Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive166

User:Dbpjmuf reported by User:DWC LR (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The same thing has happened at Andreas Fürst zu Leiningen. I have asked and asked this user to please go to WP:RM and make their case for such a move which goes against naming conventions WP:NCNT but to no avail. - dwc lr (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I count 4 reverts for you and 3 reverts for the user you are reporting. The first link you provides does not count as a revert as he was the one making the move in the first place, not reverting anyone else. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 18:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have probably reverted more than four times as they added a PROD I objected so removed it they put it back about twice. I asked this user to go to a RM in a edit summary and on their talk page. They are not seemingly not interested. If they want to move this article I am more than happy to discuss this in through the correct channels, a WP:RM and look over their argument but like I say they are seemingly not interested in doing this so I really I don't have many ways of getting through to this person. I am showing with the diffs disruptive editing when the user was asked to go though the correct procedures. - dwc lr (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:The Gnome (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  (16:32, 18 August 2011)


 * 1st revert:  (06:10, 19 August 2011)
 * 2nd revert:  (08:06, 19 August 2011)
 * 3rd revert:  (18:23, 20 August 2011)
 * 4th revert:  (23:27, 21 August 2011)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

Comments: The reported violation is in line with Xenophrenic's display of presumed ownership of the article on Karrine Steffans, as indicated by previous, extensive disrupting editing and inflaming discussions on almost every issue related to the article subject (link) (link), and as shown by the unilateral, one-sided decisions he takes on issues while they're still been discussed.

-The Gnome (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Four reverts over a three day period, with never more than two in any 24-hour span. The complaining editor introduced an edit to this BLP 4 days ago; it was reverted, and he has been re-inserting it repeatedly ever since without addressing and resolving the concerns raised about it.  Regarding the complaining editor's comments about "ownership", "extensive disrupting editing", "inflaming discussions", etc., I would be happy to address them in the proper forum — I look forward to it, in fact. @The Gnome:  It would be appreciated if, in the future, you would notify your targets of these posts. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. Please use the talk page to reach consensus. Intense disagreement over somewhat minor points is disconcerting, but is not yet fast enough to constitute an edit war. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment. If you guys think there are any actual BLP issues that need solving, present the matter at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

AceD (talk) reported by reported by Computer Guy 2 (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: AceD (talk)

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * As posted in the previous edit war complaint, the edit war is continuing - this time with another 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 (again) three times by User:AceD.  I have refrained from an additional reversal to avoid being in violation.  Please refer to my previous edit war complaint, which has now been archived.


 * I posted this proposed neutral (and brief) revision of the paragraph on 19 August 2011. No responses were posted by 22 August, so I posted the revised paragraph on the article page.  Shortly thereafter, User:AceD reverted the revision without attempting to reach a consensus.  Since then, User:AceD has reverted the edit three times within 24 hours.  I've been attempting to initiate a rational discussion of the issue, but have been met with an emotional diatribe - without any form of rational discussion of what specifically should be included in the paragraph.  User:AceD threatened to continue the edit war as follows:  "I have reverted this edit accordingly, and will continue to do so...."  This is not the Wikipedia way.


 * I make every attempt to provide verified citations with my posts in order to provide authoritative content for Wikipedia - only to be continually overridden by by this editor (and his predecessor - 71.226.23.207) who seem to want to glorify Mr. Clark's action rather than objectively report it in the context of his agency. Your assistance is urgently requested.      Computer Guy 2 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ksmdr reported by User:Akbar Khan89 (Result: protected for 72 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:A very arrogant type of editor. Who is using mis-information. I am reporting this user now because i was blocked before from editing. Because he reported me for 3RR, when he himself was also involved in 3RR, as mentioned above. Than in his report on me, he falsely claim that he have only made 2 reverts, After that User:LikeLakers2 reports of COI issue. And he also falsely claim that i don't care about the 3RR rule, when he at himself doesn't care about the 3RR rule (as the 4 reverts are mentioned above).I has added the picture of Kabuli gate of Rohtas Fort, which is build by Sher Shah Suri, an Afghan/Pashtun of Suri tribe from Ghor (Afghanistan), who was born in Sasaram, India and ruled from Kabul to Bangal. And his famous GT Road exits also from Kabul to Bangal. Akbar Khan89 (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I did not violate the 3RR. The diffs are from different days. Adding an image of a fortress in Lahor, Pakistan, which is on the other side next to India, to the Afghan template is ridiculously wrong and very controversial. Afghans and Pakistanis generally don't like each other. Sher Shah Suri was born near Bangladesh in eastern India and he ruled India for 5 yrs before he died in an accident. The fortress has no relation to the history of Afghanistan, and Sher Shah Suri is considered "Indian of ethnic Pashtun origin". The Afghan history template needed an image that goes well with the history of Afghanistan and I've added a great shot of one of the Buddhas of Bamiyan taken by someone in 1977, which I believe is excellent because not only it's located in central Afghanistan but it presents a true Afghan historical scene where so many people from far distances used to come visit the site. It was something like Mecca in Saudi Arabi. Since the Taliban destroyed the statue at least we can keep it alive in encyclopedias, books and on the internet.Ksmdr (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This level of edit warring doesn't justify any blocks, especially as there's a discussion underway at Template talk:History of Afghanistan. I'd suggest asking uninvolved editors to comment on this through the relevant Wikiprojects and making more concise posts on the template's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I found this a wrong decision, because I was blocked for the 3RR rule and he did made at least 3 reverts within 24 hours. And this is except from his at least 3 time of picture changes. And I cann't belief that I got blocked for 31 hours and he is getting nothing! I found this ridiculous, injustice, unfair and members unfriendly!


 * Below is a list of at least 3 reverts within 24 hours (the night of 16 to 17).
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:


 * below is a list of picture changes within 24 hours.
 * 1st change
 * 2nd change
 * and enough more edits are made, please visit the history of it.


 * What I want is that he must be also blocked since I was blocked for the same issue. And else I want a excusse from User:Ksmdr or someone who have blocked me, must say sorry to me because of blocking me for a ridiculous, injustice and unfair issue (since one is blocked and other can freely edit pages, I found this ridiculous, injustice and unfair). Akbar Khan89 (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did review the history of the template, and I don't think that the frequency of reversions and other edits from the various editors involved in this warrants anyone being blocked. As such, I've made the judgement that protecting the template for 72 hours to encourage dispute resolution is the best option. Please try to reach an agreement on the template's talk page, and use the other parts of the dispute resolution process if that doesn't work. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

I reverted a newbie edit this evening, before I had a chance to explain my actions User:Medeis reverted to restore the text again. I have tried to explain to User:Medeis that the information is dated and incorrect and contradicted by information already in the article. He has chosen to revert war and is using 3RR to impose content. 3RR is bright line that is supposed to prevent edit wars, not to be used to force incorrect information into an article. I won't be reverting again today as that would be in violation of 3RR but really this is a stupid thing to edit war over and Medeis isn't listening or using talk as he should - as an experienced editor he should know better. See he has ignored my suggestion to avoid edit warring and discuss the matter. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that (1) there is no fourth reversion, (2) I am the one who began discussion on the talk page, (3) the additions have proven largely supportable, and I am in the process of adding the needed refs,  and (4) the complaining editor's argument about DNA evidence arguing against a South American connection is odd since, (a) no such genetic claim was made by the disputed additions, and (b) the DNA evidence adduced in the article shows the South American Maned Wolf to be the animal's closest relative.


 * I invite the complainant to explain his current objections on the talk page, assuming his still has any. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note User:Medeis continued to revert after the talk page discussion had started. He still isn't listening and is ignoring information already in the article.  Definitely not following the WP:BRD cycle as claimed.  Also seems to have recent block for 3RR, and I invite him to remember that 3 reverts is not necessary to violate 3RR.  What is necessary is stepping back from edit warring and not using 3RR as a trump card.  Plainly he has not learned from previous block.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Continued to revert" only describes the OP's actions. I modified the material to remove inappropriate claims and provided sources to back it up.  The OP's response was three identical wholesale reversions and a threat to file an AN3  rather than to explain his objection, which is still unclear, given that he quotes a source describing the "South American Maned Wolf" to complain that the animal should not be said to be related to other South American canids.  Searching my history to find a block which was immediately reversed (he does not mention this) is the height of bad faith.  I suggest the OP be warned to focus on bettering the article rather than wikilawyering.  I am unwatching this page.  If admins have questions I request they comment on my talk page.  μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation. Only three reverts are listed by the submitter. Medeis' original reverts to defend the new but poorly-sourced material do appear to be edit warring. But then he did a lot of work to merge in the material, fix duplication, add some references and repair a copyvio. The parties are now having a reasonable discussion on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional Comment See and, Medeis actually edit warred to keep text that was a copyviolation. I was in the process of checking when he edit warred to re-instate that material. Using 3RR to impose content in the way he did shows he doesn't understand the policy and in this case he allowed a copyvio to persist. After checking the OP's other contributions, they all seem to be copyvios. I do believe a warning was warranted for using 3RR as a trump card as this really is not what 3RR is about. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Cush reported by User:Hashem sfarim (Result: Reporting user Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

There's no call for what's this editor been doing. It's mendacious fighting, edit-warring, POV, bias, and false accusations. And he just violated 3RR. I'm writing here because I see that he won't be reasoned with or talked to. He has a history, from what I can see, of POV-pushing, false accusations, projection, bias, bullying, hostility, and blatant edit-warring.

I know that he already has a pro-"Yahweh" bias. He reverted three times now the edit on erroneous grounds. (On the "Crossing the Red Sea" article) In his one of his edit comments he said "weirdest possible transliteration" when that is blatant POV, and simply not true.  "Jehovah" is not a weird transliteration, and saying that it is is just a matter of opinion. It's an established rendering, and in major Bible translations. And is already in many WP articles. (It's NOT the "weirdest possible translation"...as it is the logical and established Anglicized rendering with "J" in English, and in major Bible versions, otherwise call "Jacob" by the word "Yacov" to be consistent.) It's true that most WP articles have "Yahweh", but not all. He seems to accuse others of what he himself more guilty of. The POV and bias here is all his. And it's obvious. His bias against the rendering "Jehovah" is clear. And is on faulty and just POV grounds, nothing more. There are scholars on both sides of that rendering. There's no valid reason to remove that simply because of "WP:I Don't Like It". No valid reason to revert or tamper with that edit, as it was accurate, good-faith, and sourced. Only vandalism or real inaccuracies, per WP policy and recommendation, should be "reverted". (And there was no "vandalism" on my part, so that's a false accusation.) I told him to please stop edit warring...or take it to this article talk. Instead he just reverted again, and wrongly accused me of "vandalism".

I only reverted twice, not three times. There was one "edit" there I did that was NOT an actual "edit". If you click here here you'll see that it was just a non-edit, simply to make an edit comment in the revision history. There was no "reversion" (or anything) in that specific one. So I only reverted twice, not three times...like he did.

Cush reverted clearly three times in a 24 hour period. here... 22:33, 21 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,504 bytes) (there was no need to change the deity's name to the weirdest of all possible transliterations.) here... 09:27, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446121644 by Hashem sfarim there is no need for the renaming. please do not unnecessarily change the article to promote some POV. if you want a change please discuss it first.) and here... 09:42, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446124503 by Hashem sfarim you changed the article without discussion. stop your vandalism!)

