Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive169

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Protected)
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: User is well established and familiar with 3RR policies

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User keeps removing expert blogs cited multiple times by other sources per some misunderstanding of what WP:SPS actually says. E.g. Pharyngula (blog) is an award-winning blog from PZ Myers, which Nature (journal) recognized as the top science blog of 2006. Likewise for Phil Plait and his Bad Astronomy published in Discover magazine. Battison herself published in the Journal of Cosmology and gave a hard look at the peer reviewing process from the Journal of Cosmology. Rosie Redfield also gave a point-by-point debunking on the Hoover claims. All these sources were widely quote in the media, and are as reliable as it gets. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP removals are not a revert. Using this blog to call the journals editors "Cranks" isa violation of BLP policy. I will also point out Headbomb has done three reverts, with one after BLP concerns were raised. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are not BLP removals, as the quotes are fully attributed to whoever made them, reflect mainstream opinion, and were published in reliable and recognized sources. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You used a Blog to call BLP`s "cranks" if this is so mainstream why use a blog and not a newspaper or journal? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because if you want to quote someone, you cite the place where the quote was originally made. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Full protection, 3 days - work it out on talk. Vsmith (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Phukkeri reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: through sock IP 24.21.18.209

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning and other notices:

Comments:

Assorted copyvio infringements, statements not covered by citations and citing Wikipedia articles. Continues unabated despite multiple warnings. Violations of WP:BLP. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 07:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Fastily. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sankarrukku reported by User:Chektomate (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Reverts done today:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Older reverts within 3 days:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

The user is trying to glorify the article, which is about a caste in India. He has removed the refimprove/peacock tags from the page, and is reverting since a week.

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: []

Comments:

Even after 3 warnings issued to the user, the artice is getting reverted. Chektomate (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Four reverts in 24 hours (12:08,06:51,06:06,02:47) and many warnings about 3RR.  Kuru   (talk)  15:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Tamilan101 reported by User:Secret of success (Result: Warned)
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: [diff]

Comments:I haven't even received a summary from this user for his unexplained vandalizing reverts in the Wanted (2009 film) page. He seems to be a die-hard Kollywood fan (no use of WP:AGF here) and reverted mine and User:Managerarc's edits 4 or 5 times on changing the sentence to saying that "It is a remake of the Telugu film Pokiri". He wants it read that it is a remake of the Tamil remake of the Telugu film. I posted a notice in his page asking him to explain why he did it and I have provided a valid reason "In case of multiple remakes, the original writer is credited, so the original film i.e the Telugu version, is the film from which this has been remade" but no summaries or response has been received. Please block him at least for sometime and here's a link to his talk page in which I gave a warning. Thank you!


 * Re-report if the user continues to edit war.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 22:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:86.176.153.183 (talk) reported by User:Leaky caldron (Result: duplicate)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * see diffs identified in simultaneous report of same user/topic, following this report.


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


 * This latest revert diff edit summary appears to imply ownership of the article. I assume the "c" is intended to indicate copyright! However, it may be that he is agreeing to cease from further disruption. Leaky Caldron  15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: plus response from IP alleging censorship and ignoring consensus. Comments:


 * Closed per report below. Kuru   (talk)  15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:86.176.153.183 reported by User:LadyofShalott (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Big Brother 2011 (UK)

Comments:

I didn't realize Leaky Cauldron was also making a report. As it seems we have given slightly different information, can our two reports be merged somehow? Lady of  Shalott  14:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Was warned; pretty simple. Kuru   (talk)  15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Westvoja and User:Davejohnsan reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 1 week)
Page:

Users being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

Reverts by Westvoja: Reverts by Davejohnsan (including two misuses of Rollback):
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 1st revert (Rollback misuse):
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert (Rollback misuse):
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (for Westvoja, Davejohnsan is experienced enough to know to not edit war):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Note:I'm not involved in this edit war, but decided to report it. Seems to be a hint of incivility (by Westvoja) as well here.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the other user be blocked too?Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody warned him. I'm not inclined to block User:Davejohnsan without notice.  You can warn him if you like though... - F ASTILY  (TALK) 22:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He was the one who gave the warning (see the diff), which implies he understands it. Plus, the misuse of rollback is something to look at too.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Warned now. I am, however, not comfortable blocking or revoking rollback privileges at this time.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Samofi reported by Nmate (talk) (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 08:49, 26 September 2011  (edit summary: "rv - dont use the sources from the 1905 and encyclopedias instead of the reliable secondary sources and stop to edit warring")
 * 2) 09:26, 26 September 2011  (edit summary: "we cannot verify the source from bauer from your link")
 * 3) 09:58, 26 September 2011  (edit summary: "how could be a hungarian principality a first state and it was a tribal alliance? its unlogical, source its there but i need a verification")
 * 4) 10:23, 26 September 2011  (edit summary: "Its first time, what I have undone your edit today Koertefa. You came into content dispute between me and Fakirbakir (you are not neutral). It were removed tertiary sources from the 1905. secundary sources are there and content was repaired")


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Samofi is a very disruptive user who got a second chance for returning to Wikipedia after once already being blocked for indefinite time. After that, he returned to his old way of editing; editwarring with Hungarian users, over Hungarian related content, and changing the nationality of every famous person who posesses an article on the English wikipedia from Hungarian into Slovak.

When he received his indef block, the reason for that was that;


 * "As noted at ANI, the combination of large aggressive editing with a clear POV indicates a battleground mentality that's inappropriate here. The fact that your response pointing to edits at Černová tragedy which were immediately reverted (in part, because you are obviously removing sources you don't agree with) indicates a real need to understand that purposes of Wikipedia is not for you to push your POV on everybody else."

Which very reminiscents of what is going on here as mentioned by his opponent in this edit war by an edit summary:
 * 9:38, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "The full book is there (p. 586), DO NOT REMOVE SOURCES")

Also, Samofi is being discussed at WP ANI. But because in my opinion, Samofi is in violation of 3RR, I also reported him on this very board as well. --Nmate (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a clear 3RR (10:23, 09:58, 09:26, and 08:49) and appears to be a continuation of his previous disruptive editing. Not sure on the block length, though; will provide input at the ANI discussion and see what other opinions are out there.  Kuru   (talk)  15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with the Nmate. I was not disruptive, I always use the reliable sources, but he dont like me from my begin at wikipedia - he wrote a lot of warnings to me, sockpuppetry investigation, he never discuss just write a reports against me. My last edit warring was a 1,5 year ago. My first edit what is reported here as edit warring is cut from the context (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&action=history). My first editation consisted with a 5 edits, I wanted to make a better entrance, but fakirbakir started to undone my work. So I undoned him 2x. Than his friend Koertefa (they were involved in canvass afair http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fakirbakir&diff=prev&oldid=448977281) was involved. I misinterpret 3RR, I thought that its about persons (Fakirbakir vs. me) its reason why I undone the edit of Koertefa (I wrote in the edit summary that its for a first time what I undone him). So it was a big mistake from my side that I broken a 3RR. If I would know it, I will not make it. Sorry. --Samofi (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

About user Nmate who reported me. He provocate and write reports to all Slovak and Czech editors with different opinions and fall dirty to them instead of discussion and help. Look his activities, its clear ideological warrior and Iam abused from he more than year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yopie&diff=451666472&oldid=451650075 he bite a newcomers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omen1229&diff=446123412&oldid=444652689 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaemn784&diff=prev&oldid=451831919 he often contact other editors and cooperate - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fakirbakir&diff=prev&oldid=452511766 he blanked my sourced page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovak_principality&diff=prev&oldid=449286064 he deleted my sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&diff=prev&oldid=449286020 he still plays with investigations: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi&diff=prev&oldid=451509181 - look to this, again Hungarian editors vs. others. He has a battleground mentality and I cannot work at wikipedia because of he. He knows a rules good, so he provocate with other users and waiting for a mistake from our side. About my second undone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&diff=452489154&oldid=452487328 - sourced name by secondary sources the Hungarian tribal alliance was removed, I repaired it in my best faith coz its more frequent term than principality of hungary (which is mentioned only in tertiary sources). --Samofi (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This board is about edit warring, and there is a clear violation of 3RR, which is certainly disruptive. Furthermore, once already said user was blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing, and the only thing that he can do to "improve" Wikipedia is edit warring. Any other thing is irrelevant to this case.--Nmate (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not clear violation, it was a misinterpretation of the rule and my first edit was rebuilding of the entrance to the article. So I 2x undone fakirbakir and once Koertefa, coz I thought that 3RR is about persons and not about article. How could be principality a tribal alliance? There were unlogical things.. I explained why I made that - it was also written in edit summaries. I made it (violation of 3RR) firstly a long time ago, I was new and I did not know about this rule. Am I a disruptive user? Why only Hungarian editors has a problems with me? I stopped for a short time edit Hungarian related articles. I was edditing Principality of Nitra, Slovak history, music articles. What happened? Hungarian users started to revert my edits in Slovak-related articles. And about my work here.. I added +/- 100 sources last month about history of Slovakia and history of Hungary, I have read a plenty of books - more than you in all your life. Nobody is interesting about your enmity and your to me and other non Hungarian editors. If I really broken the rule about edit warring, than sorry and I will take a consequences, but I made it in the good faith. --Samofi (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone who was already blocked for indefinite time, refers to not being familiar with the 3RR rule is hardly credible. By the way, your entire contribution to Wikipedia is edit warring. And in addition, notwithstanding the fact that Samofi is being reported here, he is still edit warring on an another article . --Nmate (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I add the sources supporting that tertia pars regni is the same like nitra appanage duchy - in the discussion (see talkpage) and article principality of nitra. Fakirbakir did not discuss, he just undone my edits without reason. He undone all my edits and Iam the warrior? I was open to discussion, if he would have a 1 source supporting his opinion against my 5 sources i would never undone it. --Samofi (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring on the article on Tercia pars regni; you deleted the article contents and replaced with a redirect at, , and in a space of 27 hours.  A normal good-faith editor would have placed a notice on Articles for deletion, and opened up a discussion on this controversial deletion.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A) You knows nothing about this topic B) Have you raed talkpage? I added sources each time when I put the redirection in the article - article was not sourced. Its same content in the article Principality of Nitra and in the article Tercia pars regni. Btw it should be "tertia pars regni" - 116 vs. 13 hits. Fakirbakir has no references - his good fight would be if he would add some references supporting his statement - he is editing a new propagandistic articles without references, iam trying to repair it, coz wikipedia is not dictionary. --Samofi (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I nominated article Principality of Hungary for deletion, than for rename and I was reported by user:fakirbakir that I want to destroy his work. He redirected Royal Hungary without discussion to the Kingdom of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Hungary&action=history) I just made a same thing. I use the same shifts as he. He is good and Iam the bad and disruptive? Its unfair. --Samofi (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I think that in the tertia pars regni it was not edit warring but it was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle --Samofi (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once.
 * BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
 * And this also seems to be a revert on a yet another article-- --Nmate (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * and here I undone an edit in this article: Uf Iam so disruptive.. You are a really funny with your efforts to ascribe to me a disruptions and edit warring. I try make all according to rules in the good faith, all my edits are based on reliable english sources, sometimes Iam bold, okay but Iam able to make a compromises. You are not. I agree that I made a mistake in article about Principality of Hungary, if I would know that my last edit will break the 3RR I would not make this edit so Iam sorry about this. --Samofi (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * and I add the source in the article about Csontvary, there is written "Magyar" - ethnic magyar roots. No Hungarian roots - it can be nationality, origin or ethnicity. Its explained that word Magyar is the most precise but vandalized by editors from hungary - they did not open discussion about this but edit warring against me. Look what editors from hungary make here: Nmate deleted 3 times in the one day my source:    and he did not discuss it at the talkpage and did not discuss with me - clear edit warring. Dear ADMINS, its more than one year what the Nmate harass me and other slovak users - espetialy newcomers:  . --Samofi (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? How does someone with ethnic-Magyar roots differ from someone with ethnic-Hungarian roots?  The word 'Magyar' is just the Hungarian word that means 'Hungarian'.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is clearly an extension of the previous behavior which lead to the indefinite block last year. I've blocked for one week for the clear 3RR violation, and this is a warning that the previous block will be reinstated if there is further problematic behavior.  Kuru   (talk)  14:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Aprock reported by User:Anupam (Result: Both users warned)
Page:

Users being reported:

User:Aprock has been notified several times not to remove the link to the article militant atheism from other articles and templates throughout Wikipedia as the RfC that is discussing the article's fate is still in progress. I asked the editor to kindly wait until the RfC was over but he continued to remove the link to the article in question from other articles and templates. The following are the relevant differences:


 * Exhibit A
 * Exhibit B
 * Exhibit C
 * Exhibit D
 * Exhibit E
 * Exhibit F
 * Exhibit G
 * Exhibit H
 * Exhibit I
 * Exhibit J
 * Exhibit K
 * Exhibit L

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2

Comments:


 * note: not a single diff listed above is a revert, and all but four of them come from before the linked warning. aprock (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * both users. In case there's even one more removal of internal links and subsequent reversion from either one of you, you will be blocked immediately (in case the RfC hasn't ended). Wifione  Message 09:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User:94.5.94.52 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: Mediating)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This IP apparently believes that sources must be online, which is not so. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You realize you've violated 3RR yourself, yes? only (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3RR does not relate to combating vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but he's claiming the source is not POV and is removing it on that grounds. This sounds like an edit dispute over the source...not a case of vandalism.  only (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What, are you claiming that The Times is in some way unreliable? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Film reviews are obviously not NPOV, they are opinions> I have added two "positive reviews" but the fact remains that some critics don't think much of the film. Do you think that the opinions of a Times reviewer are not worthy of inclusion? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And another removal here. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You guys have already engaged in discourse on the talk page - clear up your disagreements there before you start editing the main page. I'll check back in a bit to see how things are going. m.o.p  15:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:70.143.87.254 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * New text added by 70.143.87.254: 03:59, September 27
 * 1st revert: 04:22, September 27
 * 2nd revert: 04:34, September 27
 * 3rd revert: 07:26, September 27
 * 4th revert: 14:24, September 27

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The IP editor has a decent point to make—there is a grain of truth to the assertion that the racist meaning of "tar baby" is largely confined to the USA. However, the subscription-only OED non-print version mentions Australian and New Zealander racism associated with "tar baby" term. The IP editor, after seeing initial resistance to his poorly sourced edits, changed his focus to the OED print version and continues to revert. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No reverts since 3RR warning. If the IP continues edit-warring, please re-report. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Yonmei reported by User:Collect (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)  16:32 - 51 27 Sep (6 edits) (revert)
 * 2)  16:55 (revert)
 * 3)  17:04
 * 4)  17:06 (2 edits)
 * 5)  17:10 (revert number 3)
 * 6)  17:13 - 15 (2 edits) (revert 4)
 * 7)  17:54 (revert number 5)
 * 8) prior edit same day  13:46 6th unquestionable revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Multiple efforts see also  prior EW example and his response at  etc.

Comments:

Yonmei has made a relatively large number of edits on that article, shown an argumentative attitude on the article talk page, and repeatedly pushed any EW envelope (I do not list his multitude of edits over 24 hours, as the case would be exceedingly strong).in the case at hand, he is well past any rational excuse for 3RR (5RR or higher if we start counting earlier edits today). Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by Yonmei (Result: No Violation)
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:

Comments:

Editor has been conducting edit wars in the Johann Hari article and making comments lacking in civility on the Talk page. I took a break for some days from editing the article because of his comments. The particular example he objects to that was resolved by consensus on the Talk page was using the header "Plagiarism" under "Journalistic Controversies".

Following several comments on the Talk page that the "Journalistic Controversies" section ought to be redrafted I did so, including changing the "Plagiarism" header in line with consensus reached on Talk page. receiving an approving comment from another editor for my work. Collect did not comment in the Talk page on those changes, but instead posted a 3RR warning on my Talk page, instructing me to revert my changes to a version of the page last edited by Collect or he would report me.

If I follow Collect's instructions and self-revert, not only will I be ignoring the consensus discussions on the Talk page, but it would involve reverting changes made by three other editors who are engaging in discussion on the Talk page about these changes, which Collect is not.

I think this is an abuse of process. Please advise. Yonmei (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: I apologise for the mirroring reports: Collect posted on my Talk page at 18:06 to say he intended to report me if I did not self-revert, and then 13 minutes later seems to have reported me here anyway - the length and complexity of the reverts he wanted me to make were such that, if I had opted to follow his instructions, it would have taken a lot longer than a quarter of an hour to follow through.

Comments:

While technically Collect may not have surpassed three reverts, he is an experienced editor and clearly aware that he is editing against consensus. TFD (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is clear retribution for my noting Yonmei's "more than five reverts" above - and also note that he left no warning as required in the first place -- just a notice that he filed this report . '''Hi, you have been reported for edit warring on the Johann Hari/Talk page. ' is not'' a proper warning - and the notice on my UT page is not per policy. And I would note no warning on that talk page exists either.    As for consensus - the fact is and has been that Yonmei is the one who is pushing a POV, while my edits were based strictly on WP:BLP and noted as such.  Cheers TFD - but your backing of this report makes no sense when WP:BLP is a specific exception to the 3RR rule in the first place. Collect (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)  Note: edit summaries of per actual content of cites and contents of sections - WP:BLP still applies as he is not yet dead) and  per fact as to what he apologized for explicitly - and again oer requirements of WP:BLP)   pretty clearly and properly invoke WP:BLP. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC) FWIW, I prepared the 3RR warning and only after preparing it discovered he had made yet another edit - sorry Yonmei - but when a person makes 6 reverts in a four hour period, it becomes a teensy bit hard to justify. And half the reverts had nothing to do with me. Collect (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring is not the correct response when you believe there is a BLP biolation. TFD (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect repeatedly argues that a news report from The Independent is an "unsourced contentious claim". Link to Collect continuing this dispute with another editor on the article talk page: Yonmei (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you made an accurate statement. My view is that for an article to state outright that the person apologized for "plagiarism"  a strong source must be used.  In point of fact, alas, the actual "apology" does not include any aology for "plagiarism." Given such an overt  conflict, the newspaper article is insufficient.   I also note the Laurence Tribe case where that author had actually used words of another and claimed them as his own - which more clearly fit the textbook definition of plagiarism.  Cheers, and next time please reflect what I write, and not what you wish to set up as a straw argument. Collect (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have attempted several times to make this case on the Talk page, and each time a general consensus has agreed that you are factually wrong - we have a strong source, which has been linked to and quoted at you multiple times by multiple editors. I'm delighted the page has been protected, as I hope that over a week you will cool down and realise that continually making reverts against Talk page consensus and a strong source, even if technically you abide by the 3RR rule, is not good practice. Thanks! Yonmei (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First - this is not the place for you to continuously tendentiously misrepresent the edits of another editor. I would particularly note your current efforts to include blogs as sources in the BLP are failing mightily.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First - I have not done that. Please stop claiming that I have. Remember WP:NPA ad WP:NICE. Second: The page is protected precisely so that we have a week to discuss proposed changes on the Talk page - please take your comments there. Thank you!Yonmei (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLP for the fact that the policy requires removal of unsourced contentious claims. Cheers - I had two reverts (one edit was, in fact, a copyedit not removing anything of substance from the article itself) to Yonmei's 6+.   I suggest that the difference is quite substantial, indeed, especially when the changes were required by Wikipedia policy.  Your mileage apparently varies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologise for using incorrect procedure: this is entirely new to me. I didn't intend this as retribution - I just wanted it clear, since Collect had declared he was going to bring in the admins to try to clarify what had happened and accept their judgement. Yonmei (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you have used noticeboards in the past, I thought you read the instructions at the top of the page. Meanwhile I suggest Talk:Laurence Tribe who was accused of "plagiarism" is on point here, along with the consensus that such charges do, indeed, fall under WP:BLP strictures.  Cheers - that article shows clearly why this article has a major BLP problem. Collect (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The information that Collect keeps removing is not an 'unsourced contentious claim'. He has been provided with the source many times (at least twice by me alone). He has not yet explained why he believes this source to be unacceptable and continues to edit against consensus on this matter. Collect, your claim regarding the Talk:Laurence Tribe is being addressed on Talk:Johann_Hari so I suggest we continue that discussion there. - JRheic (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:GageSkidmore reported by User:Railer-man (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

