Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive168

User:BruceGrubb reported by User:Yobol (Result:No action in this venue, users counseled)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Note that although 3RR has not been broken in one day, this has been an ongoing issue since April 2011 (this dispute actually goes back to October 2010, but I got tired of going through the history, you should get the point from this sampling):


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

Note reverts #3 and #9 are made by the same IP, presumably BruceGrubb while inadvertently logged out (see edit histories, they edit the same articles).

Also note, that I have been the main one to restore consensus after Bruce's changes, though Ronz and BullRangifer have also restored the consensus version in the past as well.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Numerous attempts at discussion dating back to October of 2010, all coming to the conclusion against his use of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion about Price's change in stance:

See Archive #2 and Archive #3 of the Weston Price talk page, including this section and this section, where Griswaldo and Ocaasi, respectively, tried in vain to ask him to find secondary sources before he overwhelmed everyone with a wall of text.

This section notes the exasperation of the other editors on this page with Ludwigs2 saying that a RFC/U may be necessary due to Bruce's persistent violation of policy, and Ocaasi noting his additions violated WP:OR, a position Ocaasi repeated on my talk page, "encouraged Bruce, seriously, to publish his research independently. It's really good stuff, interesting perspective, completely OR.".

Note that this has also gone to multiple noticeboards, including: the ORN, RSN, NPOVN not once, but twice. Of note, BruceGrubb even brought this up at ANI.

Note that despite significant opposition by Griswaldo, Ronz, myself, Ocaasi, and Ludwigs2 about the state of the WP:OR violations dating back almost a year now, he has continued to add similar material back, and used walls of text as noted in the above links to basically overwhelm any discussion.

This disruptive reverts against consensus really needs to stop.


 * Additional comment: I would take the lack of continued commentary from other participants as a direct result of the tendentious editing and the inability of Bruce to drop the stick - there is only so much of one behavior done over, and over, and over ad nauseum before you just throw your hands up and leave. Note that BruceGrubb didn't say that others agreed with him; just that they haven't responded, and he has made no effort whatsoever to contact them to establish if consensus has changed. Indeed, multiple of his reverts have been blind reverts, spaced out a month apart, with no additional commentary on the talk page; this isn't consensus building, this is wearing down other editors.  That he thinks others didn't understand the "nuances" of the discussion despite months of discussion on the talk pages and multiple noticeboard postings exemplifies the WP:IDHT behavior. If something is not done, it is clear Bruce will continue to edit war this same content forever. Yobol (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Yobol is leaving out important details. Mainly there is NO OR in what want I put into the article itself. Take a good look at [] and Endodontics and focal infection

The first section part has

The second part (By 1930 Price had "shifted his interest from focal infection to calcium metabolism") is referenced to

The final section uses Price's own EXACT words from a work published by a the medical division of a publisher. Ludwigs2 stopped doing anything with the article itself back November 6, 2010 and argued in Weston Price introduction that FIT had no place in the Weston Price article (even through that is why people know him today and that fact was WP:RS out the wazoo), Griswaldo's was January 19, 2011, and Ocaasi's last edit was on April 10, 2011. As for Ronz that editor WP:CRYBLPed (see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard for that piece of joy) and only came back when The Founders Intent returned to try and edit the article.

The point is all that is Yobal's supposed supporters have NOT done anything with the article itself in months and given some of their comments might have not understood the nuances of some of the polices they were citing especially in the light of WP:NOTOR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BruceGrubb appears to have great difficulty understanding and applying many of Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines - to himself and others. He ignores consensus, attacks editors that disagree with him, and holds grudges. He's been at this for a year now. Let's just get him banned from this article to stop the disruptions. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Result:Given that this content dispute has continued over a period of months, I am not sure that "edit-warring" is the best characterization of the disputed edits, or that this noticeboard (which is generally reserved for allegedly clear-cut violations) is the best venue for addressing it. Therefore, I am procedurally closing this report without action in this venue. If problems continue, a report may be made to the incidents noticeboard or dispute resolution procedures may be invoked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Iraqisth reported by User:Hohum (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User not taking part in discussion on talk page despite being asked to.

User Hohum:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 11 September 2011.
 * 1) ,
 * 2) ,
 * 3) ,
 * 4)
 * Iraqisth (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. That is two reverts each on two different articles, at which point I stopped pending consensus on the talk page(s) / administrative action. (Hohum @ ) 12:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it'll help much. I'm guessing he's probably the same sock as User:Noda297.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe; maybe not. Take it to SPI if it escalates. I'm watching the page. Wifione  Message 13:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User:K.yusifov reported by User:Movses (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

--Movses (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Warned once before, apparently didn't take. Kuru   (talk)  02:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:David9991 reported by User:Asad112 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Classic violations of the 1RR subject to all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict as set forth by WP:ARBPIA


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Clearly warned of the 1RR; clear reverts. Kuru   (talk)  02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Igny reported by User:The Last Angry Man (Result:No action, users counseled)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: I am assuming this means the version before IGNY edited?


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article is on a one revert restriction, I have no idea why Igny has decided to remove reference to Douglas Pike being an historian from the article, I pointed out on the talk page he was first and foremost an historian. 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain why is the first edit a revert? (Igny (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Of course, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. " Says that right here The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first diff, to me, shows Igny correcting some grammar. TLAM, I would suggest that you withdraw this complaint because WP:BOOMERANG often has a way of coming back to hit one. I would suggest withdrawing the complaint in its entireity and getting back to editing, otherwise admins will look at you too. And threats like this do not do anything towards creating a collegial environment. --Russavia Let's dialogue 21:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He did not make grammatical changes at all, he changed text, see And I wil point out again I showed on talk that Pike is an historian, yet Igny again changed the text. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A notice to admin. Consider Considering all that, I am sure that WP:BOOMERANG applies here. (Igny (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
 * 1) TLAM has been indefinitely banned based on behavioral evidence. Because he exhibited the same disruptive editing as Marknutley, he was suspected to be Marknutley's sockpuppet.
 * 2) TLAM has been recently unbanned with an unambigious warning to stay away from articles on Communism.
 * 3) As soon as TLAM came back, he started making controversial edits on articles on Communism, or their associated talk pages, making threats like this.
 * 4) TLAM continued disruptive editing avoiding the 1rr rule by making 1 revert per day on Communist terrorism.
 * 5) TLAM filed a frivolous complaint here falsely interpreting the 1RR rule as a restriction to make 1 edit per day.
 * And I was unblocked as there was in fact no evidence to support the allegation. Please do not try to derail this discussion with guilt by association. Why do you not just revert and this can be closed? I have not misinterpreted the 1r rule, it is quote clear that any change to existing text in an article is a revert. I have made no threats nor have I made controversial edits. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I will also point out I have not made one revert per day, look at the article history. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I see two reverts by Igny in 24h, removing "historian" and inserting "US Foreign Service Officer "
 * 13:35, 11 September 2011
 * 18:23, 11 September 2011
 * He has been previously blocked for violating 1RR on a related communist article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, you are again coming to a defense of suspected sockpuppets of Marknutley. Apparently you did not learn much from this. You forgot to point out the previous version the first edit was a revert to. (Igny (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

And he is now doing the same thing on the Douglas Pike article, 1r 2r 3r I have no idea what Igny has against Pike being described as an historian but this is beyond the joke. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Now on 4 reverts on the Pike article The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again you are miscalculating the reverts. The first edit is not a revert because there was no simply no version of the article it was a revert to. And I do not understand why you keep removing the correct title of Pike. Are you ashamed by this fact? It is a sourced fact, you know. (Igny (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Please self revert, and any change to existing content is a revert, as has been pointed out to you. Also, please remove your attack on myself, I am not a sockpuppet and your trying to smear me in this manner is a personal attack. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say you were a sockpuppet, I said you have been suspected of being one, see here. (Igny (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

@Igny - it is time you simply admit to "a fair cop" here on the Pike article. And attacking messengers, Russavia, does not always make the boomerang go in their direction - it is as likly to hit you still. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair cop? I do not understand you here. (Igny (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Collect for some reason is using London slang. It means the accusation (of 3RR) is fair, as in the "you got me bang to rights, guv.  Awright?"  TFD (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, why is he thinking so, I wonder. Again my first edit could not be a revert because I was a second editor to edit Douglas Pike. What was the version I was reverting the article to? I was merely being bold per WP:BRD. Admittedly I reverted TLAM's revert of my edit, but that is a sign to bring it to a discussion not to ANI. (Igny (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC))
 * What part of Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert do you not understand? Changing any text is undoing another editors work. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Changing any text is undoing another editors work." This interpretation is not exactly correct. Otherwise, almost every edit any editor makes would be a revert.  A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors.  For example, if an editor inserts new information, and I then come along and update that information (thereby changing the edit, but without undoing it), that is not a revert. - SudoGhost 00:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What like this you mean? 1r 2r 3r 4r As you can see, every edit changed the content of the article, those are reverts. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply wanted to clarify that your statement was not correct. Whether those edits are reverts or not is immaterial to that.  However, simply showing edits without showing the edit they are claimed to have reverted doesn't show anything.  You'd be much better off making your case if you were able to show which edits their edits were undoing.  Simply changing content is not a revert, unless it is undoing an edit. - SudoGhost 00:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * TLAM: Is there something in this series of edits that is changing something that has been the source of contention before? Igny: to remove all doubt, it appears you can still simply self-revert your last edit.  Kuru   (talk)  02:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there has been no contention before regarding Pikes status as a historian, it is beyond me why Igny insists on removing it. I have asked him to self revert on both articles but he refuses, my guess is he has now logged out and will not bother. The Last Angry Man (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: It is not clear that the first edit in question was a "revert"; it was obviously a change, but no one has cited a specific previous version of the article it was a reversion to, and as important, there is no evidence that Igny knew he was reverting at the time he made the edit. (The assertion by The Last Angry Man that every change to an article is considered a revert is not correct.} Hence, we have only one clear revert, which is not enough for a violation. Everyone is counseled to use the talkpage, and if necessary dispute resolution procedures, to resolve the content dispute, rather than continuing to revert back and forth, and to do so with appropriate decorum. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Further discussion (will not change the result of the report) on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:AzureCitizen reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

User keeps reverting without discussing on talk page nor awaiting decision by Third Party page. Refuses to accept numerous facts that subject was born in Puerto Rico and continues to omit this fact on all previous edits. I have asked user to kindly dispute this on third party resolution, which I am awaiting a link from user Carol (see talk page) as I can't locate the link. For now, simply discuss on talk page until a request can be made for third party decision.