So you see there. That's three reverts in less than a day. That's a bright line, and he's in violation. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the lack of formatting, etc, at not only did not breach 3RR (although he's at it) at Crossing the Red Sea, it was Hashem who first made the change to Jehovah. He was then reverted by RossNixon who has an entirely different pov to Cush. Hashem reverted to his version, then Cush reverted to what I think was the original (Yahweh). There's been no attempt to discuss this at the talk page, which I think is Hashem's responsibility as he wants the change and has been reverted by two editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have attempted to discuss this at talk. My remarks are there too.  As well as on Cush's talk page.   Yes, RossNixon did a revert days ago.  But it was about other matters as well, regarding referencing, which was fixed.  Cush's agenda is to push "Yahweh" only and exclusively as a rendering, and has made blatantly POV remarks against the "Jehovah" rendering, which are not valid or true.  Also, I'm not sure how you say that he has not violated 3RR when I showed exactly how he did 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Hashem sfarim (talk)

Addendum: so you're saying that a violation would be going beyond 3 reverts in a 24 hour period? In other words four reverts? Ok, if that's the case, I wasn't sure. I was under the impression that the violation is at 3 reverts within a day. But edit warring, as we know, is more than just that. And I did say in my last edit to "take it to talk". But instead of doing that, Cush simply reverted me again. Hashem sfarim (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I may have mistaken the timing of your post but you should have started a discussion on the 19th, when RossNixon reverted you with an edit summary explicitly dealing with this issue - he wrote "Jehovah -> Yahweh (more widely used current transliteration)". This is a content dispute and 2 editors disagree with you but you've continued to reinsert it which might be seen as edit warring on your part - you should have stopped and tried to get some agreement on the talk page. In any case, editors should be warned when they make 3 reverts, but 3 reverts is the limit. If they continue to edit after they've been warned, that is the time to report them here. Cush wan't warned nor has he made a 4th revert. -- adding, post edit conflict, I see that you understand 3RR isn't the violation, but you were the one who should have taken it to talk after being reverted by two other editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but I see from what you wrote to him that you believe that Cush should have brought it talk himself, also. Which he never did.  Even when I made the remark in the edit comment "bring it to talk".  Instead of doing that, he simply reverted me again. And at the very least hit the "bright line".  Also, his edit comments were blatant POV, erroneous, biased, and mendacious.  And also, accusing me of "vandalism" was not called for here. Hashem sfarim (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Throughout Wikipedia Yahweh is the name used when dealing with the biblical deity, especially in a neutral context that is supposed to be inclined neither towards Judaism nor Christianity. Jehovah (deriving from Latin respelling of the mame in Greek) is a dated rendition of the Tetragrammaton, and its occurrence in the KJV is irrelevant since that is one of the worst Bible translations available. Yahweh is also closer to the transliteration/-scription/-lation of the deity's name in other languages.
 * What is important is that the article has existed for a long time using Yahweh as the biblical deity's name and there was absolutely no reason to change its use in the article to Jehovah. It would have been Hashem sfarim's responsibility to explain the change on the talk page.
 * On another thought it reallky would be time to get rid of this pointless stub article and merge it into to Exodus article. This article has been troubling us for the last 5 years. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 11:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are scholars on both sides of that, and calling the KJV "one of the worst Bible translations available" is just an opinion. I'm not a KJV Onlyist at all, and I know it has some inaccuracies in it.   But there are more inaccurate versions than that.   Plus, it's not just in the KJV.  The R.V. of 1885 contains the form of "Jehovah".   The A.S.V. of 1901 contains the form "Jehovah".   The NEB also, etc. Also, you miss the point about consistency.  "Jehovah" is the Anglicized form, with the "J" in English.  And also the Tetragram being four consonants would have been tri-syllabic originally.  So it's been argued by some scholars that "three syllables" should also be in modern forms.  Jehovah fits that bill.  As well as preserving the four consonants "YHVH" or "JHVH".   Also, "Yahweh" is not consistent with how other names in the Bible are rendered.  We don't call "Jacob" "Yacov" on Wikipedia.   Or "Joel" as "Yoel".   Or "Jeremiah" as "Yeremiyahu".  etc.   So let's be consistent.


 * Anyway, the main point here was not for debating that issue here necessarily, or your blatant POV and pro-Yahweh and anti-Jehovah bias.  But whether you violated 3RR or not you still edit-warred.  As 3RR is not the only way to edit war.   Whether I was totally perfect in how I handled this or not, you still edit warred here. Dougweller does not seem to think so, I'm not sure.  If, according to Dougweller, violation of 3RR is not simply going at 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, then ok. I thought it was.    According to what he said, it's going beyond 3 reverts in the period.  Fine.


 * My apologies if that's the case, for that.  But you still edit warred, in my opinion.   And were blatantly POV and wrong in your remarks in the edit comments.  Accusing me of "vandalism" was also mendacious and foul.   Also, when I said "take it to talk", instead of doing that, you simply reverted me again. So regardless of 3RR violation or not, you still edit warred and carried on POV. Hashem sfarim (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hashem Sfarim, you have been pushing that change over the last couple of days: diff, diff, diff, diff. You have been reverted for that over and over. Clearly there is no consensus for that change. I suggest you now find consensus on the talkpage, and only apply that change again when that consensus is found (preferably, let an editor, uninvolved in this dispute, determine the consensus and apply the found consensus). What you are doing here is trying to win an argument via bureaucracy and getting opponents blocked. This is just edit warring from your side, and whether or not the bright red line is crossed or not, your language and behaviour is inappropriate, discuss the issue in a civil way on the talkpage. Consider this a last warning. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * even if I was not perfect, are you gonna say that what Cush did was "civil" and with "appropriate language".  And that he did not edit war at all?  By going right to the "bright line", and after I said "take it to talk" he instead simply reverts me again, without going to talk at all.  And also accusing me of "vandalism"?  That was "appropriate".  Even if I was not totally perfect in this, I was not the one who reverted good faith and accurate edits simply because of "I don't like", nor did I accuse anyone of "vandalism".   I mean, really, was that "civil" or "appropriate" for him to say? Also, I was not reverted over and over again, except by Cush.   The other editor the other day let the situation go, after my edit comment.   Again, Cush went to the line, and arguably was edit-warring, I told him to take it to talk, he ignored that, but reverted me again.  I brought stuff to talk, and I simply utilized the mechanism that Wikipedia provides to resolve disputes and problems.  I first went to "incidents". I was told to come here instead.   Again, Cush used words like "weirdest transliteration" and "stop vandalizing".  That was "civil" and "appropriate language"?  You have singled me out here on this why?   Cush was anything but civil, cool, or appropriate in language or otherwise.  Yet I get this harsh lecture from you, "warning" me, for simply trying to voice my concerns and issues that page, and he gets zero warning. It doesn't seem fair. For his inappropriate unwarranted and POV remarks, and constant revertings in a 24 hour period. I'm wondering why that is. But it would be nice if you could answer those questions. About those specific things he said and did, and how was that totally "civil" on Cush's part. Those were not just rhetorical questions. And I really try hard not to edit war or violate clear WP policy and standards, but I'm always learning. Thank you.Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * — Satori Son 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I consider myself warned, although I received no warning tag on my talk page. But what is with all the stuff that Hashem sfarim left on 2 user talk pages as well as the article talk page in question? Who will clean that up? &#9798; CUSH &#9798;
 * Actually, that was Hashem Sfarim who was warned by Beetstra above. Sorry for the confusion. I'll take a look at Talk:Crossing the Red Sea. The users in question are welcome to clean up their own talk pages. — Satori Son 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:74.15.228.233 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Keen but presumably new editor doing a large number of minor improvements to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. However their enthusiasm for adding links has perhaps got the better of them and they're now past useful links and WP:REDLINKS into WP:OVERLINK. I've reverted and opened discussion on their user talk:, but no response. As I'm now up to 3RR, I'd appreciate it if someone else could please take a look.

History is pretty clear from the article history. As there are only two of us active on it today, and their edits are numerous and fragmentary, it's probably easiest to see the disputed links from my reversions of them: Also see my comments at their talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine
 * Mine
 * Mine


 * Just reverted further overlinking, I've never seen so many wikilinks being added in any article. If this persists a block maybe the only way to stop this. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, now started at Grease (film). Wee Curry Monster talk 16:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Noting EdJohnston's additional warning, has continued in the same vein, overlinking and adding incorrect links. This is a funny sort of vandalism but I regret to say that only a block will stop it.  Bowing out as I'm also at 3 reverts and don't wish to risk a block.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * minutes after my last revert! Wee Curry Monster talk 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with lots of links, to a level that many editors would probably regard as overlinking. I certainly repeat links between sections (which is per policy, although it's forever being reverted by others who haven't actually read the policy). However this editor is not only "over" linking, but they're "bad" linking too. Anytime that a word can become a bluelink, they add it - whether it's the same topic or not. If I wanted this sort of simplistic auto-behaviour I'd still be using Meatball wiki or C2. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Towerblock reported by User:Jerchel (Result:31h)
. Editwar in the article International Commerce Centre. Account has been registered some months ago and now starts an edit war, first via IP-adress (some days ago), now using this account. The user insists that the building contains 118 floors, but 108 is true. I added two reliable sources: International Commerce Centre and ICC. I tried to explain the situation at the talk page several times why is 118 is incorrect, but user continues to restore his value. Jerchel (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I have issued a warning to Towerblock on their talk page, as none had been given yet. I will defer to another admin on further action if needed. -- Kinu  t/c 15:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He should stop removing reliable sources liks CTBUH. CTBUH is always used in terms of skyscraperss as source. Jerchel (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you discussed this with him on the article's Talk page? Or, conversely, has he discussed it with you? That's the first place to go in order to gain WP:CONSENSUS. Should that fail, seek dispute resolution. In the meantime, has been given a warning regarding WP:3RR, so other eyes are on the situation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the two sources and I have explained why those sources give this number I wrote in the article. I have some blueprints of the building that prove the posted sources are correct, but I can't upload them (I do not have premission to upload floorplans here). If Towerblock wants to see the blueprints, he has to request at CTBUH (I have given the contact information at the talk page) Jerchel (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and blocked Towerblock for reverting again after I issued the warning above. Given the use of this single-purpose account and various IPs to remove sourced content, Towerblock's actions seem to fall under the category of disruptive editing to me. -- Kinu  t/c 16:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:89.250.157.71 reported by User:Rafy (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

The user is clearly trolling by adding a thread with absurd content in order to generate comments.--  R a f y  talk 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:97.87.29.188 and User: 99.19.47.119 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 22:26, August 22, 2011
 * 2nd revert: 22:42, August 22, 2011
 * 3rd revert: 23:10, August 22, 2011
 * 4th revert: 04:55, August 23, 2011 as 2nd IP
 * 5th revert: 05:45, August 23, 2011 as 2nd IP

All reverts uncollapse the section, and indent the start of the section by two ":". Some have other incidental changes

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Well, the 1st IP warned me about 3RR some time ago. The 2nd is from an IP pool, unlikely to have any history.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved, here. I only made one revert.

Comments: The first IP is more-or-less stable. There's no point in blocking the 2nd, he's gone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: First IP blocked 48 hours. The second one is probably the same person, editing through another provider, but that IP looks too dynamic to bother with. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dzlinker reported by User:Omar-Toons (Result: Both 48h)
Page:

User being reported: previously known as

Previous version reverted to: (as of Aug. 8th)

* edit: 7th revert:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: diff summary: "Dead talk" (then he considers that since nobody's agreeing, nobody's opposing!)
 * 5th revert: diff summary: let's wait until u get a support (a support to go back to the former version awaiting for a consensus by discussion!)
 * 6th revert: diff summary: "An obstacle to progress"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see below)

Comments:

While the discussion is ongoing on the Template's talk page (Template talk:History of Morocco), is trying to impose his own version (which isn't a standardized "Region history" template) despite the only thing on which everybody agrees is that the lists should be collapsible ; that seems to be a JDLI case. I made a second template, by integrating all the remarks expressed by the users who participated to the talk (Template talk:History of Morocco), then I tried to convince him that we need to discuss that before changing the whole template, but I got a personnal attack as an answer. Now the discussion is ongoing but keeps reverting to his own version, while I try to get it back to the old version while discussing which one of the "modified" versions we should take.