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

Comments: This user keeps removing the notice even though someone has to review the page first and see if any improvements can be made, as per WP:GAN


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Saygi1 (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

User Beyond My Ken, who admits not being an expert on the issue of Azerbaijani-Americans on his own talk page, and admits of him being "(perhaps) prejudiced" removed/blanked out a large paragraph of "heavily sourced" (as he admits) information with some 18 (!) citations/URLs/references.


 * Link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to:

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:

Comments: I've expanded and improved the article over the past month, and have pleaded BMK today to not remove info, instead discuss it and help re-phrase anything he feels needs to be re-phrased.

Saygi1 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The material removed was synthesis in blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL, specifically #3:"Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and 'future history' are inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." The paragraph removed speculated on what the U.S. Census results would say when it was released, and none of the sources provided were reliable as to that subject. Discussion about this took place here and here, and I opened a thread on WP:RSN here.  No amount of superficial rephrasing can turn speculation into fact. The Census data will be released in time, and it will say what it will say.  At that time, it can be added to the article. There's no encyclopedic need to speculate in advance on what it might say, so my removal of the material was jutsified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The diffs speak for themselves - there was no violation of CRYSTAL. Please see the last version that BMK reverted, there was no such wording . There was smth to that effect in an older version of the article, which literally said smth different than what BMK alleges: "The 2010 U.S. Census results, to be released by the end of 2011, are expected to reflect a more current official estimate on the number of Azerbaijanis in the U.S." . (BMK claimed above this: "paragraph speculating about what the new U.S. Census results will show about the number of Azerbaijani-Americans") As you can see, there is no prediction of Census results of Azerbaijani-Americans even in the older version of the page, before it was re-written, but simply informing the viewer that there was a recent Census and its results will be available soon. What kind of results, it does not say and does not speculate. Yet it was still reverted by BMK, improperly citing CRYSTAL. Even if there would have been a speculation over the number of people, that's not a license to blank the page and remove 18 sources along. There is no CRYSTAL violation here. He could have simply removed one word or re-phrased one sentence. But he preferred to revert the page 3 times in one day, despite my repeated pleas on his talk page and the talk page of the article itself. --Saygi1 (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "...are expected to..." speaks for itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just thought I'd chime in here...I had a look at what was removed, and it does seem to be pretty speculative, albeit sourced speculation. I'm not quite sure that it was flat out blatant, but it didn't take a stretch for me to see it as speculative. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * user Beyond My Ken removed the whole paragraph with 18 sources over one or two words in the first sentence of the paragraph that he claimed was "speculative". That is wrong, as he could have easily re-worded it and edited it (and he has a lot of time and experience), as well as discuss it with others. This is why I reported him here, as it's a pure case of edit warring. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't report a 3RR violation, I reported edit warring - this page is for both types of violations, and I did not indicate 3RR violation anywhere. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Users are only blocked for violations of the three revert rule or for long-term edit-warring ( i.e. edit-warring over a period of weeks or months). Neither of these conditions has been met, so Beyond my Ken is not going to be blocked.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 23:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Therock40756 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 1 month)
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: Therock40756 has been blocked twice before for edit warring

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

Comments:

Therock40756 has been engaged in an edit-war on the article for most of September. I asked for temporary full protection of the article, and Therock40756 refused to discuss his proposed changes. Shortly after full protection was lifted, Therock40756 began edit warring again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And another revert after being informed of this complaint. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And now, out of the blue after being inactive for the same week as Therock40756, Sourcechecker419 has reappeared to pick up the edit war while Therock40756 is being reported. I don't have the website for edit comparisons handy, but obvious sock/meat appears obvious here. Dayewalker (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've opened an investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Therock40756. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * i was just coming here to see how do you check for sockpuppet. Last time this happened I said this on the talk page I suspect therock and sourcechecker are the same person. With such a specific agenda I think we know what we will find.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:Therock40756 (Result: Reporter blocked)
I'd like to make a formal complaint on Malik Shabazz for edit-warring. It of course, takes two to edit-war. Please take note of my attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page: Talk:African American, Talk:African American. In fact, I STARTED the discussion. Malik Shabazz has a long history of meddling around with the page consistently.

Im also particularly conserned about this version which dramatically alters the lede Malik continues to insert this version with no consensus. I ask for either the page be protected for one month to a condition before the edit war began to give time for more debate OR Malik must have his account suspendedTherock40756 (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As a side note, this reporting editor has himself been reported above for continued edit warring on the African American page. Dayewalker (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This edit-warring complaint is stale. My last revert to the article was on September 20.
 * Nothing is preventing Therock40756 from "more debate". I invited him to discuss what he doesn't like about the consensus lede on September 21. Therock40756 has yet to reply. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

ALSO:

Im also particularly conserned about this version which dramatically alters the lede Malik continues to insert this version with no consensus. I ask for either the page be protected for one month to a condition before the edit war began to give time for more debate OR Malik must have his account suspended.

[|revt 1] [|revt 2] [|revt 3] [|revt 4] [|revt 5] [|revt 6]

These are just 6 of the 15 edits Malik has made in less than 2 weeks.Therock40756 (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reporter  F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sourcechecker419 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16 Sept
 * 2nd revert: 20 Sept
 * 3rd revert: 20 Sept
 * 4th revert: 28 Sept

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Sourcechecker419 has been blocked for a 3RR violation in the past

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

Comments:

Sourcechecker419 has been jumping in to edit war on behalf of his friend/meatpuppet/sockpuppet Therock40756 when Therock40756 is close to violating 3RR. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Various 99.* anons reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 04:56, September 27, 2011 (as IP #1)
 * 2nd revert: 23:49, September 27, 2011 (as IP #2) note the lie in the edit summary, "spelling"
 * 3rd revert: 01:23, September 28, 2011 (as IP #3)
 * 4th revert: 04:18, September 28, 2011 (as IP #4)

In each case, the editor is restoring the text a link to °C ; in each case, I was removing the link, although one could argue that the first time I changed it to an unlinked "°C" was not a revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (to IP #3); I've warned the bouncing IP before

Afraid not. He doesn't listen to arguments, anyway.

Comments: The only real solution is permanent semi-protection of all global-warming-related articles, loosely defined, if we can't put together a range block which catches all of these. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's feasible to perform a rangeblock - we'd basically have to block the entire 99 range. Wide-scale protection or whack-a-mole may be a better alternative.   F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Alex singersing reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: 12h)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Removing speedy template that is candidate for speedy deletion

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

Comments: That person is not notable on the American reality fashion show, America's Next Top Model. And he attacked my user talk page on vandalizing the speedy deletion tag. ApprenticeFan work 08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:67.82.118.189 reported by User:Kai445 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&oldid=452786346

(This list does not count the original edit, of course.)
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=450733907
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=450832463
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=451014584
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=452413205
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=452756533
 * 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=452908957 (Current Page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.82.118.189&oldid=452787201 (User was warned previous to last revert that a discussion should be started and a consensus reached)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I had commented at the bottom of the 3RR warning on the user page, and no attempt was made by the user to reach out to me to discuss further, and the IP user has not attempted to start any discussion to reach consensus on the article Talk Page.

Comments:

The conflict revolves around the 'school colors' of Rutgers University. Clearly "Scarlet" is indeed the most recognizable color, the Rutgers Visual Identity System says that the official colors used by Rutgers University are "Pantone® 186, Pantone® Cool Gray 9, and Black". Pantone 186 is more commonly known (as used by RU) as "Scarlet". The colors were listed in order on the Rutgers University infobox (Scarlet given top billing, of course).

Reference: http://identity.rutgers.edu/identity_manual.pdf (See: Page 3.1 'Color', section "Primary Color Palette". PDF Page 24/84.)

While not a 3RR violation per-se, I believe that this is a case of edit-warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai445 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC) -Kai445 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Takabeg reported by User:Tuscumbia (Result: )
Gülablı‎

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (made aware of both WP:3RR and WP:AA2). User has been notified of the report here:.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article Gülablı is about a village of Agdam Rayon of Azerbaijan Republic, occupied by Armenian armed forces in July, 1993. UN Security Council even passed a Resolution 822 condemining the occupation of Agdam and calling on Armenian forces to uncoditionally withdraw from the territories of Azerbaijan. However, to this day, this village along with hundreds of others is still under control of Armenian forces. The Armenians have changed the name of the villages but the changes are not recognized by any international organization, any government, except for probably the government of Armenia. Now Armenian users Takabeg, MarshallBagramyan and RaffiKojian have engaged in edit-warring on that page, adding the illegitimate name of the village as Vazgenashen and dismissing the neutral reliable source from the GEOnet Names Server already present in the External links section of the article, which does not call this village "Vazgenashen" or anything of the sort. Moreover, the user MarshallBagramyan added "Armenianpedia" as a source for his claims. Armeniapedia is owned byRaffiKojian, an Armenian user who also edit wars on other pages. (Please see removal of large sections of sourced text here:, , ). Another allegation is that a drone has been shot down near this village, and the sources added for that either do not indicate anything about the village or are biased. Yet User Takabeg continues to edit war by reverting what MarshallBagramyan added:, ,.

