Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive170

User:Redtigerxyz reported by User:GoldRock23(Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Revision as of 12:05, 8 October 2011 (edit) (undo)

GoldRock23(talk | contribs)


 * All of these edits are either reverts or edits that conflicted and deleted information from my edits

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


 * 1) 12:08,  8 October 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by GoldRock23 (talk): Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Venkateshvara are not avatars, can't understand why avatar word was used. (TW)")
 * 2) 15:51,  8 October 2011  (edit summary: "revert removal of references")
 * 3) 15:57,  8 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Popular deities */ they are considered "aspects" of Brahman, not avatars (a term used for earthly descent)")


 * These edits are under 5 hours outside the 24 hour time period:


 * 1) 16:53,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "move para to 330 million gods")
 * 2) 16:54,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* 330 Million Gods */ remove POV pushing and state other theory")
 * 3) 16:56,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Popular deities */ avatar of Brahman is WP:OR")
 * 4) 16:59,  9 October 2011  (edit summary: "remove WP:UNDUE weight")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Popular deities

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Popular deities

Comments:

First, I made edits telling Redtigerxyz to please stop editing the article until we had resolved the matter on the talk page. This failed to work, and so I made an edit that incorporated both sides of our argument (see article history). Redtigerxyz changed this, too. After warning him, he has explained this away as WP:BOLD,Revert,discuss cycle, but on no occasion has he discussed his edits with me before performing them. He has failed to provide references that state I am wrong in performing my edits, and I have referenced the fact that the usage of two different words we have argued about using can be interchangeable (both can be correctly used as the majority wiew of Hindus). I'm stuck on how to reason with him, as he is refusing acknoledgement of my references. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs)  19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Consecutive edits without any intervening edits count as one. Kuru   (talk)  21:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Takabeg (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

His edits are POV pushing and he continuously removes in accordance with only his POV. As we can understand from Talk:Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict, his prejudice against users who try to stop his POV pushing edits and try to prevent his attempt starting needless edit wars, is very serious. He is not open to discussion, because he ignores sources and explanation of other users. This inclination can be detected not only in this talk page, but also for other talk pages. For example, he didn't participate in discussion on Van Province, and shouted vandalism, even he put wrong information (Êlih is Kurdish alternative name of the city of Batman, not of the Van Province). Moreover, he obstructs constructive discussion by accusing other users with POV pushing wording such as "Kemalist", "pro-regime", "Ataturk lovers" etc. Takabeg (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Here is an example, I tried to cite sources for a POV clarification, but the user consistently denied my sources and called such as "despite what your government may want to call them.", "I will not let your anti-Kurdish biases affect the article.", "I do not need any such sources" etc. while I tried to reason with the user. Reasoning with this user is not possible, even after stating all the facts with reliable sources, he jst reverts them. Khutuck (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear reverts at 10:12, 10:05, 09:40, 21:15. He's been warned clearely about 3RR before on his talk page.  Even though the block log is lengthy, I do not see any for 3RR in the past, so 24 hours for first offense.  Kuru   (talk)  14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, haha, very funny. You do know that that "lengthy block log" was for sockpuppetry I did not commit and for which I was cleared. But OK, I'll make sure to only revert these attacks against articles twice a day, from now on.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Penom (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: [link]

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

Comments:

Wiqqi did 5 revert in last 24 hours. It is not a new issues. I have already raised the issue 2 times on the talk page and addressed the article problems but he does not participate in discussionsPenom (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Protected it's either block neither, or block both, because both have violated 3RR. Protecting for 3 days. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not broke 3rr, on the other hand he reverted 5 times in 24 hours. What can I do when I raised the issue on article talkpage 2 times and he does not participate in those discussionPenom (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits at 15:03 and 23:40 October 10, and 01:28 and 02:09 October 11, were all reverts. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Brandon reported by User:TEHodson (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:

I can't understand this form, I'm sorry. User:Brandon is insisting that a band member Tweeting that it was his band's version of Running Up that Hill playing over a TV show is a reliable source, and won't grasp that someone Tweeting "that was my band!" isn't a reliable source. I've left him messages, and discussed it on the Talk page, but it's not helping. We need someone to explain this to him. And he's been rude. Please help. --TEHodson 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - TEHodson was well-intentioned but misguided in this edit war. Although they've violated 3RR, I would ask that they be spared a block for this incident so that I can work with them. Thank you,  Swarm   05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not blocking me. I read carefully the 3RR rule, and I understood it to say that there was an exception made if one party was reverting because of removing improperly sourced material. I therefore continued to revert. If that was a misreading of the exception clause, I apologize. I also followed all Talk procedures and even took to the web to try to find a reliable source for User: Brandon. I don't usually revert more than 3 times specifically because of the rule.--TEHodson 05:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is indeed a misreading of the policy; this does not appear to be a BLP related issue. I don't see that Brandon has reverted four times, but you have.  If you will cease any edits to the article for a while and resolve the issue on the article's talk page (as you seem to be indicating you will), then there is no need to block, or in this case protect the article (my first choice). Please note that any other article edits will require a less passive result.  Kuru   (talk)  13:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Tstanton009 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 04:56, 11 October 2011  (edit summary: "Agenda, Nomo? These sources are perfectly acceptable. You seem to be promoting a one-sided perspective by consistently removing sources supporting a balanced story on this subject.")
 * 2) 13:26, 11 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 16:38, 11 October 2011  (edit summary: "I have read. And you aren't allowed to define consensus on this topic unilaterally. Please try addressing any issues you have individually. Otherwise, there is a strong case of vandalism here. We can always call for assistance from an administrator.")
 * 4) 17:13, 11 October 2011  (edit summary: "Removing references to Shumlin again. Nomoskedasticity, let's work on achieving consensus here rather than having an editing war. See you in talk.")


 * Diff of warning: here


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


 * Note that the editor has now found the talk page and is contributing (though his/her edits are making a hash of threading, as the current state of the talk page shows [now fixed]) -- but he/she continues to implement the desired edits and is unwilling to wait for discussion to actually achieve consensus. In any event, the diffs above clearly show four distinct reverts in the last 24 hours, with #s 1 and 3 substantially overlapping an earlier edit (soon rejected) by another newbie editor (here -- it's harder to see the overlaps in the diffs, but it's the same attempt to add about "grandstanding" by Peter Shumlin).   —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:88.207.0.167 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of proof that any attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page would be futile:

What we're dealing here is nationalistic POV. Attempting to discuss anything with such an editor is a waste of time. This is not the only article vandalised by the same editor:,. The edits/reverts were done by two IPs who I strongly suspect and believe to be one person. Surtsicna (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected both House of Kotromanić and Vuk Stefanović Karadžić for two months due to overtly nationalist edit-warring. (The IP made an anti-Bosnian rant here). If this were a registered account, an WP:ARBMAC warning might be considered as well. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhproofer reported by User:Jmh649 (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:


 * Result: 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:John Torn reported by User:OneLittleMouse (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Spam (cross-wiki spam), edit warring:

PS And again:  (by other account, SPI). OneLittleMouse (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Comments:

Discussion, attempts to resolve took place on Talk:Sex, User talk:Dia^/Archive 1 (see contributions of ). See also Sockpuppet investigations/John Torn - there is a strong probability that there is evading of blocks by cross-wiki spammer. And check, please, legality of this warning. OneLittleMouse (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionaly to my archive page I got this "long term vandalism" notice from user John Torn.Dia^ (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * - Additional suspected sockpuppet has been issued with a 3RR warning, see +  Crashdoom  Talk 10:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can another editor review and agree/invalidate the warning posted on my talk page from this hyprocrite user? Thanks. + Crashdoom  Talk 10:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am uninvolved in this and have done so. I cannot find any evidence of edit warring on your part, and due to the circumstances I'd say that the warning is invalid. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Nochoje reported by User:Athenean (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: see below


 * 1st revert: reverts my removal of an image
 * 2nd revert: identical to the above revert
 * 3rd revert: reverts the image I removed, as above, and also reverts another image removal by another user
 * 4th revert: does not revert my edit but reverts the image removal y User:Alexikoua

Goes like this: I remove an image I find unnecessary and uninteresting, which is reverted by Nochoje (1st revert). I revert him, he reverts back (2nd revert). Since he insists, rather than revert back, I replace the image with a better image, and moreover move it to the right so that it doesn't mess up the article formatting. Then another user, Alexikoua, removes another images. Both edits are reverted by Nochoje (3rd revert, in two steps). Alexikoua reverts Nochoje. Nochoje then partially reverts, keeping my edit, but reverting Alexikoua, thereby breaking 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, user has tried discussing, but is aggressive and calls me "fascist".

Comments:


 * Result: 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:207.64.149.50 reported by User:Vensatry (Result: 1 Week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (I'm not a major contributor to the article. I tried resolving the issue on the IP's talk page. As I could see no response from the IP, I felt it wont make any difference by starting a discussion in the article talk page.)

Comments:

The IP is a sort of a POV pusher constantly edit-warring with three editors. -- Commander (Ping Me) 21:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * + Crashdoom  Talk 22:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:JudgeDred1975 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted From September 2011.


 * 1st revert: (practically a revert) Diffamation, Vandalism, Unfounded Propaganda, Smear Campaign
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: Vandalism, Propaganda and a targeted smear campaign
 * 4th revert: Vandalism and Defamation against a living Scholar, by Wikipedia Rules
 * 5th revert: Undid an add-on of false claims by controversial sources that are largely irrelevant to this WikiPage

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (a minute later he made his 5th revert).

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

Comments:

Although the removal of "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" is accepted, the WP:3RRNO states that users should "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption [Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)]." The main words here are "[Any] contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", which is not the case. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (by User:Edgar181) Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Takabeg (Result: both 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

This user was blocked on October 10, 2011 by same abuse at same article. But user declatered [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=455090303 ''Oh, haha, very funny. You do know that that "lengthy block log" was for sockpuppetry I did not commit and for which I was cleared. But OK, I'll make sure to only revert these attacks against articles twice a day, from now on.''], and considers later blocking as trap and tries to legitimate his/her own abuses. Furthermore, user doesn't stop shout "vandalism" to other users (Daily revert of Kemalist vandalism, undo vandalism by unknown user) and continues his /her "daily revert". Takabeg (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You started this edit war, not me, and you also started the personal attacks by consistently accusing me of POV while all I wanted to do was keep the infobox clean. Since user:Takabeg started both the edit war and the personal attacks, and rejected every time I reached out to him and proposed to start dialouge, if anyone should be banned it is him. However, in recent hours I have more or less come to agreement with user:Khutuck who was also involved in the edit war and a compromise has been reached in which most of the changes have been kept into the infobox with some amendments to keep it clean and short. So unless Takabeg decides to re-start the edit war, it is practicaly over.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocking both for 72 hours. Can't sort out all the nuances, but there is an edit war, and its spilling into a personal dispute, the underlying issue is an ideological dispute, which Wikipedia is no place for.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As below. + Crashdoom  Talk 21:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Takabeg reported by User:Kermanshahi (Result: both 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

This user started an edit war on this article and refused to negotiate with me, although I continuously allowed his changes to take place and merely tried to keep the infobox neat, he immedietly turned the conversation hostile by accusing me of POV pushing edits. He has numerous times tried to get me banned merely so that he can have his way and doesn't need to discuss the changes he makes with other editors, he has used this tactic before. I also suspect he has been using IP-edits to get aroudn the 3RR rule, which he used to get me banned the first time. The edit war has however, despite Takabeg's complete unwillingness to act reasonable or compromise, been ended before even he reported me. Kermanshahi (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocking both for 72 hours. Can't sort out all the nuances, but there is an edit war, and its spilling into a personal dispute, the underlying issue is an ideological dispute, which Wikipedia is no place for.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * + Crashdoom  Talk 21:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision history of Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict does not show that User:Takabeg participated in edit war here. He only made only one edit in the article (during past three days) which seems quite reasonable explained. His other todays edits (five of them) are made on the article's talkpage during discussion. Discussion is exactly the way how to resolve disagreement.

