured article status, using a lede very similar to the current one. You, on the other hand, have used your account almost exclusively for the purpose of edit-warring over the lede of the Death of Ian Tomlinson article, and removing warnings from your user page. Can you give a good reason why your account should not be blocked? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am baffled as to why you are threatening me with blocking. I fail to see what I've done to merit it. I have always articulated my position fully on the talk page and I have always been happy to work together constructively with others. For instance, when a mediating administrator in the original discussion suggested that all parties agree to a moratorium on editing until a consensus was reached, I agreed to it - and kept it. And I was perfectly honest and upfront above about the fact that I have made two reversions myself and have no intention of making any more. So I see no grounds for you to accuse me of bad faith behaviour now.

As for the warnings you linked to - I removed them because if I'm quite honest, I regarded them as little more than attempts to bully and intimidate me. And besides, correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe Wikipedia allows editors to remove content from their own talk pages. So again I fail to see why that merits a threat of blocking.

Also, I don't understand the point you make about SlimVirgin having written much of the article. I quite agree with you - she has done. But I reiterate, when this was discussed the first time, not one editor other than her supported the then lead (which she has now reintroduced.) The discussion is all there on the talk page - you can check through it yourself if you don't believe me. But are you arguing that because of her previous contribution to the article, she has the right to overrule the rest of the community? In short, are you claiming that she owns the article?Elvellian (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, your response doesn't make sense. I didn't accuse the user of violating WP:3RR - as made clear in the very first sentence. I made an allegation of edit warring, and as you must know, you don't have to violate WP:3RR to edit war. Please address the actual allegation that I made.Elvellian (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:124.176.176.8 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Blocked for 48 hours, though see details below )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert (added after initial report @ 06:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

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

Comments:

The ARBPIA topic area has a 1 revert rule. A notice to that effect is on the talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, given the obvious familiarity with Wikipedia demonstrated in the small number of IP edits, I dont think the typical warnings are needed here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This same user is at 3 reverts at Al-Azhar University. The reverts are largely the same as past sockpuppets eg, . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Even after being brought here, the IP continues to edit war, making a third revert on a page with a 1RR. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

wtf is 1RR? 124.176.176.8 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The same as the directive not to edit war, which you yourself made to others. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I know what edit warring is - i was blocked for it for 24 hours yesterday. So what's 1RR? I thought it was 4RR? 124.176.176.8 (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out this user's harassment of me by reverting totally unrelated edits on other pages. 124.176.176.8 (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You got to MEMRI by following me there. I have since gone through your contributions and have seen the same problems for all of your edits, and have corrected them elsewhere. That problem being the rather consistent push to add unsourced information of a certain political bent and remove sourced information of another. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Like what? When have I ever added "unsourced information"? And of what "political bent" would that be? 124.176.176.8 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding my voice to the chorus since stumbling across this while doing vandalism patrol. Nobody is “harassing” you 124.176.176.8, but you are clearly engaging in hostile edits and are claiming that anyone who reverts your edits is “harassing” you. Nonsense. Your trail of edits speaks otherwise. Please learn how to be a part of the community. And if possible, please register an account to aid in the process of folks taking you seriously. --SpyMagician (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stay off my Talk page, you freak. 124.176.176.8 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that a one-revert rule is similar to the three revert rule, except that you can only make 1 revert over an article within a day. More than one will get you blocked. The one-revert rule only applies to some controversial articles (such as Middle East Media Research Institute) and not every page on Wikipedia. Anyway, I also seem to discover this message coming out of the IP address' talk page, which in my opinion is an entirely inappropriate use of communication. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 06:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't say anywhere on that article that it you can only perform 1 revert. 124.176.176.8 (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

i 'd like to spur a sockpuppet investigation regarding this IP.--Severino (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I was looking into the edit warring report, and noticed this on the editor's talk page. That gross incivility merits a 48 hour block. As for the edit warring, I thought that since this is a breach of 1RR set by sanctions, it needs to go through WP:AE? Finally, regarding the SPI, Severino, do you have a master to connect this to? Note that an block for sock-puppetry could only be based on behavior, since we checkusers can't connect IPs to named accounts. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a "master" but I hesitate to say it cause I'm not sure if that can be used against me. For the moment it's ok, if that IP becomes active again, maybe..--Severino (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:61.11.125.231 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Reverts:
 * 1) 04:47, 16 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 445098895 by Kijacob (talk)")
 * 2) 04:59, 16 August 2011  (edit summary: "auto 2")
 * 3) 05:04, 16 August 2011  (edit summary: "auto 3")
 * 4) 05:07, 16 August 2011  (edit summary: "auto 4")
 * 5) 05:54, 16 August 2011  (edit summary: "auto 6")
 * 6) 06:08, 16 August 2011  (edit summary: "review of auto 6")

Note: Warning didn't come until between reverts 5 and 6, thus why no report until now.
 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A: User is inserting unsourced information; as explained in warning, user needs to provide explanation for change on talk, and was asked to do so.

Comments: I would have blocked myself, but I'm WP:INVOLVED on the article.