However, this particular article is not the only cause for the report. Disruptive editing behavior of User Takabeg is visible from his recent edits in Azerbaijani related articles. See his unjustified addition of citation needed tags on Azerbaijani villages such as:
 * when the neutral source clearly indicates the name
 * when the neutral source clearly indicates the name
 * when the neutral source clearly indicates the name
 * when the neutral source clearly indicates the name
 * when the neutral source clearly indicates the name

There are dozens of others which he tagged today. See his contributions:. To my knowledge the user has not violated the three revert rule per se but is clearly engaged in revert wars for inclusion of POV. My warning to User Takabeg was immediately removed by him. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 13:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) First of all User:Tuscumbia confuses official source with Armeniapedia. He claims this source was made by Armeniapedia and remove encyclopedic content. (in detail: Talk:Gülablı)
 * 2) I control articles with using Geonames.nga.mil. When I cannot find in this engine, I added . You can try it, you also wont be able to find them.
 * 3) I hope both sides (Armenian and Azerbaijani) would avoid their own ethnocentric approaches, and improve related article in accordance with WP:NPOV.

Takabeg (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Allegations of complex misconduct should be handled at WP:RFC/U. I will review the 3RR report only. (Unless another admin beats me to it.) causa sui (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tuscumbia: You have three reverts in the same period. Any reason you shouldn't be sanctioned too? causa sui (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Causa sui, I made 2 reverts out of 3 allowed as per Wikipedia rules in the same timeframe. But please re-read my statement in the report (...the user has not violated the three revert rule per se). In other words, I am not reporting the user for violation of Three Revert rule, but for general edit-warring based on POV additions. The article Gulabli is just one of the examples I brought above to justify the report. Please review. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Takabeg adds content
 * You remove it (Revert #1)
 * Takabeg restores it (Revert #1)
 * You remove it (Revert #2)
 * MarshallBagrayman restores it (Revert #1)
 * You remove it (Revert #3)
 * Takabeg restores it (Revert #2)
 * I protect the article.
 * From the above timeline, you are as culpable as anyone: maybe moreso, since you reverted against two separate editors instead of focusing on dispute resolution. causa sui (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Causa sui, you either do not look and dismiss the reported evidence or just have a slight bias towards me. Please open the history page of the article Gülablı and see where it all started. To make things easy for you, I'll write out every edit since the stable version has become subject to POV.
 * , MarshallBagramyan adds POV by mislabeling the village disregarding the neutral source which indicates the legitimate name of the village.
 * User Dighapet reverts Marshall to June 14, 2010 version
 * MarshallBagramyan reverts Dighapet to his own version
 * Dighapet reverts Marshall again to June 14, 2010 version
 * Marshall reverts Dighapet again
 * Neftchi reverts to June 14, 2010 version stating Armeniapedia is not reliable source. (I agree, see the evidence of the report)
 * Fedayee reverts Neftchi to MarshallBagramyan and adds a drone shootdown (the source does not support the addition. No indication of the village Gulabli whatsoever)
 * some IP reverts Fedayee
 * Takabeg reverts to Fedayee's version and adds unrecognized authorities' source
 * Takabeg adds an Armenian name
 * I revert Takabeg/Fedayee to June 14, 2010 version, but retain the other language Wiki links, previously added by Marshall and add a note that the village has been captured by Armenian forces in July 1993 and that Armenian now do call the village Vazgenashen
 * Takabeg does a blind revert disregarding my explanation on the talk page. His only response is that I am "an Azeri nationalist" which is a violation of Wikipedia rule, by itself as it constitutes a WP:Personal attack
 * I revert him to my version
 * Marshall reverts me
 * I revert Marshall back to my version. More explanation from me before I reverted
 * Takabeg reverts me just stating "Tuscumbia's claim is pointless"
 * You protect the page


 * As you can see, what I reverted was from POV version to NPOV, removing excessive text stating the village belongs to "NKR" and alleged shoot down of a drone in the vicinity of that village, which is not supported by any neutral source. If you know anything about the conflict, you must be aware that this village which is a part of Agdam Rayon was not even claimed by separatist authorities but was occupied by using force. Hence the United Nations Security Council Resolution 853.
 * Moreover, as user stated today, the village Vazgenashen is not even the village Gulabli as MarshallBagramyan, Fedayee and Takabeg asserted. It is a completely different village. See this on Wikimapia. The description states Село, построенное после Карабахской войны для армян-беженцев which means The village, built after Karabakh war for Armenian refugees.
 * With all the above evidence, I don't see why you would try to draw me into a guilty mode, especially if I repeatedly said that I am not reporting the user for three revert rule violation, but for edit-warring and additions of POV on various pages. Evidence is presented above. Hope this clarifies the issue for you. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 13:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Tuscumbia feels the need to drag my name into all this, I should like to point out that the source I added on the Gulabli article very plainly says "Vazgenashen, previously known as Gulably, is about ten kilometers from the Line of Contact (LoC) between the two armies" . My addition of this source was bizarrely removed and my entire edits reverted wholesale by Tuscumbia. It should be noted that Tuscumbia's difficulties in conveying his problems and discussing them on the talk page in the past year have resulted in two lengthy topic bans.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What you really did was add an Armenian news source stating a drone has been shot down while a similar report from the Azerbaijani side dismissed the allegation stating the drone was Israeli. However, it doesn't matter if the drone has been shot down or not. The problem is that the Armenian source which alleges the drone was Azeri, still uses an illegitimate name for the village. What does "previously known" mean? To the best of my knowledge, Azerbaijan and the rest of the world still recognize the name of the village as "Gulably" rather than "Vazgenashen" used only by Armenia and separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh. It's worth noting that you, being a rather edit-warring user has been a party to many sanctions multiple times, and once even topic-banned indefinitely. So, please refrain from these sneaky attempts to label users when you are yourself not that sacred. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:74.137.104.104 reported by User:Lahaun (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herman_Cain&oldid=452918310

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


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

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

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

Comments: Sorry, this is the first time I've attempted posting a warning and the template is a little confusing. A non-confirmed editor has twice removed relevant, sourced content (in which, I have absolutely zero stake) without explanation.

Lahaun (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see warnings or discussion, and I only see two edits to that page by this user.  Kuru   (talk)  18:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Christian255 reported by User:NJZombie (Result: 24 hours)
Page:Michelle McCool

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Several days ago, retired professional wrestler, Michelle McCool made a comment on Twitter pertaining to getting back in shape after being away from the ring for 4 months. She even referred to another WWE personality who had lost a noticeable amount of weight as an inspiration. Some misunderstood the comment as meaning she wanted to return to the WWE and started adding this speculation to her Wikipedia page. The user being reported has been warned that not only is the information incorrect but that speculation in general has no place on Wikipedia. The user chooses to ignore all such communication and proceeds to revert back to the misinformation. NJZombie (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Four reverts in 24 hours; certainly a BLP exemption for the other editor if needed. Kuru   (talk)  18:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

IP-hopping editor reported by User:La goutte de pluie (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported: A variety of IP hoppers. See article history.

Previous version reverted to:


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

IP editor refuses to use talk pages. See talk:London Weight Management and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#wikistalking_from_IP-hopping_editors_again.

Comments:

elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 17:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I can help you here. With the article deleted, there are no protection options available.  The underlying issue appears to be more complex, and should be addressed at the existing discussion at ANI.  Kuru   (talk)  18:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 220.255.1.0/24 rangeblocked. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 10:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User:89.100.150.198 reported by User:FormerIP (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Although an IP, the editor does not appear unfamiliar with WP norms. --FormerIP (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Was warned previously, more than three reverts in 24 hours, and a continuation of a previous edit war. Kuru   (talk)  18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cfimei reported by Mojoworker (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:35, 28 September 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 14:49, 29 September 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 16:33, 29 September 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 18:42, 29 September 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments:

Per comments at article talk page, user:77.102.190.180 is likely a logged out Sock with additional reverts.