Note that this user used to edit templates and articles despite the fact that discussion is ongoing and that his versions aren't gaining support by other users, as he did in the article Berber people (edit history and talkpages).

Omar-Toons (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The consensus made on this template is about to make a collapsible one, so it doesn't take as much space on articles as it does now (tp). every one agreed, and then arrived this guy who is searching for an already done consensus. The reason: He didn't like the layout as he say on this tp (in spite of this policy DEW), so he made his own layout (which is a massacre since the text is bolded (it makes it hard to read) and some links doesn't work at all, otherwise it would have been accepted).


 * the talk is not on going as he says the last pasted message dates 2 or 3 days ago, i since posted 3 messages asking for some interaction with watchers no one seems opposing but this current user who just doesn't like the layout, which is no reason for repetitive undos. so i putted the new template back.


 * NOTE: This user have already been blocked for disruptive edits as seen here, and he still continue on this path.


 * Besides this user is an every day reverter to my edits. it's his best part of contributions on wp.
 * as seen here this guy have no thing to do with team work or consensuses, since he impose his pov refusing even to discuss it!! here are some of those unacceptable and undiscussed edits:            and many others. he insists every time on symbolic edits and never contributed effectively on any article.


 * Dzlinker (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: Both blocked 48 hours. Only Dzlinker reached four reverts, but Omar-Toons is at 3RR and he is the other side of the edit war. Both have previous block history – Dzlinker's is under his former account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:ZHurlihee (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

While there were not 4 undo’s in 24 hours, Xenophrenic has timed his edits so that they barely fall outside of the 24 hour window. There has been no clear reason for the undo’s and there was a general agreement in the talk page that the material should be included in the article. While looking at another articles Xenophrenic has been recently involved in, a similar pattern emerges where undo’s or revisions are made so as just to fall outside the 24 hour window but still display the same gaming of 3RR.


 * Please show a little good faith, ZHurlihee. I've never "timed my edits" to "game 3RR".  I only have a few windows of time per day when I can edit Wikipedia, so my edits line up during those times.  The "generally agreed to material" to which you refer has indeed been included in the article, and isn't the reason for my recent reverts.  My reverts were to your unexplained deletions, instead; deletions you haven't explained in either edit summaries or on the talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * As for the above 4 diffs, there are no violations there. Those were edits made pursuant to the related discussion results on the BLP/N noticeboard.  Please review the O'Keefe section there and you'll see. I hope that clears things up. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I don’t want to see anyone blocked, this aggressive and confrontational behavior needs to be curtailed. Thank you. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I also don't want to see anyone blocked. ZHurlihee, especially when working with BLP articles, it is a very good idea to explain your edits on the article talk page - this is even more important when your edit has been reverted.  Warring to keep contested edits in an article is never appropriate. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Admins: As Zhurlihee has noted above, there have been no 3RR violations (and he listed the same Diff twice). Further, what he misunderstands as "confrontational behavior" is only my adherence to BLP policy with regard to edits of a controversial nature. I won't be making further edits to the article; I would request that ZHurlihee do the same, and suggest he engage in discussion of his proposed edits rather than just repeated reverts.  The article isn't going anywhere. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is edit warring and tendentious, and I certainly hope an administrator will see that and take whatever appropriate steps are necessary. Good day. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing anything except waiting for your input on the matter on the discussion page. I'm no longer editing the article.  I see you are willing to come here, but you won't visit the talk page and discuss your edit with me - which has me a bit baffled.  Even if an admin protects the page, we will still need to resolve any existing disagreements. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. I see six reverts by X since 20 August and five by Z, though the 3RR rule was not violated. If either party reverts again in the next 24 hours, sanctions are possible. You should be aware that a WP:Request for comment could be opened. I don't see that anyone's reverts would get a BLP exception from being counted against 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention to this matter. By way of clarification, I cited my adherence to BLP policy not as justification to exceed 3RR (where a more obvious BLP violation would be required), but as explanation for my stronger than usual insistence that those controversial edits be better sourced and justified.  Something the other editor mistook for "aggressive and confrontational behavior". Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ism schism reported by User:Debresser (Result: No Violation)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Ism schism has only today started to comment on a broad discussion related to the word "Palestinian", and apparently disagrees with me. He seems to try and pick a fight with me. I asked him both on the article talkpage and on his talkpage to not do so, and also to not engage in edit-warring, but he seems bent on steering this into a conflict. I prefer to report this now, to prevent likely escalation. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I miscounted, but you made the exact same number of reverts as Ism schism, correct? Is there some reason why his or her reverts constitute edit warring but yours do not?  nableezy  - 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. But there is the fact that 1. another editor has also made the same edit I have, which should have shown Ism schism that this is not a matter of incorrect POV, but of his edit being wrong. 2. I have opened a talkpage discussion, where I have shown clearly that according to Wikipedia the term I revert to is the one that needs to be used. 3. I have called repeatedly upon Ism schism to be more polite and to refrain from edit warring, but he has shown that he wants to conflict, while I try to convince. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Ism schism has had the bad taste to post a warning template on my talkpage, after I had informed him of this discussion on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Many editors have tried to communicate with Debresser about this issue. The AFD was lost, and now there is and edit war. This should stop. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what I said on this editors talkpage. He is new to the subject, has not read all the relevant discussions, only the Afd but not the Rfc or the Cfd, and now he thinks that this specific edit is just another part of a large conflict. Which it is not. Apart from the content-issue, which he does not seem to understand, we just really do not need a lonely knight here. Debresser (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have noticed that this noticeboard is not only for violations of the 2rr, but for all edit-warring. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also please see Ism schism talkpage, that he recently has been involved in and warned for another three edit war. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Palestinian rabbis is under a 1RR or 2RR editing restriction? If so, where?  I am more than willing to block users who engage in long-term edit warring, but the diffs you provided do not point to any long-term disruption.  I'm willing to reconsider this decline if you can provide new evidence. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that article is not under any edit restrictions I am aware of. I do see a pattern of edit-warring for Ism schism, as I have referred to above (see his talkpage). For the moment though, he seems to have stopped, likely because of this very thread. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Break

 * I changed the above irresponsible and unproductive retroactively added sub-header to “Arbitrary break”, but Debresser has reverted.
 * Indeed, in this edit. This whole subsection is an unproductive smokescreen, and full of false claims.
 * If you want evidence of edit warring, look no further than Debresser's recent edits to medieval Palestinian rabbis. Time and again he reverts usage of the word "Palestinian" in these articles, even after consensus has been gained., , . Chesdovi (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a veteran admin has already said in a WP:ANI discussion I opened against you in this regard, Chesdovi, there is a difference between protecting the project from massive non-consensus edits like yours and being the one who is pushing these non-consensus edits. In addition, your comment is out of topic, just as Ism schism zealousness was. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Example: Menahem Lonzano:
 * Creation 2008:, Lonzano is called a "Palestinian Masoretic and midrashic scholar".
 * Nov 10: IP removed Palestinian
 * April 11 Chesdovi add category “Palestinian rabbis”:


 * Debresser removes it:
 * May 1: SD re-adds category:


 * May 11: Debresser removes again:
 * June 11: After a month and a half of debate Chesdovi re-adds cat:


 * Debresser Immediately removes:
 * After successful Afd, Chesdovi links “Palestinian rabbi”:


 * Debresser reverts:
 * 10 days later after consensus is reached at wikiproject, Chesdovi re-links:


 * Debresser straight away reverts: . Chesdovi (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See my post above about massive non-consensus edits by this editor through all namespaces. Chesdovi is raising a smokescreen of irrelevant posts, proving only his own POV-pushing. In addition, false claim of consensus for non-consensus edits. Debresser (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe Debresser should explain what he thinks consensus is. There were 6 people invovled with the word Palestinian on this page. Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, SD and Chesdovi opted for the term, while an IP, a blocked sock and Debresser removed it. That is besides all the other editors who have edited the page in-between and have left the term, (Sbowers3, Attilios, FeanorStar7, מרכז מידע הר הזיתים, Davshul, Ulric1313, Dsp13.) So if I do my math right, that makes 10 against 1. Still no consensus? Chesdovi (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Medeis reported by User:Richrakh (Result: One Week)
Page: List of federal political sex scandals in the United States

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert, 12 June:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert, 28July:
 * 8th revert, 28 July:
 * 9th revert, 28 July:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:

Plus twelve more reverts between 4 August and 23 August


 * 26th revert, August 23: #

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion page diffs:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

I am reporting Medeis because he:
 * 1) Uses edit panel instead of discussing on talk page.
 * 2) Gives multiple reasons for multiple edits at once without discussing any individually.
 * 3) Fails to respond adequately to discussions on talk page.
 * 4) Violated the 3 revert rule on 28 July.
 * 5) Ignores consensus reached in discussion.

Regardless of the validity of his claims, Medeis makes it impossible to tell what he's getting at. If Medeis would make edits one at a time it would easy to discuss. As it is, he makes multiple edits for multiple reasons and leaves us to guess which reasons, (Synth, BLP, or Burden), goes with which edit. I suspect he knows this. A reasonable editor would select one item, remove the offending phrase/sentence/paragraph, give a reason why and move on to the next. Medeis is not a reasonable editor. I see that he has been called to the notice board several times before.Richrakh (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:AceD reported by reported by User:Computer Guy 2 (Result: Protected)
Page: User being reported:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: wiki/Talk:Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives Comments:

(Originally posted on 23 August and archived for a bad date)
 * As posted in the previous edit war complaint, the edit war is continuing - this time with another 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 (again) three times by User:AceD. I have refrained from additional reverts to avoid being in violation. Please refer to my previous edit war complaint on the identical article, which was recently archived.


 * Following BRD guidelines, I posted this proposed neutral (and brief) revision of the paragraph on the discussion page on 19 August 2011. No responses were posted, so on the fourth day (22 August), I posted the revised paragraph on the article page. Shortly thereafter, User:AceD reverted the revision without communicating or attempting to reach a consensus. User:AceD has reverted the edit three times within 24 hours. I've been attempting to initiate a rational discussion of the issue, but have been met with an emotional diatribe - without any form of rational discussion of what specifically should be included in the paragraph. User:AceD threatened to continue the edit war anew as follows: "I have reverted this edit accordingly, and will continue to do so....", while flaming and attempting to bully this editor to prevent my posting, and twisting statements of the administrator. This is not the Wikipedia way.


 * I make every attempt to provide verified citations with my posts in order to provide authoritative content for Wikipedia - only to be flamed and continually overridden by by this editor (and his predecessor - 71.226.23.207) who both seem to want to glorify Mr. Clark's action rather than objectively report it in the context of his agency. Your assistance is urgently requested. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Most recently, User:AceD has now resorted to personal name-calling, referring to this editor as biased, a hypocrite, whiner, complainer and liar - multiple times. Whatever happened to good faith?  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out:'''

1. AceD registered on 5 February 2006, made one post, then was silent for over five years.

2. Not until 9 August 2011 did AceD make 8 minor posts before immediately engaging an edit war and reverting legitimate edits by the undersigned. Since then, he has continued posting exclusively with this article, reverting no less than 11 times out of his 23 postings on this article. Many of the non-undo postings were also reverts.