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * Need four reverts, not three. Kuru   (talk)  02:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Beaulosagne reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Single-purpose account trying to promote their micronation: searches provide a single hit, to their website. I'd block them myself for promotion and insertion of non-notable content, but I've reverted twice.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the clear 3RR; probably needs an indef as promotion only if he resumes. I'll watch the page.  Kuru   (talk)  02:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkwarriorblake reported by User:Spidey104 (Result: No action)
Page:

Darkwarriorblake:

I made an edit to clean up the Planet of the Symbiotes page. This was followed by Dwb's first revert. I made my first revert trying to explain what I was fixing. His second revert was the start of his aggressive/inappropriate language. I made a second revert with further explanation coincidentally with starting a discussion. His THIRD revert made accusations of me having a personal agenda despite his violation of the 3RR making it obvious he has a personal agenda here. Spidey 104  20:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Um, you do know that you were also edit-warring, right? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I stopped at two reverts and started a discussion. I realize my reverts were part of starting an edit war, which is why I started the discussion to hopefully end it. He didn't let the discussion temporarily end the edit war to seek a resolution and he violated the three reverts rule. As past history has shown, he still should be given a warning for violating the three revert rule. That's all I'm asking for, because his edit summaries obviously show he will not listen to a warning from me. (Mediation in the discussion would probably be helpful as well.) Spidey  104  00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR puts the baseline at reverting more than three times, not reverting just three times. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I sometimes forget that it should be called the Four revert rule instead (like how we call it a three strike rule for repeat criminals). Can we at least get some mediation? Spidey  104  00:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal agenda was the referencing style, see "Moving the references where they are supposed to be", which implies they were in an incorrect place to start with. I started the article and as the major contributor at the time used the referencing style most suitable to me while still using an acceptable referencing style.  As the major contributor I continued to use that style as it was most useful to me.  You altered that style without any reason other than it is "supposed to be" which infringes my ability to continue working with the article while using an acceptable referencing style.  Despite this, I took onboard part of your edit to alter the visual appearance of the references as they did not look right with so few.  Continuing, you altered the referencing style again claiming that "all" other articles employ this method, later citing GAs to back this up, though where the references are doesn't have any bearing on this as one of my major contributions Scream (film) can attest.  I sent another contribution List of Scream characters up for FL, one of their many complaints did not include the fact that the references are not in the main body.  Thus I can only assume that it is a personal preference of yours, something you admitted on my Talk page.  So I don't see why mediation is required, this is not a contentious issue, you wish to change the referencing style, you are unable to provide an adequate reason for why your style is preferable over the current style.  Without providing a reason beyond 'because', there should be no cause for further edits or reverts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The editors are now discussing the matter at User talk:Darkwarriorblake. The placement of references needs consensus like anything else. A two-party revert war could lead to sanctions against *both* parties if it resumes. The submitter claimed that Darkwarrior used inappropriate language but I did not see any. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I said "aggressive/inappropriate language" and I probably should have specified rude as well. My comments on his language were because of his lack of civility. You cannot deny that about how he phrased his edit summaries. Spidey 104  13:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:82.35.202.156 and User:WarriorsPride6565 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: reverted user LLTimes' revision
 * 2nd revert: reverted user LLTimes' revision
 * 3rd revert: reverted my revision
 * 4th revert: reverted user STSC's revision (WarriorsPride6565 has the exact editting style of 82.35.202.156, and from the talk page it seems the same user)
 * 5th revert: reverted my revision
 * 6th revert: reverted user STSC's revision

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Glancing over the registered account, it seems to be solely dedicated to this edit. A recent edit war also happen at the article Nanyue with several editors and this user, which I wasn't involved in and have stopped at the moment, but may be related. His comments on certain groups of people are rather incivil. Cold Season (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the IP and the named account are the same individual (clearly). No 3RR, but a case could be made for regular edit warring.  He seems to be using talk pages now; that's new.  I'll leave this for someone else to review as I've already blocked the IP once (his earlier edits were leaving gibberish).  Kuru   (talk)  03:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. The talk page discussion seems to be going to the wrong direction, and hasn't stopped the revisions unfortunatly. Cold Season (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There does not appear to be any active edit warring at this time. If the edit-warring resumes, please make a new report. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Spylab reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 07:17, 10 September 2011


 * 1st revert: 22:14, 10 September 2011 - "restored massive improvements..."
 * 2nd revert: 20:48, 11 September 2011 - "reverted massive addition of off-topic content"
 * 3rd revert: 21:03, 11 September 2011 - "reverted massive addition of off-topic and repetitive content"
 * 4th revert: 21:06, 11 September 2011 - this revert was marked as minor edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Spylab was already blocked for a 3RR in the past

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

-- Vision Thing -- 19:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Vision Thing appears to have made 3 reverts, did not not warn Spylab on his talk page and has not really discussed the changes on the talk page. He has not even alerted Spylab to this discussion thread.  TFD (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 3RR is considered a bright-line rule and Spylab as an experienced editor should know better than to cross it. -- Vision Thing -- 16:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have warned User:Spylab. If they continue edit-warring, please re-report.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Atsme reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

User:mgiganteus1 had already told him about promoting his site. []

Many people on various articles reverted him and told him to stop that. He doesn't seem to be willing to stop. At Crayfish in a summary edit I did explain "Stop spamming a link to your own site. If you can't see the information without paying for it, then its not a valid external link". Anyway, he won't stop doing that on multiple pages, with different people on those pages reverting him time and again.  D r e a m Focus  02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's not a 3RR issue here yet; I only see three reverts and none after your 3RR warning on his talk page. I do agree this is a simple spam, however (general links to their site or links to buy a video).  I've left him a final warning for that.  If he places the link again, let me know or place an entry at WP:AIV.  Kuru   (talk)  02:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See also a discussion at User talk:PhilKnight. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:178.76.162.16 reported by User:Ferahgo the Assassin (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

user:178.76.162.16 has inserted the adjective "homophobe" into the lead sentence of the Orson Scott Card article a total of four times in the past 24 hours. S/he has been reverted by myself and two other editors. Two days ago s/he inserted the same adjective twice and was reverted by other editors. I think this is probably a BLP violation as it is undue and unsourced, especially for the lead. There is a section in the article body for this topic. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the 3RR warning before reverting again, so well aware of the policy. Kuru   (talk)  13:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:82.69.46.113 reported by User:Fraggle81 (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:192.245.194.254 reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:18, 12 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 449926505 by Foetusized (talk)")
 * 2) 16:12, 12 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 450097673 by McGeddon (talk) It's been discussed multiple times.  Where have you been?")
 * 3) 17:12, 12 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 450106271 by Foetusized (talk) Find a reliable source calling them alternative rock that's less than a decade old and I'll drop this.")
 * 4) 19:30, 12 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 450113899 by Muboshgu (talk) Again, at least cite some source before you delete one you don't like.")

User was blocked for the same behavior on a related article (The King of Limbs) on September 8. —– Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by kww. Kuru   (talk)  00:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Buddhifer reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result:indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

This is just the last 4 instances, there are more going further back, but I figured this would be sufficient.  He  iro 05:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: The user seems to be a disaffected fan or fformer bandmember who insists on setting real world scores here on Wiki. They are adding possible WP:BLP violations, WP:WEASEL wording, and WP:NPOV, are well past 3RR and have not cited any of their claims.  He  iro 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And they have upped the ante with a LEGAL threat at the helpdesk.  He  iro 05:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely by another admin for making a legal threat. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Panditejashri reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Explained on user's talk page:. See below for more clarification.

Comments:


 * User has not actually broken 3RR since being warned. However, this is clear edit warring, and, more importantly, the information being re-inserted is a copyright violation and is 100% promotional.  Article as created by this user, and actually tagged under G12.  I felt that the article was salvageable, and the subject notable, so I stripped out the promotional info and declined the speedy (thus why I'm WP:INVOLVED and not blocking myself).  Since this material is clearly harmful (if it stays, the article must instead be deleted), and the user refuses to communicate (or is unaware of how talk pages work), a block is necessary to prevent continued disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Collins432 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked 24h )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted


 * 1st revert: Okay, I will take it to the talk page if you insist. But please do not undo this..[sic]
 * 2nd revert: I'm about to win this edit war (facepalm)
 * 3rd revert: Please stop this...
 * 4th revert: Doesn't matter if AU is insignificant.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Also note vandalism at Chipmunkdavis page. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Toddst1 got to it while I was reviewing; I've already declined a nearly immediate unblock request. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Truefact1979 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Talk:Yadav is, I think, the original discussion about the insert/revert content. There are numerous subsequent threads - this contributor is persistent and begins a new thread containing more or less the same information on each occasion. The latest are Talk:Yadav and Talk:Yadav, and there is also evidence of probable editing while logged out, as Special:Contributions/64.105.174.210 and Special:Contributions/8.18.192.2. There are far more reverts than have been listed above. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 4 days See update below . This is the user's second block for edit warring since their account was created on August 18. Any admin may lift this block if they believe the editor is willing to follow Wikipedia policy. So far the outlook is not good. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This user did not appear to be breaking the 3RR and did not appear to be taking down sourced content to me. Thanks.-M W ℳ 19:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that Truefact1979 understands Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, scan down the list of his edit summaries and check his reasoning for removing references from articles. For instance "Its funny jaffrelot is a western scholar. what will a western scholar know about india.." This was his rationale for removing a book by the French political scientist fr:Christophe Jaffrelot from the Yadav article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the reason which Truefact1979 gave for deleting that ref were incorrect IMO, that ref was being misrepresented/sythsized (was being used for synthesis) IMO. That source does not say what he was being made to say in the article IMO. So, I would say that that edit might have validity, even if the user did not realize the problem with that material. And I would also question the policy related understanding of those who inserted that misrepresentation/synthesis. Even if the previous edit be wrong, it should not be a reason for the current block. And presently, I see the user's latest edits to be in compliance with WP:V, and the restoring edits being against WP:V. If something has been challenged, it should sport a proper inline cite. It seems improper to block someone for taking down unsourced content and for trying to apply WP:V on unsourced content. It also seems improper to privilege those who restore unsourced & challenged content without providing inline citations. Thanks.-M W ℳ 03:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I would request that the block be reconsidered .M W  ℳ 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This was simple edit-warring and the block was appropriate. That you are disputing this shows at least a basic misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Newer result: The block of User:Truefact1979 has been extended to indefinite by User:Kww per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357. Independent of Kww's action, I have now blocked as a sock of Truefact1979. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Vabio1 reported by Cameron Scott (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 23:12, 12 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Restored to prior valid content and references. Citations in the public domain, even by subject person are valid, such as publicly available quotations as well as generally agreed upon facts. If facts are disputed, move to discussion area.")
 * 2) 23:46, 12 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Accepted prior edit.")
 * 3) 02:46, 13 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "See talk page, Edit of User:Tbhotch has been preserved")
 * 4) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Updates to reflect senate race and restored prior content but added citations for that restored content.")
 * 5) 12:21, 14 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Restored updated content. Please see discussion area and stop editing until consensus can be achieved, per guidelines.")
 * 6) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 450461323 by Collect (talk)")
 * 7) 15:53, 14 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision. Mediation has been requested. Wholesale omissions of updates are inappropriate; it seems you don't even know what you are removing anymore.")
 * 8) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "We are working on consensus. Please stop violating 3RR. Most restored content, with exception of recent updates regarding Senate campaign, has been here 2 years. That is the appropriate place to hold things until mediation complete.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Cameron Scott (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I also gave a 3RR warning - and a chance to self-revert. His response was
 * These reverts have only been in response to other reverts. Vabio1 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Which appears to be about as clear-cut a rejection of the 3RR warning as is possible. Collect (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the complaint you specified and there is no justification listed except for the fact that we have been reverting the content. But, why is okay for him to revert content continuously and us not.  We have made a mediation request (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick) where our arguments about the content of the subject page have been made.  However, even if we were in a posture of reverting the content to a prior point, that point should be the content that remained on the subject page for two years, rather than the content edited by Zeamays.  If our updated content should be reversed while the dispute gets worked out, so should Zeamays content as well.Vabio1 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are the only editor that violated WP:3RR, and the warning you were given regarding that policy violation clearly states, "do not edit war even if you are right." Taking the matter to mediation doesn't give you a license to continue reverting. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 48 hours for edit warring. Vabio1 gets credit for attempting mediation, but it is surprising that he declined to self-revert, which would have been sufficient to avoid this block. My concern is: either he does not understand or he does not intend to follow the WP:Edit warring policy. This is a BLP article about a politician, so we are not about to tolerate edit wars there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindjuicer reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 17:44, 13 September 2011


 * 1st revert: 18:45, 13 September 2011
 * 2nd revert: 20:10, 13 September 2011 (logged out, but clearly the same user; see and compare edit summary and content to other listed reverts)
 * 3rd revert: 17:27, 14 September 2011
 * 4th revert: 18:06, 14 September 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned at 20:24, 13 September 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

FWIW, not only is this user edit-warring, but the material they're reinserting contains clearly inappropriate original research. And their interactions with other editors leave something to be desired ("are you too stupid to notice the discussion (try scrolling up)", "You are blathering...", "Wow, could you be any more pompous and hypocritical?", etc etc). MastCell Talk 18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:24.156.245.235 reported by User:VA6DK (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&oldid=444270603[diff preferred, link permitted]

Which returned material that was deleted once already because it was unsourced, so I added a {weasel} to the section which was reverted: The maintenance tag was put back by Seduisant and then removed again by 24.156.245.235: And then removed again, with a cite to an open wiki page which has no relevant sources cited. The section was deleted by Mangoe "(remove "canon" section: this is all uncited fannishness and the Conelly statement earlier is the only solid citation)" and then reverted again Which started a revert war:
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&action=historysubmit&diff=447402668&oldid=447399292[diff]
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&action=historysubmit&diff=447871779&oldid=447496910[diff]
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&action=historysubmit&diff=448133425&oldid=447872705[diff]
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&action=historysubmit&diff=448656196&oldid=448143416[diff]
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&action=historysubmit&diff=450565378&oldid=448782510

6th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&action=historysubmit&diff=450570287&oldid=450569048

7th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&diff=next&oldid=450571224

8th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&diff=next&oldid=450572904

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.156.245.235[link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Not done; I felt Edit Summary and warnings on Talk Page was self explanitory.

Comments:

VA6DK (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:124.184.231.111 reported by User:Old Moonraker (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 6 September
 * 2nd revert: 7 September
 * 3rd revert: 14 September
 * 4th revert: 15 September

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 7 September

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 7 September

Comments: WP:SEMI may solve this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No Edit warring warning given. I think it's safe to call this IP's edits simple vandalism.  I've given them a final warning.  If the continue vandalizing, please report them to WP:AIV   F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Megaluck reported by User:Kusunose (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is a report for edit warring, not 3RR. The user keeps edit warring against established concensus without any rationale. --Kusunose 09:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 31 hours. Long-term warring against a consensus on the naming of the Sea of Japan. See NC-SoJ. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After the block expired, the editor returned to the page and reverted again. --Kusunose 01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Vitaly N. reported by User:Voyevoda (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User reverts sourced information and even expresses hidden threats:, Voyevoda (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a related discussion: User_talk:Greyhood. Strange accusations in sabotaging and propaganda instead of discussing the matter of the edit and sources. I'd say the editor should be at least warned not to break WP:3RR and follow civil discussion rules instead of heating the atmosphere. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Checkusers may also see this. --Glebchik (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Deepdish7 reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: Two Weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

User is at multiple noticeboards for a fair while for issues related to these reverts. Please consider in relation to these reverts - Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents - Off2riorob (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ranjanravie reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24h)
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: User_talk:Ranjanravie - shows several edit warring notices, including two in the last couple of days.

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

Comments:

This user seems unwilling to engage in discussion at all, unless they are also one of the IPs contributing while logged out. They are repeatedly inserting information that has been found wanting in a whole series of threads at Talk:Yadav - so many, that I'd guess 90% of the talk page regards this general issue of whether descent from the Lunar Dynasty & the claimed Kshatriya status should be mentioned in the article and, if so, then how. There has been a fair amount of socking going on but I have no idea if this contributor is another sock or not. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ihutchesson reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result:Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff, link

While some of the edits are indeed successive, they successively edit everything back in which had been previously edited out. I'm not going to call it a sneaky way to revert, but it is certainly quacking like a duck.
 * 1st revert: 14:01, 13 September 2011
 * 2nd revert: 14:22, 13 September 2011
 * 3rd revert: 14:42, 13 September 2011
 * 4th revert: 22:25, 13 September 2011
 * 5th revert: 22:42, 13 September 2011
 * 6th revert: 22:46, 13 September 2011
 * 7th revert: 22:47, 13 September 2011
 * 8th revert: 23:26, 13 September 2011

The user is demonstrating some decidedly WP:OWN tendencies, reverting any removal or reworking of material they have added to the article detailing every last reference within the series (the subject of the article) to works of Stephen King. Furthermore, the user has come right up to the 'electric fence' the day before, edit-warring their pet version in. Admittedly, I am not this user's biggest fan (and have done my own part in the back and forth, so I am not blameless here), and think they need to step back from the article and let cooler, less-involved heads prevail/have a turn, but that isn't going to happen if they go right up to 3RR every day, fighting to preserve their - at best - trivial information - despite consensus, every single day. Today, they went over that limit. I am not sure I endorse a block, but would suggest that someone counsel the user to step back, or at least use the discussion page as more than a means to inform everyone else about what they did, instead of what they want to do, seeking consensus. The user hasa a lot to contribute, and has done a lot in regards to Haven-related articles, but they might be too close to them to accept criticism. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st warning, 2nd warning Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC) -->


 * Note: This was also raised at WP:DRN. If the named user participates in the discussion at DRN and stops editing the article in question, then perhaps it wouldn't be a good idea to block even if they technically broke the 3RR limit.  I know its supposed to be a "bright line", but blocking tends to discourage people from consensus building, and if they are willing to discuss, a block may be counterproductive.  Of course, if they refuse to participate in the DRN discussion, or otherwise work towards resolving this dispute, a block may be in order. -- Jayron  32  05:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayron - it may be more productive to take this to DRN instead if Ihutchesson is willing to participate there. If we go that route, I think it would be a good idea to close this thread as "no action" so that we can have a discussion without being distracted by the threat of blocks. (Without, of course, wishing to usurp the normal process of this board.) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was typing this response to Jack Sebastian's dispute lodging when the discussion moved here. He has completely misrepresented the affair, reprehensibly blowing up the process supposedly to eight reverts. Eight edits don't make eight reverts. There have been a total of three responses to Jack Sebastian's three reverts, each of more than one edit. It seems to be Wikilawyering at its lowest ebb.

This is how we got here. The first edit by Jack Sebastian was the reduction of a section comprising a paragraph and a series of dot-pointed references to Stephen King works (see here) to the paragraph and one dot point (here). This edit was done ostensibly for lack of citations and the claim of original research. I returned much of the material, supplying relevant reliable sources, ie the company that provides the program. The editor proceeded to revert to his edit three times.


 * 
 * 
 * .

He finally made a constructive edit, which I took as a positive step. I then removed a piece of trivia about X-Files being mentioned in the show, which the editor tried to justify by offering user-edited material as his sources.  

I then responded with my own version in two steps reinserting what I considered the more useful of the excised material, ie leaving much of it out. Yet claims at DRN, "the editor seeks to include just about every reference to the works of Stephen King alluded to in the series".

Jack Sebastian reverted to his last constructive edit three times instead of another constructive edit showing a willingness to compromise to find consensus.


 * 
 * 
 * 

As I have said to the editor, I have no personal interest in the Stephen King material: I don't find him a noteworthy writer. I didn't put much of the material there, merely attempted to give some coherence to it by adding the introduction and editing the material. However, the show is steeped in elements that draw on his work, so, if one is going to have a section that deals with it, it needs to be non-trivial.

Jack Sebastian seems to have taken ownership of the section and will not be guided by the protocols of WP:BRD. He has taken me to task twice for being ready to violate 3RR (see my talk page), while having made the first of each revert sequence.