—Mojoworker (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well past 3RR; warned twice and continues to revert. Kuru   (talk)  19:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cfimei reported by User:Mojoworker(Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:17, 30 September 2011  (edit summary: "I hope this change meets with approval")
 * 2) 22:18, 30 September 2011  (edit summary: "Raised this issue with reverters directly on their talk pages and hope for a substantive response.  Thank you.")
 * 3) 12:42,  1 October 2011  (edit summary: "Comments welcome on my reasons for the change in the 'dating' section of the discussion page")
 * 4) 12:45,  1 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Significance to the Canon of the Bible */")
 * 5) 12:46,  1 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Qumran-Essene Theory */")


 * Diff of warning: here

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments:

Now discussing on talk page, but the editor continues to edit war. —Mojoworker (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And the user keeps edit warring: 16:32, 1 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 453388661 by Mojoworker (talk). Despite the requests for comments in discussion zone, none have been given and reverted without explanation.") --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a 3RR violation, but he just got off a block for edit warring on this article. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:89.100.150.198 reported by User:FormerIP (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Since this report was filed:


 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I reported the same user for the same edit-war yesterday (see above). --FormerIP (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If other users can unilaterally add OR without discussion, I can add cited content without discussion, and restore it if it's removed without explanation. 89.100.150.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC).
 * No, you cannot. I would suggest resolving your dispute on the article's talk page before making future reverts.  Kuru   (talk)  20:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:208.107.26.26 reported by User:NJZombie (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:

Earlier in the night, I re-added wording on The Miz article that made it clear to the average reader that a firing on WWE television was done by the Triple H character and not by an actual executive, due to the fact that the WWE website reported the story as a true firing on their official website, to keep the suspension of disbelief going. This user reverts continues to revert despite making it clear that while wrestling stories may be clear to avid wrestling fans, the average reader can be confused, especially since there's a very fine line between wrestling storylines and what truly occurs due to the fact that WWE has a tendency to incorporate real-life events to their stories. The user claims that after future events play out, it will be clear that these characters were not fired which is completely beside the point since the firing will still be noted and need to be clarified. Admittedly, there is some back and forth between both of us, but considering this article is partially a biography of a living person, I feel it's necessary to make it clear to the average reader who might not even know who that Triple H's COO character doesn't have the power to fire The Miz and therefor, The Miz is not truly fired from his job. It has also assisted in swaying a string of users from using unacceptable jargon terms to describe that the firing was within a storyline. NJZombie (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

User:24.223.245.212 reported by AV3000 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:11,  2 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 13:16,  2 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 14:05,  2 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453529708 by Yobol (talk)")
 * 4) 14:34,  2 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453532402 by Jmh649 (talk)")
 * 5) 14:57,  2 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453535264 by AV3000 (talk)")
 * 6) 15:01,  2 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453537232 by ClueBot NG (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—AV3000 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Kuru  (talk)  15:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Opticks3 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (Note: this is 10 consecutive reverts, so I'm listing them here as one revert)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Edit summary: Undid revision Each of these contributions-edits are discussed on the Talk page. This will be reverted to original every time it is undone. Please address each revision individually with supportive comment)
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: (Made after being notified of this 3RR report)
 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Note: I only recently was made aware of this page through AN/I, which is why there is only the recent discussion on my part)

Comments: User seems to be undoing any edit that removed a personal website (from freeservers) that is being used as a source on a page about living persons. As can be seen on the 4th revert's edit summary, the user has no intention to stop reverting the content.- SudoGhost 04:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I myself have reverted the article four times, and I know that would technically violate WP:3RR, but I wanted to explain the reason here. The contentious edits being made seem to be a possible WP:BLP violation, as the source is self-published and completely unreliable.  Reverting these edits (Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons) are exempt from WP:3RR, as WP:BLP says that such content should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.  - SudoGhost 05:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I self-reverted to err on the side of caution, as the other editor has made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of stopping, and I'm not 100% sure that my reverting is exempt from WP:3RR.  I won't be near a computer for the next 8 hours or so.  - SudoGhost 05:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost asked me to comment on this, as they were concerned about their own reverts as outlined above. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that following SudoGhost's self-revert, SudoGhost is not over 3RR. The edit summaries of the other editor are very concerning to say the least, but I haven't investigated the exact contents in detail. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Aciyokrocky reported by User:Ilikeeatingwaffles (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

This user (User:Aciyokrocky) has been making repeated problematic edits to Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team)‎ and refuses to engage in discussion. This article was created as a spin-off from Fenerbahçe S.K. so that there were two separate articles for the multi-sport club and the football section of that same club. It took a long time for them to stop trying to make the two articles identical. Now, they are repeatedly reinstating info that shouldn't be on this article, such as unreferenced POV OR regarding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Şükrü Saracoğlu as well as the club's museum and honours won. Much info here is also repeated on the same article. They keep putting copyvios in the infobox - kit patterns including adidas logos. There's also problems with recentism and formatting. I have brought this to the attention of relevant project WP:FOOTY. This recent diff is my undoing of a load of the problems that the editor had reintroduced. Thanks.

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

Comments:

Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bad good dragosh98 reported by User:BaboneCar (Result: No Violation)
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:

Comments: User:Bad good dragosh98 is continuously reverting my revisions, despite that I explained the reasons they should remain like that both in the edit summaries, on the article talk page and on user's talk page. He refuses to comunicate however and keeps reverting without explaining his edits. The issues over which the edit warring is going on are:
 * Nuno Viveiros is football player that ended his contract with the football club FC Braşov in June 2011; it was announced that he will sign again with the club at the end of September; in that case what squad number he will have was not yet officially announced (on the website), not to mention that not even a news report to confirm he signed the contract was not yet issued. In that case I consider the squad number field should be left blank for the moment, until it's official which one will be. (In relation to this, the user keeps reverting, without explaining why, the Nuno Viveiros article.)
 * Emanuel Creţulescu is a youth squad player that is not listed in the senior squad at the moment, but in the under-19 squad on the official website.
 * The vice-captain thing is a personal assumption of the user, that is not even a permanent case; so I think not worthy of being mentioned on the page.

Additionally, I have the feeling that User:Bad good dragosh98 is the suck puppet of User:Mortifervm. Apart from the similar abusive way he tries to impose his will on the articles, without trying to build any consensus when there is a dispute and with no any communication at all;– you can notice that from the incident that User:Mortifervm reported on the Administrators' noticeboard, where he accuses me of disruptive editing on the article FC Vaslui. If we look in the history of that article, we can see the only user who made edits in the last two weeks on that page was User:Bad good dragosh98, while User:Mortifervm's last edit on the page was more than two week earlier and I had no edit conflict with that specific one. (Which explains the user's distress related to that article and confirms the fact that the two users are the same person.) Another common thing is that the two users never leave edit summaries. User:Bad good dragosh98 started editing on 2 September 2011 and User:Mortifervm on 22 May 2011. Also, User:Mortifervm has a pleasure of removing discussions from his talk page (related to the edit warrings he went into). BaboneCar (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Agricolae reported by User:Stephen2nd (Result: No Violation)
Page:

Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [ 07:24, 27 August 2011 86.42.206.144 (talk) ]


 * 1st revert: [Diarmait Mac Murchada - 17:13, 2 October 2011 Agricolae]
 * 2nd revert: [Diarmait Mac Murchada - 18:17, 2 October 2011 Agricolae]
 * 3rd revert: [Diarmait Mac Murchada - 20:35, 2 October 2011 Agricolae]
 * 4th revert: [diff]
 * 1st revert: [William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel - 17:05, 2 October 2011 Agricolae]
 * 2nd revert: [William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel - 18:16, 2 October 2011 Agricolae]
 * 3rd revert: [William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel - 20:37, 2 October 2011 Agricolae]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diarmait Mac Murchada [Hi Brianann MacAmhlaidh, I put in these arms from Foster's book. At the bottom of the page, the author quotes blazons that are omited, and others which are included, in reference to the Somerset Herald. I therefore believe his inclusion of these arms was well researched. The fact that they are also in the British Museum, indicates that they were researched from a reliable source, which allows them to be included in WP articles. Albeit rare blazons, there are no indications that they are attributed. Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC) ] [Similar to Fosters listings of Strongbow & MacMorogh re: (d9 & e1 also g2 & g3). The "Scrope" family quarterings (1698), lists (10.) Strongbow, Earl of Pembroke. (11.) MacMorogh (Dermot) King of Leinster (These depict "three garbs", ie. possibly for the Earls of Chester?). Therefore I presume that the Diarmait and Macmorrogh are the same person. The well known "Scrope quarterings" also depicts Lepur, Earl of (?), as the Wolf's head. And also the "quarterings of Thomas Hussey" state and depict RE: 23. azure a wolf's head erased argent for Lupus Earl of Chester. Neither of these references indicate that these are attributed. I was/am not aware that the term "fabulous" is a heraldic term for "attributed", please cite this reference. Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)]

William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel [These are the arms of d'Aubigny in France, "de", is a French language preposition meaning of. These arms are literally the arms of the Aubigny families, and also of Saint-Martin-d’Aubigny in France. These arms were inherited by the Aubigny family, denoting their origins from Saint-Martin-d’Aubigny in France. This is a logical deduction based on reliable sources, which is not WP:OR. However, today, you have deliberately reverted my Diarmait Mac Murchada‎ edit twice, and reverted this William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel‎ edit three times, which is in breach of the WP:3R rule. 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. You are aware of the rules of edit-warring, and your reversions in these cases were deliberate. Please stop or I'll refer this matter to Admin.report edit-warring. Stephen2nd (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)]

Comments:




 * Do I get to respond? First, I have deliberately made sure not to violate the 3RR rule, even though I am not happy with one of the pages. I did not revert the same page more than three times in a 24 hour period.  That being said, I recognize that edit warring is about the spirit of the thing, and so on both articles, where instead of following the BRD cycle the editor kept restoring their edits, I was the one who in my edit summaries directed the complaining editor to the Talk pages.  Rather than awaiting the outcome of the discussion, their response was to again restore their material and then tell me I couldn't revert it anymore or they would report me for edit warring - and then immediately reported me for edit warring anyhow without me making any further edits.  Could I have tried to go to Talk earlier, rather than simply using edit summaries? sure - 20/20 hindsight and all that, but at the risk of failing to AGF, I find it hard to view this complaint as anything but an attempt to win a disagreement by other means. And let's be clear: this disagreement is about the complaining editor trying to put bogus material into two pages, in one case using OR (via reaching a "logical deduction" based on flawed logic), in the other ignoring the fact that the source calls the information "fabulous" - the stuff of fables, and putting it in a historical article as if it were authentic.Agricolae (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, these are the diffs:
 * Diarmait Mac Murchada:
 * original edit by Stephen2nd
 * my 1st revert
 * Stephen2nd restores
 * my 2nd revert directing to Talk
 * Stephen2nd restores
 * my 3rd revert
 * that is the last edit - no 4th revert
 * William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel:
 * original edit by Stephen2nd
 * my 1st revert
 * Stephen2nd restores
 * my 2nd revert
 * Stephen2nd restores
 * my 3rd revert directing to Talk
 * Stephen2nd restores
 * that is the last edit - no 4th revert
 * Agricolae (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Hearfourmewesique reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (diff includes two consecutive edits)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Palestinian people, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to 1RR. Violations may be reported to WP:ANEW or WP:AE. See WP:ARBPIA for details. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ropecharmer reported by John (talk) (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:05,  2 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Other work */")
 * 2) 23:24,  2 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453587004 by 173.49.225.125 (talk)")
 * 3) 00:08,  3 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453610277 by Jpgordon (talk)")
 * 4) 02:53,  3 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453618531 by Jpgordon (talk)")
 * 5) 03:25,  3 October 2011  (edit summary: "I have provided significant referencing to support this edit. I can supply many more. If you have contemporary references that contradict mine, then please cite them, otherwise, removing my edits will result in complaints of vandalism.")
 * 6) 05:12,  3 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453637920 by John (talk)")


 * Note also here, where he apparently logs out for a sixth revert.