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:79.97.144.17 (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: [link]

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

Comments:

I see no discussion between the reporting editor and the reported editor on the article's Talk page. As a separate point, since the content in question goes back and forth between "England" and "Britain and Ireland", would this fall under WP:GS/BI? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the existence of WP:GS/BI, hence why I brought this here. I explained as fully as I could in the edit summaries the difference between Ireland's period under English rule and Ireland being a part of England, and didn't see what else I could say on the talk page, especially given that I was told to "toddle off and play somewhere else". 79.97.144.17 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that GS/BI is relevant here, as there's no dispute about what to call Ireland, or about whether or not during the period in question English law applied to Ireland. Anyway, we now have three days to hammer out a mutually acceptable form of words on the article's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend my tone to come across that I thought WP:GS/BI had been violated by either party. I was inquiring because I wasn't sure how broadly the GS was being construed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and I find it a bit rich to be reported here by an editor who has himself breached 3RR. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:NewgateEdward reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user, who has been acting in good-faith, has been adding original research and point of view-related issues in the lede, which is poorly placed. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 31 hours by User:DeltaQuad. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bill clinton history reported by User:Sitush (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I and have been adding very well-sourced material + trying to control 's excesses of poorly sourced material, mostly by discussion. This article has only just got out of WP:DRN, which was adjudicated against the viewpoint of. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No,They both are voilating the outcome of WP:DRN.they are pushing material without discuss it on talk page.this was contrary to the outcome of WP:DRN.I am new user and they have also threaten me by warning because i am not agree with their arbitrary behaviour.they had deleted the almost 70% article of yadav.they did not discuss it even once on talk page.when i started to ask them that they should discuss it first before making such major change,they ignored me and my valid objection.
 * I was putting my points with sources and only which those have been discussed in past(like ahir/abhir an ahir talk page)but they both were inserting those issues which we are discussing now.but they suddenly today starting inserting their points without reaching a consensus and deleted almost 70% article without any prior discussion.
 * Their behaviour did not match their seniorty today.
 * I hope justice from wikipedia.Bill clinton history (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What was deleted by me earlier today was in fact to fix a reversion to a much earlier version of the article performed by yesterday when they mysteriously came out of hibernation to make one edit and then went away again. At least three people on the article talk page agreed with this and there were no objections until you arrived & said that you quite liked it (by which time, it had gone). The old version was hopelessly contrary to policy etc (including copyvios), whereas what you have been doing since is not remotely so. The problem is, BCH, that you have adopted a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position, in the face of valid additions and have gone around repeatedly removing or dramatically changing them despite also discussing on the talk page. The nature of reliable sources has been explained to you time and again over a long period and by numerous people. - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am apealing to the administrator,plaese visit yadav page editing history and notice the behaviour of these two senior editor.I am a new user.but i have followed all guidlines of discussion and never edited arbitrarly without consensus.please see my debate history at diffrent indian castes articles like jats,yadu,ahir,yadav,Kshatriyaetc.i have edited my points after consensus.
 * I have not agreed their narrow and wrong approach to yadav article.but inspite of this i never edit before discussion at talk page.even today i had invited first these both senior editor to debate first and then make amendment in article.but they did not listen and contiue their arbitrary insertion of controversial topics.
 * they have reverted the entire article without any prior discussion.i had also warned them about their disruptive editing.but did not care because i am a new user.Bill clinton history (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 31 hours. The editor has continued to revert even though the closure of the discussion at WP:DRN went against him. I found this removal by Bch and this one of the well-cited section called 'Changing nature' to be evidence that he was edit-warring against the DRN consensus. The finding at DRN implies that the association of 'shudra' or cultivator status with the Yadav caste was backed by reliable sources and deserved coverage in the article. Bch's argumentation does not appear to be backed up by sources considered reliable today. In this talk page edit he seems to be rejecting a modern reliable study by fr:Christophe Jaffrelot, an established political scientist, because (presumably) he does not like what Jaffrelot is saying. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:79.97.144.17 (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 IP has made several controversial edits the past couple of weeks, which were either unsourced or relied on questionable references, and has edit warred over several of them:  , and , .

Even a cursory Google search will show that the content that User:Parrot of Doom is trying to protect is, in fact, correct.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  23:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, as you would see if you read the references that I provided that Parrot subsequently deleted without explanation. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, this seems to be forum-shopping as there is a related ANI thread where the IP was told to drop it and the IP has simultaneously filed at WQA. As the IP is guilty of edit-warring himself and it is beginning to look like he is baiting Parrot, I am starting to think that the poster is the one who may need blocked. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  23:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "related ANI thread". I reported him at ANI for incivility, then hear for separately breaching 3RR. How is expecting someone to be civil baiting? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are trying to distort an FA when you can't even spell a simple four-letter word like "here"? Hello, is there anyone home? Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:ANI thread provides context. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rainbowwrasse reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:22, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "minority support")
 * 2) 17:37, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "inconsistent with laws of physics")
 * 3) 17:48, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "Minority view significant; article mostly about controversy, not the theory itself")
 * 4) 18:27, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 445011383 by Mann jess (talk) partial rv 'not accepted' is weaker than 'generally rejected' (passive v. active)")
 * 5) 18:34, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "How's this then? Most homeopaths support it (do you have a good ref for 0.01% of scientists? would be nice to add this)")
 * 6) 19:02, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 445018340 by Nescio (talk) I'm not claiming it's science, but it has some support. Shall we take the discussion to the talk page?")
 * 7) 21:50, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 445030000 by Mann jess (talk) What was wrong with this bit then?")
 * 8) 16:04, 16 August 2011  (edit summary: "generally: without reference to or disregarding particular persons that may be an exception. scientific community is not a cohesive unit")
 * 9) 17:07, 16 August 2011  (edit summary: "the statement makes no mention of a consensus, only of the community, and universality is not supported by refs. Please comment on talk page.")
 * 10) 19:56, 16 August 2011  (edit summary: "consensus")