Edit warring says:

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

Therefore I believe Takabeg did not participate in edit war and should not be blocked because of it. I think this block should be reassessed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From my own viewing both editors have been reverting each other's contributions multiple times over the past week or so on the article. Since they couldn't resolve it by attempting a discussion on the talk page, the reverts should have ceased between the involved editors and one of them should have attempted to get an impartial editor (or editors) for dispute resolution. However, since the block is only 72 hours, it's a time for both to try and stand back for a little while and let uninvolved editors attempt to help resolve the issue. If the block had been longer, I would have agreed in the fact that the block should have been shorter. (This is only my opinion on the matter, an administrator may see differently) + Crashdoom  Talk 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:91.122.1.39 reported by Dicklyon (talk) (Result: 31 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 03:33, 14 October 2011  (edit summary: "The nonsense is in your head")
 * 2) 03:40, 14 October 2011  (edit summary: "Hayward says h is the constant of areal momentum")
 * 3) 03:46, 14 October 2011  (edit summary: "You need to articulate your objections ("Nonsense" is not a properly formulated objection). Otherwise, there is no point in talking to you")
 * 4) 04:16, 14 October 2011  (edit summary: "The cited source contains extended quotations from books by trustworthy authors (Wiener and Hayward), with direct Google Books links")


 * Diff of warning: here

This very confused editor keeps adding material from his recently published knol article. Same junk added 5 times today there, and 4 times in Mass–energy equivalence. I've removed it from each three times, my limit. — Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It would appear that has semi protected the article.  Tiptoety  talk 05:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But he has done it twice more at Mass–energy equivalence, so the problem is ongoing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Tiptoety  talk 05:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also protected the page. FYI, if he comes back again -- it's this banned editor, who has been active in this particular area before. Antandrus  (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: also in the edit summary in  and this editor was recently warned in another article.

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

Comments:

Four times in the last 24 hours User:StAnselm has reinserted File:Saddleback3.jpg despite an ongoing discussion at the article's talk page. I have offered to withdraw entirely from the dispute and let other eds go either way. I also gave StAnselm a chance to self-revert before posting here. Novaseminary (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do note that you have also been edit warring on that page, along with the reported editor in your report. Note the second part of the edit warring/3RR warning template: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.", I believe that both editors are at fault, and should have resorted to dispute resolution at an earlier stage to get a proper form of consensus. + Crashdoom  Talk 02:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I made clear I would not violate 3RR and tried to discuss (on this article's talk page and elsewhere). I also suggested DR. But this ed has now clearly violated 3RR twice since August. That behavior should not be rewarded. I would be fine if another ed reverted StAnselm's violating edit, gave StAnselm a short block (or a super super final warning), and sent it to DR.Novaseminary (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I should point out that I posted at WP:3O here and received a response here. StAnselm (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * StAnselm never noted on the talk page that he requested 3O. And still no excuse for violating 3RR, which he doesn't dispute (or self-revert). Novaseminary (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an excuse for either editors to have violated 3RR or engaged in an edit war. Also, I don't believe there is a compulsory note that WP:3O being requested must be noted to the talk page, from the wording, it seems only to be to help the third opinion editor. + Crashdoom  Talk 02:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply 3O requires a notice (though it is good form). I just noted it to make clear I was not hiding the fact, but didn't know StAnselm had done this. And as for an excuse, I didn't violate 3RR and have noted I will not revert again and have engaged in much discussion. And my reverts were only to keep things as they were until consensus couild be reached. Novaseminary (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but even if you think something is right, you shouldn't edit war to keep it that way. + Crashdoom  Talk 02:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is why I stopped. And went to talk. And reported here. StAnselm's version is the current version despite it being the result of a 3RR violation. Novaseminary (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I hate sullying the clean block log of a contributor in good standing, but it has to be done here. A clear-as-day 3RR breach, editor was warned about another 3RR breach in August, no take-up on the opportunity to self-revert here. Cannot possibly go without a block. A warning to Novaseminary that 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts and should he/she take it as such in the future it may very well result in a block. Mkativerata (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Ckatz (Result: 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Kwamikagami has been repeatedly editing the dwarf planet article, and numerous articles related to that topic, to reflect a perspective that he favours. The pages have used a convention for the past five years (since the IAU conference in late August 2006) that uses the IAU as the basis for what is categorized as a dwarf planet and what is a candidate for that category. There is currently an active RfC at Talk:Dwarf planet discussing the matter, an RfC that was brought about in large part due to Kwamikagami's repeated changes. While the RfC is by no means complete, there is clearly no consensus on the talk page for the changes that he is proposing, and specifically there is no consensus for him to repeatedly make his changes while the RfC is under way. Tonight, his newest tactic has been to delete a core section of the page in protest. While I am certain that Kwamikagami is operating with good intentions, his tactics are inappropriate and his arguments have been described as "speculation and synthesis".

For my part, I'll certainly admit to having been involved in trying to undo his changes. However, please note that I was not the first editor to remove his changes, nor have I been the only one since then. Furthermore, I'm not looking for a block at this time as I would really prefer it if Kwamikagami would indeed heed the concerns that have been raised about his actions. He has been repeatedly asked by myself and other editors to respect the spirit RfC and avoid pushing through his changes without a proper consensus to do so. I am hoping that a warning from a party unconnected with the dispute can get through to him where I and others have not been successful. --Ckatz chat spy  07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1st change: 24 August 2011
 * Affected articles include Dwarf planet, plutoid, Haumea, Makemake and others

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here (dif)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Dwarf_planet
 * Talk:Dwarf planet
 * Talk:Dwarf planet
 * Talk:Dwarf planet
 * Talk:Dwarf planet
 * Talk:Dwarf planet

and a request for input on the repeated changes enacted by Kwamikagami while the RfC is under way:
 * Talk:Dwarf_planet

Comments: Given that Kwamikagami is an active contributor to the project, with many useful edits, and a sysop to boot, I have been reluctant to bring these actions to this forum. I have tried to reason with Kwami, but he has repeatedly rejected the opinions of others in continuing to change the articles in question. He is actively participating in the RfC, which is good; the problem lies in the repeated attempts to change the page to his preferred version during the RfC, and despite objections from others. --Ckatz chat spy  07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated 13 13 October 2011:

Kwamikagami has subsequently deleted material from the dwarf planet page twice more, with both deletions being rejected by other editors: --Ckatz chat spy  18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * here, restored by Ruslik0 as " disruptive removal of content";
 * here again, claiming "no pretend science" and restored by Kheider


 * Ckatz is edit warring despite repeated objections from several other editors that his desire to restrict sources on a scientific FA to what he considers "official" is non-scientific. I have removed the section to the talk page (only to be reverted), as no matter which direction I try to edit it, or which editors' opinions I use as the basis for those edits, Ckatz reverts to to an out-dated version which does not reflect current RS's. I suppose we could rescind FA status, but I hate to do that. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kwamikagami continues his edit warring by disruptively removing content (which has been there for a few years) from a featured article. The only way to stop this is a block. Ruslik_ Zero 08:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not disruptive to move dated material to the talk page until we can agree on how to update it, especially when we have editors such as yourself insisting on using nonsensical definitions of concepts they don't understand. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My own opinion on it, both editors should step back and refrain from editing the article while non-involved editors try to reach a consensual decision on the issue. It just seems like this will end up going badly, especially considering both users are sysops and should know better than to squabble over content and consequently violate 3RR in the process. Maybe try WP:DR? + Crashdoom  Talk 09:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that Kwami has twisted the facts to support his point of view. I am also growing tired of him intentionally misquoting my statements and insisting that he knows better than the rest of us. I also find edits like this to be unproductive. -- Kheider (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, it needs to be stopped. If a block is the only way to do that, then that seems the only way to resolve this, there is still edit warring and a violation of 3RR now from the reported user. 3RR warning posted to user due to another revert since the submission of this report. + Crashdoom  Talk 02:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Kwamikagami for 3 days due to extensive edit warring. ( X! ·  talk )  · @933  · 21:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. At the time of the block, kwami hadn't edited the article for almost 30 hours. It doesn't look like there was any imminent danger necessitating a block. Mojoworker (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * ?0th revert? 11:23, 12 October 2011(inserted currently disputed material that had previously been taken out)
 * 1st revert: 15:33, 12 October 2011
 * 2nd revert: 19:31, 12 October 2011
 * 3rd revert: 21:54, 12 October 2011 (Note that summary: "Correcting error in URL" disguises revert)
 * 4th revert: 22:03, 12 October 2011
 * 5th revert: 22:13, 12 October 2011 (Note that summary "Correcting broken link" again misleading - disputed material reinserted)


 * 6th revert: 12:18, 13 October 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on user talkpage about reaching 5RR (prior to the 6th revert) here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this whole section here and this section here are the most recent examples. It's been bubbling along for a while.

Comments:

Martinvl has persistently ignored the fact that his interpretation of sources (and thus the content he bases them on) is disputed by other users - by three others in this past 24 hours or so. This comment is probably the clearest indication of OWNership behaviour. He was warned at 5RR (but not reported - perhaps an indication that those in dispute with him would rather use the talkpage), but he went onto 6RR anyway. I appreciate I went to 3RR these past 24 hours, which isn't the best behaviour - but at least I was trying to get him to discuss things on the talkpage.
 * I'm in support of the reporter with this, but retain that the reporter should also be careful not to exceed 3RR. The reported user does appear to have a case of WP:OWN and if an attempt with dispute resolution hasn't worked, the only option may be to prevent the user editing the article. Other editors do seem to have a consensus with other users on the talk page. + Crashdoom  Talk 13:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree care should always be taken. I normally stop at one revert where I can. I was a little caught out by someone suddenly kicking off like this (and the dispute straddling two calendar days where I live). As soon as I realised I was at three I stopped.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note, I've left the user a friendly message explaining what he should do - this seems to have been omitted. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Response by Martinvl:

User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:DeFacto have been blantanly pushing a WP:POV by willfully misrepresenting a WP:RS. In particular, Asda did an in-house survey which was called into question by a report in Which? magazine (Details here). VsevolodKrolikov and DeFacto have persisted in reporting the Asda survey (a self-published primary source) but have supressed by addition of the Which? analysis of the survey. They claim that I am putting my own interpretation on the Which? report. However, any reasonable person, on reading the Which? article will see that these two editors have either have no clue about the meaning of secondary sources ort have been blinded by their own pushing of POV. The two versions can be seen here:.

I have also exhausted other avenues of negotiation, including
 * Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom,
 * Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom,
 * Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom,
 * Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom,
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard,
 * Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources.