3. The day before AceD began reverting this article, 71.226.23.207, who was engaging in an edit war on the same subject, stopped posting - after being warned. 71.226.23.207 has posted only one additional time since then (by accident, it appears), continuing AceD's discussion.

'''I submit that AceD and 71.226.23.207 are the same editor - utilized to continue an on-going edit war. I also suspect this is not the first sock puppet utilized by this editor. 71.203.85.14 is another candidate.'''

In good faith

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on this new information, I am going to return the paragraph to the concise form before AceD reverted it. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Fully protected two months. This is a very long running dispute between Computer Guy 2 and AceD. The latter may be employing IP socks to assist him in editing the article. The argument is about whether to include reports of misbehavior by individual members of this agency. and whether those reports meet WP:UNDUE.  Neither party seems willing to embrace WP:Dispute resolution. Consider a WP:Request for comment. I've imposed such a long protection in hopes that it will enforce dialog. If consensus is reached protection can be lifted. If there are good-faith editors out there who want to work on the article let me know and something can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good! Thank you! I look forward to any good-faith editors willing to work on the article. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:59.93.128.0/17 and User:Iluvkolkata reported by User:Minimac (Result:protected)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

For the 59 range
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Only for the account as I couldn't warn the IP range)

Comments:

Just to let you know that I am not involved in this war, but I have noticed that this is a slow-moving but long term edit war between an account and an IP range. I don't think either side has violated 3RR but there looks like a dispute whether a link should be added or not. Neither party is discussing this issue on the talk page. I bet that this page should be protected so that both parties would be able to use the talk page whenever possible. Minima ©  ( talk ) 12:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't normally like to protect pages for a two-person dispute, preferring instead to dish out blocks, but since we have a dynamic IP and since there don't seem to be many non-edit warring contribs recently, I've gone ahead and given it three days of full protection. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:131.220.166.92 reported by User:Favonian (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:

Comments:

Textbook example. Textbook result. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:LesnarMMA reported by User:Nroets (Result: 72h)
Page: John Varty Save China's Tigers

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

I'm not sure what this section wants. In essence LesnarMMA is preventing me to:
 * remove material that does not belong on Bengal tiger because the subject is John Varty and has very little to do with Bengal Tigers.
 * Add a sentence to John Varty saying Save China's Tigers is related.
 * Add a sentence to Save China's Tigers saying John Varty is related.

Bengal tiger:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Save China's Tigers
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

John Varty
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Is it really necessary ? He said in his undo comments he will be contacting the admins.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:LesnarMMA [Talk:John_Varty#John_Varty]]

Comments:

LesnarMMA could be a puppet of User:Donnie_Eep_Mun who was banned for vandalizing John Varty
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 01:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by 110.32.71.29 (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:50, 26 August 2011  (edit summary: "Getting rid of rumours, etc. - we don't need to include what an anonymous caller said to the 3AW Rumour File")
 * 2) 00:50, 26 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ Since no conviction was recorded, this is not appropriate here")
 * 3) 04:39, 26 August 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by 110.32.71.29 (talk): No - it's still not good enough - "became involved in an assault" is a loaded term - and "reportedly" is based on very flim")
 * 4) 07:17, 26 August 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 446772040 by StAnselm: The current form is unacceptable.. (TW)")
 * 5) 09:10, 26 August 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 110.32.71.29 (talk). (TW)")

—110.32.71.29 (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1)

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

Comments:

I'm not sure why StAnselm is insisting on removing what is obviously well sourced material.


 * Let's try discussing on the talk page first. I'm watching the page.  Next person to make a revert is going to be blocked.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Jweiss11 reported by User:Eustress (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:


 * The only violation is you abusing rollback. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to contest the the first edit (446761954) as being defined as a revert. While I indeed termed my edit "revert last 2 edits" that edit and the following (446762071) were an effort to bring the template to standards and update BYU's position.  The current "edit war", if you will, should be deemed to have started with edit 446810216 by Eustress and should stand at 2–2. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My post to Eustress's talk page should also be noted in this matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Nroets reported by User:China's Tiger (Result: No Violation)

 * Page:


 * Page:


 * User being reported:

There is an editing war going on with Nroets and many other members of the Wikipedia committee, Nroets keep editing and removing relevant information, huge chunks of them from the above stated page. Many users have tried to undo his edits, but he refuse to back down and led to editing wars. What is worse is that he is a Pot calling a Kettle black, complaining and asking his rivals to be blocked despite himself being one in wrong.

Nroets removed a fully referenced subsection, only to add 2 or 3 sentences of his own without references. I want to clean up and to just edit that subsection accordingly and has mentioned it in his talk page, but he just removed the entire subsection without valid reasons.

What he does is weird because the whole section and subsection has been there for over 3 years, just waiting for some minor clean up, and updates, however he is removing the whole chunk and adding his own little tales in it. How can the subsection be updated or clean up then? Can the administrators do something about this? He has caused another user to be banned just for trying to protect the page's integrity.

Bengal tiger:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Save China's Tigers
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

I tried warning him in his talk page, but to no avail.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute via the various article talk page, Bengal Tiger discussion page and Save China's Tigers Discussion page.

Comments:

NRoets could be a puppet of User:TigerAlert because what they edit is really similar.

China&#39;s Tiger (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that 'China's Tiger' (CT) has been reported on the COI notice board. His talk page says he has volunteered for Save China's Tigers (SCT). SCT's founders (Li Quan et al) has had a public spat with John Varty. CT has made allegations of fraud against Mr. Varty on the Bengal Tiger page. -- Nic Roets (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to resolve the edit war by removing material that John Varty's supporters may find offensive / misleading. -- Nic Roets (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As you mentioned, you are removing information which JV's "supporters" may find offensive. But does it make it untrue? These are information which have been sourced and information given. These seems to be the truth, and you are just hiding them by removing everything? Not just on wikipedia, but look at so many other websites out there on JV, there are still allegations out there that says his project is a fraud. JV's page has been highly biased since the beginning and these allegations, or counter-arguments can bring neutrality to an article, otherwise seems like an advertisement. I am just undoing what you did because they have been there for a long time, over 3 years, why are you suddenly purging all the materials away? These are information which can intrigue the public's mind. China&#39;s Tiger (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The truth is often difficult to establish. So at some point we just delete things that cannot be proven through credible sources (It is a WP policy). It is especially true where someone's credibility is at stake.
 * But more importantly, we are writing an encyclopedia. Things must be properly structured an relevant. John Varty is irrelevant to Bengal Tigers ! -- Nic Roets (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There are other sources out there, just not used as references. Surely you have done some research on your part regarding the subject matter, and knows that there are credible sources out there, why not help establish them or create a rebuttle? To just delete an entire subsection seems a little absurd, especially a subsection which has been there for over 3 years standing and is guided by multiple sources. JV is relevant to Bengal Tigers because he has claimed that Ron and Julie are Bengal Tigers for over 5years, he only recently admitted that they aren't. With that said, do you agree to stop reverting the edits? We can drop this, i have nothing against you. =) China&#39;s Tiger (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:69.171.160.28 reported by User:Hurricanefan25 (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Revert of Cyclonebiskit
 * 2nd revert: Revert of IP
 * 3rd revert: Revert of OptimumPx
 * 4th revert: Revert of same IP (Revert #2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Negative response

 HurricaneFan 25  14:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by Acroterion. Kuru   (talk)  17:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Vecrhite reported by User:Fluffernutter (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Note that this is a BLP and the user is repeatedly re-inserting information he readily states that he either cannot or will not source.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sole contributions are to edit war to add unsourced outing to a BLP; has specifically stated there are no sources and was warned several times. Blocked until he acknowledges BLP and 3RR. Kuru   (talk)  17:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:75.68.34.2 reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: While this user has not violated 3RR, he/she continues to change the flag icon without discussion despite reverts by User:Czolgolz and myself over a series of several days, a note on his/her User talk page, and a Talk page discussion in which he/she has chosen not to participate.

-Kudzu1 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All but one of this user's edits were reverted without explanation as far as I can determine and the only time a comment was made, it was merely a comment that "this has been discussed" with no link to any discussion in the edit summary or on the user's talk page (which only contains generic vandalism warnings). While people can be blocked even without violating 3RR (especially on this article which is in the scope of WP:ARBPIA), I think that before we block them they should at least be informed specifically why their editing is considered disruptive. Regards  So Why  18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (made after my 3RR warning)

Edit-warring in a style guideline to win a content dispute in Talk:Halley's_Comet. He changed the guideline to support his position and one minute later he opened the RM citing the changed guideline. In the talk page of the guideline he never mentioned that he wanted to change the comet examples or that the comet examples would allow him to win another related dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: it was discussed in a user page Comments:


 * The brief dispute with Trovatore last night was ended and discussed before Enric came along and inserted an error that I fixed in number 4. Only one edit was an actual revert, and all were in the spirit of finding an acceptable result, which was being discussed opening and calmly at the time on talk pages Talk:Halley's Comet and WT:Manual of Style (capital letters) and User talk:Trovatore. Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this report is an overreaction. I was kind of irritated with the sequence of Dick's edits, but he gave a plausible account of his thought processes and seemed to be aware after the fact that they could be interpreted differently than he had intended. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and then he reverted you again, making again changes that favored his position in the content dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 23:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:58.7.246.145 reported by User:NJZombie (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The user insists on using padded language and has been instructed several times, by myself and another user, that it is inappropriate. He lists no reasoning and is non-responsive when warned on his talk page. As of today, he has officially broken the 3RR rule with his fourth revert. NJZombie (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:08OceanBeach SD reported by User:Karnifro (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:16, 25 August 2011


 * 1st revert: 02:00, 26 August 2011
 * 2nd revert: 02:02, 26 August 2011
 * 3rd revert: 02:03, 26 August 2011
 * 4th revert: 02:14, 26 August 2011
 * 5th revert: 02:23, 26 August 2011
 * 6th revert: 03:16, 26 August 2011

The following reverts, althought not technically within the 24 hours period for 3RR, are evidence that he's both ignoring requests at the talk page to get direct inline citations and a warning by an administrator. He's well aware of the 3RR, please see below for

more explanation:
 * 7th revert: 18:18, 27 August 2011
 * 8th revert: 01:41, 28 August 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by administrator

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started by user Alex Covarrubia

Comments: A list of cities arbitrarily sorted was being alphabetically ordered to fulfill Wikipedia policy about NPOV and stop anonymous IP vandalism that consisted in altering this list. It was immediatly reverted several times by the reported user.

08OceanBeach SD does know the 3RR rule very well as he has been blocked for edit-warring with several users (including me) in the past. He aknowledges the 3RR rule in this edit summary which is evidence that he's trying to gamble the system, by stopping his edit-war and returning today to continue his reverts (see reverts number 7 and 8). He has ignored our arguments of neutrality to sort the list alphabetically and has not provided direct inline citations for the POV he's trying to support  Karni Fro ( Talk to me) 02:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC).