 * Diff of warning: 17:39, August 16, 2011

Comments: Warned of edit warring in edit summaries, article talk page, and his talk page. He doesn't appear to understand WP:EW based on his responses. He appears to be editing in good faith, but he's well over 3rr, and still reverting. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree he doesn't understand WP:EW or WP:3RR, but the only edit after the warning (#10, I believe) is not a complete revert. However it does revert "not accepted" to "rejected", so it may qualify. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will notify the subject of this report and see if he will agree to stop warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made various edits to this page, mentioning both support and rejection of the theory. My edits directly mentioning supporters were quickly reverted, saying they were a fringe minority (this concerned the majority of homeopaths and Luc Montagnier). I have reverted the deletion of this text, but have not added it again. Negative edits were accepted without quibble. The second contentious edit concerned an absolute statement that was not supported by the cited sources. My edit was quite minor (changing '...not accepted by the scientific community.' to '...generally rejected by the scientific community' to reflect that the claim was largely rejected, barring a few, but notable, exceptions), but even the word 'generally' was considered as too supportive of the minority view. The most cursory search reveals multiple supportive opinions, including notable members of said community, and even the cited sources mention supporters. I subsequently changed the wording to '...refected by the scientific consensus' (without 'generally'), but again this was too much to ask. This was the only edit after the warning, and it was clearly an attempt at a compromise. I had previously asked for discussion on the talk page (twice), but my edits were reverted without comment. When comments eventually came (only after my last edit), they were limited to telling me to stop editing and placing the burden of proof on me. I have provided sources for my statements, but no arguments or sources were forthcoming from any other editor. A lot of WP policies were thrown at me, but no tangible sources. The current statement is not an accurate reflection of the cited sources and contravenes the requirement of verifiability. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The accuracy or compliance of Rainbowwrasse's edits with Wikipedia policies (other than WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO) is irrelevant to WP:3RR claim, and not very relevant to an WP:EW claim.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So in your view the accuracy of an edit is irrelevant as long as you can aggressively revert it without proper explanation, avoid discussion and then get an edit war accusation lodged before the other person does? Doesn't that just give carte blanche to people trying to force their own personal opinion on an article? You could just always revert any new content and then cry 'edit war!!' if someone dares to question it. All the better if you can get a couple of other editors behind your cause. My edits were accurate, correct and well sourced, so there was no rationale for deletion, besides just saying 'I don't like it' and 'someone else also doesn't like it'? On a more personal note, I would appreciate if you would refrain from referring to me as 'he', thanks. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. After I saw this report, I asked Rainbowwrasse to comment here and to agree to stop warring to avoid sanctions. As you can see above he did not do so. His statements give no evidence he is willing to follow our policies. It seems to be a dispute with him on one side and everyone else on the other. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a clear 3RR violation, with one edit after the warning, but I don't agree that she "did not do so" -- she commented here, and did not revert further on the article, but rather discussed on the talkpage.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing that the original report merited a block, but my offer on R's talk page was an 'escape hatch' to avoid the block. I requested a promise to stop warring. Since R. did not give such a promise, I felt that a block was justified. Merely ceasing to revert was not enough to accept my offer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Akbar Khan89 reported by User:Ksmdr (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:A very disruptive user, making unconstructive and controversial edits. Addding a totally unrelated image from Lahore, Pakistan, in the Afghanistan history template. Explained to him that he's wrong but he doesn't wanna listen.Ksmdr (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Ksmdr was also violating 3RR, as they also rv'd more than 3 times. This also seems to be a COI issue here, though I could be wrong. LikeLakers2 (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I only reverted 2 times. Akbar Khan89 made 4 reverts. Yes, you are wrong. The Rohtas Fort image he adds to the Afghanistan history template has absolutely no connection or relation with the history of Afghanistan. He is insisting that it stays even after I explained that it is in Pakistan and the person who built that fort (Sher Shah Suri) was born in India and he did not rule over any place in Afghanistan but India. I added the Buddhas of Bamiyan image to the template, which goes well with the history of Afghanistan, but he keeps removing it. Akbar Khan89 lacks knowledge about the history of 1500s Afghanistan, he is making up nonsense reasons to make this image stay but more importantly it looks like he doesn't care about 3RR rule.Ksmdr (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear edit-warring, plus evidence of similar behaviour previously on this article and others. Editor has been edit-warring against multiple editors and appears to justify this with summaries like "let's discuss this - after I've reverted to my preferred version". Black Kite (t) (c) 09:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:LittleJerry reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned numerous times on talk; blocked for edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is not a 3RR report, but an edit warring report. LittleJerry has been disrupting a number of "conservatism" articles. He has been warned several times, editors have made repeated attempts to discuss issues with him, but he continues to be disruptive. He was recently blocked for edit warring at Sean Hannity.