I request therefore:
 * The Which? source article be read
 * The two entries in Wikipedia be read
 * My assertion of POV pushing be the two editors be noted
 * Both editors be issued with warnings that by failing to note the very clear criticism that Which? made of the Asda survey, they are pushing a PoV.

I wish also to place on record that there was a different issue concerning education on the same page initiated by DeFacto in which User:Pfainuk participated. This particular issue is still being discussed.

Martinvl (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You say that point on the National Curriculum is still being discussed. It is.  But given that you bring it up, I think it's worth mentioning that you didn't actually make any kind of argument or even substantive point in that discussion until after you had reached 3 reverts on that specific point (and 5 on the article as a whole), and after I had warned you about edit warring on your talk page.  On the rest, I would simply suggest that this is not the place to bring up the details of the content dispute. Pfainuk talk 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (Response to Pfainuk) I was highlighting that there were two separate activities going on at the same time. The discussion regarding the curriculum yesterday was initiated by DeFacto as a wind-up - he has been WP:HOUNDing me and he was trying to make a WP:POINT. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Martinvl, those are absurd and unjust allegations. There has been no wind-up, no hounding and no 'point' editing on my part.  I would advise you to defend your own actions, or apologise for them, not attack the actions of others and not to be so complacent. -- de Facto (talk). 21:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Procedural Request by Martinvl to Administrators

Things are getting messy. User DeFacto has demanded an appology which I am not willing to give - I am however willing to justify my case. I see a number of alternatives:
 * The administrators recommend that User:VsevolodKrolikov withdraws his report. In this case things will stand as they are.
 * The administrators insist that I justify my accusations against User:DeFacto, (which will also involve acusations against User:VsevolodKrolikov, though of a lesser nature). If this is the case, then I must insist that they both face sanctions if my accusations are justified.

I await guidance from the administrators as to how they wish to proceed. Martinvl (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Martinvl, I have not demanded anything. I offered you advice as to how I believe you may have been able to ameliorate your situation here, charged as you are with breaking the 3rr.  I believed that the best response would have been to either defend the multiple reversions or apologise for them - not to irrationally attack other editors. -- de Facto (talk). 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling that admins may be waiting to see if this all calms down and that no action need to be taken (even in a case of 6RR). However, as you can see from Martinvl's statements above, there appears to be not even a concession that he was edit-warring, despite going to 6RR, and that despite having been warned at 5RR (4RR is the bright line, isn't it?). Dispute resolution has been tried at RSN and identifying reliable sources (the latter seemed to be possibly a forum shop and certainly an attempt to edit relevant sourcing policy to affect the dispute - and without informing us on the page), and it is very difficult to have confidence that Martinvl will heed any of the advice he receives from third parties if it does not suit his particular POV. I strongly suspect that editing has gone quiet on the article page because we're all waiting to see what happens here, not because the problem has gone away. I suspect the rest of us want to keep our noses clean and not be seen to instigate a second round of warring. Some admin attention would be very welcome - Martinvl needs to understand that editing to consensus takes precedence over any conviction that he is right.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * to Martinvl: Personally, although I'm not an administrator, I would like to see your justification for the violation of the 3RR policy so broadly and attempting to mask your edits using false edit summaries. Depending on your answer, it may speed along resolving this report, or hinder the resolution of it, if an administrator is willing to wait to hear this out before making a decision. + Crashdoom  Talk 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to User:Crashdoom (and anybody else who is interested) - Please refer to my comments at Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom. The relevant comment is easy to spot - it has extracts from the source document in a box.  Please also see User:VsevolodKrolikov's response to my first comments inTalk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom. My second comment in that section sums up my view of his response. I will leave you to form your own judgement. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to bring the dispute here - the section Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom indicates a continuing battleground mentality. We both recommend precisely the same text from a primary source as appropriate for inclusion, yet when I consider this to be agreement (hooray! or so I thought), I'm attacked for misrepresentation. How is an editor supposed to proceed with this? Martinvl has now been asked by three independent editors to address the issue of his edit warring (here is the third, which he will have read by now), but is yet to do so. Instead, he posted what he did above this post - another insistence that his being "right" (as he sees it) forgives all behavioural issues. He needs to understand that abiding by the principles of collegial and consensual editing are paramount. I leave it to admins' experience in how best to get this message across.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - he's now apologised for accusing me of misrepresentation in suggesting we were agreeing on something (!). Nevertheless, he still needs to come here to address the issue of edit warring.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 24 hours for long-term edit warring (six reverts altogether). The last revert was October 13, but User:Martinvl has continued to argue his position in the current 3RR report, blaming others for the situation, while his last revert remains at top of trunk. He has not undone his last edit and insists that he is correct. The bogus edit summaries which disguise his reverts remain as an issue. (Here he claims he is correcting a broken link, while reinserting the disputed material). If he changes his mind and indicates he will wait for a Talk page consensus before reverting again, any admin may unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:58.178.181.234 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 2 weeks)
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: N/A. I'm just watching the page and noticed the edit-warring. Note that the user did two reverts under another IP address but georesolves to the same location, so likely the same user on a dynamic IP.

Comments:


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 09:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:J3Mrs reported by User:Daniel the Monk (Result: no action)
Page: and

User being reported:

<! I have no idea if this is the right process, but I have found myself in what seems to be an editing war with User J3Mrs (and possibly Administrator Malleus) on these articles. I have found that J3Mrs is the originating author of both articles and pretty systematically goes through and changes most differences from her original text. This is true even though the original articles had a number of factual errors. He or she has even made changes claiming they are due to grammar, when his/her changes are poor grammar. This writer has been been backed up by Administrator Malleus who has been insulting in his comments.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

<! I raised the issue here:

<! I'm at the point where that person's reversions seem to be nitpicking and are intended more to preserve the original text than allowing for a clear, useful text for those not familiar with the information. Plus I'm sensing a lack of respect for religious usage. Help! This is not a good experience for me of the Wiki world. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * No action I think this is a conflict between a well-meaning new editor who has made a few understandable errors (notably overlinking) and a couple of established editors. I don't see any reason to block anyone here, his would be far better discussed on the talkpage of the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:76.67.117.127 reported by User:kheider (Result: 24 hours)
User 76.67.117.127 edit warring on Comet Elenin. The user is posting fringe + weasel I am requesting that the user be BLOCKED! -- Kheider (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear 3RR (actually 4RR) breach after a warning. Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:71.224.207.195 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: Asking me if I am Ukrainian in their edit summary.
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert: IP warning other editors about 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Fresh from a 1-week block by Salvio giuliano involving BLP issues, the IP started the edit-warring on Viktor Yanukovych, again involving BLP issues. IP also refuses to engage in talk. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  02:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Take note of the Scientology insertions on the Yanukovych article with fake refs, which is why he was banned in the first place for doing so on other political articles. Bad faith vandalism + (maybe good faith) edit warring.--Львівське (говорити) 02:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to edit war over content myself, I realize I've 3RRd but since I can only assume bad faith / vandalism, was just trying to help. I'll step back now until an admin steps in.--Львівське (говорити) 02:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Non-Admin Comment I've only checked one of the edits so far, and it is glaringly inaccurate, enough so that any assumption of good faith is sent out the window. The IP editor uses adherents.com to cite Yanukovych's religion as Scientologist; however, actually checking at adherents.com shows that they list him as Eastern Orthodox, which is what the original article material stated. Having seen that, I cannot accept any other edits from the IP as honest and accurate. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked one month for disruptive editing. Adding wrong information to a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Block-conflict. Good thing we blocked for exactly the same length of time and for exactly the same reasons. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. Thank you both. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  03:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Charmain23 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 5 days)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Related accounts:
 * - Likely WP:SOCK of Charmain23

Charmain23 is a WP:SPA whose only edits to date are to Master Cleanse. He uses misleading edit summaries to slow-edit-war to add promotional information    and remove other sourced information.

The editor has been given multiple warnings on his talk page to no avail.

His editing is almost identical to that of Fenzi12.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 20:02, 14 October 2011


 * Result: Blocked five days. The editor appears to be a spam-only account. If this continues, an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Nochoje and sockpuppet User:79.166.249.44 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 week)
Page:

Users being reported: and sock

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 79.166.249.44 Through sock 79.166.249.44
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user has been edit-warring over a week across multiple Greece-related articles adding images of his own which noone else approves for inclusion in the articles. His latest target is Peloponnese. Note that he was blocked for similar behaviour by Ed Johnston. Also see the sockpuppet investigation: Sockpuppet investigations/Nochoje. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I second this report. Fresh from a block for edit-warring over images in Greece, Nochoje is doing the same thing in Peloponnese. It is evident the IP is him, and thus he has clearly broken 3RR. On top of that he is socking as an IP to circumvent breaking 3RR. In the talkpage discussion he is rather hostile . I think the problem is this user simply isn't getting it. Athenean (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked one week. This editor is ignoring all feedback and is using an IP to disguise his edits. (The IP has been blocked by another admin per SPI). EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ed. Good call. It is sad to see such intransigence. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  03:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:H2ppyme reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Page protected, users warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (User:Number_57 approached the user)

Comments:

During the last couple of days two Estonian users, User:H2ppyme and User:Sander Säde, beside an IP Special:Contributions/77.233.72.74, have been massively changing the place of birth from Estonian SSR, Soviet Union to Estonia in numerous biographies. There is a consensus to use the country name at time of birth and both registered users are well aware of that as they both have been called for their attention about this in the past. I noteced the edits at my watchlist and I noteced the intentional missleading arguments Sander Säde used in a discussion about this in both talk pages with User:Oleola. I opened a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football. H2ppyme has already had this discussed 2 years ago at his talk page, see User_talk:H2ppyme, so this users are well aware of all consensus regarding this, however they decided in the last couple of days to change over a houndred articles and edit war in order to keep their changes. Perhaps even a stronger action could be applied, as this is clear nationalist POV pushing. FkpCascais (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC) -->


 * Actually, the above is pretty much all not true. There is no "consensus to use the country name at time of birth" anywhere at all. "Massively changing" is a handful football biographies, which were all recently edited by an anon to include Soviet Union. How those few articles became "over a houndred articles" and "numerous biographies"... your guess is as good as mine. "Missleading" arguments... that from a user who wants to legitimize puppet states?!