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rush2rush reported by Logan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:40, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "Vandalism attempts... edits stating "needing more info" added after user protested file deletion of Feloni image. Integrity is not being honored by certain wikipedia users. a few select user are trying to delete the page for personal reasons.")
 * 2) 02:56, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 02:59, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "attempts at vandalism by user Bbb23... unjustified modifications based on personal reasons by user unknown.")
 * 4) 03:03, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "undoing attempts at vandalism:")
 * 5) 03:15, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Logan Talk Contributions 03:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ronald Wenonah reported by Daniel (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 22:39, 27 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 446993619 by Daniel J. Leivick (talk)")
 * 2) 22:40, 27 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* Conservation organisations */")
 * 3) 22:44, 27 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* Conservation organisations */")
 * 4) 22:54, 27 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* Conservation */")
 * 5) 22:57, 27 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 447049444 by Fluffernutter (talk)")
 * 6) 22:58, 27 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* Conservation */")
 * 7) 12:47, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 447051907 by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk)")

User has been blocked twice before for edit warring. — Daniel 15:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty straight forward. Kuru   (talk)  16:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:79.97.144.17 reported by Muhandes (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:13, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid unexplained removal of cited material by DWC LR (talk)")
 * 2) 17:27, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "Do not accuse other editors of vandalism because you disagree with their edits. Read WP:NOTVAND")
 * 3) 18:24, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "restored reference")
 * 4) 18:40, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "Restoring references to reliable sources is not vandalism. Read WP:Notvand. Also, read the Defamation article as you seem to not understand what it is.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Muhandes (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment this IP’s registered account is as can be seen from this history where they make the same edit. - dwc lr (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any specific reason you haven't made any attempt to discuss this with the IP on the article's talk page, or any other talk page? Looking at the page's history, it appears to be a edit war stretching back to July with constant reversions on both sides, with no apparent attempt at a discussion by any party. - SudoGhost 21:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This all goes back to their unsuccessful RM where a huge discussion took place and where they wanted to deny his right to a title. The consensus went against them so they started to try and put doubt about his title in the article by saying he styles himself, so implying no one else styles him that way even though numerous sources have been added to show that is in correct and he is styled this way by reliable soucres. - dwc lr (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you show a link to this previous discussion? Even if it is likely that the IP is the user, discussion is never a bad thing, lack of discussion is.  The sources shown for that title seem to be primary sources, and if that is being contested, a primary source may not be sufficient, which is why discussion is important, to stop this constant edit warring. - SudoGhost 21:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk:Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) started by Dbpjmuf aka this IP. Recently the user moved Emich, 7th Prince of Leiningen, I went to them and asked them to go to WP:RM and start a move discussion. To me they don’t seem interested in discussion so that article unfortunately got moved back and forth I don’t know how many times and they never went to start a request move. They try to impose themselves against the outcome of a discussion or they avoid it all together as they know they won't get the outcome they want so they editwar. - dwc lr (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no proof that the user and the IP are the same, just a guess based on a similar edit. Also, that discussion was about a move, not content within the article.  So what's going on is, months ago, you discussed a similar subject with someone you think might possibly be the IP, but have made no recent attempt at a discussion of the edit in question, even though this has been going back and forth for over a month.  While the old talk page discussion covered similar subjects, the fact that you made no attempt at discussion about the substance of the edit makes you as guilty of edit warring as the IP, even if you didn't technically violate 3RR. - SudoGhost 21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not similar an identical edit. And the IP is awfully similar to a past known one. Current former Sockpuppet investigations/Dbpjmuf/Archive. Myself and the other users who have reverted this user are well aware it is Dbpjmuf and a checkuser has been filed by the two others. This IP has now made SIX reverts even after being given a warning yesterday! I didn’t even file this 3RR an uninvolved editor did. I think it’s clear what version is the consensus one without a new discussion but of course next time we can start a brand new discussion and rehash old arguments that we had gone through a month or so before and I doubt would make any difference to their behaviour. - dwc lr (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see one editor reverting three others with no signs of slowing down despite being warned. Indeed, the IP has even filed a report here before, so there's little chance of them not being aware of the problem. I don't see any other editors over 3RR at the moment.  Kuru   (talk)  22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn reported by User:Screwball23 (Result: page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012]

Comments: User:William S. Saturn had previously argued that it was "against consensus" to remove Jonathon Sharkey from the list. He sidestepped the issue again and again, and continued to revert the candidate. More recently, after he lost the argument, he has claimed that it should be added anyway, based on the idea that editors should wait for "future consensus".

Problem is that the reverts cover several days ... while Screwball23 has reverts within a single 24 hour period at 2:53,   18:21,   and 19:46 in short order on 28 August. That said, Sharkey is not anything more than a joke wth regard to being a candidate for anything at all, and should be excised on wP:BLP grounds anyway. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Screwball23 also is a repeat offender, having been blocked several times in the past for violating 3RR. Also, calling a candidate a "joke" is really just a statement of WP: IDONTLIKEIT. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um -- did you read the c.v. of Sharkey? I do not think any relaible source calls him a serious candidate.   presents the opinion of  Nick Stevens:  Jonathon ‘The Impaler’ Sharkey (or if you’d prefer to call him by his ‘Magikal Path’ name, Lord Ares) is a vampire, and clearly a creature you do not want to fuck with.   And I can find absolutely no serious articles discussing his candidacy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a weird one because of BLP concerns. We need to be treating each candidate with a basic fairness, no matter how much of a long shot they might be.  While still respecting WP:DUE, looking over the Talk page discussion, there seems to be a lack of clear consensus for what criteria you are choosing to include or exclude anyone.  In short, its a bit of a mess.  While I don't think William should be edit warring, it seems like other people are ALSO edit warring.  I'd say, include anyone for the time being who is or was a declared candidate, take this up the chain to a politics manual of style type discussion that is less partisan, so you can get a wider view.  The idea that polls and news outlets will decide the bare minimum of who gets listed on Wikipedia, when we have FEC filing records to rely on (for verifiability) seems inherently biased to me.


 * Solution: Stop edit warring, include all for now, take it to a better forum so this is consistently applied in future articles across Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's quite a bit of reverting going on from multiple parties; Salvio giuliano has fully protected the page - now would be good time to come to a consensus on the article's talk page.  Kuru   (talk)  21:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note:  at 20:16 shows a clear 4RR ... Is the "bright line" optional for Screwball23? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:117Avenue reported by User:Me-123567-Me (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: He's being difficult and claiming a talk page that has feedback from no one. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Me-123567-Me has been notified of BRD, but has refused to read it. 117Avenue (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any effort from either party to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. It also looks like 117Avenue stopped the reverting after the 3RR warning was received; the fourth revert likely overlapped the warning and was performed before the new message notice showed up. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His last revert was after the warning. And we started with his talk page, probably should have used the article page but we used his page. Not a big deal, he still violated 3RR. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After the warning by a scant 57 seconds. Hence my comment about the timing. Also, I'm not sure that all of the edits are full-on reverts; there seem to have been some efforts to compromise along the line. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He never tried to compromise. That was all me. And he's been around long enough to know the rule, even if the last edit was shortly after the warning. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And even attempts at compromise can count as reverts, per WP:3RR. Editor has stepped away from the topic, so I don't think a block will prevent any further disruption to the article, compared to taking no action. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He only stepped away because the article is how he wants it at the moment. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which does not give you license to break 3RR to change it back to your preferred version. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And he violated 3RR so it could be his version, not mine. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with what C.Fred said and did. Please start discussing instead of reverting one another.  There will be no leeway for the next individual in the dispute who makes a revert.   F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kayastha Shiromani reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (note the uncivil edit summary on this one)
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See various discussions on article talk page.

Comments: Note This is a general edit warring report, not a 3RR report. The user, who edited the page a lot earlier in the year, came back in August to find that very signficant changes had been made: specifically, sources were added, unsourced content was removed, content sourced to primary sources was removed, etc. The user insists upon reverting back to a much older version of the page that is not compliant with policy. Editor has been reverted by 3 different people, and has refused to discuss on the talk page (other than to simply say that he is right, and to give some non-reliable sources. Editor needs to be blocked to prevent continued disruption.  I'm not sure if a short-term block will work, since most of the diffs are about a week about, but it is technically a "first offense", so .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)
 * Note: 6th revert after EdJohnston pointed out the report here, with no attempts by editor to communicate here, on xyr talk page, or the article talk page, other than the edit summary on the revert of "malice just wont do". Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't realize that xe'd added a section below this; I'm going to change the heading level so that it's organized properly. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI I've just made another revert (my first) of Kayastha Shiromani on this page.  Them  From  Space  16:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To those who are against my version
A few fellow scholars seem to have based the latest version more on an exception(the sudra status, which I personally would like to be acknowledged by the Govt of India so that we and our coming generations get reservation benefits) than the general rule. How can you discount all of Newton’s Laws by quoting Einstein's. Well as for the secondary research of this article and claim to caste status. The following three are independent and extensive websites and here is what they have to say. As per my efforts I have unearthed refs to the Kayastha in books like 11th century rajatarangini among others. If after reading the two articles, you still find mine lacking in quality to yours then check your grades!


 * The Sanskrit dictionary at Hindunet.org defines Kayastha as follows:
 * ''ka_yastha, ka_yata a man belonging to the writer-caste; a tribe of bra_hman.as whose employment is writing (Ka.)(Ka.lex.)


 * BRAHMINS  by vedah.net is an arcticle on who the brahmins are and the various sub-groups of Brahmins. The Kayastha Brahmins are mentioned at sl.no. 15 (in alphabetic order).
 * The Brahmins : A List of Brahmin Communities  is an extensive list prepared by Kamat.com of all Brahmin communities in India. Kayastha Brahmins are mentioned (in alphabetic order).

And I do feel an undercurrent of malice, in the statement made by a few, who say that these sources are unreliable, what would constitute as reliable in their veiw seems to be their view itself. Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Kayastha Shiomani, first of all, none of this excuses edit warring. 3 separate editors have said that there are significant problems with your version.  At this point, you are required to stop reverting and discuss the issue on the talk page.  If after that discussion we still disagre with you, then you can take this issue through dispute resolution.  That being said, if you care, I'll tell you one more time: those sources are not reliable sources, based on our guidelines, not just my opinion, but the fact that self-published websites simply never qualify as reliable sources unless they are published by people who are already proven to be exprerts in the field.  Furthermore, the version you're reverting to supports most of its claims through the use of ancient religious texts--these will never be reliable for "factual" information in Wikipedia.  We can sometimes say "The Puranas say X", but even then we must be very careful to only state literally what they say--no interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR.  But, again, this is all stuff you must discuss on the article talk page. Given that you were notified of the edit warring rule, told by an uninvolved admin there was a report here, and still reverted anyway says to me that you need to be blocked, at least temporarily, to prevent further disruption (editing against consensus). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I should say that you are basically a well meaning guy with only one shortcoming, i.e. not much respect for the identity of others. As far as the quotes from puranas and manusmritis are concerned, these very same were presented in a British law court in India for the very same reason which is a bone of contention between us. The court took them as reliable sources to decide on the varna status and the decision was 'Kshatriya'. So the likes of us dont have much scope to be choosy with them when the righteous English Courts can accept them as relevant!Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 48 hours for long-term edit warring. User gives the impression that they are going to keep on doing their thing regardless of any feedback. Check out this personal attack in an edit summary: You dear sir are a little piece of coal in the world of vast knowledge of which I am the Kohinoor. Look at my edit history. What is a person of such wonderfulness doing in a run-of-the-mill place like Wikipedia that just wants neutral articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User: 97.87.29.188 and 99.119.128.88 and 99.181.138.168 and 99.181.139.210 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:



Previous version reverted to: [] <- Not sure I showed what template wants me to show here.

FIRST, note that 48hr 3RR blocking for IP 97.87.29.188 expired at 23:45 on Aug 25
 * [48 hr 3RR block for IP 97.87.29.188 entered Aug23 at 23:45]

SUBSEQUENT 3RR violation
 * [First revert]
 * [Second revert]
 * [Third revert (as IP 99.119.128.88)]
 * [Fourth revert (as IP 99.181.138.168)]
 * [Fifth revert (as IP 99.181.138.168)]
 * [Sixth revert (as IP 99.181.139.210)]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ''I only used tag text and edit summaries as shown in the diffs above PLUS this is the same behavior that just earned the IP a block this week. What more warning could I have added?'