In the particular instance he is removing links from the preiminent Conservatism template and was reverted by two different editors. I asked him to discuss these changes, so what does he do? He opens a discussion at 12:08, reverts at 12:09, and then canvasses a sympathetic editor at 12:16 (times PDT). – Lionel (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So why doesn't the reporter, contribute to the discussion. Rather than report edit warring and give he blocked so he can simply revert back without responding on the talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly edit warring again on the template. He has declined to cease the activity.  Kuru   (talk)  14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:27.32.147.4 reported by User:Berean Hunter (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6


 * Warning left before the user's last revert which they ignored


 * attempt to discuss on my talk page which I've moved to the article talk page.

Comments:

This is a longstanding issue which is in the archives of the talk page as well as on the talk page itself. People want to reason without reliable sources that what was reported in sources could not have taken place. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:Dinkytown (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [user:Arzel] User has been warned here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Arzel had been edit warring on the same section in violation of the 3RR rule with at least two other users. The content was sourced by several citations, but he reverted the entire section. His statement of his "first edit" was a deletion of a previous editor's established work. After warning that he was in violation of the 3RR rule and was edit warring, he left this message on my talk page here claiming that he was not in violation, and that I should "Learn how to count." <b style="color:blue;">Dinky</b> town  talk  06:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only does DT not know how to count, he did not notify me of this submission. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also started the discussion after my second revert. The first edit was after an editor split up a long standing section into subsections.  After this I noticed that the section I removed didn't fit, and I gave a perfectly rational reason for removal.  I then reverted it twice after both returns did not address the fundamental issue.  Regardless, it is clearly not a 3RR violation and DT submitted this after already knowing I didn't violate 3RR.  Arzel (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the fourth revert needed to claim a 3RR violation. Kuru   (talk)  14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Unnithan1956 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Unnithan1956 - see comments below

Comments:

The cited content which has been removed has been discussed at great length over a period of several weeks on the article talk page. There are numerous threads, there were reports at ANI etc. This particular person appears to have a problem with NPOV, which is not uncommon on article about the castes of India. Starting yet another article talk page discussion seems to be somewhat pointless after the many recent ones. It is effectively an SPA as their edits relate only to articles about the Nair community and have generally been unconstructive. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 24 hours. Editor did not break 3RR, but he is edit warring over the same material for two or more weeks. One of the books cited in the Nair article is by the scholar S. N. Sadasivan, about whom Unnithan1956 makes this comment on his own talk page:"The cock and bull stories of Sadasivan would have found a naive publisher in Delhi. But contains only a clever mixture of false statements and secret wishes.. It does not qualigy to be a book. Please remove all refereneces to this book."Our article on Sadasivan describes him as 'an Indian author and theorist of public administration', who at one time was a professor in New Delhi at the Indian Institute of Public Administration. In the above diffs Unnithan1956 is shown to be removing reference to Sadasivan's works, including one called 'The social history of India.' Unnithan1956 has never posted at Talk:Nair to give his rationale for removing the Sadasivan references. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dragonbooster4 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 72 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: See Talk:Hyderabad, India.

Comments: Yes, I know that the warning is in a weird place (a third editor's talk page), but similar things have been said in other places as well; plus, since the user was previously blocked for violation 3RR on a different article, they are well aware of the rule. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear reverts at 13:48, 11:37 on the 18th and 14:13 on the 17th. The edit at 15:00 on the 17th is a revert as well (same as the one he performed at 19:32 on the 16th).  Warnings are to make sure a new editor is aware of the rather obscure rule; this editor clearly is.   Kuru   (talk)  15:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:207.210.33.3 reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by another user, and by myself

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

Comments:

Ip user is changing article content and sourcing it to a personal website, while simultaneously removing reliably sourced information with reliable references. They have yet to use an edit summary, the article talk or answer messages at their talk. They were warned by an admin (link provided above) and have since went well beyond 3RR.  He  iro 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 23:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Hoodoo22 reported by Fleet Command (talk) (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:30, 11 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444169580 by FleetCommand (talk)")
 * 2) 19:33, 12 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444443896 by FleetCommand (talk)")
 * 3) 17:06, 15 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 444525157 by FleetCommand (talk)")
 * 4) 17:20, 17 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 445225651 by FleetCommand (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

This user constantly adds linkspam/advert to the article, violating WP:NOTADVERT. Refuses to communicate back (in case I am wrong) and has an interest in conflict. Has received enough warning. Fleet Command (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 23:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Should my FUTON bias Talk page post be deleted?
Dear Administrator,

I don't yet wish to make a formal complaint, but several users have been deleting my contribution to the Talk:FUTON_bias page, as you can see via the edit history. They are not willing to discuss the substance of my post but attack it as a 'rant' which it cannot possibly be, in my opinion. I have been doing research on reliable-source support for my unpopular (on that page!) point of view, but I am not ready to edit the FUTON bias article page just yet. In the mean time, why shouldn't other prospective editors see what I have to say thus far? I don't believe the deleters are justified in their deletions under WP:TALK, but I will allow this to happen if a neutral observer with no emotional investment in the issue and experience in what may and may not be erased from Talk pages, so advises.