 * Also, I see that FkpCascais doesn't report for edit warring for some reason. Why is that, Oleola broke 3RR before H2ppyme as it is plain to see for everyone? It might be worthwhile to run a checkuser here, as all Oleola, FkpCascais and  not only hold identical revisionist views, but do plenty of very similar typos - and at least in the case of Oleola and Number 57, daily edit pattern is identical.
 * -- Sander Säde 05:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don´t care about users, and I don´t have preferences. The difference is that Oleola restored the previous stable versions, and, as you can well see, all users defend historical acuracy over nationalist reviosionism... We can like it, or not, but people born in Estonia between 1945 and 1991 were actually born in a country named Soviet Union, and not modern day Estonia. This was often explained to you and to the other user, and you both continue making massive changes and edit-warring without consensus basically vandalising place of birth in houndreds of articles. I just want this to end, and not using historical acuracy is not encyclopedic. And btw, Soviet Union is a long standing edit in ALL biographies of people born within Soviet Union, and not a recent edit as you want to make it seem. Even if some bio didn´t include it, that IP you mention rightfully added it... ( PS: And don´t even dare to try to portray me as USSR simpatizer or anything remotely similar, as I just came out from a long mediation about the monarchic leader Draža Mihailović and Chetniks where I was exactly defending monarchists and oposing the communist POV there, so as all can see, and many know, I have no special simpaties at all for Soviets, but I do defend historical acuracy, even if I may dislike it .) FkpCascais (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From where comes this "houndreds of articles" nonsense? Anon added Soviet Union to a bare handful of articles. I reverted that - as I saw and still see it as vandalism; such changes without any explanation or basis are vandalism. Number 57 disagreed and reverted me, again without any explanation. Most of those H2ppyme reverted just once, besides Sergei Pareiko - and all that over three days. I haven't made a single edit in any of the footballer bios since my initial vandalism revert. So where exactly are we "continue making massive changes and edit-warring"? What are those massive changes?
 * Is there some kind of problem with telling just the truth - both H2ppyme and Oleola broke 3RR in Sergei Pareiko article, but unlike Oleola, H2ppyme started to discuss the edits, which may allow him to escape with just warning, while Oleola will probably face a block. Both of them have been warned from edit warring before, Oleola as recently as this May and H2ppyme in 2009.
 * There is nothing like consensus, guideline or even an essay which supports "Soviet Union is a long standing edit in ALL biographies of people born within Soviet Union" - or if there is, no one has managed to link it so far.
 * If you like historical accuracy, why haven't you clicked a link provided before? Occupation of the Baltic States was almost universally not recognized de jure - but this really isn't the place to discuss international law.
 * -- Sander Säde 06:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. According to a quick check, at least many of those biographies have never had "Soviet Union" attached to them. In case of Pareiko, Estonian SSR hasn't existed in the article since April 2009, so it was H2ppme, who reverted to a stable version, not Oleola. -- Sander Säde 07:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest protecting this article for a week or two. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This "country of birth" issue was discussed for months back in 2008 and we were unable to achieve consensus back then for a globally applicable guideline, (see: Centralized discussion/Country of birth). In the years since then the default defacto style was to list Estonia rather than Soviet Union as place of birth, since the view of the majority of people editing Estonia related topics is that the geographical location is more useful to a reader than listing a defunct state that ceased to exist over twenty years ago for a BLP of a young twenty-something year old football player.  Since User:Oleola appears to have started edit warring earlier against this informal consensus that has existed for some years in Estonia related BLP articles:
 * 1) 16:34, 14 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 455551657 by Sander SÃ¤de (talk) Estonia was under Soviet occupation")
 * 2) 18:30, 14 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 455568090 by Sander SÃ¤de (talk) discussed, where?")
 * 3) 23:38, 14 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 455608928 by Pelmeen10 (talk) unexplainted revert")
 * 4) 19:34, 16 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 455888213 by H2ppyme (talk)")
 * 5) 19:55, 16 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 455895698 by H2ppyme (talk) link to the discussion?")
 * 6) 20:12, 16 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 455898350 by H2ppyme (talk) this is your own standard? provide a link or leave it")
 * 7) 20:33, 16 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 455899552 by H2ppyme (talk) I'm according nothing, you said that there standard for Estonian people, so provide a link that support your claim and edit")
 * 8) 20:57, 16 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 455904203 by H2ppyme (talk) So until you find a confirmation  for this standard - leave it")
 * To all parties involved right now, I will stop reverting any such changes for the time this discussion is active and since I'm the one accused, I'll give a longer explanation.
 * The first point I want to make is that the attitude of trying to turn this against me only is disturbing. It was the user 130.226.249.238, who made the first edit to Sergei Pareiko, changing the place of birth to Estonian SSR. Sander Säde rightly identified this as vandalism as no reasons for the change of standard were given and it was an anonymous IP address. (Something else I noticed, the users have mostly been editing articles about football players, which they have done internationally. While they may be fully correct on the athletic information they give, we might expect them to not notice any background to the illegality of the Soviet occupation or the standard for people born in Estonia during that period.) Oleola reverted the previous revert, starting the edit war that I later became part of. As I see it, he simply turned the situation around, demanding me to unprove his reasons for the mysterious edits that were made without any discussion. So here the question - who starts the edit war, is it 1) the guy who keeps changing the long-standing standard not only for this article but for all articles for people born in Estonia during that period and does that without any previous discussion, or is it 2) the guy, who reverts his first edit demanding for some explanation or further discussion? We understand that Estonia was under the Soviet occupation, but this is as far as his arguments ever went.
 * As for the "previous warnings", they have been quite similar. The discussion between me and KevinMcE can be seen here and here. I have discussed my point of view also here.
 * I have to agree with Sander Säde that most of these articles previously had just Estonia in the infobox until they were changed to Tallinn, Estonian SSR or simply the "much better" Tallinn, Soviet Union. There are several points that have turned me to change the place of birth to for example Tallinn, Estonia. The same points were given to Number 57:
 * Estonia was under Soviet occupation, which was not recognized by most Western nations de jure. According to international law, Estonia is in fact the same state it was in 1918-1940 and never ceased to exist, but was only occupied during 1940-1991.
 * Most people in question have little to do with the Soviet Union since they became famous in independent Estonia and only lived their childhood in the Soviet Union.
 * It is perfectly clear to absolutely everyone where a person was born if they see "Estonia" in the infobox. If the ruling state was the same state that existed in Magadan and Baku, then the place of birth becomes more vague (like Tallinn, Soviet Union...). Estonia is not only an independent country, it is a distinct geographic region with clear borders separating it from its neighbors.
 * There has been a standard about this for several years now. Note that we don't (and I don't) write Tallinn, Estonia in the infobox for a person born in 1916 or 1850 - we write Tallinn, Governorate of Estonia, and often Russian Empire and usually in the brackets "now Tallinn, Estonia", but this is more common for people born in the less known Governorate of Livonia. The reason we don't write simply Estonia is that these were the internationally recognised borders at the time, although the same argument for the geographic region would hold and I don't see much wrong with just Estonia in their infobox. But as told, Soviet occupation definitely wasn't internationally recognised, merely by a handful of states that were mostly part of the Warsaw Pact. H2ppyme (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that Oleola broke the three revert rule just after I made my first revert... H2ppyme (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've fully protected the article for 4 days and warned and  for 3RR. Use the time the article is protected to resolve this dispute. In the future it will be better to handle edit warring by blocking disruptive users since protection prevents contributions from other, non-disruptive editors. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Turning myself in
I am hereby turning myself in over a brewing edit war over ''Ghost. I've been trying to expand the plot sumary and remove some information that is questionable at best. There is an anonimous user who keeps reverting the plot sumary back to a single paragraph that claims the main character rapes underage prostitutes. Now while alot of the main characters actions are morally questionable there was never any "chapter devoted to the rape of a teenage prostitute" in the novel. Please look over things and ban me if you want as I'm walking away for at least a week to cool down and try to find some sources of information that are outside the novel and in the public domain. Paulwharton (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A simple way to resolve this dispute, and worth exploring from the condition of the article, might be to WP:AFD it since I don't see any indication that it meets WP:NBOOK. causa sui (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Shii reported by User:Shii (Result:Blocked 72hrs )
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: I am engaged in an edit war with User:Me-123567-Me and I'm afraid I'm being rather rude to him as well. I demand someone come and reprimand me on the article talk page. Shii (tock) 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

First Revert: Second Revert: Third Revert:


 * This user seems to be baiting me, as well as making a personal attack with the comment in the second revert. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk page personal attacks, NPA warnings Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry about supplying those, I linked them myself Shii (tock) 14:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're reporting yourself for edit warring? Stop fooling around and just self revert and discussion the problems on the article talk page without getting personal Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Swift&silent reported by User:Hassanhn5 (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: The user is repeatedly adding POV and claims. An active discussion is already present on the talk page, but instead of commenting there, the user is editing the article and negotiating in edit summary. Note that the user is adopting a strategy of editing by masking it under edit summary terms like for "neutrality's sake" and "clear meaning" and editing the text to his POV without any proper explaination on talk page.

--lTopGunl (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the user disruptively removed neutral references from this page without any explanation on talkpage. He seems to have a disruptive pattern. (although 3rr didn't take place in the second case, but the user seems to be moving towards that) --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He's also a sock puppet suspect (I just found out when someone reminded him on talk) . Currently his edit war is at hold because I've not changed his fourth revert on the reported 3rr violation, but I'm sure he'll keep doing it unless blocked. Refer to his talk page warnings (of which he has still taken no avail) --lTopGunl (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Sock Puppetry is just an allegation. Dont try to be judge and jury of wikipedia. Admins will find the truth about that allegation very soon. Swift&#38;silent (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, a fifth edit, on the article being reported for, with another editor has been made by the user. I had reviewed the references and written what the current references supported. And I also added relevant references. Anyway, the question here is of wp:3rr being violated. He has been given more than enough time to read the warnings and take heed, but he deleted the warnings and made a further edit even after being reported. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit in question is explained in talk page. Edit was done as cited content was removed without reading citations by User:Mustihussain. Taking head of that edit I removed two disputed sources added three neutral citations. The edit I made is supported by five sources. Swift&#38;silent (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * this is your initial edit . you backed up your claims with 2 internet articles and 2 books, stanley wolpert's "india" being one of them. i know wolpert's book and i read the internet articles, and none of them support your claims, hence wp:or. i reverted and told you that this edit constituted wp:or . you then proceeded with reverting me *and* removing the two internet articles as they are easily verifiable. however, you didn't remove the stanley wolpert's book, hoping that no-one had read it...however, i know this book . i suspect that the other books you provided are just another cover for your wp:or. this is clearly disruptive editing and you're disingenuous beyond belief.-- mustihussain (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * in this edit it becomes clear that swift&silent attributes claims to sources he hasn't read. this again wp:or or disruptive pov-pushing.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All the edit summaries and talk page comments are maskings and inconsistent with the edits. Please note: Instead of following WP:HEAR, he is into wp:lawyering. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask lTopGunl to stop making baseless accusations against me like 'He has been given more than enough time to read the warnings and take heed, but he deleted the warnings'. Read. I have read, understood and I am following Wikipedia policies. Kindly stop making attacks on me like 'he'll keep doing it unless blocked'. And read the references given in said edit and full explanation in talk page and all neutral citations (five of them) that back the said edit, if any problem is found only then report instead of directly accusing another editor.Swift&#38;silent (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me elaborate- In the aforementioned article lTopGunl changed the text from [] 'Several neutral sources described the war as clear Indian victory' to 'Some other sources dispute it as Indian victory' making it read like source disputed it was an Indian victory. So in this edit I changed from 'sources disputed' to 'sources opined' but it was again reverted by him stating 'dispute it as Indian victory' is more neutral. I kept the word and made the meaning clearer- 'disputed that it wasn't bilateral ceasefire but an Indian victory.'