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

Comments:

On 8-27-11 ~ 03:41 I collapsed several news-aggregation type of posts which lacked specific ideas for improving the article. These had been posted from the following IPs.


 * 97.87.29.188  <--- At this time this appears to be the main IP, which is registered to the Kalamazoo Public Library.
 * 99.181.138.215
 * 99.35.12.88

Each of the reverts simply un-collapsed the news aggregation threads. All seven of the IPs above track back to Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo Michigan area. The main IP appears to be 97.87.29.188, and appears to be spoofing the other IPs to engage in a revert edit war less than 48 hrs after coming out of a 3RR block. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

76.175.193.153 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP address user at 76.175.193.153 clearly has a conflict of interest - and he is clearly making edits to this page—and others—solely to promote himself and his work. Additionally he has made edits to replace valid sources with URLs to his self-promotional page on the web such as this one and this one and even this one. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I count three reverts. The IP's first few edits to the page are additions, not reverts.  Subsequent edits to the page are reverts however.  If the IP makes another revert, please make another report, or leave a note on my talk page.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:90.199.34.136 reported by User:Puffin (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff]


 * 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 and user talk page.

Comments:

User has already been blocked for edit warring before.  Puffin  Let's talk! 10:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Lambanog and User:WLU reported by User:TransporterMan (Result: )
Page:

User 1 being reported: User 2 being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (I would note that there was one prior  and, but both were by the same editor and could not in my opinion be considered to be edit warring, though they kind of presaged what was to happen later. Moreover, the EW could arguably be dated to an earlier date as a EW over a section POV tag, but it moved to one over an article POV tag at this point.)


 * 1st revert: introduction by Lambanog
 * 2nd revert: removal by Belg4mit
 * 3rd revert: restoration by Lambanog
 * 4th revert: removal by Ronz
 * 5th revert: restoration by Lambanog, who subsequently made changes to cure what he perceived to be the POV issue and removed the tag he had restored, followed by reversion of Lambanog's changes by Yobol
 * 6th revert: restoration by Lambanog
 * 7th revert: removal by WLU
 * 8th revert: restoration by Lambanog
 * 9th revert: removal by WLU
 * 10th revert: restoration by Lambanog
 * 11th revert: removal by WLU
 * 12th revert: restoration by Lambanog
 * 13th revert: removal by WLU
 * 14th revert: restoration by Lambanog
 * 15th revert: removal by Ronz; I gave a warning to all editors on the article talk page after this removal
 * 16th revert: restoration by Lambanog
 * 17th revert: removal by Yobol
 * 18th revert: restoration by Lambanog; I reiterated my warning at this point, clearing up an ambiguity in my initial warning which might have suggested that it was okay to continue the EW if DR broke down
 * 19th revert: removal by WLU
 * 20th revert: restoration by Lambanog
 * 22st revert: removal by WLU

Diff of first edit warring / 3RR warning: Second notice:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As above

Comments: I am only involved in this as a neutral. This is reported as a general edit war, not as a 3RR violation (though some 3RR violations may have occurred, though I haven't looked at that. The POV disputes with this page have been discussed extensively at the POV noticeboard at least twice. An attempt at DR was made at the DRN but failed. WLU argues here that this is the result of tendentious editing by Lambanog, but I express no opinion about that except to say that edit warring is not the way to solve it. I only include WLU and Lambanog as reported users because only they continued to revert and delete after my second notice, but others could arguably be included as well.

— TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Other areas where this has been discussed includes:
 * DRN, starting August 14th, 2011
 * NPOVN, starting April 22nd, 2011
 * NPOVN, starting August 9th, 2011
 * RSN, starting March 12th, 2011
 * In addition, there is an extensive set of discussions at talk:coconut oil in the archives. Every section starting here, and the Questionable content section in archive 3, as well as the current NPOV tag section on today's talk page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made different edits trying to improve the article and have built it up in various ways with a variety of information. I have tried various tags as well to show the multiple errors that the article has.  The result is basically the same: removal or reversion to a version with clear factual errors.  In my opinion the editors blocking my edits are effectively acting as indiscriminate censors blocking me from editing, displaying a level of article ownership with the implicit message "YOU CANNOT EDIT HERE".  They are not looking at the quality of the edits.  They seem to behave like this over multiple articles with various editors. They do not build articles, but acting like a pack, tag team individual editors on different articles. At  a couple of other editors commenting on a different article share my experience. One also sees there WLU's penchant for hiding stuff.  Many noticeboards have been approached for outside opinions but unfortunately little in the way of meaningful suggestions have been provided.  I would note that without my persistent editing the article would contain less information because when outsiders have bothered to engage, WLU was compelled to compromise and add stuff that I had originally contributed but had earlier been blocked.  Lambanog (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ownership can go both ways, such as by continuously adding tags and information against a clear consensus. In my opinion much of the grief in the article revolves around issues of how much weight to give ideas about the health value of coconut oil.  Weight issues are tricky, requiring both a grasp of the sources and one of wikipedia's more nuanced policy (neutrality).  Lambanog appears to believe that saturated fats are healthy for you, and adds this idea to several articles.  Quite naturally, an editor noticing the same (in their opinion) error being added across several articles would then go on to correct those articles.  Many noticeboards have indeed been approached for outside opinions.  As ventured by Hasteur at the DSN, Lambanog doesn't seem interested in the input from these noticeboards unless it agrees with his interpretation of things.  These issues have been discussed extensively, but apparently Lambanog has not heard these discussions.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With my tags I have brought up the matter of neutrality, but they are swatted away without consideration. The coconut oil producers do not wholeheartedly agree with the findings of certain organizations given weight here (and who also it might be argued could possess a conflict of interest) and their viewpoint is significant for this article.  But it is not given.  Do a search for sources on this topic and you will be flooded with information quite favorable to coconut oil. As for article ownership, WLU and company's ownership behavior preceded my participation by years. Regarding the noticeboard outcomes, they cannot be said to be particularly conclusive. A look at the talk page archives will show I am not alone in thinking more viewpoints from a different sources would be appropriate.  I would also add that removal of sources can be interpreted as vandalism and that the indiscriminate removal of such sources as practiced by WLU isn't ideal to say the least and violates WP:Editing policy. If he believes something is in error let him present the better references; but he doesn't and instead removes references. Simple reason: my sources are better. Lambanog (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you could have presented that information, found in medically reliable sources, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've analyzed the sources you have presented, and compared them to the statements made by numerous medical and dietary organizations - clearly the two are at odds.  I do not object to coconut oil being healthy in principle.  I do object to portraying it as healthy in the absence of an indication that this idea is mainstream.  Merely because other viewpoints exist doesn't mean they are equally valid, particularly compared to the scholarly community.  Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  You bring up your points once, and people clearly disagree sufficient to establish a talk page consensus, you don't get to keep raising them.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? The medical dietary sources say coconut oil is bad due to saturated fat.  When newer higher quality medical sources are brought up to show that actually there is a controversy about it, they are removed on the basis of what? Synthesis?  But in any event I have provided medical sources specifically about coconut oil—but they were removed.  News and media sources?  Removed.  What is kept are dietary guideline by bodies (that could be accused of having conflicts of interest) that have been criticized by members of the medical community.  From a geographic standpoint the article is definitely not neutral encompassing primarily a Western point-of-view.  The experience of leading doctors in the coconut producing nations who have coconut eating populations and who have studied and performed trials with it have been cut.  On the other hand name the leading coconut oil expert against it?  Or are they all hiding behind the veil of anonymity? Lambanog (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's break this down to the bare facts so we don't get bogged down in the back and forth. Lambanog has edit-warred against 5 different editors: Ocaasi, Yobol, Ronz, Belg4mit, and WLU numerous times over the course of 5 months. No one else has put the POV tag back except for Lambaong. Meanwhile, Lambanog justifies their behavior by numerous accusations of bad faith, basically trying to justify why ignoring the consensus on the talk page, accusing everyone else in being in a coordinated cabal against them.  If someone could place a stop to this disruption, it would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody expects the Wikipedia Cabal! Shot info (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by Caultonpos (talk) (Result: Page Semi-Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:11, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Jpmd (talk) to last version by 66.30.187.57")
 * 2) 02:12, 28 August 2011  (edit summary: "non-notable, linkspam")
 * 3) 14:53, 29 August 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 24.147.154.35 (talk) to last version by Ronz")
 * 4) 19:40, 29 August 2011  (edit summary: "/* External links */ cleanup after spammer - given final warning")
 * 5) 01:12, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "redlink cleanup - editors are encouraged to WP:WTAF")
 * 6) 01:54, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 66.30.187.57 (talk) to last version by Ronz")

Ronz is attempting to remove a legitimate open source EMR from the list of open source EMRs - likely Ronz is a competitor. —Caultonpos (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've requested the article be partial protected and am refraining from any further reverts until we get all the ip's and spa's under control.
 * I hope at some point Caultonpos will join the discussion on the article talk page, or even respond to the comments on his own talk page. The continued spamming of his website isn't helping him. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While Ronz should have asked for help earlier, I am going to cut them some slack because they were clearly editing to enforce existing consensus. Article has been semi-protected due to obvious IP sockpuppetry. — Satori Son 02:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I should have got help and drew attention to the talk page discussion earlier. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Tony0106 reported by User:Wesley Mouse (Result: 24h block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has constantly reverted the article to suit his own beliefs, despite several polite requests from other editors to cease doing so, and to leave the article alone while a dispute is in progress regarding the reliability of a specific Azerbaijani news website as sourcing for the main article. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a rather rude and negative response from User:Tony0106, in regards to the block |as seen here. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Minima ©  ( talk ) 06:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * USer:Tony0106 has repeatedly stated he will continue to do edit warring and cause disruption/vandalism as stated |in this diff. Even though several attempts to pursued him not to, and even explain policies, and consequences that he could face if he chooses to ignore what is being advised, he still threatens to go about disruptive vandalism.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BlueonGray reported by User:Darkness Shines (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: [diff]

Comments:

That's a clear 3rr violation, including a revert several minutes after the user was warned, recommend 24 hour block. Secret account 01:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

After looking at BlueonGray contributions, he's a single purpose account only used for trolling in the Duchesne pages, and it's bad faith Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne. A longer block (up to a week) and a topic ban from all academics are the best course of action. Secret account 07:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * . In case of further edit warring post block expiry, an article/topic ban may be explored. Not right now. This block may see the editor improving.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  07:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:43235Guy reported by Rostz (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:02, 29 August 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 00:00, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 00:05, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "This entry is suggestive, and has nothing to do with Alan Kreuger - I'm sure he's performed a lot of natural experiements - so why reference this particular one?  What purpose does it serve?")
 * 4) 00:13, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "Alan Kreuger has written a lot of things in his books...it's not relevant to point to any specific piece of those writings.  Let people read his books if they want to.  This is about Kreuger, not about what he's written in his books.")
 * 5) 00:46, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "This comment is politically motivated, and inserted strictly to suggest that employers like paying higher wages.  Sounds a lot like what a union-backed democrat would believe.  No wonder he had to do a natural versus a controlled experiment.")
 * 6) 00:48, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "Terrorist do not "often" come from middle-class, college-educated backgrounds.  That's a false statement, unless you just re-wrote the definition of "often".  If you didn't, then Kreuger did - either way, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.")
 * 7) 01:02, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "Terrorists do not "often" come from middle-class, college-educated backgrounds.  Other than Krueger's opinion, please cite the source you are using to support this.  The New Jersey/Pennsylvania comment is misleading")
 * 8) 01:04, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "It is not true that terrorists often come from middle-class, college-educated backgrounds.  Just because Krueger writes it doesn't make it true, anymore than you repeating it while referencing him makes it true.")
 * 9) 01:53, 30 August 2011  (edit summary: "Terrorists who come from middle-class, college-educated backgrounds is the exception, not the rule. The minimum wage reference to Pennsylvania and New Jersey is misleading.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Note that the diffs above are for a pair of repeated deletions. I attempted to explain WP policies and initiated discussion in the article's Talk page, but the new editor continues to EW. —Rostz (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 *   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  07:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Reikasama reported by User:TheFarix (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:, also editing under the IP 87.16.197, 80.182.44.218, 87.11.58.187, 82.51.181.75, and 82.61.65.224 (All originating from Italy)

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kodomo no Jikan, Talk:Lolicon, WP:ANI

Comments:

Reikasama has been engaged in an edit war on this and another article, Kodomo no Jikan. The editor does not believe that Lolicon is a genre and that all reliable sources that states that it is are "unreliable". While at the same time, Reikasama has stated that user generated content websites—such as the Japanese Wikipedia, MyAnimeList (WP:A&M/ORS), and Anime News Network's encyclopedia (WP:A&M/ORS)—are reliable because he agrees with them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User: ShmuelGoldstein reported by User:Asad112 (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Multiple pages on Israeli Settlements

User being reported:

This user is systematically going through multiple articles related to Israeli Settlements and removing information that was established by consensus (See WT:Legality of Israeli settlements). The user was also informed here about the 1RR for all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and in general about WP:ARBPIA. The user then continued to violate the 1RR rule after.