I have never contacted an Administrator before so I don't know if I am approaching this correctly. I assume I just return to this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring page for your response but if not please leave a message on User_talk:Blanchette.

Thanks for your help. —Blanchette (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, to be clear, I'm not an administrator - but I'm sure that one would say much the same thing as me. Article talk pages are there to discuss improvements to article content, not as a general forum for debate about the subject of the article. Your comments about 'reality bias' were thus off-topic (and incidentally insulting to Wikipedia contributors). Personally, I would have collapsed the section, or archived it, rather than deleting it, but per WP:TPO 'Refactoring for relevance' this is acceptable. If you wish to address biases in Wikipedia (of which I'm sure there are quite a few), this isn't the way to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you misunderstood the purpose of my contribution, AndyTheGrump. This may be my fault, but perhaps someone who understands what I was driving at (to call for inclusion of reliable sources that disagree with the assumptions of the article) will defend not the content of my comment, which you also criticize (as "insulting" — I disagree) but its relevance and right to be heard. As I see it WP:TPO supports me. Of course I don't wish to be the judge of my own case. —Blanchette (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanchette, you first added your comment about 'reality bias' to Talk:FUTON bias here, last May. Since then you've been warring off and on to keep that comment on the page. The other editors on the talk page feel that your post is off topic and unhelpful and they've been removing it. (Part of it looks like a rant against Wikipedia). The simplest way to end this dispute is for you to stop restoring the material. You were at 3RR the last time you tried to do this, and I urge you to go no farther. (You restored it last about one hour ago). If you feel that your paragraph has permanent value why not put it on your user page. If you restore this material again you will most likely be blocked. The edit warring *policy* applies to all pages including talk pages and restoring your own comment is not exempt under WP:3RR. WP:TPO is a guideline, not a policy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, EdJohnston, for answering the question I came here voluntarily to ask. I have not, of course, been "warring" -- I merely honestly believed my post belonged under the rules of WP:TPO. Since you disagree of course, I will delete the post. Please know that I value Wikipedia, I do not "rant" by any definition I know of, and please remember, assume good faith. WP:AGF —Blanchette (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a neutral non-administrator. I've never heard of FUTON bias before and still don't know what it is because I didn't even look at the article. I've never heard of you before, and I didn't check to see which editors removed your comment because it does not matter anyway. The only thing I read was your post, and indeed, it is clearly an off topic rant and has no place on the article talk page per WP:TALK. I would have deleted it, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. —Blanchette (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RonaldMerchant reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:43, 18 August 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 23:53, 18 August 2011  (edit summary: "restore alternate spelling with source")
 * 3) 23:54, 18 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* History */  restore sourced material in history and precursors")
 * 4) 01:04, 19 August 2011  (edit summary: "it's also sometimes considered more correct, as it is spelled this way in French")
 * 5) 01:08, 19 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 445593577 by Yworo (talk) i already explained it in the note; stop edit warring")


 * Diff of warning: here

Note: Edit 1 restores material added by this editor on Aug 15 so is a revert; edits 2 and 3 are a partial revert; edit 4 is a revert, edit 5 is a revert.

—Yworo (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:56, 18 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 445374912 by Yworo (talk) unreferenced, but correct; paternak, etc")
 * 2) 01:17, 19 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 445592860 by Yworo (talk) i win")
 * 3) 02:39, 19 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* Armenia */  you can verify it by using Google Scholar. 3-0.")
 * 4) 02:56, 19 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 445606020 by Yworo (talk) why don't you stop being lazy and use Google, instead of deleting vast swaths of useful information?")