 * Diff of warning: here

—John (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:188.221.49.110 reported by User:Monty845 (Result: 24h)
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:

There are far more then the 6 above reverts, I just stopped getting more, 6 is more then enough to qualify as edit warring. The primary other party is also an IP, I am not reporting them as the information that was being edit warred in is NPOV almost to the point of vandalism. Monty 845  15:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Editor has now been blocked, report is moot. Monty  845  17:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:158.169.9.14 and User:Natpap reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 week)
Page:

Users being reported: Natpap's sock and

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: by Natpap
 * 2nd revert: by sock IP: 158.169.9.14
 * 3rd revert: by sock IP: 158.169.9.14
 * 4th revert: by Natpap

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on Natpap's talk

Comments:

Edit-warring by adding uncited information on Dora Bakoyannis, a BLP article. Reported also at RFPP but it was declined the first time. I followed up but no response yet: diff. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: User has indicated willingness to discuss the issue. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

'''User being reported:

Version being reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reservoir_Dogs&oldid=452711090


 * 1st revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reservoir_Dogs&diff=453471721&oldid=453468453
 * 2nd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reservoir_Dogs&diff=453529052&oldid=453511498
 * 3rd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reservoir_Dogs&diff=453564056&oldid=453531062
 * 4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reservoir_Dogs&diff=453596464&oldid=453565352

Comments:

This editor for no clear reason has been reverting various edits of mine, on various articles, regardless of what the change is. All the edits I have made, I have justified in edit summaries. Most of his reverts are made without explanation. 190.161.134.66 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The first one is explained - the cite belonged on 16mm, and was on Oct 1 - it was explained in the edit summary.
 * 2) The second, replete with your pretty vicious WP:NPA was undoing your same error on Oct 2.
 * 3) The third, you changed the cite again, contrary to WP:MOS, and it was reverted, again October 2.
 * 4) The fourth...oh look, you did it again, and you're right, no explanation in the edit summary.
 * Have you read the policy on edit-warring? Have you read the bold, revert, discuss cycle - you could have better understood the manual of style.  Third, have you read WP:BOOMERANG?  It does, after all, take 2 to edit-war ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The cite does not belong on "16mm", and my edits were at no point contrary to the MOS. Try actually understanding the situation before you comment on it.  Seems to me you've only posted for the purpose of affecting a snotty attitude. 190.161.134.66 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the source is offline, the general approach would be to assume good faith on behalf of the editor adding it, as they know what they added it to support. It may very well be that it only supports the format of the film stock used, in which case it would belong directly after such a description. Has either party actually discussed that point? GRAPPLE   X  23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This now seems irrelevant, but I'd like to throw in my tuppence worth here, now, given that I was never informed of this discussion previously. I did not add the reference in question, but I am assuming that when it was added, which was some time back, it was added to source that particular bit of information.  I tried, in vain, to find the source online, so that the matter could be settled, and still intend to find it in a library.  But, given the nasty temperament of the anonymous editor, I was not inclined to attempt to discuss the matter with him.  The whole paragraph could be rewritten, and better sourced, if people were interested in cooperating.  He never offered any explanation for his edits other than it was stupid to have a source in the middle of a sentence, which is hardly good reason for his changes. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  02:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Hixteilchen reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (not within past 24 hours)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a basic BLP sourcing dispute, of a type that's occurred so many times in articles related to the erotica industry, that no extended discussion is required.

Comments: Technically, this isn't a 3RR violation because the series of edits that began this, adding back previously removed "award" claims, is outside the 24-hour window. It's unfortunate that Hixteilchen made some or the reverts as an IP, but edit summary comments make clear it's him; I suspect it's just klutzy editing rather than an any attempt to evade scrutiny. Rather than discussing when I posted to his talk page, he deleted without discussion. He's got no handle on notability and the most basic BLP/RS requirements, this sort of editing has gone on intermittently for at least a year, and it would be helpful if somebody could get through to him, preferably without a block being necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You have to proof that the IP is mine. That´s not possible. You did the VANDALISM an no one else. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wanderer602 reported by User:YMB29 (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 17:27, 2 October (removes sourced pieces of text - about Finnish historiography and criticism about non-documentary source, misrepresents what sources say)
 * 2nd revert: 3:27, 3 October (removal of tags)
 * 3rd revert: 11:44, 3 October (partial revert of what the source says, makes it look like the statement is support by only a supposedly fringe Russian historian)
 * 4th revert: 13:26, 3 October (last change, removal of a quotation tag that I placed )
 * 5th revert: 14:31, 3 October
 * 6th revert: 14:40, 3 October
 * 7th revert: 23:51, 3 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (last sentence, I tell him to stop reverting sourced information).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am trying to make the article more balanced (now it is too biased in favor of the Finnish POV), but it is difficult because of the edit warring by that user. I have been staying away from reverting him; I just added opposing views or tags, but he just reverts anything I add, whether partially or everything. His reason is that the sources I use are unreliable or fringe ( - 3rd comment), even though there is no evidence that suggests this. He was blocked for similar edit warring in a related article not too long ago.

-YMB29 (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggested for User:YMB29 to use talk page to resolve the differences but so far he has preferred directly editing and then blaming others. Nor was there any formal warning of this in any related talk pages. Of the edits listed I'm not sure what the 1st revert is supposed to refer to, i added several references states into the document and removed statements that were being discussed at talk page. In second i removed tags which User:YMB29 had spread on the article like he has done on several other articles without explaining any of them in the talk page seemingly abusing the tagging system. Of third, i merely linked the unreferenced statement of Finnish historiography to sourced statement of Baryshnikov to whom the comment is cited to. For fourth the quote is already provided in the talk page in section 'Futher citations for the YMB29'. Fifth the claim that historians (the ones referred to the removed text) were stating that Soviet goal was Finland is not supported by the authors who acknowledge (i can provide sources, citations or quotes) that Soviet target was Berlin, which made the comment misleading. For sixth i read the quote provided to the talk page and saw that it did not properly support the claim made by User:YMB29 and changed it to a form where it was supported by Baryshnikov's quote and other sources. For seventh the explanation is in the edit summary, and then i removed the unreferenced sentence - besides word 'capitulation' has only single explanation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the source I used explained what capitulation means well. If you bothered to look at the book online or ask for a quotation like I do, instead of just reverting, you would know this. You cannot revert sourced information just because you don't like it, or misrepresent what the sources say to fit your POV. -YMB29 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as the tags, we were discussing the issues on the talk page already; if there is a tag, you don't remove it until the issue is resolved. Also a map is not a quotation; I told you this before but you still removed the quotation tag and did not provide a quotation. -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the edit i did not remove any references, the only sentence i removed was unreferenced so i truly do not understand your point. As for tags, we were indeed discussing in the talk page, however we were not discussing any of the points you marked with tags nor did you ever state what exactly was wrong with them. Still for example your usage of Disputed tag is going against the set rules in the template pages. It is not there to blanket the page like you have seem to be using it instead you need to specify the disputed points in the talk page - read usage instructions from Template:Disputed - same goes for the other tags as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now for the sake of civility could you please keep the discussion in the relevant talk page or if that is not possible then for example in my talk page, thank you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You removed the alternative views that I added and then ask why I put tags next to the views you chose to keep? Again, the issues were being discussed on the talk page; there is no need to create a section for each tag...
 * Yes this discussion should be continued elsewhere but don't say that you are not guilty of edit warring. -YMB29 (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I added tags to references of 'Finnish historiography' which was and is discussed in the section 'POV' in the talk page. You never specified what exactly was the reason why you were tagging as demanded by the template usage instructions - for the matter of fact you still haven't. As for the guilt, that is for the admins to decide, not for you. Besides i have nothing more than you have. Now please, lets keep to the article talk page shall we? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike you I don't just revert things that I don't like. You knew why I put tags and we were discussing the issues. If you felt like a tag was not correct, you should have posted about this on the talk page, instead of just reverting. Wikipedia is not only about reverting... -YMB29 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Right at the top of this page it says "Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution. Also consider whether a request for page protection may be appropriate. (Uninvolved users may wish to move disputes to a more appropriate place.)" Please adhere to this - the reviewing admin will be able to figure out who, if anyone, is at fault here without you guys arguing on this page.  N o f o rmation  Talk  04:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:120.145.149.160 reported by User:Absconded Northerner (Result: Warned user)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Neighbours_characters&oldid=453290821


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: /

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A - this isn't that kind of edit war; see comments

Comments:

This user keeps adding badly-formatted, page-breaking citations from an unreliable source. It has been asked twice to refrain from doing so, but doesn't communicate either on its own talk page or the talk pages of either of the two users trying to clean the article up. Frankly, there's nothing else to do but bring it here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Sorry - I forgot an important part. This isn't a typical edit war in that it's not about content or opinion, it's about one user breaking existing references due to WP:COMPETENCE issues. Since there's no attempt by the user to learn from mistakes, despite having had them pointed out, it's pointless to continue to AGF. Please can we have a block here so the article can be fixed with no further issues. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please be sure to warn users of potential edit warring and report them should they revert past that warning. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Neckbrace reported by User:Noformation (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrology&oldid=454022582


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User refuses to communicate on talk page. The diffs above are edit warring on just one concept, he has edit warred other things as well on the page. There are also more diffs for this particular edit but I figure 5 6 7 8 is enough. SPA arrived a couple days ago.