In the last few days I have received more user talk from Jack Sebastian than I have from everyone else for the rest of the three years I've been editing. The last comment re 3RR came less than an hour before the editor decided he had to lodge this dispute. And a few minutes later it goes to AN3. What I am dealing with here is hard to understand as the simple matter of an editing conflict. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The reality of the "eight" reverts:
A: Constructive edit (JS):

B: Constructive edit (IH)
 * 1st edit: 14:01, 13 September 2011
 * 2nd edit: 14:22, 13 September 2011
 * 3rd edit: 14:42, 13 September 2011

1st revert to #A (JS):

1st (partial) revert to #B (IH)
 * 4th edit: 22:25, 13 September 2011

2nd revert to #A (JS):

2nd (full) revert to #B (IH)
 * 5th edit: 22:42, 13 September 2011
 * 6th edit: 22:46, 13 September 2011
 * 7th edit: 22:47, 13 September 2011

3rd revert to #A (JS):

3rd (partial) to #B revert
 * 8th edit: 23:26, 13 September 2011

Why did this issue come to this venue? -- Ihutchesson (talk)


 * I thought that why was obvious. You failed to stop reverting, even when asked and warned several times, Ian. You sought-repeatedly, and despite three editors telling you you were adding trivia, to revert any change to the article section which you yourself created. And for the record, i find your duplicated (essentially the same one offered at another noticeboard) posts claim that you have no vested interest to be - at best - misleading.. One only has to look at your edit record to know that you have created no less than a dozen articles for the series(1), and have heavily edited in others related to King's material. So, maybe stow the crap, please. You have more than a passing interest in the series and the works of Stephen King.
 * As for the editing, I've admitted my complicity in engaging with you in the back and forth but - and here's the difference, Ian - I've sought to find middle ground each and every time. You haven't. You have reverted in the same material time and time again, offering nothing in the way of discussion and little in the way of compromise. You haven't even tried. You used the discussion page to say, 'I'm going to do this', without discussion, without seeking a consensus. This isn't even about content. You reverted eight times in less than 24 hours, and the three edits you term "constructive" were incremental re-adding of the same material you have been seeking to reintroduce to the article for the past four days. Even if we were to generously lump those three "constructive" edits together, that would still be 5 reverts. Even if we followed your wackadoo sense of counting, you'd still have four reverts - one over the magic number where the smart person says 'hmm, I am not getting anywhere by reveting over and over again - maybe I should talk it out.'
 * If a better case of OWNership has been made, I've yet to see it. Screw it, I've heard enough. Ian isn't even the least bit sorry he has been edit-warring, or OWNing the article. He is unaware of the any but the broad strokes of the policies and guidelines that the rest of us have to follow, and he chooses not to ask for clarification when he is utterly in the dark. Unless he accepts mentoring, I think blocking is going to be the only way to correct the behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You just can't count. Too busy protecting your efforts to seek consensus. (And note the "Screw it, I've heard enough." Patience is a useful quality, when dealing with people who don't agree with you.) -- Ihutchesson (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From a look at the article history, it appears to me that both participants here are reverting excessively and need to stop, or else blocks could be issued for edit warring (even if not for 3RR). Does anyone contest this? (Note, I haven't read all the postings above, as they're decidedly tl;dr, so please, summarize if needed.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He wants to put in a trivial reference to X-Files supported by two user-written notes he found on the net. He thinks that I want to put back all the references to Stephen King that he found when he made his first edit. He is wrong. I want to include a few more useful references. Here is the version I had after his last constructive edit: . -- Ihutchesson (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is not who is right and wrong. The point is that edit warring is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Do you deny that you have been edit warring? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When you start talking of denial you already seem to have an opinion. If edit warring is repeatedly overriding each other's contributions, I'd like to hear your view of the matter. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Summary: All I want is an article that I can help get to GA and eventually FA; said articles are concise, not an indiscriminate collection of information. The X-Files reference is well-and reliably-sourced, not some weasel forum; it is also the only other reference in the series made to something other than a Stephen King work of fiction. Avoiding a content dispute (not the right n.b. for that) I'd point out that "my last constructive edit"(1) contains everything that the section needs; a link to more bits is in 'External links'. Ihutchesson contends that he wants to add "a few more useful references", providing a link that shows a few wording changes, which is deceptive. The four edits before it add precisely the same information that preceded what he calls my "constructive edit".
 * The exact same information.
 * I acknowledge that I was edit-warring, as I have from the beginning. I was trying to improve the article and used the discussion page in an effort to effect that. Ihutchesson wanted the article to stay precisely where it was without discussion or dissent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what we need here is dispute resolution, which I gather has been initiated. Essentially, more opinions will be needed to hammer out an actual consensus here and not just two editors warring. I don't think we can help with admin action: If I blocked one of you, it would hardly be fair not block both, since there's edit warring on both sides. So I can only suggest dispute resolution so you can get a consensus that will be enforced by a number of editors. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * , although I should be blocking both of you. You two have a week to work this out at DRN, and/or on the talkpage for the article. Again, I should be blocking the lot of you for this behaviour that is totally inconducive to a collegial project ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

More on Jack
This editor, Jack Sebastian, has made a false claim of 3RR violation. On two occasions he made three reverts, refusing to accept my new work. The first was after I put back material, supplying requested citations. The second was after I made a substantive edit to his total rewrite. On both occasions he, wrongly, notified me of pending 3RR violation--when he himself had made 3 reverts and was on the verge of a 3RR violation. I suggested that he consider BRD on both occasions to no avail. He first took his grievances to DRN, but couldn't wait for any attempt at a resolution, but had to up the ante with a wrongful call of 3RR violation. At the same time he went around the episode pages of Haven excising various things in a flurry of edits instead of requesting citations. This is all endemic of a certain behavior which suggests a gaming of the system.

He was happy to post his thoughts on my talk page, but has removed my responses on his with this comment: "Yeah, this guy doesn't get it, so why waste what little time I do have to edit trying to chip away at his need to be right?" Referring to me he uses comments above, such as "stow the crap", "wackadoo sense of counting", "when he is utterly in the dark". On DRN he states amongst other things, 'your claim to have "no personal interest in the King material" was at best misleading and at worst a flat-out lie'. (Do you wonder how he knows better about my personal interests than I do?)

I'm a content editor and I have a fair understanding of what I'm doing, but behavior like this makes me feel I'm wasting my time. I would like to know what I'm supposed to do when what I consider to be an officious editor decides they don't like the articles I've worked on, but think their work is definitive. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my advice would be to talk to them, not at them and working with them instead of working at odds with them; I cannot speak for anyone else, but people doing that always tends to bring out the worst in me. Anything beyond that, I'd advise you to re-read BWilkins' post above, realize that your own behavior brought this upon you, and move on hopefully a bit wiser than you were before. You dodged a bullet. Learn from it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your cynicism is unhelpful. I was asking more experienced people than you what to do with uncompromising editors. -- I.Hutchesson ► 07:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a suitable place to continue this dispute, or to do anything else, for that matter. This report has been closed. Please go to WP:ANI if there's anything else that needs administrative attention, or to the dispute resolution board if you need dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to continue the dispute here. I was asking people like you what I should do in such a situation. ANI doesn't seem to be the place for advice. If you don't have time to give positive advice, could you recommend someone else I can ask? -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution? That's usually the go-to place for that sort of thing. It includes third opinions and requests for comments, things that can get outside voices in to help. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be looking into the offerings at DR soon. -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:ClaudioSantos reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 14:44, 15 September 2011


 * 1st revert: 01:42, 16 September 2011
 * 2nd revert: 16:30, 16 September 2011 (Claudio inserted this material here; it was removed here over two edits, and Claudio restored it)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Multiple previous blocks for edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talkpage thread

Comments:

Planned Parenthood, like all abortion-related articles, is subject to 1RR. Claudio has been blocked previously for violating 1RR on Planned Parenthood, and he has at least 5 previous blocks for edit-warring. The pattern is repeating itself, again. As the talkpage thread shows, there are serious concerns about his representation of the cited source, but he continues restoring it. MastCell Talk 17:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly I did delete the mentioned quote 1 time due it was being discussed its inclusion in the lead[01:42, 16 September 2011]. My other cited edit is not a deletion of that quote but an addition of a new content, a new phrase to balance that quote, but I did not delete the quote again. So I thought and I still think that my second edit should not be considered a revert. I have been actively participating in the dispute resolution mostly commenting at the talk page instead of editing the article, as it could be checked . Indeed, meanwhile another user requested for comments about the inclusion of that quote in the lead. Until now the majority of commenters, like me, have considered this quote must not be included in the lead. Finally, perhaps it is useful to notice that my first edit, deleting 1 time the quote, it was made because another user indeed restored two times that quote violating the 1RR rule, but instead of reporting him to this ANI, he was cordially invited to revert himself to avoid the punishment . After that, I was also invited to undo my last edit due it could be considered a 1RR violation, and although I did not consider it as a 1RR violation (see above: no revert at all but addition of a new content) in good faith I was going to revert myself but this invitation came too late as I had been already reverted  --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  03:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, ClaudioSantos has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the 1RR rule despite numerous efforts to educate him on the issue, specifically the definition of a revert. User blames other editors and refuses to accept that he has been engaged in edit warring. For the sake of clarity, from WP:3RR: "Undoing another editor's work whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time counts as a revert". - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly did add a new phrase without modifying any other previous phrase nor deleting any previous content. If adding a new content is considered "undoing another editor's work" then any edit is a revert and even adding a dot or a comma would be strictly undoing previous editors' work. If that is the case at any rate and in good faith after I was warned and invited to revert myself, I still did not edit anymore the mentioned article. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  14:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You have been reinserting material that is only a small variation of text that you previously inserted and that has been removed. That is a revert. The aim of WP:3RR is to stop edit warring, not to make editors find creative ways to reformulate the same thing over and over again while edit warring. I'll block for 24h. Feel free to request an unblock if you understand why you were blocked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Zook37 reported by User:Aranea Mortem (Result: 31h)
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: (edit warring continuing after report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Zook37 (can't give diff, it was first edit)

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

Comments:

I'm a bystander and haven't reverted them, but I posted the message to their talk and responded to their FD talkpage note. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 01:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 31 hours for long-term edit warring about the date. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur reported by User:Sitush (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: - pretty sure this is edit while logged out
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur - full of warnings from 5 Sept onwards

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Further to my initiation of discussion on the article talk page, the contributor has responded in a different section - Talk:Lodhi - but on each occasion immediately reverted the article to their preferred version again. The contributor also blanked my own talk page at one point. I just do not seem to be able to get the message across here that primary sources etc are not acceptable & that we need to reflect all points of view expressed in reliable secondary sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 48 hours for disruptive editing. The editor being reported insists that ancient legends are a proper source for the historical origin of a certain group in Indian society. It appears that every group would like the honor of being descended from the Kshatriyas, a warrior class. The editor sees the account given in the Rig Veda (from 1100 BC) as conclusive. He reverts constantly to restore this viewpoint, and never responds when asked on the talk page for secondary sources. I take no position on what should be in the article, on whether the Lodhi actually descend from the Kshatriyas, or on whether the article could have a proper reason to cite the Rig Veda. The problem is that the editor is mechanically restoring his own POV over a long period without responding to the source questions. He has actually been removing modern sources, in this case a scholarly book from the Univ. of California Press. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: No surprise whatsoever, but within an hour or so an IP showed up to make pretty much the same reversions to the lede: . I can't guarantee it's the same guy, but it's either his sock, a meat, or someone of pretty much the same opinion with no interest in communicating with other editors. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected. If consensus is reached on talk, the semi can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it is a legal threat from the blocked user. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikiglobaleditor reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked independently by Elen of the Roads)
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:

Seconded. The editor is trying to push his pet fringe theory into Jesus, based on some YouTube videos (which don't even support it). I'd block him myself, but I've already reverted and commented on the talk page, so some more uninvolved admin action would be appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:76.108.1.186 reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

A slow motion edit war to keep a list of external links WP:LINKFARM to various non notable businesses, specifically this one website Miamidesigns.com. The IP may be a representative of the business or have some other WP:COI. They have not responded to edit summaries, article talk messages or their talkpages. All of their edits to date have been to reinsert this link.  He  iro 01:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked for the spamming from a report at AIV. Kuru   (talk)  02:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

User:76.98.250.164 reported by User:Yobol (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Kuru  (talk)  02:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ikonoblast reported by User:Sitush (Result: 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: Talk:Yadav

Comments:


 * The user has been blocked multiple times in past for edit warring and incivility, but we have still resorted to discussion instead of blocking him. In the latest episode, multiple users have contested Ikonoblast's edits and/or tried to discuss them with him in a civil manner (MatthewVanitas, MangoWong, Sitush and me). But multiple attempts at discussion have resulted in vague accusations ("I would rather ignore you because you appear to be persons of low integrity") or unsupported rebuttals (the existing, well-sourced content is "unfashinable both in modern academics and also in hindu scriptures"). utcursch | talk 12:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Salvio has blocked the account for the personal attacks. I was about to block for 3RR (reverts at 11:17, 10:01, 09:52, and 09:24).  Kuru   (talk)  12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Berean Hunter reported by User:Andering J. REDDSON (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported: I edited the page in question to a text that had been agreed upon in the pages talk, based on the outcome of a mediation (it was to remove partiality). Brerean Hunter decided to revert it because it lacked inline citations;
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

First Issue: Uncited statements have been accepted at least on a temporary basis in the past. That’s why there’s a tag (“Citation Required”).

Second Issue: hh had already said he’d put the citations in at some point, and even presented them on the talk page.

His real agenda here appears to ensure that the section that was declared to be a violation of NPOV policy be left as-is contrary to the Mediation Results. I am requesting Berean Hunter be ordered to cease and desist on this.

I would also like to apologize if I’ve done this incorrectly; I’m trying to learn how to use the system properly, and I do trip occasionally. A. J. REDDSON


 * No. There are 4 editors which have participated in the thread. The two veteran editors, Binksternet and myself have both clearly stated that it is not appropriate to write material that contains citation needed tags. Binksternet stated that the material needed to be brought to the talk page for discussion. There has been no agreement concerning the text at all. Reddson is stating a complete falsehood. As it stands now, you have injected synthesis which lacks proper citations. According to our policy on verifiability, challenged material without citations from reliable sources may be removed and the burden is on the one who restores the material to provide the citations. We don't have to wait for you or User:-hh to get them "at some point". You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of our cite needed tags. Those are for adding to things already written in articles...not for "placeholders" for those who haven't provided citations. I don't have an agenda except seeing that we adhere to our policies.


 * Oh...a few other things. First, before filing here, one is supposed to issue a 3RR warning to a user and attempt to discuss (something you didn't do). Second, I have reverted only twice total in an attempt to enforce policy...this board is (usually) for those who have violated 3RR or the spirit of the edit-warring policies (something I didn't do). I think we are close to a boomerang coming around. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 00:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Andering, at the moment it appears you've been "bold" by ignoring the discussion on that article's page, and have now been reverted by two other editors. It would be a good idea to stop adding the material, and conclude the discussion before edit warring further.  Kuru   (talk)  12:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time the complaint was made, only User:Berean Hunter had reverted it. The sources have been presented; That I don’t understand how to put a citation in does NOT change the fact that it is here. Simply put, Berean Hunter is stalling. (I’d not reply after the decision was handed down under normal circumstances, but h’es trying to accuse me of a “bad faith” complaint. I apologize to Kuru for my lack of civility in making said reply.) A. J. REDDSON
 * It does appear to be a tit-for-tat complaint, but that's neither here nor there. No violation, so move forward with positive editing. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:109.77.46.142 reported by User:Jonchapple (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

IP keeps reverting to their new version without first achieving consensus for the changes. Has been warned that the page must stay at its stable version until agreement is sought on talk, but adamant their version must stay. Edit-warring. <font color="#004225">JonC <font color="#F28500">Talk 09:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reverts after the 3RR warning on the IP's talk page. I don't see that the edit summary covered this.  Kuru   (talk)  13:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:LardoBalsamico reported by User:Sillystuff84 (Result: reporter blocked indef as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned in edit summary

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User called my (and another user's) edits "vandalism", then proceeded to revert 5 times. He wanted to restore material/sources that were either outdated (EU took PKK off the terror list in 2010), or primary sources (a Council of EU website), etc. Sillystuff84 (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He removed all the official sources.~( January 31, 2011 updated list) I warned him. But he did it again and again. He said it is outdated. Is it really outdated? And what is this then? http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:028:0057:01:EN:HTML LardoBalsamico (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Associated Press, a reliable Secondary Source, reported in 2008 that an EU Court overturned the PKK's terror status, adding "The PKK remains on an EU blacklist", prohibiting organizations from doing business with it. You need to find a reliable, secondary source, to contradict this. So far you just found a page on an EU website. Sillystuff84 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A page on a EU site? This is council report. Do you know what European Council is? You said it is outdated. And then you mentioned about 2008 Terror status. I gave a link that it says January 31, 2011 European Council Report. Council Decision 2011/70/CFSP of 31 January 2011 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 16. "Kurdistan Workers’ Party" — "PKK", (aka "KADEK", aka "KONGRA-GEL"), LardoBalsamico (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Article's talk page, please. This is not the place to continue your dispute.  Kuru   (talk)  15:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You've both broken 3RR; there is no "vandalism" here. I've protected the page for a few days to encourage you to work out the issue on the article's talk page instead of trading snipes in edit summaries.  Kuru   (talk)  14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken. I made an edit, he reverted, then we traded reverts. I clicked "undo" 3 times. Only a 4th revert is in breaking 3RR, is it not? Sillystuff84 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your repeat of this question on my talk page. The first edit is a revert of his additions from a week ago.  Kuru   (talk)  15:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the protection; the reporter is a sock of an indef blocked user. There seems to be no point in leaving the page protected.  Kuru   (talk)  18:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:58.9.110.25 reported by Slp1 (talk) (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: Also Another IP from Bangkok that first introduced the material. Time reported: 17:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (edit summary: "The fact claimed that Troy Davis quit high school "... so as to be able to drive his disabled younger sister to her rehabilitation." is not cited in the article quoted. The edit is an EXACT quote form the article") as 110.168.177.10
 * 2) 16:12, 19 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
 * 3) 16:27, 19 September 2011  (edit summary: "Material is an exact quote from the source")
 * 4) 16:44, 19 September 2011  (edit summary: "Exact quotes are used throughout this article - "Rah" or "straight up fella"  with less source material cited. Apparently only critical ones are considered invalid.")
 * 5) 16:59, 19 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 451354921 by Hammersoft (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here and a second one

Edit warring with multiple editors and reinserting copyright infringing copy and paste material. See talkpage —Slp1 (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Page semi-protected for 1 week by another admin. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">© <font color="#0645AD"> (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 21:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:24.181.234.151 reported by User:Piriczki (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user continually makes unexplained and unsourced changes to music related articles, mostly regarding songwriting credits. While he/she has not made a fifth revert to the article I Wanna Be Sedated since being warned, there have been subsequent reverts of a similar nature to the related articles Road to Ruin (Ramones album) (diff), Rocket to Russia (diff) and End of the Century (diff). Piriczki (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, there was no 3RR violation on I Wanna Be Sedated, even when the report was fresh (user went to 3 reverts, and stopped). However, I am going to give the user a general warning that they need to stop making unexplained, unsourced changes, or they can expect a block.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaemn784 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 24h)
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: discussed on talk pages of Aemn784, me and in edit summaries

Comments:

In my opinion, Yopie has failed to discuss edits, nevertheless, he engaged in edit warring. He told that there were discussions on the talkpages of him and Aaemn784...but, if I click on Aaemn784's talk page, I do not find any vestige of a debate about content, and if I click on the talk page of Yopie's edit history       Aaemn784's edits were reverted there with an edit summary of "identified as vandalism to last revision by Yopie"--Nmate (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you admin or editor of disputed article? With your edits like this or this  is better if you stay silent. --Yopie (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Marcospace reported by User:Jimbo_online (Result: 72h)
Pages: &

User being reported: - user refuses to acknowledge the consensus that has been put in place by WikiProject Football and reverts without leaving a comment or any constructive reason as to why. Has been invited to discuss the issue, but has not taken place. I did warn the user about 3RR, and it looks like he's been warned before.