—Yworo (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * He's playing games. He made 3 full reverts, as did I. RonaldMerchant (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Admin should note Yworo is now HOUNDING all my edits across Wikipedia, including re-inserting unsourced material, such as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotch-Irish_American&diff=prev&oldid=445597468 (famous figures, such as Elvis, being supposedly "Scotch-Irish"). Yworo is exhibiting a BATTLEGROUND mentality and ought to be warned or sanctioned. RonaldMerchant (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yworo has been warned here. RonaldMerchant (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * RonaldMerchant is clearly trolling. Please note these edit comments, "i win",  "i win again". Looks like RM has the "battleground mentality". I'm just trying to fix the intentional problems he's caused in articles, such as calling a publication group "fringe" without sources. Take a look through his article edits and you'll see that a number of them seem intended to provoke somebody. Do I hear a duck? Yworo (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Those responses are a result of you HOUNDING my edits and exhibiting a BATTLEGROUND mentality. Leave me alone. DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERSRonaldMerchant (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Minimally involved editor here, I'm inclined to agree with Yworo.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ain't that a surprise. Minimally involved? Hah! RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What was that for? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted one of his edits, I guess that's what he's "Hah!"ing about.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 02:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who shouts "DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERS" (verbatim, and his full caps) is no newcomer. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This guy is edit-warring and baiting on editors' talkpages while being reported for edit-warring on Espresso and just a few days after being blocked for edit-warring on Genocides in history. I mean what does it take? Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 02:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what it takes - HIGHLY INVOLVED EDITOR - leave me alone, don't HOUND or HARASS me, and I won't respond. Every one who has been polite to me, has received polite responses. People trying to bully me because I'm new. But sorry, I'm not impressed by templates and noticeboards and such. RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't shout slogans at me. Your comments Your surrender is graciously accepted speak for themselves. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  02:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not new, as is shown by for example your use of templates. Or maybe you are new, but your fluency with templates shows that you are a fast learner and thus are no less (or more) biteable than are old lags like me. Now, where and how do you want to contribute? (Me, I've been busy with Felice Beato.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I copy and pasted the same templates Yworo posted on my talk page! Isn't that obvious? LOL! RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yworo is now edit warring here. Challenging my citation - which is easily found in Google Scholar (and JSTOR). 4 reverts in slight over 24 hours. Still, he's barking up the wrong tree. RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yworo is now writing "i suspect citation is fake" on all my edits. LOL. If this is not a BATTLEGROUND mentality, what is? RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, this user turned out to be a sockpuppet of AFolkSingersBeard and was subsequently blocked indefinitely. See Sockpuppet investigations/AFolkSingersBeard. Yworo (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good job everyone. Also great admin work throughout this case. Few cases work so well here but this is a good example. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Newzpaperman reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Repeated removal of some well sourced arrest information, restored by several different editors.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor is now discussing their concerns with the article at WP:BLPN.Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:98.27.74.206 reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * (first two by 66.51.147.57, last 6 by 98.27.74.206)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: before the most recent revert (8th above)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User refuses to use talk page despite me specifically asking him to do so on his user talk page (see link above).

Comments:


 * These 8 reverts are spread over the course of about a week, so it may not meet 3RR strictly, but this user shows absolutely no sign that they intend to let up; they characterize everyone elses edits as "vandalism" and have refused to discuss the matter on the talk page, despite being specifically invited to do so. I would have blocked him myself, but I reverted him twice during this spree, so I just need another admin to look this over.  The most recently used IP has been used for over 48 hours, so I don't think it is all that dynamic; however since this user has used more than one IP address, a semiprotection AND a block may be needed, but anything to slow this guy down would be appreciated. -- Jayron  32  00:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 02:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Gise-354x reported by User:Collect (Result: One Week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  first state of this editor's edit 22:31 18 Aug


 * 1st revert: 22:53 19 Aug
 * 2nd revert: 23:24 19 Aug
 * 3rd revert: 23:50 19 Aug
 * 4th revert: 00:18 20 Aug

Also reverting on all related articles e.g. 23:15 19 Aug

00:32 20 Aug

And so on

Note:  shows him with a 1RR problem on a Climate Change article. shows that he is now well aware of what counts as a revert. shows a WQA complaint. shows how he responded to the complaint.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: with response of
 * Someone can't count it seems. File the report im not aware of any wrong doing, Dude 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: etc. with response of  etc.    shows a problem in acceptabce of WP:BLP and WP:RS

Comments:

This relatively new user seems determined to avoid collegial editing (no other editor on the talk pages has backed his insistance that he knows the Koches created the Tea Party, etc. I gave him more than ample time to self-revert, and got the unhelpful response asking me to file the report. So I am doing so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded All attempts at not not biting by a fair amount of editors to explain both why the edits are being reverted and why the edit warring behavior At Climatic Research Unit email controversy, an article under 1RR sanctions, the behavior was so egregious that pretty much any 20 or 30 minute chunk of editing is a 3RR violation, and there are several chunks like this in a 24 hour period. That is, violating 3RR even on a 1RR-sanctioned article, and too long to list fully. I chose not to report based on WP:BITE, but the inability of this user to accept a mistake and move on requires community action. --Cerejota (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Cerejota is doing here, he filed a sockpuppet involving me, yesterday and overall shows only unfaithful behavior. And today he follows me it seems and comments everywhere i talk with others about wiki edits, in a none neutral way. Cerejota please discuss issues you might have with me in the respective topics, ty. Gise-354x (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did 2 reverts after Collect removed new additions to the wikipedia including new content, a new section and updated, improved content. Parts of what Collect claims above are not reverts. For a better clarification i suggest you look directly at the history here, the last 4 edits are from me and Collect.