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:24.9.30.143 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:19,  5 October 2011  (edit summary: "You may agree or disagree with whatever and whomever you see fit, and are entitled to do so. This fact is however completely irrelevant, the claim still needs to be sourced. Reverting with another request for citation regarding the relevant claims.")
 * 2) 00:37,  5 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 454000353 by Spidey665 (talk) Care to explain what's wrong with those sources?")
 * 3) 11:59,  5 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 454034484 by DougWeller, There is no need to go to the talkpage, his rvrsion was an avowed misintrprtation of vndlism & was worked out on the user talkpages. As to the sourcing i can provide citations for any of the content on request.")
 * 4) 12:28,  5 October 2011  (edit summary: "Ming wall & not original- the Image caption clearly reads "pre-industrial" which the Ming would most certainly qualify as. Issue with presence of Westminster- In what contxt is the mother of parlaiments not appropriate to the subject of civilization?")

Comments:
 * Diff of warning: here

Despite being asked to use the talk page and to give sources (or page numbers where sources are provided), the IP continues to edit war even after 3 editors have reverted their edits. —Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked him to self-revert and he has done so, so I believe a block is no longer necessary or a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing this without action for now on your advice. Kuru   (talk)  19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wwhat reported by User:Headbomb (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Recombination_(cosmology)#Use_of_the_word_theoretical_before_.27big_bang.27]

Comments: Not all of those happened within 24 hours, but I'll point that that this user has been reverted by myself, by Michael C. Price, James McBride, over and over again, over a rather long period. Warnings and attempt to this discuss this are simply ignored. So I recommended a week-long block, rather than the usual 24 hours.


 * Unless I'm missing something, there were five reverts within a 24 hour period, with a specific warning in the middle. I'm not comfortable going more than 24 hours for a first time offense; if he returns from the block and extends the edit war, we can revisit.  Kuru   (talk)  19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:109.204.31.87 reported by User:Yunshui (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also this diff: : identical blanking by User:Ceasar1234 (no other edits). Yunshui (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The warnings need to mention 3RR or WP:EW; you've just warned him for blanking. I don't see any other blanking after the lat warning, so I'll drop him a note for the editwarring.  Kuru   (talk)  19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bananas 77 reported by User:Looie496 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

I'm not going to list diffs, it will only slow things down. Thirty seconds spent looking at the editor's contribs and talk page will tell the story. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Si, straight forward. 24 hours/4 clear reverts with a specific 3RR warning in the middle of them. Kuru   (talk)  21:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:TheOrangeOne149 reported by Cnilep (talk) (Result: Blocked)
Pages:

User being reported: (See also IP:68.48.116.119, which made identical edits to both pages)

Time reported: 04:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert comparison:
 * this edit
 * reverted
 * again
 * and again
 * Compare this
 * and this
 * and this
 * and this from the IP

There is a similar (though much shorter) pattern of one edit from the IP and two reverts from TheOrangeOne149 at Orange (word).

Warnings are here and here.
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Romanski1996 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:  10:23, 3 October 2011, (removes sourced piece of text - about Bulgarian self-identification of this man, what sources say)
 * 2nd revert: 18:36, 3 October 2011, (removal of the same text)
 * 3rd revert:  07:05, 4 October 2011, (revert of what the sources says, removal of sources)
 * 4th revert:  07:54, 4 October 2011, (last change, removal of sources and revert of ethnic self-identification.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (last sentence, I tell him to stop reverting sourced information).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This User has the same editing-policy in other articles too, as for example: Marko Boshnakov, Dzole Stojchev and Katerina Trajkova Nurdzhieva Jingby (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Jingby (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User also has repeatedly removed BLPPROD tags from Katerina Trajkova Nurdzhieva, continuing this despite having received a level 4 warning. --Crusio (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 10:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:199.7.199.80 reported by ElKevbo (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:33,  4 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453217484 by Marco Guzman, Jr (talk)")
 * 2) 04:12,  5 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 453852557 by Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) Cal Poly is referred to the university in San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona is referred to the university in Pomona.")
 * 3) 05:18,  6 October 2011  (edit summary: "please make explicit claims for an accurate Wikipedia source, names of schools are in their following school website. ")
 * 4) 07:11,  6 October 2011  (edit summary: "Seriously, there shouldn't even be an edit war.  The facts are historically sourced & obviously provided. Go call up the registration bureaus.  Stop making stuff up that are not concretely sourced regardless of what you think what others think.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—ElKevbo (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 10:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Cookiecaper reported by User:Wikiwind (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: (edit summary: "Remove commentary specifically intended to marginalize religious POVs, revert to the old intro snippet on religion.")
 * 2nd revert: (edit summary: "Undid revision 454216322 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk POV reversion; see talk page, discussion ongoing")
 * 3rd revert: (edit summary: "Undid 454218979 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) BRD is applicable to you, not I, when this was modified last month, and attempts to revert were overcome by force, not consensus.")
 * 4th revert: (edit summary: "Undid revision 454220417 by Wikiwind (talk) No consensus reached, my 3RR exhausted by this revert.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Note: He was aware of 3RR rule, see his comment in last revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

-- В и к и  T   12:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bijuts reported by User:Chektomate (Result: 2 weeks)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: in Thiruvananthapuram and in Tourism in Kerala

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

Tourism in Kerala:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I could find many warnings in the talk page : User_talk:Bijuts

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Bijuts and Talk:Kochi

Comments:

The user has undergone many blocks for editwarring before. Admins can perhaps block him for a longer period.--Chektomate (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Goldblooded reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 48 Hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:08, 6 October 2011
 * 2nd revert: 19:47, 6 October 2011
 * 3rd revert: 21:46, 6 October 2011
 * 4th revert: 08:20, 7 October 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Goldblooded has reverted four times in under 14 hours. The article talk page has no discussion about the problem, but Goldblooded has twice deleted such discussion from his own talk page. Other discussions about the edit war have been initiated at User talk:Cameron Scott and User talk:CityOfSilver, a contentious and unproductive conversation which ends with Goldblooded saying "don't bother/flame me again". Binksternet (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * -Sigh- Bink, Judging by some of your past comments and disputes you've had with me i know you hate me for one reason or another but theres no need to pile on. Ive already defused the situation and the dispute is resolved , suggest you see WP:HORSE Also , you were NOTHING to do with this debate so why are you piling on? Im sure if the two users involved wished to take it to the admins they would of already. Why are you so obsessed with my edits? Besides , i thought you were in charge of wikiproject history? So why do you have this kind of time on your hands, and finally i dont know why you dont seem to cooperate with me and its a pity really since i am too a historian and a writer. Goldblooded (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the only reason i deleted the discussion on my talk page is because it would be easier to discuss it on his page; otherwise it may be confusing. Goldblooded (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, if you want to debate anymore then im up for it; i was just about to have a bath i'll be back in half an hour or so. Thanks :)Goldblooded (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't hate you, I just see you disrupting the Wiki with edit warring and a battleground mentality. I don't see the BNP situation defused as you claim, I see you leaving a sour taste of unwillingness to work with others. Binksternet (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Says the guy who shouted at me when i asked a new user to to ask any questions or queries he have to me? Goldblooded (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And actually ,if you look at your own page a month or so ago i offered you a chance for turn over a new leaf, to stop at each others throats and improve the WikiProject History but you wouldnt have any of it. So what your saying here today sounds a little contradictory dont you think? Goldblooded (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your first reference is probably to this conversation: User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 25. There was no shouting in my calm but dismissive comment about your wish to be known as the expert in "Napoleonic wars and the german and italian unifcation wars in the 1800s". You said "I was helping the guy who wanted him to come back (i dont think english is his fist languge anyway)..." Your English communication skills are too poor for you to be judging others. You jumped on Dapi89's talk page and announced that anyone seeking his very respected opinion could tap your skill instead, and a number of editors including Parsecboy and myself thought a) that it was unlikely you could replace Dapi89 and b) that your announcement was in poor taste.
 * Regarding my talk page, I did not accept your offer because I do not wish to work together. My reasoning includes some of the points in the essay Competence is required. Binksternet (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The only reason i posted on Dapi's page is because i felt he was being pressurised to join again, and i merely said give him a break and i suggested a few links (if i remember he was either an inexperienced user or english wasnt his first language) so helped him out and i told him ,if he has an queries to ask me (since dapi is retired) and for some reason you kept removing that, along with your freind- parsec. In the end i backed down, and i posted the same message on his talk page. Also, he was asking (if i remember) about Kursk so nothing to do with that time period, But yes i do know a lot about the 1800 and 1900s. I dont know if you've noticed but im actually writign a book about one of (in my opinion) france's more interesting characters, marshal petain from hero to traitor. I may even get it published, however it is not complete as of now, but i have written a "dictionary" of all politicans,generals and other prominent figures from the Axis nations in the Second World War.