In these edits I was simply trying to retain the meaning, backed by several neutral citations, in a clear way while lTopGunl was trying to make it ambiguous. What perplexes me is that he altered words again and again by reverting more clearer words and accuses me of WP:3rr. I would request Admins to see Article's Talk page and Article's history. Swift&#38;silent (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The end result being that Swift&#38;silent violated 3rr with 5 reverts. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Swift&silent is warned that he should obtain consensus on the talk page before reverting again. He seems to have the greater burden of proof, because we have a heavily-sourced article on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 which is far from judging the war to be a one-sided Indian victory. If Swift&silent's argument is correct, then both articles should be changed. He needs to persuade others to agree with him rather than simply revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:123.231.82.172 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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


 * 1) 16:11, 17 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 455946779 by Danielkueh (talk)")
 * 2) 16:16, 17 October 2011  (edit summary: "undoing organized effort to remove factaul statments  adverse to britsh empire and its rule without explantion in talk")
 * 3) 16:28, 17 October 2011  (edit summary: "removing references to occupation and exploitation of colonies and suppression of resistance is not a neutral point of view. edit language if needed but do not remove such. case already made in talk several times")
 * 4) 17:03, 17 October 2011  (edit summary: "i expect be banned for retifying a crucial ommision on how,ppl in empire had no say in its rule,it exploited & occuped others,suppressed resistance.case for removing this ommsion already made in talk page by seversl ppl over months see my talk too.")


 * 3RR warning

See also edit by
 * Possible dynamic IP

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: User has returned to make an additional revert: . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * + Crashdoom  Talk 09:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:50.9.109.170 reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: protected 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (05:29, 17 October 2011)
 * 2nd revert: (20:15, 17 October 2011)
 * 3rd revert: (22:39, 17 October 2011)
 * 4th revert: (23:53, 17 October 2011)
 * 5th revert: (04:44, 18 October 2011)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I warned the user after the fourth revert and didn't report since its an IP user, but five reverts in 23 hours is absurd. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Note - I think that users and  had an important share in this 3RR thing as well:

Perhaps the article should be protected for a while until everyone has agreed on the talk page. DVdm (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * user Nyyankees51 is reverting sourced material. solution? (without locking page or blocking anyone)

50.9.109.170 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks to me like the reversions by and  would fall under WP:NOT3RR because the article is under the WP:BLP umbrella. As such, it falls to the IP editor to demonstrate proper sourcing of edits in order to meet the BLP requirements. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about the umbrella, and Anon50 is not making a very convincing case here, but i.m.o. the cited sources in the section make the case sufficiently convincingly. Note that I happened to stumble on this thing by accident (page was on watch list (Huggle) after unsourced additions by 65.35.249.125, then, then , etc...), and personally I don't care about the subject, or about the section, or about its header, but I think the sources are solid here. Just my two cents. DVdm (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that it's not a slam-dunk case. But the source the IP editor is citing says Pavone has been suspended from activity outside his diocese. There is no source saying he has been fully suspended per Suspension. Pavone says he is not suspended and never was. The IP user has refused to discuss this point. Given that, his five reverts in 23 hours, and his persistent unconstructive edit warring evidenced by his/her talk page, I think a block is necessary. Granted, I have probably made too many reverts, but the IP editor has been disruptively reverting and refuses my attempts to discuss the matter, and instead makes the same point over and over. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You did more than seven reverts your self. Without even bothering discuss anything.Material is sourced. there is a source, letter by rev. Zurek to other bishops about Pavlone suspension.

it is suspension no need for peacock words.You refuse to accept the fact. Trying to play with words "it was just suspension based on canonical law" did you even read that law? (i implore you not to go that way, because suspension in canonical law can be for very nasty reasons) 50.9.109.170 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Too many people edit warring to pick out one in particular. It's protected for a week, or until consensus is obtained on the talk page. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Degenavelos reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple past discussions with various socks of User:Chaosname

Comments:


 * (by ) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User:178.7.10.248 reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Protected 2 weeks)
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: I warned the user, but he/she appears to have blanked his/her Talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user may also be using (or coordinating) with the IPs Special:Contributions/88.67.161.88, Special:Contributions/75.72.148.126, Special:Contributions/84.57.98.90, Special:Contributions/92.75.118.14, and a number of others in the 178.10.203.X spectrum. I suspect possible bot activity. Request page protection and a block on the latter IP range.

-Kudzu1 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment With one exception, all the IPs listed resolve to the same ISP in Germany. The exception is a US ISP, and I doubt it's a proxy of any sort. I checked them all for Tor node status, and they all came back negative. With the size of the various ranges involved (at least one is a /15 range), rangeblocking is going to be off the table. Suggest a few days' worth of semi-protection on the involved articles; it'll be faster, less of an admin headache, and might convince the miscreants to seek their entertainment elsewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for two weeks (due to extreme vandalism).  Swarm   X 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Davidich2142 reported by User:GabrielF (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: [diff] N/A - not much of a "dispute" here. Editor is adding some highly contentious claims and needs to read WP:NPOV.

Comments:

Note that this is an Israeli-Palestinian Conflict-related article but does not have the 1RR tag on the talk page.


 * If this type of editing continues after the block expires, a report to AIV would be appropriate.  Swarm   X 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Wayiran (Result: stale and being actively monitored)
Page: Abdullah_Ibn_Saba

User being reported: User:Wiqi55

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Comments:

5 times revert in one day. Also his edits has serious issues of WP:SYNT, misrepresenting of sources, WP:Cherry and WP:Weight. Issues are addressed on his talkpage and article talkpage but the user fails to cooperate with other users. --Wayiran (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * An AN/I regarding a second edit war and mediation attempts breaking down, as well as accusations of OWN/POV/SYNTH/etc has been started. The thread is Assistance needed in off-and-ongoing revert/edit war. Best R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 23:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring stopped two days ago and article has visibility by several administrators now.--v/r - TP 13:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything seems to be under control at the moment (good luck to TP and to everyone discussing the issues), so closing this without action. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Thom100 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Thom100 has been reverting back in dubious material first added here:


 * 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: A number of editors have attempted to explain the problem with the material. Here are some of the diffs:

Comments:

A merger discussion that Thom100 opposes is ongoing at the page. The discussion is only tangentially related to this dispute and is obviously no excuse for edit warring.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We haven't heard anything from this report in 2 days, but the discussion continues. Today the user threatened to continue edit warring if he doesn't get his way.Cúchullain t/ c 15:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The user stopped edit warring 3 days ago and began discussing on the talk page. Since blocks are preventative and the behavior has already stopped on its own, I can't see any need for a block anymore.  As the user is discussing, perhaps their behavior can be fixed before anymore disruption by them.--v/r - TP 12:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please file a new report if that discussion has not settled matters. If it does become necessary, please remember to mention general EW, not just 3RR. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:EraNavigator reported by User:Daizus (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There are two paragraphs EraNavigator keeps changing (see the 3rd revert): first paragraph was changed 3 times, the second paragraph was changed 4 times.

The edit war is on a content/neutrality dispute: there are statements enjoying (apparently) unanimous support from scholars and I presented them as facts, whereas he keeps relativizing: "some/several scholars believe/argue/suggest", "according to scholars x and y", "it has been suggested/argued" etc. He cited no sources to present a different view, however he justified his edits using his own opinions and original research: "you cannot state as categorical fact what is simply speculative interpretation of archaeology: eg fire at Histria may have been accidental or caused by different raid", "these are scholarly suggestions, NOT fact; there is no evidence in epigraphy or literature that Costoboci actually attacked these places" (he also commented on a previous version of the same paragraph: "no direct evidence destroyed by costoboci: may have been earthquake" ). He seems to believe the scholars make suggestions and speculative interpretations, and thus these should not be taken as facts, even when we have widely (or unanimously) held views.

I started discussions on the talk page addressing each paragraph, but he did not reply, he just went on with his changes.

Please note often enough he makes edits from anonymous IPs (ranges such as 178.10x, 149.254, perhaps some others too). I can be sure or almost sure is him only by the specificity of the topic, of his arguments, of his style. Daizus (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No edit warring for a few days, discussion seems to have died down, and no immediate need for page (semi-)protection. Please request at WP:RFPP if you think page protection would help here. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:PassaMethod reported by User:The Last Angry Man (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please note, passamethod did not use the talk page until after his fourth revert.

Comments:


 * Talkpage discussion seems remarkably civil and well-focused for a hot-button topic. Kudos to the editors involved in hashing that out. TLAM, please take note of the relative effectiveness of the edit, revert, discuss until consensus is reached strategy as opposed to the edit, revert, insist that the article can only possibly be one way strategy. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kakazai Pashtun reported by User:Jorge Koli (Result: no action)
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: He's reverting my edits for no reason. First he came to edit under IP, then and now , he is making very bad edits to the article and accusing me of propaganda, and asking me silly stuff like show evidence to all the pics in the article if they really are Pashtuns or not. He can click on their articles and find out for himself. He's clearly here with an agenda to disrupt and start edit-wars. Btw, he warned me of 3rr but just so you don't block me by mistake I didn't make 3 reverts.--Jorge Koli (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Both users are at fault here, I've left them both messages requesting that they step back and discuss it on the article's talk page. I've also started some attempt of a calm conversation on the article's talk page, and recommended that both editors take a little break from this before continuing with the discussion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your determination Ajraddatz. I didn't remove Ghulam Mohammad but took him from one section to another and made totally new edits. Kakazai Pashtun made 3 reverts and that is breaking the rule. He appears to be expert on Wikipedia policy so he knows what he was doing.--Jorge Koli (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While you did not make three reverts, you were still edit warring in the sense that you were reverting his reverts (twice). I personally don't think that any blocks are needed here, especially as both editors have stopped warring. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind note which you left on my Talk Page. Please, feel welcome to review the edit history of that Pashtun people page. You will notice that I repeatedly requested to discuss the edits further. I hope that helps to calrify my postion. Kakazai Pashtun (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My inclination is leaning towards blocks all around, but Ajraddatz seems to be stimulating enough discussion that that should not be necessary. Jorge Koli, please take note that edit warring includes more than blindly following the 3-revert rule. There is already a WP:RFPP discussion, so there seems to be nothing left for this board to do. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche reported by User:Obotlig (Result: Nobody blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User:Epeefleche has violated 1RR protected page per ARBPIA by two reverts in a 24hr period while falsely accusingly me of having made two reversions and threatening a ban if I did not self-revert.


 * 1) He reverts User:Aalshihabi's reasonable edit
 * 2) And mine

My only two edits were:
 * 1)  where I accidentally reverted on of his edits after hitting back in my browser to correct a mistake I had made not realising the article had changed. So one accidental reversion for me.
 * 2)  which was my original edit and not a reversion to my knowledge.

We discussed the matter extensively on Talk:Gilad Shalit where I informed him that not only was my first edit not a reversion to my knowledge since it was the first time I had looked at or edited the page, and I was not to my knowledge reversing the actions of any other editor in the prior 24 hours with that first edit, but that he was in fact in violation of the 1RR by reverting twice that day.

I do not wish to participate any further in any article related to this topic. I am here to cooperate and help. I feel badgered by this user. The 1RR threats make this entire topic off limits to me because of how contentious the editing is. I want a good reputation as an editor and to make useful contributions in good faith and follow the rules.