I tried to explain and was seeking consensus on the talk page here. But Collect kept on pretending that the wiki edit from me is about living people and i have unreliable sources. However the content in question from Greenpeace, was already part of the wiki before i started editing it. So im not aware of any wrong doing and understand that Collect follows an agenda to systematically prevent updates to the fossil fuel funding from Koch's. Further without prior contact with him his first comment on a wiki talk page where i asked a question, his response has been uncivil, see here.
 * He replied there quote: The problem is that you know 'what ain't so'. You ascribe specific ulterior motives to a person who is not the "creator" of the Tea Party, which rather means all else of your syllogism fails. Cheers. Collect
 * Other edits i made earlier to the wiki have been reverted mostly by the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bonewah, but he did not deleted my entire attributions so i did not undid his actions. Im not aware of any wrong doing and i can only count two revision reverts i made. Gise-354x (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You had been previously apprised that "revert" covers any change undoing even part of another's edits.  You are at 4RR in a matter of a couple of hourrs - well beyond the 3RR in 24 hours standard, and you refused to self-revert when told of this.  You were told by a number of editors about the restrictions on Climate Change articles, and appear to have greatly exceeded 3RR on articles with a 1RR limit - Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The changes i made to the other wiki content has been content which was older then 24h. Why don't you check your facts before you start your accusations and unfounded reporting. It almost feels like witch hunting here you guys clearly have an agenda as i mentioned above. Gise-354x (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Will you please agree to limit yourself to 1RR per article per day from now on? Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you before, the content you revert can be years old. The 24 hour limit is for your reverts. It is also a bright line, so even if not 3RR, you can be considered a disruptive editor anyways and blocked. Any admin who gives attention to this case, besides the well beyond proven 1RR and 3RR issues in multiple pages, please note the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues around bright-line 1RR and 3RR. Claiming not to understand multiple attempts at explanation by multiple editors, is at the very least a failure to have the comprehension skills to be a good editor. Lastly, if you feel you are being stalked or followed, rather than your misbehavior being monitored, feel free, as I have already told you, to go to WP:ANI and complain there. Poisoning the well doesn't work around here, in which the evidence speaks louder than any words, and the vidence here is damning.--Cerejota (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at his talk page. How many editors have explained this to him? Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I cant speak to any climate change articles, but he is getting somewhat combative on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family and Talk:Koch Industries. Nothing too egregious, but he could stand to tone it down a ways. Bonewah (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 02:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Hobartimus reported by User:Omen1229 (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:12, 18 August 2011
 * 2nd revert: 12:59, 19 August 2011
 * 3rd revert: 23:00, 19 August 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User Hobartimus permanently deletes informations with References. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that more than 3 reverts needed to justify any report here. Additionally, Omen1229 was in a violation of 3RR on the very article a week ago ,because of which he was obliged to receive even an Arbitration Enforcment Warning . However, in spite of what happened to him last week, he did a personal attack on the talk page of the very article yesterday afternoon, saying that "This paranoid user judges others by yourself. He hates all Slovaks, his edits (about Hungarian-Slovak articles) are evidence. This user is web programmer and I think CoolKoon, Hobartimus, Nmate, Fakirbakir... are same person." --Nmate (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That was not "personal attack", only reaction, because CoolKoon said first: But despite that it's pretty pointless of Omen1229 and his meatpuppets...1 --Omen1229 (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ????????--Nmate (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit is interesting 1. Banned user VinceB had similar IP address (195.56.207.194)2 3 4 --Omen1229 (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd. I do not know who VinceB is ,and it is still a personal attack by you. And your evidence shows that VinceB and I live in the same city ,which is the capital of Hungary. Insufficient for requesting a checkuser, but you are free to fill a request for that purpose if you so wish. Has this anything to do with edit warring when it was not even me who was reported here by you? Nor were you able to fetch  4 diffs about reverts within a period of 24 hour on a single page.--Nmate (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User: Wanderer602 reported by User:Germash19 (Result: both blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: User returns original research. The template "citation needed" to this text existed since april 2010.


 * Adding a note here that User:Germash19 has not - despite of repeated requests from several users - argued his points (regarding this or his other contested changes) in any talk pages. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not truth. On a theme of casualties no one of users who deleted my editings ( User:Wanderer602, User:Jaan, User:Peltimikko, User:Whiskey) has written nothing for 3 months in the section created by me on talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germash19 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, User:Illythr posted a rebuttal on that topic see archives furthermore the same topic was again discussed in slightly different context however you said nothing related to adding casualties to the list then - see discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I can say that Wanderer602 does act like he owns the articles related to Finland's wars; he reverts anything he does not like right away, including well sourced information. If he does not revert, he modifies others' edits with his original research. He does discuss the issues but discussion with him often goes in circles. This makes it very difficult to improve the articles and make them more neutral. -YMB29 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you claim with absolute certainty that it is OR while so far you have been alone with your claim in this regards. Besides that issue was and still is being discussed in the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With you, it can be discussed for months and nothing will change. You still refuse to accept that what you are doing is OR. And don't claim that I am the only one who says this when this is not the case. But the issue here is your edit warring and I can confirm that you often do edit war when you don't like an edit another user makes. -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article's history shows that both editors have been edit warring against each other for the last few weeks, and both have violated WP:3RR in the last couple of days. I'd strongly suggest dispute resolution here. You might want to start with asking for additional editors to comment via WT:MILHIST. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:208.40.217.130 reported by User:StAnselm (Result: 48 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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