I am not going to list all the violations (as they can be seen by the users history page), but here are a few examples of the reverts after the user was notified:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

1RR warning:
 * Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:SomeHuman reported by User:Imgaril (Result: Both warned)

 * Page in dispute:
 * User being reported:



Slight problem developing with User:SomeHuman concerning the article Mechelen-Zuid Water Tower. The editor has made good and helpful contributions to the article, but is currently insisting that their alterations to the text of the article are an improvement - but some of what they are writing is in-perfect english. eg diff

I've already tried to tell them that their english is good but not native standard. eg User_talk:SomeHuman. Here is an example of the type of sentence I am reverting
 * The toadstool shape of the 55 metres high water tower in Walem was already at the Mechelen-Noord industrial estate when the towering needle became erected on the Mechelen-Zuid industrial park

After my initial partial revert the editor has started rewriting the entire article in slightly odd sounding near-english. Can someone help with this. (Note I'm aware I am not a "shakespeare" or a "ernerst hemingway" either)Imgaril (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-30 17:26 - 2011-08-31 00:27 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-31 19:06-19:11 (UTC)
 * FYI: Imgaril inverted italics/normal font style in the here above quote. Btw, the 'towering needle' is the article's topic, also a water tower, and very recognizably described earlier in the lead. Imgaril's mastery of English language appears less than proven by the other sentences here, and Imgaril's comments on my talk page are not more convincing. Please, inspect also my reply there. Kind regards,
 * Please stop rewriting the article - your english is not good enough, (also and the info you are adding does not match the references you supply eg your reference in the lead says 20m spike yet you wrote 23m )
 * This was the article before you started editing - you helped by tidying the length measurements, and adding a reference for the 'tallest tower claim' -everything else you have done appears to be pure edit warring.
 * I would suggest you improve the nl:Watertoren_Mechelen-Zuid article which is currently a stub, since dutch appears to be you native tongue and you wont have competence issues (see Competence is required) relating to language - I'm fairly certain that your edit warring problems may relate to english being a second language as you appear to be a good faith editor.Imgaril (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SomeHuman has made reverted the text.(third time), ignoring all my comments on english grammar, dates etc It still contains poor english- will someone please give the editor a clue about the actual standard of their english.Imgaril (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Only Imgaril reverted: I attempted several ways to come to a consensus. Within the last 24 hours, Imgaril reverted 3 times without any improvement. Highly unusual for me, I request for a temporary block of Imgaril, for an obvious 3RR but also because of the rarely seen WP:OWN behaviour: Imgaril's remark about "everything else" demonstrates Imgaril's concept of edit-warring: any changes to Imgaril's phrases other than spelling corrections, and any additions to Imgaril's article. Further details are found on my talk page, where Imgaril never responded to my replies. Imgaril's spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar ("SomeHuman has made reverted the text", earlier referring to me in plural, and again in Imgaril's last sentence, etc) indicate that Imgaril's understanding of English is a major issue. Though I kept asking to clarify, not a single indication was given as to specifics of my invariously "poor English" that causes "competence issues". Since Imgaril did not merely revert some disputed phrase or section, but nearly everything including undisputed sources, just now I committed a simple revert.


 * User:Some Human has reverted again
 * Can an admin please examine this Imgaril (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are both edit warring and Imgaril perhaps more so. Imgaril: please try to assume good faith. SomeHuman's English may not be perfect but he is trying to expand the article and he is also adding more references. Rather than just reverting, why don't you correct the grammatical errors and improve on his version. If there are unnecessary or duplicated sections, then they can be cut but be judicious. Pressing "undo" is very disheartening for the other editor who has put effort into improving the article. I am adding the article to my watchlist and any further edit warring will meet with consequences. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-31 21:49-21:58 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand that - I already incorporated some information the editor added, and accepted their corrections. The version somehuman keeps reverting too actually adds no real further information, but adds a lot of unnecessary sections, and multiple uneccessary reference links to the same site (which is innacessible without paying). If I convert the poor english to a more readable standard then I end up back with the article as it was - ie a revert.Imgaril (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Point out which specific aspect in a sentence, you consider to be 'poor English'. You consistently altered the meaning of my phrases. You destroyed the logical sequencing that I introduced. If you have any doubts, explain on the article talk page what bothers you. But you do need to be very specific: "poor English" is what I have been reading. English is not always the language of the 'Simple English Wikipedia', you know. Once again you consider your inaccurate phrasing and your unclearly jumping forth and back, unordered style as a "standard". It is not.
 * You did not just revert a payable reference: you also removed the reference to a freely readable abstract of that reference. I never paid for reading the reference itself: It looks like the Cement site allows a look for free at any page, but only one. Another one can be inspected on another day. That is why I put a series of links, one for each page, behind the formal multi-page citation. And the other inline references to the same specialized periodical link to such precise page, and because of its uncomfortable access, I quoted the relevant parts in the references. Don't forget that a printed book is also a decent reference for WP, without guarantee to find it at your local library and a shop is not giving it away for free either — unfortunately, but it's a hard world. Anything with a DOI, ISSN, ISBN... is verifyable to WP's standards. I mentioned the ISSN. And I added an accessdate field to several citations, and corrected more fields, you reverted that as well. That had nothing to do with 'poor English' either.


 * Result: Both warned. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Kotniski reported by User:Betty Logan (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: (repeatedly asked this editor to direct me to the naming guidelines but my requests have been ignored)

Comments:

Either the editor is correct, or he isn't. If he is then I have no objections to the move, but he really should respond to my requests for these naming guidelines. I have looked and I cannot find them, so would be grateful if I could be directed to them if they do exist.

Secondly, I cannot believe for one moment riding roughshod through dozens of MOS's are the correct approach. Short cuts and redirects need to be fixed. If tehre is ineed a requirement to move the MOS then it should be undertaken more systematically. Messages could be left on talk pages, and the project participants can then undertake the move in a more organised fashion. I find the curent approach simply unacceptable, even if there is a need to rename the MOS, which as yet I have been unable to ascertain. Betty Logan (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at length at the MoS project. As regards the alleged 3RR violation, these were not reverts at all, just repeated attempts to clear up the mess left by Betty Logan, who kept moving the page into article space, where it certainly should not be, and who then blanked the left-behind redirects in such a way that the moves couldn't be reversed.--Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is indeed a need to rename the MOS, then the snooker project is quite able to do it on its own without any help from you. But first, I want to see these naming guidelines to confirm that it is indeed a requirement. Betty Logan (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to discuss that issue, we can do that elsewhere, at the MoS page. But that isn't what the above "reverts" were above - had you just reverted my move, I'd have left it, but you didn't do that - you kept on (by mistake, I assume) moving the MoS page into article space, and I was correcting you. I did point this out in my edit summaries, with increasing volume. Do you see that now?--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see a guideline that says the MOS name has to be changed. But if there is then you could simply have pointed out the change in guidelines on the talk page so we could undertake the move ourselves.  Now we have shortcuts and links to a page that doesn't exist anymore, so maybe if you are so adamant about undertaking this move yourself you can now go and fix them. Betty Logan (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The resulting mess is really your fault - it was you who was moving the page into article space, and more to the point, blanking redirects left behind after your moves, which meant your mistakes couldn't be corrected, and now require admin intervention to sort out. Had you not done that, the page could have been moved back to where it was to start with, even after your mistyping.--Kotniski (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And yeah salting the pages wasn't proper etiquette, but if you hadn't just ignored my requests for these guidelines and discussed the issue I wouldn't have needed to try and stop you. A salted page can always be G6'd anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The salting came first; that was the root of the problem. --Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Thanks to User:MSGJ, it seems the mess has now been sorted out. Unless Betty really wants to make an issue of whether we use a slash or brackets in this page title - if so, I suggest discussion at WT:MOS. (But it's really a question that affects all the MoS subpages - I don't think there would be any good reason to do it differently for snooker than for all the other pages.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully all issues are now sorted. With regards to this report: I am not going to take any further action at this stage, but let the editors take these suggestions on board. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether there is a requirement to rename these pages or not (and will someone please direct me to a clear set of naming guidelines for MOS), there is surely a better approach than a single editor steaming through hundreds of pages moving them? The projects should do it so they can at least correct links and shortcuts.  This approach leaves hundreds of links broken. Betty Logan (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the link to the relevant discussion is on your talk page and has been for some time.
 * Links do not "break" when pages are moved - that's what redirects are for. They only start breaking when you move it numerous times or blank the page.
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski: you did "move war". Although what you were doing was correct, it was not worth warring over. Keeping the article in mainspace for a few minutes while explaining to the editor what was wrong would have been preferable. Also, putting a link to the discussion in your move summary might have been a good idea and prevented all this.
 * Betty Logan: you also participated in the move war. Rather than immediately reverting it would have been better to ask the editor for the reasons behind the move. Also you still seem unable to admit that you have made a mistake above!
 * Look at the edit summary! I clearly asked for a link to these naming "guidelines" several times! If I made a mistake it was based on information that I was not being given. Why didn't he just provide the links?? Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The (honest) mistake you made was to move the page into article space. I kept saying that in my edit summaries, but you kept making the same mistake. I would even have moved the page back to your preferred title, to keep the peace, but I couldn't do that because you had "salted" one of the intervening titles. It had nothing to do with any guidelines at that stage. Anyway, I take Martin's points on board for the future, and hope that this issue is now settled.--Kotniski (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User: 141.218.36.44 and 99.112.212.108 and 99.190.86.55 and 99.181.141.69 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:



Reverts:
 * 1) 20:49 (as IP 1)
 * 2) 00:26 (as IP 2)
 * 3) 06:19 (as IP 3)
 * 4) 09:39 (as IP 4)

All edits restore the section Cast, Footage, or something similar, except the 3rd, which is an exact revert

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: , who is obviously the same as IP 1 ("97" started editing immediately after "141" stopped, and they're all editing the same family of articles) previously warned, warned me, was the subject of 2 previous reports here, and was blocked here. IP3 warned 06:28, after which he stopped editing. IP 4 started later.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  Now, here, I may be a little guilty. Still, the IP has not given a reason for inclusion of the section, except in versions which are false as described in sources, by including those appearing only in "archive footage" as "Cast" without a caveat to that effect.