Comments:


 * Why the silence? A 1RR breach in an article explicitly subject to 1RR? (I'm involved). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to your profile you are an admin, Mkativerata. I know it's bad form for an involved admin to act in an administrative capacity in a dispute, but it appears you're the only sheriff in town; therefore the question that faces you, is it better for an involved admin to deal with the case or for it to not be dealt with at all?  Two reverts to a 1RR sanctioned article seems a pretty straightforward case to assess objectively: was either revert reverting clear-cut vandalism? was either edit that was reverted made by an anonymous IP editor? If the answer to either of those is "yes" he didn't violate the sanction, if the answer is "no" in both cases it's a straightforward violation. Betty Logan (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if I were to block him it would be the last block I would ever be permitted to make. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Some comments.
 * 1. The 1RR restriction calls for us to assess whether contemplated edits are related.  The focus, as indicated in the explanation of the 1RR restriction set forth at the top of the talkpage, is on related reverts.  It states:  "When in doubt, assume it is related."


 * What Obitlig points two are clearly completely unrelated edits on my part. There is no doubt at all that they are unrelated.  If there were doubt as to whether they were related, I would not have made them--in accordance with the tp instructions.


 * 2. In addition, one of the two edits that Oblitig points to is a revert of the first-edit-ever, by a just-created editor.  In which the editor deleted RS-sourced info.  Info that was significant.  Without any reason.  The editor failed to give any explanation.  Nor was any reason apparent.  The reverted deletion of significant referenced information fell squarely within our v guideline, which points to: "Sometimes referenced information ... are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary."  The 1RR restriction at the top of the page states:  "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty."


 * 3. Had I inadvertently violated the 1RR rule, I would have been (and still would be) more than happy to undo a revert, so as not to violate it.


 * 4. Obitlig, in contrast, made two identical reversions.  First here.  And then here.   Deleting identical material, twice, that other editors had entered.  The two reverts were precisely the same deletions.  Within a 3-minute period.


 * That is exactly what the 1RR rule relates to. I explained this to him.  Rather than revert him on his second revert, I discussed it on the talk page.  At length.  Without reverting him (still), despite my view both that he had violated 1RR, and my difference of view on the substance of the issue -- even though more than 24 hours passed since his second revert.  It is a difference of view, and I showed clearly by my actions that, rather than engage in an edit war with him, I was happy to discuss it on the talk page, even as the article stayed in a form I thought it should not be in.


 * Rather than call for him to be blocked, which wp:1rr allows as a response to two identical reverts on the article in such short order, I opened up a talk page discussion, in which I suggested to him he review the rules on the talkpage, which I pointed him to, and self-revert to avoid a block. He has not done so.  I'm still not (despite his contrasting aggressive posture) asking that he be blocked.  Only that, especially as he said his second revert was inadvertent -- that he he self-revert, in accord with the rule.  (His reaction, while not self-reverting, and after writing in that indicated talk page discussion "appreciate your patience", was to bring this action).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it implausible that after 85,000 edits to wikipedia that you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:3RR and the intent of WP:REVERT. Further you have the restrictions precisely backward - your reversions counted toward the total need not be related or of the same material at all! And my first edit could not be counted as a revert because, deletion or addition I was not undoing the actions of another editor on that day! Otherwise, with your absurd standard of reversion, virtually any edit could be creatively construed to return the article to some former state God knows how long in the past. Given your long history on wikipeda I do not think you can use either ignorance or inability to read/understand/reason through what is meant by reversions as I am quite sure you have encountered the process of creating diffs for a 3RRV or 1RRV many times before. Further it is a plainly visible lie that I did not offer a logical reason why the allegiance parameter of the military service template was used in a deceptive way.  I gave a reason in the edit summary and explained at length on the talk page. Given what can only be willful abuse and gaming of the system on your part I think a block against you (which would not be your first!) is the only reasonable answer at this point. Apparently you get away with his behaviour routinely or you would not come to the noticeboard with such brazen and willful misrepresentations. At first I was willing to give ground on this given the possibly sensitive nature of an article in which I have no interest. However at this point I think an an administrator needs to step up and deal with this blatant bully regardless of what friends he may have. Obotlig (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The 1RR restriction calls for us to assess whether contemplated edits are related". Umm, no. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page explanation of 1RR states: "When in doubt, assume it is related."  This is stated in the very second sentence explaining the restriction.  It is of importance.
 * The reason this is important, is because every deletion is a revert (undoing the effects of one or more edits, in whole or in part). Every deletion reverts what an editor had added previously, reverting the article in part to what appeared before that editor added it.
 * The same with and editor adding even one word, that was previously deleted. Precisely the edit Obotlig complains about my having done once.  And the inverse of what Obotlig did -- he deleted that same word from the article.  He deleted it twice.  Within three minutes.
 * We are concerned with edit warring -- such as Obotlig twice deleting the same material ... material that had been added to the article in this instance by 2 different editors, though it was precisely the same. The focus is not on: a) one edit, adding the word France, and b) another completely unrelated edit, reverting a first-time-ever editor (while the restriction does not apply to IPs) whose edit was deleting RS-supported material without an edit summary in a manner that meets our vandalism guideline (the restriction also does not apply to reverting vandalism).
 * Obotlig--please read my point 2 above more carefully. You have obviously misread it completely. It was the first-edit-ever editor who deleted RS-supported significant material, while failing to supply any edit summary.
 * I've never been blocked for edit warring. And I haven't tried to bully you, Obotlig. While I could have edit warred with you when you reverted the same material twice, I didn't.  I let your second revert, of the same material within 3 minutes, stand (and have still let it stand till this point).  While I could have legitimately lodge a complaint against you here, or at the arbitration page, for a 1RR violation, I didn't.  Instead, I simply initiated and engaged you in discussion on the talk page.  And suggested that you revert your second identical (clearly "related") revert, made by you within 3 minutes.  Inasmuch as 2 reverts, of precisely the same edit, on that article within 3 minutes constitutes a violation of 1RR.  Your response, was to not do so.  And instead, to file this complaint.  I still indicated above that I wasn't asking that you be blocked.  And wrote that if I had made any inappropriate revert, I would be happy to undo it, but for the reasons indicated above I do not believe I did so.  In your response above, you them became even more aggressive.  I'm not sure why.
 * But I stand by what I said: a) I don't believe I engaged in a violation of 1RR, for the reasons stated; b) if I did, I'm happy to self-revert; and c) I believe that your deletions of the same language, twice in 3 minutes, is a violation of 1RR, and -- as I've requested for some time now -- believe the proper course is for you to self-revert (and, despite your aggressive posture, am not calling for you to be blocked). --Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Related: "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." You think we're all stupid? --Mkativerata (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * err... excuse &mdash; the two reverts in question by Epeefleche are completely different. There's no way in hell anyone could construe them as being the same. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Err... they don't in any way have to be the same or related. No admin will be conned into thinking otherwise by a user with 80,000 edits and several blocks on his log. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope; edit-warring means reverting the same thing more than once. Alright, I just looked it up. I think it's bullshit, and I'm gonna ask for clarification. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring generally means reverting the same article more than once, even if the edits themselves are independent of each other. The rules on edit-warring make it quite clear the reverts themselves don't have to relate to the same edit on the article i.e. 3rr is violated if you revert four independent edits on the same article within a 24 hour period. 1RR is stricter in its application, and applies the rule to a topic rather than a single article. So a single revert on an article that is subject to 1RR that falls under the Israeli-Palestine sanction, and another revert on another article subject to the same sanction under the same topic scope within a 24 hour period is a 1RR violation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No clarification needed. The rule has been clear for years. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently. And I'll be reporting a lot more people in the future. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not how I read it, and I read it in good faith (though I can now see how it might be meant that way). Let me explain why, if I might.  The reason I did not read it that way is two-fold.  First, I read everything immediately following "are under WP:1RR" as describing what that restriction entails.  It says (paras omitted) "... are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.... Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty."  I read the language following mention of the restriction as explaining the restriction.  Not as explaining why the restriction applies to the article.  Second, under our definition of revert, as indicated above, every deletion is considered a revert.  As wp:REVERT states:  "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits... More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors."  So, unless the restriction applied to related edits (which was as I read it), it would mean that an editor could not in 2 edits delete 2 separate, unrelated words, in completely unrelated parts of the article, dealing with completely unrelated issues and even ... as here ... having nothing to do with the conflict that led to the restriction being involved (see the "French" edit).  So, in cleaning up an article, if one deleted or changed one word, a change of an entirely separate word -- clearly not what we consider edit warring -- would be a violation.  This clearly isn't what we focus on when we look for edit warring behavior, and isn't what the ARB discussions on the PI articles are about.  So I read "related" as naturally referring to "related" edits. If that is not the case, I'm happy to be educated here, but wouldn't that mean that one could not delete any 2 unrelated words in the same article in 2 edits within 24 hours?  Essentially, other than additions, one would be limited to one deletion from the article per day?
 * I did think, though, that Obit, by making two deletions, of precisely the same (and therefore related) material, in a 3 minute period, was in violation. Do you not see it that way?
 * Also, as I said, if there was an inadvertent violation, I'm happy to self-revert. I've asked Obit to do precisely that, but he has declined.
 * Although, if I self-revert, I would have to re-add the deletion of RS-supported material by the never-before-edited SPA. Which, of course, would raise a separate problem.
 * And I btw acknowledge that I've disagreed strongly in the past with both Mkat and Betty Logan, on wholly separate matters. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough TLDR wikilawyering already. WP:3RR, the bold bit, says: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert". --Mkativerata (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Every deletion undoes another editors work, obviously. So is it your understanding that one can't make 2 deletes, deleting 2 different words, in an article under 1RR within a 24-hour period?  If, say, I corrected his birthdate in one revert, and deleted a stray word in a second, that that would be a 1RR violation of the safety valve put in to protect us against edit warring in the I-P area?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, I had to read up on this, too: You made 2 reverts, that's more than one, you must be blocked. So you better self-revert right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've looked through a number or applications of the ARBPIA 1RR in the archives of this noticeboard, and every instance I've seen of it being applied has been to reverts of the same material, and many of them had other indicia of edit-warring absent here, such as multiple reverts and failure to discuss on the talk page (the opposite of here). Mkat's interpretation does not match the application of the rule here.  And it of course is not what the restriction is about, if you read up on it -- the restriction is about stopping warring, not about stopping clean-up of articles, vis-a-vis an edit unrelated to the IP area, and unrelated to any prior editor, or the editor in question.  I would be happy to undo my second revert.  But that was immediately reverted in turn -- by the complainant.  So I'm unable to revert that--blocked by impossibility.  I'll be happy to restore the improper deletion of RS-supported material by the SPA who did it without leaving an edit summary, though, if anyone thinks that would be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do it. That's your only choice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, of the 2 reverts that troubled complainant, 1 was clearly stale. He had reverted it himself, immediately.  And nobody restored it.  So that was already reverted.  The 2nd revert, of the deletion by the first-time-ever-editing editor, deleting RS-supported material, without an edit summary (as described in our vandalism guideline), was IMHO as described above.  But to not leave any doubt, I've also now reverted that.  I'll leave word on the article talk page, so other editors can determine whether that edit should be reverted.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. And I learned something new today. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect you will learn even more if you read the archived 1RR decisions relating to ARBPIA. They all -- from what I've seen, and I looked at a number -- involve related edits.  Not wholly unrelated edits, involving wholly unrelated editors, and not even involving (in other than one edit) the IP area.  It is also clear in the ARBPIA decision what is being protected against.  This ain't it.  But -- as you no doubt noted, my old friends Betty and Mkat still have not spoken to the issue of whether the complainant violated 1RR .... despite his having reverted twice, the same precise language, within a three-minute period.  That no doubt will catch the attention of anyone who reads the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually commented on the particulars of your case; my first comment was a suggestion to the admin that he should handle the case, since no-one else is seemingly prepared to prosecute it or dismiss it, which undermines the policy against edit-warring in my view. My second comment was to offer an interpretation of 1RR, and that applies to any editor who has reverted on the article. At no point have I advocated any action against you, that is up to the admin who takes on the case, if one ever does. If you think the complainant's actions violate the sanction, you should request that his edits be scrutinized too, and provide the appropriate diffs. Betty Logan (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Betty -- I did precisely that. In my first comment above.  Para # 4.  And then, throughout this discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I came here to comment on another case; but I stayed to consider some of the other action. I'm shocked to see how tangled things can get with a 1RR case. As a relative outsider in this forum, I would want the accused given the benefit of the doubt. It's frightening! If technicalities proliferate at this alarming rate, I don't see how anyone can safely navigate them. Let's avoid an injustice here, all right? N oetica Tea? 11:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, where is Enric's complaint? Has it been whisked away already? Now, I couldn't help seeing this thread. There seems to be no warring here. So ... the complainant reverted the editor he's complaining about, but that editor went straight to the talk page for discussion. The complainant then griped about him here. The two edits in question about have nothing to do with each other, and nothing to do with warring. What are we going to do next—block editors for correcting two spelling errors? Common sense required here, folks. Tony   (talk)  13:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. ( non-admin observation ) I asked "What's a revert?" at AN last year, and there have been many similar discussions, as well, of course. Different admins vary considerably in how they answer the question. It's my understanding that admin EdJohnston, for example, uses the verbatim definition ( e.g. from WP:3RR ) of a "revert" that says the text in question for multiple deletions or additions need not be related in any way, while others like BWilkins, as it appears - see his or her close, below - tend to employ a more subjective, case-by-case view. I do wish all admins were on the same page about this important issue, but that's probably not going to happen. In general, though, editors certainly do risk a block from some admin if they perform two deletions from a single 1rr article, regardless of whether the content is related. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * . One of the reasons that I asked Epeefleche to comment here was because it appeared to me that a) there was controversy, b) there may have been some misunderstandings, and c) it's always better to discuss before calling the police - especially for what is truly a borderline case.  Yes, if any editor had reverted the same or portions containing the same info, this was open-and-shut.  However, we have two different sets of edits in play in the midst of a whole whack of others.  I'm goign to close this with no blocks. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus reported by User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=next&oldid=456450145] (Corrected, replaced null edit with revert. I will will inform the user.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I have no idea what is being asked for here. I will post a | link to this report on the editor's page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has reverted without adressing many issues brought by three other editors, mainly, are the latest polls on sentiment towards Occupy Wall Street suitable for the lead, especially in regards to weight - a point the Dualus has not responded to once. I have stopped reverts on my part ( I think two are mine) to keep from escalating the matter. Dualus is also accused one editor, Amadscientist of being | "disengenous at best" when, to all appearances, the editor has acted in good faith. | Here's a diff that shows Dualus being told of the unwanted incivility by Amadscientist.