Time reported: 12:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:41, 19 September 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:52, 19 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 451398411 by Jimbo online (talk)")
 * 3) 12:40, 20 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 451492699 by Jimbo online (talk)")

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


 * 1) 21:40, 19 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 451322956 by Jimbo online (talk) otÃ¡rio")
 * 2) 21:52, 19 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 451398395 by Jimbo online (talk)")
 * 3) 12:40, 20 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 451492785 by Jimbo online (talk)")

Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 12:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:99.44.204.232 reported by User:Tamsier (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: also on persons's own talk page

Comments:

This person has made no effort to settle the issue. My sources were deleted, my edits with sources were also deleted in many cases, this person delete the edits and pass off my sources as if they were his or her own in order to make their case. At first I must admit I didn't keep cool because of the work and time invested in this article. However I tried to give them the opportunity to resolve the issue but they ignored me and kept undoing edits. Tamsier (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No evidence of long-term edit warring or violation of the 3 revert rule.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User: 64.150.217.118 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

IP adds unsourced information about a beating in the BLP article and does not discuss the issue despite multiple warnings. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 04:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Gazaneh reported by User:Lebanese 876 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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

Comments:

This user came along and mass-reverted a large number of edits that I had made over the course of several hours. I undid the mass-reversion and asked him to provide the diff/s of the particular edit/s he has a problem with and fully articulate a rationale for opposition of them. He ignored me and mass-reverted again. I asked him for a second time, he ignored me and mass-reverted again. I warned him and asked him for a third time, he ignored me and mass-reverted again. The choice I was left with is either to undo his mass-reversion again, or to report his behaviour here, I have chosen the latter. Lebanese 876 (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi to all Wikipedia admins. Please compare this user edits and last revision before her/his edits. She/He changed a lot of article's contents without any reason and think because she/he did over 75 edits, then her/his edits must not reverted and change. Please verify Persian language version history, article's talk page and my talk page. Everything discussed. Also she/he insults me several times by the words like "vandalism". You can also review my contributions. I do what is needed. No edit war, No unreasoned reverting and edits. Thanks. Gazaneh (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 3RR only applies when an editor makes more than 3 reverts in a 24 hours period. Gazaneh has reverted exactly 3 times at this point.  Now, of course, 3RR isn't a license to get in a full 3 reverts, but I don't see any indication of longer term edit warring here.  I'll be adding notes at some user talk pages and on the article as well.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes; a complete waste of time trying to do the right thing and not to do the wrong thing. I could have waited for a fourth revert, but a) I didn't want to edit-war myself, and b) I read the guidelines about edit-warring here. I might as well have not bothered. Why didn't I just employ the same cavalier attitude as Gazaneh? Did I not give three warnings not to edit war? Did I not make three attempts to engage him in discussion? Did he not ignore me each time and make three reverts? Did I not take the time to write this report rather than be forced into an edit-war? Lebanese 876 (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the incredible use of WP:SARCASM. Look, as Qwyr stated, if there had been a current history of edit-warring, then they would have blocked even though they had not crossed the 3RR threshold.  But there isn't.  Use the concepts in WP:DR to help through this dispute, but do not take the cavalier attitude ... be above that.  Blocks are intended to protect, and if no immediate protection is required because WP:DR can still proceed, then by all means do the right thing. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mediasource2011 and User:Johnstonemba reported by User:NJmeditor (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 20 September, 10:54
 * 20 September, 10:35
 * 20 September, 6:41
 * 20 September, 1:36
 * 19 September, 12:00
 * 18 September 1:20

User talk to Mediasource2011 User talk to Johnstonemba

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Misleading content related to so-called Bain India incident

Comments:

The contributor has made literally hundreds of edits to the article this month, despite repeated appeals to take the discussion to the Talk page. Has also repeatedly removed attempts by editors to flag the edits as WP:SYNTHESIS. In addition, there is a consistent pattern of edits back and forth with this user and, making the exact same edits and reverts, and seemingly coming in just under 3RR rule in a 24 hour period. I hope this is the correct place to handle this issue. I was unaware of the concept of an edit war, but I don't want to escalate this back and forth. I am still getting my feet wet with Wikipedia editing.
 * Have I submitted this properly? NJmeditor (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Karthik31087 reported by User:Vensatry (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user was looking like promoting the film. He even redirected the page to "Velayudham~Official" despite multiple warnings. -- Commander (Ping Me) 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I stopped counting at seven reverts; three after the explicit warning about 3RR. Kuru   (talk)  15:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:FleetCommand reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 36h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: "Reverted 2 edits by Epeefleche"
 * 2nd revert: "Reverted 3 edits by Shuki"
 * 3rd revert: "Reverted 1 edit by Gilabrand"
 * 4th revert: "Reverted 1 edit by Gilabrand"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please note that editor has been blocked in the past for edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Comments by Fleet Command I have objection. First I object that these are edit warring. Reverting blatant violations of the What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOTADVERT, is not edit warring.

Second, I have stopped reverting long ago, on 08:43 UTC when Marokwitz unreverted me and I discovered that it may be a content dispute rather than an unquestionable violation of NOTADVERT. I am not planning to continue, despite the fact that the Wrong Version is now in place. I have already promised Administrator User:Kim Dent-Brown to either take the matter to MEDCAB or otherwise leave it entirely. Please take note that edits by Epeefleche are also reverted by User:William M. Connolley, which reinforced my suspicion that they are a violation of WP:NOT:ADVERT.

Third, User:Gilabrand is previously warned of these edits of mine two days in advance. He refused to reply to my communication, thus I think I was at liberty to contest his first edit per Silence and consensus and his second edit, which was a different edit, per WP:BRD. Currently, User:Gilabrand's misconduct is being discussed in WP:ANI.

Fleet Command (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would recommend a block of Fleet Command. While he has announced he will stop reverting, he gives a bogus justification for breaking 3RR, so I am concerned that his faulty understanding may involve him in future edit wars. For example, neither WP:BRD nor WP:ADVERT provides any exception from the edit warring *policy*. Prefer that another admin make the decision. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First, 3RR is not broken. Second, Unintended edit warring sometimes happens: Sometimes, someone reverts a couple of edits, thinking that they are disruptive/vandalism/etc. but then realizes that others do not think so. He stops then and there. I think in these cases, the reverted person deserves assumption of good faith. In time, I am sorry that all this has happened.


 * In time, may I remind you that a block will prevent nothing? According to Blocking policy, blocks must be preventative and not punitive. Blocking me will prevent nothing, since I will not do it. Fleet Command (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I must contest EdJohnston who says WP:ADVERT does not provide any exception from the edit warring policy. With all due respect, Edit warring, clause three says that enforcing an overriding policy is not edit warring at all. Well, there is no overriding policy more important than What Wikipedia is Not, or more specifically WP:NOTADVERT. Let me remind you: When someone uses Wikipedia for advertisement, we revert him, and then will alert him using Template:Uw-advert1 through Template:Uw-advert4, unless where Don't template the regulars is involved. When the advertising user hit #4, he (not the reverting user) is blocked. Well, my initial assessment of the situation was wrong. But immediately after it became apparent that not everybody agrees with me, I stopped. Fleet Command (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clause 3 of WP:EW is referring to BLP which in fact is item 7 of the eight listed exceptions to WP:3RR. For clarity, all the listed exceptions are copied below. Note that these exceptions do not include WP:ADVERT:


 * 1) Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
 * 2) Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
 * 3) Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts.
 * 4) Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
 * 5) Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
 * 6) Removal of other content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are located, such as child pornography and pirated software.
 * 7) Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
 * 8) Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page.


 * — EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is just an example of an overriding policy, not the only instance. Five pillars are the highest overriding policies. Are you denying the existence of the templates Template:Uw-advert* as well, or the general consensus to use them? Are you denying that you yourself have in the past reverted such edits? Do you need diffs? Fleet Command (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Epeefleche. I'm an involved editor, as I am one of the editors who Fleet reverted.  I would point out first that in addition to his  being blocked for edit warring twice in the past few months, and un-blocked because he "promised to ... no longer edit war", Fleet was warned more than once against edit warring at this particular article (see, eg, here).  And that this is part of a larger pattern of what appears to me to be disruption, consisting of a series of baseless noticeboard complaints within the past few hours brought by Fleet against those w/whom Fleet is edit-warring -- see discussion here).  And an attempted outing of one of the editors by Fleet in multiple comments (itself, a blockable offense), which led to sysop suppression of his comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an ad homeniem argument and therefore a personal attack. You have committed this kind of personal attack multiple times today. Please stop. As far as this discussion is concerned, your edits were so questionable that were reverted by two independent editors. (Me and William M. Connolley). It is time you stopped commenting on the people's past and instead discussed the contributions. You constantly elude answering the questions that William M. Connolley and I have asked. Fleet Command (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fleet -- you made the same accusations of "personal attack" earlier today. They were responded to by a reviewing sysop here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and he later confessed that he has taken side against me. That said, you have just concurred that you in fact did attack me. Fleet Command (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since my name has been invoked, I will comment. FC was previously unblocked, promising not to edit war in future (diff now hard to find, I think it is ). I don't think he has kept his promise; what he has kept up is the wikilawyering, apparent failure to understand the rules, and evasion that you see there. First I object that these are edit warring. Reverting blatant violations of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOTADVERT, is not edit warring is a joke - this excuse cannot be attempted to be taken seriously. It is fairly clear that FC won't take anything but a block seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I stopped eleven hours ago. And I quoted directly from the policy page everyone can see it there. Fleet Command (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And my I remind you that you also reverted the same change? Fleet Command (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to decline this as stale, given that the last revert was some 12 hours ago, but the previous blocks, the unblock last time on the promise to avoid edit warring, and the abuse of Twinkle make me think a block is necessary to prevent, or at least deter, further edit warring. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Aliali3303 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Blocked)
Page: and

User being reported:

Note: This is an report on general edit warring, not 3RR. Aliai3303 returns to Wikipedia every 3 to 10 days to make the same changes to Chauhan and Chaudhary that have been reverted by numerous editors, over and over again. These are small changes (Chauhan is to change the infobox, Chaudhary is to add one sentence to the lead. Users edits are directly contradicted by sourced information in both articles.  The two most recent such reverts are this one on Chaurhary and this one on Chauhan.  A look at the user's Contribution log shows this action repeated over and over again. I blocked the user for 3 days on 13 September, but they returned today to make the same edits.  I decided that since I am a borderline contributor on Chauhan (mostly enforcing consensus and removing unsourced info), I should probably get another admin to review rather than block myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Artiomjar reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 17:35, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 447032035 by Bhny (talk) People can die from mobile phone radiation exposure")
 * 2) 17:55, 20 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Effects */ Mobile phone radiation can lead to death. here is the proof: http://writenow.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/brain-expert-says-cell-phones-may-be-deadly/")
 * 3) 10:20, 21 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Non-thermal effects */")
 * 4) 17:26, 21 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Non-thermal effects */ Mobile phone radiation can lead you to premature death.")
 * 5) 17:29, 21 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Mortality */")
 * 6) 09:48, 22 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Non-thermal effects */ People can die from mobile phone radiation exposure.")
 * 7) 10:01, 22 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Mortality */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Jc3s5h (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The reverts have been going on since August and Artiomjar has never commented on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Godmadeuniverse1 reported by User:Darkwind (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor has not responded at all to my attempts to discuss their edits, whether on the article talk page, their talk page, or even via edit summary. Additionally, there are two IP edits that introduced the same content immediately prior to this string of reverts, which leads me to believe they are also by this editor. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 48 hours for long-term edit warring. User has reverted the same article 9 times since 17 September. The identical reverts always change 'opposite-sex' to 'heterosexual' and 'same-sex' to 'homosexual'. The user has never participated on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 reported by User:Russavia (Result: Protected again)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)

Comments: There is a serious issue here. Just yesterday, bbb23 was warned for making 11 reverts in 2 hours on another article. Now, they are reverting essentially all changes to the Boris Berezovsky article, and is actively gaming to keep information out of the article that they don't like. I have posted messages at russia and biography wikiprojects, RSN and BLPN, in addition to starting an RFC on one issue relating to the article, but introduction of further information is also being reverted wholesale without rhyme nor reason. A block is in order. Additionally, User:Off2riorob is also acting quite disruptively, by additionally removing others edits, in addition to stalking and harrassing me on my talk page. Russavia Let's dialogue 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding additional comment: It appears that Bbb23 is also using WP:RBK to do reverts as per this edit. Additionally, to comment on Off2riorob, seeking uninvolved outside opinion is a standard for any type of dispute. It's call good practice. this and this is not good practice, it's called harrassment, which is worse because you are in a content dispute, and because of previous harrassment just the other day by another using who accused me of being Russian government employed. There's no excuse for it. I would also mind to stop bringing up BLP, when nothing that I introduced into the article was in violation of BLP, so that is no excuse to be wholesale reverting other editors. Russavia Let's dialogue 22:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - Without even looking at the diffs this is an attacking report - there was no warning,(User:Russavia added a warning but not as a warning because they just immediately reported - after he gave his warning no more edits occurred, he warned and reported immediately.) no good faith offer or request to revert. The topic is East European - an area that the reporter has prior arbitration DIGWUREN restrictions and is in dispute at related BLP article and is posting to multiple noticeboards after a BLP with long term disruption was only today unprotected. Looking at the diffs presentted they are not even a violation of 3RR but are rather differing editorial developments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * With the Arbitration Requests Amendment still under way, and a bunch of other noticeboard combats, I suspect this is a remarkably ill-timed noticeboard usage by Russavia. A cup of tea and a short "vacation" might help Russavia at this point.  And a cup of tea.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I was aware of the note Russavia put on my Talk page, I was not aware of the request here until just now. In fact, I was just composing a message to WP:AN about guidance on this issue. I'm not sure where best to post it, but I guess I'll post it here. As for Russavia's comment about the 11 reverts, he's referring to the Troy Davis case article, and I probably made more than 11 before I bowed out and let others take over. The article was in a state of turmoil over the impending execution of Davis, and I think I can safely say that I was reverting with the full blessing of at least two admins, User:Wehwalt, and User:Slp1. I turned the article over to Wehwalt when I had go to dinner at my mother-in-law's. Now back to Berezovsky.

As some background, please see this topic at ANI. The administrative result of that discussion (although more has been added subsequently) was to indefinitely block User:Deepdish7.

After that, User:Black Kite, who had previously locked the Berezovsky article entirely because of BLP issues, unlocked the article. Not unexpectedly, editors with a significant interest in the subject matter of the article started editing. Also, editors with more of an interest in protecting the article (I include myself in this group as I have no special knowledge of Berezovsky or Russian politics) started monitoring those edits and, in many instances, reverting contributions and modifying contributions. Some of those content disputes have made their way to the Talk page of the article and to other forums.

User:Russavia, whom I consider one of the editors interested in the subject matter, has made edits that have been the topic of discussion on the Talk page, and I and others have objected (reverted, modified, discussed) to some of those edits. He then placed a note on my Talk page that I have violated WP:3RR (although nothing about bringing the request here). He's probably right, and if an admin feels I should be blocked, so be it. But what I want to know going forward is how are editors supposed to handle these kinds of fast-paced edits from all sides without running afoul of the rule? Do I rely on exemptions (such as BLP violations) because in some instances, the material doesn't really qualify as a BLP violation, it's wrong for other reasons? Do I have to allow the edits to stand and take up each and every change on the article's Talk page? If I have to do that, honestly, it's too much work, and I'll just bow out of articles like that. In many cases, the edits can be reverted with a good edit summary, and a discussion isn't necessary. I'm trying to avoid reverting the same edit more than once because, regardless of the 3RR rule, I don't want to edit war over a particular edit.

While this request is pending, I've stopped editing the Berezovsky article.

As a P.S., because it was added later, I did not use the rollback command, I used "sum" so I could explain the reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note, even whilst this is going on, Off2riorob is engaging in wholesale reverts as per this. This is a problem that even other editors are having their basically neutral WELL sourced edits wholesale reverted. Some admin intervention and instruction is needed here. --Russavia Let's dialogue 22:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to other admins I have placed a note at User_talk:Lifebaka as he is familiar with the ANI report relating to this article, and may be able to provide some more insight that other admins will find useful here. I have advised him of this report and trust that other admins will confer with Lifebaka. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Um -- I fear your own reverts at 17:56, 18:10, 18:36, 18:50, 19:25, 20:03, 21:21 -- oops - seven reverts by Russavia, who is the complainant here. I think that WP:BOOMERANG claims another victim. Cheers - you really should have settled for the cup of tea. Collect (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you care to show diffs of the reverts? Because what I have done on the article is introduced new material, with 2 reverts at my count. And 1 edit was caught up in an edit conflict where more sources were demanded, which I provided. Anyway, diffs please showing said reverts would be nice. Russavia Let's dialogue 22:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Article protected again. As I said on the talkpage, I unprotected the article in good faith, and would protect it again if that proved to be a problem.  Which it clearly has been.  Please use the talkpage to sort out these differences.  If more time is needed, that is not a problem either.   Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Fearingpredators reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Fearingpredators
 * And also, this constitutes a further violation of 3RR.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 31 hours. User has restored similar material to the article 11 times since September 14. It seems that his change does not have consensus, but he makes it anyway. He may have been using two IPs to participate in the war. Another admin has blocked the IPs for a week per the SPI case mentioned above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cossde reported by User:Intoronto1125 (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: Well on this article the edit war is over if the place is a city or town. I have provided a source to indicate its a city another editor is also in the opinion of Trincomalee being a city not a town (see talk page). He has followed by getting into another war. (see below) Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 24 hours for 3RR violation. Intoronto1125 should not refer to Cossde's changes as vandalism; this can lead to sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't meant to be intentional when using twinkle one press of the button can cause that outcome. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   00:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cossde reported by User:Kanatonian (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: Well the reported editor seemed to have followed another editor with whom he is been having edit warring into this article and since then has removed cited material number of times. Kanatonian (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Declined. The language that Cossde is removing from the article includes:"According Asian Human Rights Commission, Chandre Dharma-Wardene maintains false, defamatory and a potential death list of alleged former rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam supporters."This wording sounds inappropriate under WP:BLP, so I would not block for removing it. Editors on talk should find consensus to describe the matter in more neutral terms. It is unclear whether even a newspaper would word it that way. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor has restored the above wording to the article. The guy operated a web site about Sri Lankan matters and he had a wiki-like section where anyone could submit material. (Does the idea sound familiar to anyone?)  Some people logged in over the internet and added material to his web site that became very politically contentious and may have been defamatory. Since the above brouhaha, he fixed his web site and took down the offending material. Please see a discussion at Talk:Chandre Dharma-wardana. I hope that the editors on the article talk page will be able to come up with better wording to describe this controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed you have suggested a very good compromise on the talk page and we should go with it, it follows WP:NPOV. But does the BLP questions give cart blanche to User:Cossde to violate 3rr ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP is #7 in the list of exemptions to WP:3RR. Admins may differ as to when to grant the exemption. Saying that someone maintains a 'potential death list' is a very serious charge. The actuality (it seems) is that the guy was slow to remove political attack statements added by contributors to his web site. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * O.K at least I understand your perspective on Cossde, but the good old professor still maintains the alleged "death list" and only removed the name of the AHRC president from it after the public exposure. That is a fact. Kanatonian (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please continue this on the article talk page. You seem to know more than what the reliable sources have documented so far. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, he moved the offending list to a different website (link not provided) but we cant mention it in the Wikipedia article because, no one has mentioned it yet in an RS source. But time will tell, I have proposed a compromise and looking for suggestions. Kanatonian (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:24.163.39.26 reported by Dawnseeker2000  (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 23:17, 22 September 2011  (edit summary: "rv vandalism. The issue is under consensus discussion. Read Wikipedia policies. Tagging does not justify violation of WP:CON or WP:V. Add your comments to the talk page instead of vandalizing and edit warring.")
 * 2) 16:22, 23 September 2011  (edit summary: "rv contentious material currently in a consensus discussion. And no evidence of any relationship to the film Big.")
 * 3) 16:39, 23 September 2011  (edit summary: "Sourcing alone is not always sufficient to include something in an article. It is disputed. Wait for consensus.")
 * 4) 16:48, 23 September 2011  (edit summary: "WAIT FOR CONSENSUS.")
 * 5) 16:49, 23 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 452050579 by 93.44.211.27 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * I started a discussion on the articles talk page here after seeing an edit war.
 * I submitted that page be protected from the extended revert war and it was protected on September 12th
 * Additional information: This particular user has been a little aggressive in this dispute with a level four disruption warning and here also. These warnings were to several of the Italian IP user(s). I don't think those warnings were justified as the Italian editor that's been adding the disputed material has been acting in good faith. The addition of the material hasn't harmed WP in any way and in fact another editor placed an original research tag as a means to work towards a resolution and I thought that was fine.