Comments:

IPs in the 99. family have been reported for 3RR twice in the past week. There seems no solution except to semi-protect all articles loosely related to global warming, or to block wide ranges of 99.* for long periods of time. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Previous sections include and Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive166  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Earlier this month, Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive165]. Who knows how many are just edit warring, or otherwise not reported to this board.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. Range blocks are not a good option since these IPs are too far apart. Per WP:SOCK, one person must not revert the same article with multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User:OnlyForQuadell reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: OnlyForQuadell blocked 24 hours for disruption)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - 00:53, 31 August 2011 OnlyForQuadell (Undid TriiipleThreat)


 * 2nd revert: 01:22, 31 August 2011 OnlyForQuadell (undid Tenebrae, who then posted friendly note on OnlyFor Quadell's talk page here)


 * 3rd revert: - 16:06, 31 August 2011 OnlyForQuadell
 * 4th revert: - 16:20, 31 August 2011 OnlyForQuadell

User:OnlyForQuadell refuses to give an edit summary for (a) change(s) he made, which are essentially imperceptible; such minute changes without edit summaries is commonly done by vandals. After I left a diplomatic note, he immediately attacked me here, and insists that his saying, "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that..." is not an insult, here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see talk-page exchange at User talk:OnlyForQuadell.

Comments:

This editor stridently refuses to provide edit summaries &mdash; why? &mdash; and when asked politely to do so, he attacked me with vulgar insults which he then claims are not insults, and that telling another editor that I don't have balls is perfectly acceptable language on Wikipedia. Two editors, not just myself, have reverted him. He refuses to say what his imperceptible edit is, he attacks another editor with extremely uncivil language and won't take responsibility for his insults, and he 3RRs on top of that. Please help. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My last edit comments says it best: User:Tenebrae explicitely admitted that he does not understand what he is reverting and is acting on assumption of bad faith alone. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, what are you changing and what is your intention? Your comment above doesn't excuse edit-warring.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it doesn't? If somebody is attacking another editor, first by assuming bad faith, then by libel ("vicious insults" as parts of this report), and is inventing stuff in the process, I have to put up with it? His edits are avowedly based on bad faith alone and thus vandalism. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get to revert because you're feeling maligned.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That was never my motive. I merely wanted to reinstate my (admittedly minor) improvements to the article. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, then how about we take Erik's advice and call it a day, and you can use edit summaries from now on and we trust one another?  Acroterion   (talk)   17:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment below. Giving his bright-line edit-warring and his gross insulting of me a pass is not right.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, but behavior modification is a desired outcome, and we're still sorting out what actually happened, i.e., changing quotes, etc.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend dismissing this report as excessive. OnlyForQuadell's initial edit removed an arguably extraneous word and added a space inside a reference tag (which has no impact). TriiipleThreat had reverted OnlyForQuadell, presumably because the edits were without a summary (though Triiiple's revert did not have a summary explaining that). When OnlyForQuadell reverted TriiipleThreat, Tenebrae reverted him because he found the edits imperceptible and required an edit summary (which is not required, though highly preferred). When Tenebrae contacted OnlyForQuadell about using edit summaries, OnlyForQuadell accused Tenebrae of mistrust because Tenebrae did revert him like his edits were of bad faith, as if the lack of an edit summary and imperceptible edits meant sneaky vandalism. So mistrust went back and forth and shows in the edit warring in the page history. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless, a 4th-revert edit-war is a bright-line vio. Before anything got this far, I attempted a polite discussion with OnlyForQuadell on his talk page &mdash; please read it; no one could reasonably call it an "attack" &mdash; to which OnlyForQuadell responded immediately with vulgar, insulting, horribly uncivil language. That and edit-warring is not OK behavior on Wikipedia, no matter what his rationale. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And as editor TriiipleThreat just noted on the Thor film's talk page, OnlyForQuadell's edit apparently changed a quoted person's direct quote. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You never left your stance of assumption of bad faith, how would a polite discussion possible? Yes, accusations of vandalism, name-calling and inventing of facts are indeed attacks. Your "vulgar, insulting, horribly uncivil language" is either an invention or a gross misjudgement. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you made gross and vulgar insults: What do YOU call "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that..." Let me ask Acroterion: Is saying I don't have balls not "vulgar, insulting, horribly uncivil language"? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ec: Indeed, let's ask him: Is saying "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that..." even implying that he has no balls? --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This board deals with edit-warring, not user conduct. However, I view your first response to Tenebrae's comment on your talkpage as inappropriate and a vulgar overreaction. I see no "invention" on Tenebrae's part, nor is his conduct "vandalism," as you have chosen to label it.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the vulgar. Anyway, it was a fake commendation at worst.
 * His invention was that I did not change a quote, and nobody claimed that I did. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite accommodation on the original point, OnlyForQuadell blocked for continuing attacks against Tenebrae after multiple warnings, refusal to get the point.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Realhistorybuff reported by User:SpacemanSpiff (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: after he was told about this AN3 report.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not done, this is that's either copypasted or synthesized and has been explained to the user that they need to discuss anything before adding to this article.

Comments: Along with edit warring there's also the problem of WP:COPYVIO as the user is copying text directly.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Kuru  (talk)  18:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User:EuroNews reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Eagles247, User_talk:Bagumba, Articles for deletion/Mike Sholars (2nd nomination)

Comments:

User has been reverting removal of unsourced statements about a biography of a living person.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty straightforward. Kuru   (talk)  03:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:80.238.1.135 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Note, this wasn't started until after IP broke 3R)

Comments: IP apparently has WP:OWN issues with the article, adamant about taking to article back to a 2007 "mod approved" version of the article. IP seems to think that information not "approved" by the article's subject does not belong on the article. It appears the IP's branch of OSMTH doesn't think any other branches belong on the article. I have also requested semi-protection of the page due to the IP changing, if that is preferred. - SudoGhost 16:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected 2 months. The people who are arguing for a version that they think was approved in 2007 need to work patiently for consensus. Using IP addresses to revert without waiting for a talk page consensus not a way forward. A person who identifies as an official of the group has joined the talk page discussion. This is fine, so long as they realize that Wikipedia is not their own web site and they are expected to follow the policy here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Medo3337 reported by User:Msnicki (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: Medo3337 is edit warring on his WP:AUTO page, repeatedly removing the message.

Msnicki (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Medo3337 is continuing to edit the message.  He's trying to insert a  message but doesn't appear to know what he's doing.  I'd fix it myself, but I've already used my 3 reverts.  Msnicki (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that he's now taken to using an IP to remove the AfD tag..


 * Black Kite (t) (c) 18:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Chesdovi (Result: 48h )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (15:14 13/08)
 * 2nd revert: (11:49 1/09)
 * 3rd revert: (13:15 1/09)
 * 4th revert: (15:16 1/09)
 * 5th revert: (17:30 1/09)

Debresser repeatdly removes "Levantine" and adds "one from Yemen and one from Timnah."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning given, "experienced editor" (in his own words)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and then reverts 5th time.

Comments:

The original was tampered with and reverted. Debresser should take his issues to talk page and not engage in edit war. Chesdovi (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Black Kite (t) (c) 18:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Misessus reported by User:Dark Charles (Result: Both restricted to 1RR)
 Page: User being reported: Hello, User:Misessus has violated WP:3rr on the Austrian School page: He has violated WP:3rr on prior occasions as well, e.g.: In the latter occasion I warned him but chose not to report it. He has been blocked before for WP:3rr violations.-- Dark Charles  (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * UPDATE: I warned Misessus on his talk page.


 * I have posted a 3RR message on both editors' talk pages. My general opinion, though, is that Dark Charles is the more tendentious editor. He misapplies or misunderstands policy (for example, WP:BURDEN), and this very AN3 comment further indicates disruptive editing because of content disagreement (as opposed to editing disagreement). --S. Rich (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that S. Rich has been editing warring as well (though he was not broken WP:3rr). The text Misessus deleted in his initial edit (not listed above) was sourced and has been in the article for years.-- Dark Charles  (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've put both editors under 1rr at Austrian School for two weeks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Two editors were placed under 1RR for 2 weeks by User:Gwen Gale. Gwen has asked for review of her decision at WP:ANI. Any discussion should continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Realhistorybuff reported by User:Elockid (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: after the user was informed about this report. Note that these reverts are in addition to the six performed 28 hours ago, just before the prior block. (3rd revert detail added by &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (2nd warning)

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

Comments: Just came off an edit warring block to once again reinstate the same edit. Elockid  ( Talk ) 20:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh, I was going to report but my prior report is still there (albeit closed) and I didn't fancy creating a "Take 2" title. The user has been warned many times, and the content has been uniformly rejected at Talk:India in addition to a few other editors reverting and opining by way of edit summaries. There's no edit of this editor that has remained unreverted. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, there's also the other problem of Copyvio -- he has now added and reverted to the copyvio version about 9 times in less than 28 hours! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for 72 hours. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:FactController reported by User:Cerejota (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: doesn't really apply, as the issue is persistent WP:IDHT, WP:GAME and WP:POINT. A view of the editing history tells us this is a WP:SPA concentrated on this topic, even if it was clearly not intended as such as the account pre-dates the events


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * first warning by another editor
 * most recent warning by Cerejota - which was reverted by user without comment other than edit summary

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * huge imperfect diff, because essentially the talk page is spent trying to explain to user why his behavior is unproductive, by basically all other editors

User talk page threads:
 * long thread by multiple users when issues first came to fore
 * recent thread contemporary with my warning

Comments:


 * I take no pleasure in this, as the user seems to be earnest, and I do believe we shouldn't WP:BITE and some of his edits are good edits. But he seems to not understand what he is being told, and dismisses all attempts to reason with him as "involved". I think rather than blocking, a topic ban of significant duration and mentoring would be preferred, to channel the user's constructive energy elsewhere, less controversial and less close to his heart. If a block is needed I won't oppose it, however. --Cerejota (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He almost seems to take pleasure in these debates. He is certainly trying to improve the article but is too sure of his own edits, professing that he is correct despite unanimous opposition.  He is unwilling to accept the opinion of others on the talk page and, more importantly, is too assertive in the defence of his content within the article.  violet/riga [talk] 22:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This user is passionate about this article. Some of his edits are harmless, but I think his net contribution is not. Some of his editing ignores consensus. In discussion, he shows no respect for alternative viewpoints. He is closed to argument. During the most recent discussion on the talk page, he clearly demonstrated that he can't be trusted to respect reliable sources. Many people have spent a great deal of time trying and failing to reason with him. I've suggested to him that he should take a voluntary break from this article and reflect on his approach, but he has ignored that suggestion. I think that a topic ban of significant duration (broadly construed to UK society and politics) would be the best solution.  Rubywine . talk 02:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that violet/riga has hit the nail on the head. FactController is simply unwilling to accept anyone else's opinions, and is disrupting the very necessary project of improving a rather messy article. I can see no alternative than a topic ban - it is entirely possible that he/she may be able to make useful contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia, but in regard to this one (and I suspect closely related ones), a lack of understanding of how to work cooperatively is self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above two editors. There's an enormous amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here, and the editor continues to Wikilawyer about edits even when it is clear that consensus is massively against them. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Editor warned. The talk page reads like FactController versus the world. This one-sidedness does not shake FC from his belief that he alone is correct. No block at this time because it is more than 24 hours since the last revert. I suggest opening an RfC on the contested issues. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)