 * I tried to revert the "4th revert" link so I could be on the safe side before looking in to this, but it's a null edit. If in fact I have violated 3RR I agree to revert myself. Dualus (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is directly contradicted by Dualus' prompt restoration the text in dispute | immediately after  the | link Dualus just provided and has not taken any steps to correct and has not joined in further discussion.TheArtistAKA 03:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have. I have commented on the article's talk page and stopped making reverts. Dualus (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The | last revert listed above (4th revert) was made by Dualus, who has engaged in no substantive discussion to the discussion at that time or since. TheArtistAKA 03:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Taking Dualus at face value, I offered to fix the null edit, but this has been | objected to TheArtistAKA 03:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not fair. If you think I really violated 3RR and have a revert you want me to make, then tell me what it is. What I told you is that you could do it, not that I wouldn't object if you do. Dualus (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dualus is correct in that a null edit was listed, and my apolgogies for any confusion may have understandably caused. Regardless, immediately after that edit there was a 4th revert, this has been corrected and noted as such above. I also wonder why the editor would want me to escalate and edit war by suggesting a revert the editor vociferously objects to. This makes no sense. TheArtistAKA 03:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to undo but there are intermediate edits. What do I do now? Dualus (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone else did a partial revert without fixing the references so I will let others fix it from here. Dualus (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing my edits, and out of an abundance of caution, I am prepared to agree that I probably did unintentionally violate 3RR. I agree to refrain from editing Occupy Wall Street for 48 hours, and I throw myself on the mercy of the administrators. Dualus (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Dualus' comments above and on their talkpage, I am requesting that they refrain from re-adding the Lessig paragraph absent clear and active consensus at the talkpage, with a warning to focus on the content, not the contributor. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ahunt reported by User:137.204.135.219 (Result: no vio / semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gmail#The_.03_USD_reactivation

Comments:

Is the first time I do a report, I apologize for possibly doing that in the wrong way.

I think that all the usefull info can be found in the above link of the discussion page.


 * Page semi-protected 1 month. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:KhatriNYC3 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User_talk:KhatriNYC3] - chock-full of various warnings during the last month

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Khatri, Talk:Khatri ... and other attempts elsewhere

Comments:

NB: User previously edited as User_KhatriNYC. The recent contribution history shows numerous undo's to contributions added by a wide range of editors and across several articles. Most of these are warring, since the other users have bent over backwards in their attempts to explain policy etc. The Khatri article was recently fully protected until I posted this on the protecting admin's talk page. The PP was then removed and the protecting admin said, amongst other things in various places, this and this. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * diffs in previous report
 * revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see previous report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters

Comments:

Weeks ago Dicklyon tried to edit-war some examples out of the guideline, after failing to move the examples to his preferred capitalization. I showed that the relevant RM didn't show consensus against the examples, and I asked him to provide proof that the examples had no consensus. Now he is removing again the examples, again without engaging in discussion in the talk page. Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did one undo, while Ernic repeatedly adds the same contested examples, which are being reverted by two other editors as well; who is edit warring here? Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The complainant is well known for favouring capitalisation whenever that is a plausible option. Even where he does vote in RMs against capitals, it is typically in terms of "reliable sources" not out of respect for Wikipedia guidelines like those at WP:MOSCAPS. (See this edit, for example. No one denies the role of reliable sources; but there is a worrying push to lessen the role of Wikipedia's style guidelines when the matter is clearly one of style, not choice of wording.) He ignores, when it suits his agenda, the very first principle given at that page: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." As for collegial discussion, I attempted to engage Enric Naval in peacemaking moves where sources and guidelines seemed to conflict, over the notorious moves for Mexican-American War. Instead of joining in the initiative for peaceful, centralised resolution, he simply reiterated his opinion. It took an enormous effort, under ArbCom supervision, to resolve that issue. We achieved that, but it wasted the equivalent of many full-time weeks of editors' time. One editor involved in retarding that resolution has been topic-banned for a year; but he was not the only one.
 * The complainant does not come here with clean hands. He appears bent on retaining certain contentious examples in the style guidelines at all costs. I support Dicklyon's bold removal of them; and I wish Enric Naval were as ready to discuss dispassionately as he is ready to speed passionately to litigation. As an editor committed to discussion and collaborative development of guidelines (and respect for them, in fact), I find his intransigence unhelpful.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a very minor bit of delving following the comment by Noetica above. I was surprised to find that, indeed, it was the plaintiff who appears to have been edit warring in recent days; same going back in time. Enric seems to have steadfastly resisted removing a disputed example, whereas Dick has made only one change. Offering 'evidence' of the attempt to resolve the issue, I see there is no offer to replace the disputed example with a mutually agreeable one, which would have been the obvious way forward. Instead, we seem to be stuck with having to put up with Halley's [Cc]omet and Andromeda [Gg]alaxy, or none at all. That's pretty poor showing. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've skipped through the thread, short of time, but already I know what I want to say: Enric is prone to treating other editors rather roughly, even rudely, and is no stranger to edit-warring. I don't look favourably on this easy option of parent-shopping, crying to mama, by taking Dick Lyon to ANI, wasting admins' time on a semi-regular basis. Please try to sort out your disagreements with other editors using the usual courtesy and moderation, Enric. And yes, I agree that Enric is towards the extreme formulaic end WRT capitalisation, which is not the long-standing policy and style of WP. Dicklyon has a deep expertise in linguistic style and comes from the technical sciences. Tony   (talk)  03:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is somewhat of a long-term, very slow moving revert war going on between Enric and multiple other users, and, while I don't think blocks are needed at this point, it simply can't be allowed to continue indefinitely. I would recommend that all users involved refrain from reverting each other entirely, and pursue methods of dispute resolution if need be. Remember that thinking you're "right" in an edit war does not excuse you, and neither does avoiding 3RR. If this continues significantly, bring it back here, but let's try to voluntarily amend our behavior so we can avoid that. Regards,  Swarm   X 03:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The last time Enric reported me here for 3RR, my edits were various different attempts to find a tolerable version, and me managed to get me blocked for that, even though he kept putting back the same version. Now that's he has self-reported his own continued edit warring in that direction, maybe he should be blocked ... I'm just saying ... Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to here that it came to that before, and I would urge you not to let it come to that again. As for Enric, I think my above message is clear enough and I'm quite certain that after nearly 4 years of active editing and 25,000 edits, he doesn't want want to ruin his clean record with a block and thus will refrain from further participation in the edit war. I've also warned Techno (the most recent reverter), and I left a general warning on the talk page, here. If any new users enter the dispute and aren't familiar with the background, they should be directed to that warning. Apart from that, there really isn't an excuse to continue the edit war. So, again, if there's further disruption, bring it back here, but for now, no action.  Swarm   X 01:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute there. The people who are removing the examples have not explained why the examples are wrong, and they used lame reasons for removal like "weird grammar" or "grammatically ill formed". Dicklyon created a RM to test the consensus for one of the examples, and he had to withdraw it.