— Dawnseeker2000  18:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No evidence whatsoever that there are "several" Italian users; that is an attempt by Dawnseeker to exaggerate my behavior. Look at the "Italian users'" edits; they all follow the same pattern of adding the same material repeatedly without consensus. And it's quite obvious that the "Italian user" has not always "been adding the disputed material acting in good faith". He/she has done it again and again and again in the midst of an ongoing consensus discussion after multiple requests to wait for consensus. I am not criticizing Dawnseeker for making this report, but he/she has a marked tendency toward hyperbole. 24.163.39.26 (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:41.133.47.137 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Anon IP is removing factual statements, adding false statements based on misinterpreted original research, and appears to be trying to edit the article to be more positive towards the company. This has been ongoing for some time, but this is the first time the IP has violated 3RR.


 * OK, this is a weird one. The IP has clearly violated 3RR, and as such *, but they are probably correct about the edit, and as such I have restored it with a reasonable edit summary. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - it doesn't appear that this editor was ever actually blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the article was actually semi-protected since the editor has changed IPs in the past. Kuru   (talk)  15:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The user is me. I was unaware of the 3RR at the time. After having been made aware of it, I ceased editing the article. I also explained certain things on one user's article. Rather than summing it all up again, here is a link(which hopefully won't get removed as others have been by certain editors):



As noted, the editor User:MikeWazowski has hardly been spotless himself, having removed WP:RS. Also note, that after having been alerted of the existence of the 3RR, I made no further edits to the article, whereas User:MikeWazowski almost immediately edited the page-as-protected re-inserting unsourced POV material. 41.133.47.137 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What you call "removing reliable sources" was in fact removing your mis-interpretation of sources. As for calling my additions unsourced, let's look at how the article existed before you started, and how it exists now - all of the sourced additions and rewrites were done by me. And as the UK court issued an associated ruling in which they agreed Lucasfilm's copyright had been infringed in the US, and those infringements were enforceable in Britain, the use of the word "unauthorized" is factual, sourced in the article, and not POV. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Such as "misinterpreting" this?



which you removed here



I must note a certain sense of arrogance on your part "all of the sourced additions and rewrites were done by me", "I will be updating this article later, but this statement will not stand" etc.

Meanwhile as far as "before I started", wrong again..

the original article

 (that article was created on October 12 2006)

it wasn't until May 17 2010(ie FIVE YEARS LATER) that an anonymous editor FIRST added the word "unauthorized"



this is what was reverted wand has started the troubles. Meanwhile, the question STILL stands..."is there a WP:RS which specifically refers to these props as 'unauthorized', especially given the link I provided above (not for the first time as you have removed it before)?"

As far as my removing the WP:OR of the inclusion of the word "unauthorized", and others insisting on re-instating it, please read WP:BURDEN and WP:V. You have DELIBERATELY removed not one but 2 WP:RS that I added, just because they conflicted with your POV, and you insist on re-inserting a contentious, unsourced term without a WP:RS. 41.133.47.137 (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:79.223.30.75 reported by Buggie111 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page: and

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC ARA Moreno ARA Rivadavia Previous version reverted to: and
 * 1) 13:51, 24 September 2011  (edit summary: "Fix the templates if you don't like the distances. Your mode prevents a unified look and makes WP:ACCESS harder.")
 * 2) 14:20, 24 September 2011  (edit summary: "See discussion")
 * 3) 14:24, 24 September 2011  (edit summary: "Seems to be uncontroversial then. If you want a space, take it to the navbox and stop destroying Wikipedia unified style.")
 * 4) 15:17, 24 September 2011  (edit summary: "I don't know what AWB is or why you would like to AWB-proof the navbox. However, stop creating ad-hoc style, change the navbox if you want more spaces.")
 * 5) 15:26, 24 September 2011  (edit summary: "rv disruptive style-breaking edit. See Talk:ARA Rivadavia.")
 * 1) 14:23, 24 September 2011  (edit summary: "Stop preventing a unified look across articles. If you want a space, take it to the navbox people.")
 * 2) 15:17, 24 September 2011  (edit summary: "See discussion")
 * 3) 15:26, 24 September 2011  (edit summary: "rv disruptive style-breaking edit. See Talk:ARA Rivadavia.")
 * 4) 16:13, 24 September 2011  (edit summary: "Stop lawyering and start discussing the issue, see Talk:ARA Rivadavia.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP attempting to remove in order to "create a unified look". Talk page discussion is leading nowhere with IP not contributing constructively. Buggie111 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That last part is simply a lie, look for yourself. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I correct myself. One of your edits did help the discussion . The rest of them, like this: are not helping. Buggie111 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With "helpful", I assume you mean comments that agree with your point of view. I suggest that you start participating in said discussion before lamenting that I'm not helpful.
 * One more question: Who was it that initiated the discussion? --79.223.30.75 (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, by helpful, I mean comments that actually move the discussion along, not spomething that denies compromise like: "That shows that you don't understand the issue: The navbox can't change anything. If you prefer a space in front of any navbox, you have to take it there. Otherwise, you will create a look that is not unified across pages" or "You quote is too long: "Where more than one style is acceptable [...]", and patching spaces by inserting HTML comments certainly is not. If you'd actually used a style (eg. by changing navboxes), we wouldn't have this discussion. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) ", which basically just pushes your POV. Also, the fact that you initiated the discussion does not mean that you instantly are right (i.e. He started it.....) Buggie111 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, whatever, if you want to discuss the issue, go to the known place. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * IP is being disruptive; the talk is all against the abrupt removes @ Talk:ARA_Rivadavia, ip has spread this to Rivadavia-class battleship. I've reverted the last ones and suggest ip get a day off. i told them, twice, to raise their concern at the navbox-level. —Portuguese Man o' War 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur; please block the IP. They have performed 16 reverts on the three articles in question today. --<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Eisfbnore <font color="#009900">&bull; talk  20:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/91.10.26.140 would seem to be the same person... same reverts. —Portuguese Man o' War 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Halaqah reported by User:Tamsier (Result: Submitter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This person has persued me and my edits and will not stop until action is taken against them. It is mostly about Religion. Islam V Serer religion. Every notable sources cited about Serer people's experience with Islam has been deleted by this person and deemed biased against Islam, even when they are direct quotes from authors. This person is present in all Serer related articles and other articles I have edited. Articles this person has never shown any interested in until recently. The level of edit warring has gotten so bad that, I should just give up on the articles and let them fall naturally. Articles I have invested a lot of time in and effort and a person who have no interest in the article other than their edit war. The Serer people article has been protected for now after my request. Tamsier (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC) -->
 * This complaint is hard to understand. Evidently Tamsier and Halaqah have clashed over multiple articles, and the diffs listed above are collected from all over. The Serer people article has been fully protected due to edit warring, but I don't know how that was decided. There's not enough evidence in this 3RR report to see who ought to be sanctioned. A case was filed here 3 days ago by the same editor: . There is an open complaint by Tamsier against Kwamikagami regarding Serer people at WQA. If the main dispute is about Serer people then somebody could open up a WP:Request for comment there. Tamsier's efforts to get various people sanctioned don't seem to be making any headway. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about this complaint. This editor is a problem for the quality of wikipedia and I was going to make a formal complaint asking that their bigoted Serer Advocacy campaign across several articles (which has a distinctive anti-Islamic, anti-non-Serer tone). I noticed it after spotting some terible POV in one article. I noticed that material was copy and pasted into many other articles. Same text, same tone, same bias, same poor unreliable sources which have racial supremacy of one ethnic group "The Mighty Serer", "Unlike other people who easily abandon their faith the Serer are...", I think the editors own links speak for themselves as terrible NPOV violations. the quality of wikipedia cannot tolerate Advocacy that violates NPOV. Notice that none of their accusation deal with any FACTS over content, like putting incorrect tags in an article and disrupting it. They suggest stalking, and rightly so, when POV content is being copy and pasted across many pages.Because the pages are low level they got away with several disruptions. As I said the edits can be investigated so see if I AGF, also see talk page discussions for each edit. I suggest this user be banned as a disruptive advocate who disregards policy, also see the reasons he/she give for reverting other editors incorrect tagging.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Submitter warned. Tamsier assumes that he is right about certain African language issues but does not appear to have sources to back up his position. The fact that his changes are so frequently reverted should alert him that consensus is needed before he inserts his positions again. This edit summary looks uncivil to me: "..Halaqah being muslim wants that section decapitated." EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:67.122.138.76 reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

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:

(Note from LikeLakers2: These reverts are from Template:Latest F1GP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is a simple, uncontroversial update of a template that is made for every new Formula One Grand Prix. The current one is taking place now, so the update was made. This IP has reverted it nine times and counting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Taken from the AIV noticeboard:
 * Repeatedly reverting edits simply because there was no reason given.. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 21:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As well as edit warring. I suggest the talk page access be blocked on first block, so that they won't remove the block template. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 22:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This IP is pretty problematic - he reverts very minor, uncontroversial edits for no reason, up to ten times and counting on the same article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 22:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated to include links. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 22:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3 days. m.o.p  14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Captain armenia reported by User:Saguamundi (Result: Final warning issued)
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:

User:Captain armenia is engaging in edit wars and by erasing sourced NPOV material and adding POV material without sources. This user has threatened other registered users with a block even though he is not an administrator and has referred registered users which reverted his editions to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution notice board without first going to the talk page of the article. This user has already violated three-revert rule by reverting this article 4 times and likely will continue to do so again. Saguamundi (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also want to complain about this user as this user keeps acting like he basically "owns" the article by adding some biased information without acknowledging basic wiki laws.--NovaSkola (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Final warning issued. m.o.p  14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)