Also, how can you judge me if you've never met me? And when was i judging the guy in question or anyone else? Bink, i do have a lot of respect for you but you seldom show me the same respect, if i remember this isnt the first time you've had a dispute either. 12:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And really, you werent anything to do with that either- me and Parsec resolved it and you jumped on the bandwagon with some of your comments. Again i really recommend you read WP:DEADHORSE Goldblooded (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 48 Hours. Revert warring and failing to discuss on the BNP article? Honestly, that's not very constructive. Spartaz Humbug! 12:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:StarLightPiazza reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: - listed as revert
 * 2nd revert: - listed as revert
 * 3rd revert: - listed as revert - identical revert to
 * 4th revert: - listed as revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Each of this "new" user's multiple reverts is over issues being discussed on the talk page - cf,. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Anguluma reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)
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:

Dougweller has attempted discussion with this user across their talk pages, to no avail. After being warned about 3RR by Dougweller, Anguluma made the 4th revert before I started the discussion on the article talk page. I reverted him and invited him to discuss the section. A likely sockpuppet account then made a "fifth" revert, and Anguluma made comments to a previous discussion on the talk page identical to the likely sock's edit summary. I believe we have a WP:SPA with bad case of WP:AXE. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User:POVbrigand reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] POVbrigand cites 3RR in his last edit summary - he is clearly aware of the rule

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

We aren't actually at 3RR yet, but POVbrigand cited it in his last edit summary. He has been informed that the section isn't in accord with the sources cited, and asked to discuss on the talk page Talk:Energy Catalyzer - I consider his citation of 3RR in an edit summary as evidence for an attempt to avoid discussion, and to force through unacceptable article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The dispute is unnecessary. I have shown my willingness to rework even more than just that one section, however I do not agree with Andy that deleting whole sections is the best way to get to a agreeable version. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your 'willingness' seems somewhat undermined by your citation of WP:3RR in an edit summary, and by your latest personal attack on me: . In any case, you have done nothing whatsoever regarding the matter of unsupported statements. I am not going to 'negotiate' contraventions of policy and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Hassanhn5 reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (editor switched strategy in his edit war and reinserted the text that he was warring over in the beginning)
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor is pushing a Pakistani government POV that the Hindi-Urdu language is only called "Hindustani" in India. Both User:Kwamikagami and myself have offered multiple scientific sources to show that it is, indeed, used in that manner by linguists outside both India and Pakistan. The warring editor is simply pushing his own POV, by alternating between inserting text in the article and placing a POV tag, without regard to international scientific consensus and reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the POV tag. It came up again when User:Marcos reviewed the discussion and decided that there was no basis for a complaint and removed the tag. Besides the "biased" (= not Pakistani govt) sources Taivo provided, any dictionary will show that Hindustani is another name for Hindi-Urdu. In fact, the article used to be located under that name, and was moved due to COMMONNAME, not because of POV. — kwami (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Elockid  ( Talk ) 17:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Hassanhn5 (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindi-Urdu#How_can_Hindi-Urdu_be_a_single_language.3F

Comments:

The user is not giving any sources to prove claims and disregards any sources given. He was also reverting the POV tag so that other neutral users can not comment. Has called in another user, User:Taivo, for the same purpose who is not giving any valid sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of diffs go back a couple months. Please be sure that when you report an incident that the diffs are recent. You also seem to be disagreeing with three different editors.


 * Filer blocked. Please see above report. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 17:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Orartu reported by User:Alborz Fallah (Result: )
Page 1:

Page 2:

Page 3:

User being reported:

1-Previous version reverted to:

2-Previous version reverted to:

3-Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert(for Eldiguzids):
 * 2nd revert(for Eldiguzids):
 * 3rd revert(for Eldiguzids):
 * 4th revert(for Eldiguzids):


 * 1st revert(for Iranian Azerbaijanis):
 * 2nd revert(for Iranian Azerbaijanis):
 * 3rd revert(for Iranian Azerbaijanis):


 * 1st revert(for Shirvan):
 * 2nd revert(for Shirvan):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eldiguzids (Atabegs of Azerbaijan)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: How can I edit when this user does not use talk page ?

It seems that this user have problems with other users too :

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * New problem with other editors :

And removal of speedy deletion templates : --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this one still needs a result .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fayerman reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 24h)
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:

Besides the diff for the Bologna Talk page above, I and others made several other comments about Fayerman's edits, including a warning from me before he made his fourth revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added two more reversions by Fayerman since posting here AND since attempting to educate Fayerman as to 3RR policy here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User seems to be under the misapprehension that slightly changing the content of the article during a revert can prevent an edit from running afoul of WP:3RR. This is precisely the sort of gamesmanship the policy forbids. And even on such such a narrow reading, Fayerman has performed more than the one revert he "admits." (Only trivial changes on the last one). User is at least on his fifth revert, and believes he's entitled to more. This is an easy case.  Cool Hand Luke 02:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In defense : Those were not reverts per se. Those were my edits in the normal course of editing process. I concede to one revert though. Please note that all other edits added or expanded content of the same paragraph, so it's easy to be mislead. If one looks closely, the edits served as a follow-up to various ideas in the discussion on the article's talk page. --Fayerman (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User: Malleus Fatuorum reported by Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:58,  7 October 2011  (edit summary: "England")
 * 2) 15:02,  7 October 2011  (edit summary: "I don't care how units are presented, so long as it's consistently")
 * 15:05, 7 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Buildings and facilities */ fixed link") Note : This edit is probably not a revert
 * 1) 16:11,  7 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 454403305 by Rangoon11 (talk) it's not long-standing as far as I'm concerned")
 * 2) 16:58,  7 October 2011  (edit summary: "fixed dashes using a script")
 * 18:38, 7 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Buildings and facilities */ pruning The Studios section")
 * 18:39, 7 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Buildings and facilities */ ce")
 * 18:40, 7 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Buildings and facilities */ is this important?")
 * 18:42, 7 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Buildings and facilities */ ce")
 * 18:43, 7 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Buildings and facilities */ ce")
 * 18:45, 7 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Buildings and facilities */ consistent citation style")

— Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  01:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Result: Stale. More than 24 hours since the last revert. Please use WP:Dispute resolution if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Rangoon11 reported by Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:03,  6 October 2011  (edit summary: "Sovereign state")
 * 2) 19:05,  6 October 2011  (edit summary: "Uncited and incorrect")
 * 3) 14:59,  7 October 2011  (edit summary: "Sovereign state")
 * 15:00, 7 October 2011  (edit summary: "m")
 * 1) 15:03,  7 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Tenants */ Image adjust")
 * 15:04, 7 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Transport */ Image adjust")
 * 1) 15:21,  7 October 2011  (edit summary: "To not include the sovereign state is ludicrous")
 * 2) 15:35,  7 October 2011  (edit summary: "Sovereign state per long standing text and standard practice")

— Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Result: Stale. More than 24 hours since the last revert. Use WP:Dispute resolution if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Maple08syrup reported by Cameron Scott (talk) (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 04:35,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "Recent significant public news concerning about the subject")
 * 2) 05:33,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 05:35,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 15:35,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 454697989 -recent events is referenced  and it ia a legitimate part on the subject and properly referenced, no matter how unpleasant. The subject wants to be a public figure, he has to endure the heat in the kitche too.")
 * 5) 15:49,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 454720960 Wrong! please do not play games, "inforrm.wordpress.com" is published  by TheGuardian, affiliated with  Guardian News and Media Limited, the mosty reliable source in GB. It seems that u r practising unwarranted censorship.")
 * 6) 16:03,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 454723138- Please read the blog publication, it is written by a news organziation, have u ever heard about The Guardian, premier news organziation in UK?")
 * 7) 16:27,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 454725872-Please stop the censorship, it is the unAmerican way. The addition to YD conforms to the rules, thrue event about the subjsct, referenced by highly reliable independent source")


 * Diff of warning: here

Seems to be a user with a grudge, was blocked once for BLP edits to this article - now editing warring over BLP material.

—Cameron Scott (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Maple invited to discuss on article Talk page here in discussion I opened here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the source is reliable (which is arguable), the user is completely ignoring 3RR and the addition has BLP issues anyway, because it has no context whatsoever. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User:94.168.204.89 reported by Sjö (talk) (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 18:45,  9 October 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 19:21,  9 October 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "undoing vandlaism. there is no defamation and this is not a living person i also do not like your threats sir")
 * 3) 19:25,  9 October 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "undoing vandalism, forced labor is slave labor sir, please refer to a dictionary")


 * 1) 20:05,  9 October 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "new edit not a reversion reset the count nazi's") (unsure about this one, which is a revert of the content but not the exact wording)


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Even if maybe this is not the right venue I'd like to add WP:CIVIL complaints: and . Also see the "get a brain and make sure it is turned on" comment here.

—Sjö (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

D Comments:


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Drugsarebad89 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 72 hours)
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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (I'm uninvolved; no attempt on the actual article talk page)

Comments:


 * Kuru  (talk)  13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Byelf2007 reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:Byelf2007 has been insisting on his edit, despite the objection of 3 editors. <i style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555"> BigK HeX (talk)</i> 05:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, it is helpful to point the user to the editing warring policy page, not simply stating "stop edit warring". Okay, I see the much more comprehensive warning given by Lawrencekhoo. He has indicated that the read the policy, however, and even reverted again after reading that and this report.  Kuru   (talk)  14:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Byelf2007 reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: as above)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 

Slower edit warring over the last few days:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Heating up to a break in 3RR 'bright line':
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Byelf2007 was warned during a previous edit warring incident, when he wasn't reported. Byelf2007 removed then reinstated the notice with edit summaries that shows that he understands the 3RR 'bright line'.

Byelf2007 was also warned many times about edit warring in edit summaries (e.g. ) and on the article talk page (e.g., ).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Discussion of these issues occurs at:
 * Talk:Austrian_School
 * Talk:Austrian_School
 * Wikipedia_talk:ECON

Comments:

LK (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Duplicate report; covered above. Kuru   (talk)  14:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)