 * Diff of warning: here

—StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Starbucksian reported by User:Loonymonkey (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:

Comments:

Editor is unilaterally edit-warring by adding contentious and poorly sourced material to a WP:BLP. Additionally, some of the material they are adding is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, also violating WP:BLP. I have removed the material and discussed the issues, but the editor simply reverts, sometimes within minutes. This is not strictly within 3:RR, as one of these edits did not all occur within the last 24 hours, but there is no doubt that if I or another editor were to remove the material again, they would revert immediately (and violate 3:RR). I'm not going to do that as it would appear to be baiting them into breaking 3:RR and would reflect poorly on me, even though allowed under WP:BLP). I would prefer to let this be handled by uninvolved administrators. (actually, editor has since violated 3:RR as well)  Thanks.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clear that it is User:Loonymonkey who is edit warring, not I. It is also clear from a look-see at his contributions that he may also be in violation of WP:SPA, given his long editing consists only of editing on matters political. Other users have gotten involved on the Lee Fang page and found my edits to be helpful. As is apparently common with User:Loonymonkey, he is trying to use his edit summaries as somehow indicative of a talk page. After he pointed out what he perceived as problems on the talk page, I changed my edits to try and establish WP:consensus. It is he, not I, that was involved in reverting. It also appears odd to me that other editors have been more than willing to engage in WP:consensus and have found my edits constructive. I wonder why User:Loonymonkey doesn't want to. I'd be more than happy to talk to administrators about this. Thanks.Starbucksian (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this editor understands what an WP:SPA is. If anything, they fit the bill as they have made few edits outside of that article. Further, they continue to revert other editors on that article who are pointing out the same problems. WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP have been explained.  And now they seem to be stalking me, even going so far as to revert me on my own talk page. Some outside assistance would be greatly appreciated, I'm going to step away for a while.  Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You're both edit warring, but Loonymonkey hasn't stepped over the 3-revert line and has the better argument that his side is supported by a policy known as WP:BLP that's considered an exception (and other policies like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SYNTH, although those don't justify edit warring). Sorry I didn't caution you about that on my talk page.  Folks, if you look at my talk page I think Starbucksian is a good faith editor who is sincerely trying to learn the rules here.  Perhaps some guidance and patience are going to be more constructive than a formal application of the rules.  Starbucksian, the way things work here you have violated the reversion policy and you're likely to be blocked short term.  There's a chance you can avoid that if you promise to slow things down and not make any more changes to the article within the 24 hour window (and please don't edit war after that, even if you feel someone else is edit warring... it takes two).  Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikidemon, there's words and there's behavior. He might have said on your talk page that he wants to learn the rules, but that doesn't stop him from reverting every time you or someone else removes that highly contentious material. You offered the same explanation as I did for why that material doesn't belong and yet he still reverted you. As for edit-warring, removing BLP violations are, by definition, not edit-warring, any more than reverting vandalism is. It's hard to see how anything short of a block will stop this behavior given that he still doesn't even acknowledge it was wrong. --Loonymonkey (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I created an account a few days ago and already I have edited more topics outside of politics than you have in several years of edits. If you look at the page, it is User:Loonymonkey who is the deletionist and WP:Burden should fall on him to explain where the WP:BLP violations are. I've been working with other editors and he alone has consistently reverted back to what he thinks the page should be. He doesn't discuss at all, but merely edits and uses the edit summary. He also assumes that the WP:BLP has actually been violated when there is no evidence presented. I've been more than willing to seek WP:Consensus as User:Wikidemon can attest. As for stalking, I think that's patently ridiculous. The last thing I wrote on his wall was an apology! Sheesh! WP:Good faith is apparently ignored. That said, I'd be more than happy to take a breather from the Lee Fang page, but I think User:Loonymonkey should, too. Thanks to User:Wikidemon for helping me out. Thanks for the help. Off to edit something a little less controversial, like say, the Rape of Nanking.Starbucksian (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None of that is true, as the edit history show, and you're basically just shouting "I didn't hear that!". You've been unilaterally reverting anyone who removes this material (myself, Wikidemon) and ignoring the explanations for why you can't insert original research or unreliable sources in a WP:BLP. You have yet to respond to any of that.  And again, please read WP:BURDEN. It's states very clearly (in bold type so it's hard to miss) that the burden is on you as the editor adding or restoring contentious material to get consensus (which clearly won't ever happen for BLP reasons stated multiple times). Under the rules of WP:BLP that material must be removed immediately, but I don't feel I should let myself get splashed with mud, and you'll just revert yet again anyway. I'll raise the issue at the noticeboard and let another editor remove it.  But what then? You still don't seem to even recognize what the problem with your behavior is. You say that you're going to "take a breather" but what will you do as soon as an editor removes that material again? Will you run back and revert to reinsert it?  Clearly administrative intervention is necessary here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There wasn't a 3RR violation here, but Starbucksian was continuing to add material to the article despite concerns about his or her changes to it on the article's talk page, which is edit warring. All participants in the discussion on the article's talk page should use dispute resolution if they are unable to reach a consensus view on how to develop the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)