 * The examples are been there for years, and they are coherent with all our articles in celestial bodies and with the astronomy naming guideline. Dicklyon, Tony and Noetica are removing the examples because they hurt their attempts at changing consensus and using lower case in celestial bodies articles. Dicklyon tried to show that he had consensus for the change, and failed. Are we now deciding guidelines by vote counting and seeing which side has more people reverting? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may very well be right. That has absolutely no bearing on what I said above. Again, pursue dispute resolution if need be, but stop edit warring.  Swarm   X 17:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:ברוקולי (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Comments:


 * Comment The article is the subject of "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES". was warned and blocked many times for his disruptive editing in the topic. Broccolo (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Zero: I looked at these quite carefully. In the first diff, Nableezy removed some text that had been sourced to an anonymous writer on some web forum.  A good edit.  In the second diff, Nableezy inserted new material as a proposed compromise on a disputed passage. A good edit which was not a revert.  In the third diff, Nableezy corrected an anon insertion that seriously misrepresented the given source.  Also a good edit.  Incidentally, the AE remedies on this topic explicitly allow reverting of anons.  In summary, no offense occurred and this report by a highly experienced editor who is even an administrator on another wiki is intentionally disruptive.  Propose reporter be disciplined. Zerotalk 08:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". Not actionable (I'm not acting as an admin here; I'm involved). --Mkativerata (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * . Although the edits my anonymous IP editors...may be reverted without penalty is not a license to undo valid edits by anonymous editors, it is clear in this case that certain anon edits did not match sources, were WP:UNDUE, were non-WP:RS and other significant issues. I see very little talkpage discussion recently, and all editors should reminded to discuss first, report when that fails, and that admin reporting mechanisms are not to be used to "eliminate your enemies" ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bolandista reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent attempts to include lengthy WP:FRINGE text, clearly against consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Two more reverts since, and  - I'd block but I've edited the article. Oops, three . Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Elockid  ( Talk ) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:117.192.64.22 / User: 117.192.70.32 / User:117.192.87.232 reported by User:Mathsci (Result: Protected)
Page:

Users 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: This seems to be the same user ip hopping to delete sourced data about China. It could also be the same user as a single purpose account created slightly before these edits who made a similar deletion. I have requested semiprotection of the page, but possibly some of these accounts might need to be blocked. These users are also targeting Economy of Asia, which might also need semiprotection. Mathsci (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Asia now semiprotected by Elockid. MrAryadeva and IPs have been identified as socks of . Mathsci (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * by . <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 17:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:122.160.126.4 reported by User:Presearch (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff COMMENT: I'm not sure how relevant this is. It should be clear from the change-log that the IP was introducing changes, or tying to keep them there. But this version does precede all the activity.

The IP (User:122.160.126.4) is repeatedly making changes to the page for Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, a deceased former president of India. The IP wants his name to be spelled as "Radhakrishna" (no final n), contrary to the name of the page itself, and contrary to Radhakrishnan's own usage in his byline in all of his English language books. I have made a posting on the talk page (DIFF) to this effect. However, the IP has simply reverted my edits without responding on the talk page. I warned the IP through a couple of vandalism templates -- perhaps edit warring warning would have been more appropriate?), but this also has not produced any effect. (The only discussion the IP has ever offered is an edit log claiming that because Radhakrishnan once signed his name w/o the final n, that form must be correct). Possibly these changes may be related to some sort of inter-ethnic identity conflict (Tamil vs Telugu?), but I am not an expert on this. Diffs of the IP's changes are:
 * Earlier on same issue: DIFF DIFF (Also seeking name-change, although slightly different alt spelling: DIFF, DIFF)
 * Reversion DIFF
 * Reversion DIFF
 * Reversion DIFF

User has been notified. Please suggest next steps. Could an administrator simply implement a block of the IP? (my warnings mentioned the possibility of blocking) (NB: I posted this earlier at WP:ANI, but was told to come here) -- Presearch (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1-link 2-diff (comment: vandalism warnings, probably should have been edit-warring warnings)

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

Comments:


 * Aside from the revert warring, the edits themselves are blatantly disruptive.  Swarm   X 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:No action)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Once again, Wtshymanski ignores 3RR, consensus and any notion of collegiate editing. If he doesn't agree, or if he hasn't heard of it, then it's WRONG!!! and whole sections should be deleted outright. I make no comment on the rightness or wrongness of the disputed content, but this regular behaviour across a whole range of articles is highly disruptive to the project and electrical articles in particular. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not more than three reverts, wasn't warned for edit warring, and he's attempting to engage the editor with discussion. The editor adding the material is the one that is edit warring and has been reported as such, as well as no attempts at discussion after being asked to and warned about edit warring.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * , as above. I don't think the circumstances merit a general edit-warring block (ie a block despite no 3RR violation) given the nature of the content concerned and Wtshymanski's repeated attempts to engage the other editor in discussion. Mkativerata (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Potentilla reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This user has ignored invitations to discuss his or her position and continued to revert despite a warning on his talk page which I infer he or she read. No indication that the user won't just continue edit-warring so a short block is warranted. Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:MelbourneStar reported by User:88.104.18.186 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 456762901
 * 2nd revert: 456763246
 * 3rd revert: 456763660
 * 4th revert: 456763989

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have been attempting to do a minor clean up of this article which has some poor wording (the article listed the album as a definite "next release" from the artist, but this is not the case) and includes snippets of interviews that are not directly related to it. However, every time I try to make an edit, the user MelbourneStar keeps reverting me, despite the fact I have included adequate edit summaries. I have tried to discuss this with the user on their talk page but s/he has persisted reverting my edits for no good reason. They have now reverted four times which is in breach of 3RR. 88.104.18.186 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You were edit warring as well, and I've protected the page for three days (i.e. you will not be able to edit it). In that time, discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page and direct the user who was reverting you to that page as well. I'll also send a warning to the user who was reverting you.  Swarm   X 02:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's it? The difference is I was reverting what was obviously inappropriate reverts by MelbourneStar and I did not breach 3RR by doing so. I made every effort to open discussion with him/her (and was met with warning templates and an indifferent attitude), and then I came here to report the matter. Every thing I have done is correct. MelbourneStar obviously paid no attention to the content I was changing and proceeded to revert my edits regardless, and is obviously one of these mindless "crusaders" who go on rampages using Wiki tools, reverting anything that might get flagged up without even bothering to check if it's a false positive. His/her reverts were clearly an abuse of editing priveliges. You'll also notice that MelbourneStar didn't even bother to come here to explain themselves, despite being informed of this report. What is the point of having a 3RR noticeboard if people are allowed to get away with it? 88.104.18.186 (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've explained to MelbourneStar why their actions were not appropriate, and I believe they they've confirmed that they will refrain from edit warring in the future. Blocks are used to prevent disruption, and in this particular case I don't feel a block was necessary (the preventative solution was page protection instead of blocking). If MelbourneStar continues to revert you after the page becomes unprotected, things will change, but I encourage both of you to utilize the next three days (quite a short period) to discuss on the talk page and reach a solution, and when the protection expires, make the change you deem best. Frankly, I was between blocking both of you or neither of you, and I decided against blocks for now because I'm confident in your ability to work together to reach a solution, as opposed to edit warring.   Swarm   X 03:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Sundarapandian1978 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Please note: This is a case of long-term edit-warring/tendentious editing with vandalism.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: Vandalism/Blanking
 * 3rd revert part 1: Vandalism/Blanking
 * 3rd revert part 2: Vandalism continues
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and more here:

Comments: This is not a textbook 3RR case but rather one of long-term edit-warring against multiple users including tendentious editing with vandalism. I think the whole case can be summed up by the observation that user Sundarapandian1978 will not take no for an answer. A cooldown/preventative block is needed in this case. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 02:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Swarm. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got distracted. :P Regards,   Swarm   X 03:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. :) It was just a formality to update this. Thank you again for an excellent call. Take care. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dreadstar reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and


 * 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: (more text than you probably wish to read) I am not a neutral third party but this edit is being disruptive on multiple pages with reverting other peoples edits/comments both in the article and the talk page.

Comments:

I self-reverted my last edit to the article, and asked the editor who made the change to fix the image himself, which he did. The other reverts are to the talk page and not the article. I'm not reverting anything else now. The page is now protected due to reverting by other parties. Dreadstar ☥  02:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * not by me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:207.134.7.126 reported by User:65.94.77.11 (Result: Not Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * Edit warring
 * Original insertion: diff
 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:English-speaking_Quebecer & WT:Canada

Comments:


 * Going to be lenient here. There was a 3RR contravention. The final revert of that contravention came after a 3RR warning. But it's been 15 hours since the IP was last reverted by another editor and the IP has stopped. Within that 15 hours, the IP has at least attempted to engaged in talk page discussion without reverting back to the IP's desired version. Mkativerata (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Rockstar1984 reported by User:Sitush (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rockstar1984 - virtually all warnings, over several days. Last was this

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

Comments:

Today's little batch is only a small part of the many aspects of image and textual warring that this contributor has been engaged in at Yadav. They consistently fail to discuss, other than via edit summary. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if I am allowed to write here but I have not reverted the edits thrice but have made changes on the page.have made only two reverts and one of them was done my mistake. User Sitush doesn't allow anyone to touch the pages.I had asked him to discuss on talk page but he simply writes warning on my page and raises issues as if he owns that Yadav page--Rockstar1984 (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He's had more like 33RR violations.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Admins, request you to please check IPs of Fowler and Sitush. We have serious doubts that its one and the same person. Go through the post on Yadav page and you will realize that these two IDs have been supporting each other no matter what.The have created an environment where anyone who writes something different from what they believe in gets banned. Pls check the history and you would know.--Rockstar1984 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If one user is pretending to be two separate ones, it is called sockpuppeting, and is very much frowned upon. If you wish to open an investigation, the link where you can enter details is here:  JanetteDoe (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, we have serious doubts, hey? Curious phrasing, that. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * :) Outside my window at this very moment there is a wild turkey grooming himself after eating sunflower seeds and a slice of white bread. I doubt that Sitush has any wild turkeys within miles.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS The turkey just tried to peck an Eastern chipmunk. Cats are all agog.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have a bottle of it lying around somewhere but otherwise, no. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * - user seems to not be a vandal and means well although doesn't understand the wiki ways - he has self reverted his last two reverts, I will try and point him in the direction of discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Rockstar1984 has at last started talking, after first filing failed reports at ANI & SPI. Perhaps they should be given some leeway here but any further reverts at Yadav in the style of their past efforts thee could cause them to be brought straight back as slow-burn warring? - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering he's self reverted and is now talking, I'd say that's fair. Will mark with 'no action' for now, report back if the problem persists at all. Regards,  Swarm   X 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is indeed persisting, eg: their edits to the lead in the last few hours fly against consensus expressed in the thread at Talk:Yadav, and the edit summaries are of the brinkmanship style which ignore the fact the the edits are themselves reverts of (relatively) stable formulations. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This incident is sufficiently closed - and would indeed be too stale to act upon. If there has been fresh edit-warring, submit a new request with appropriate diff's.  If you're looking for WP:RFC/U, try there.  If there's something that requires blocks for vandalism try WP:AIV. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus reported by User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Revision as of 04:54, 19 October 2011 Revision as of 20:12, 19 October 2011 Revision as of 01:47, 20 October 2011 Revision as of 22:01, 21 October 2011
 * 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 editor had a| previous 3RR filed by me, and the editor promised to stop warring. An admin | cautioned the editor about restoring disputed material which consensus opposed: ''"I think I may have been insufficiently clear above. If you add the disputed material to the article again, you will be blocked for edit warring. Please read the policy regarding consensus for the procedure for identifying when material is or is not disputed. One simple rule of thumb is to wait for someone else to make an edit based on discussion at the talkpage; there are several other discussions running concurrently - watch how those evolve over the next week or two. That the material be interesting and well-cited is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for inclusion. You have provided a number of citations, some of a decently high caliber, but you have not yet convinced your fellow editors that the section is relevant at to a respectable encyclopedia article about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Short version: please read WP:CON and WP:EW - you are ignoring the one and engaging in the other. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC) ''

Completely regardless of that, the editor performed the 4th revert listed above. The editor has also insisted unrelentingly that tag teaming is in play. Also, this curious agreement with Dualus just appeared. It incredibly asks many of the same questions others editors - including myself - have grown tired pointing out that the answers lie in edit summaries and the Talk page. It reads "I want to know why people think those things shouldn't go in too. The polls are already in there, and who cares if it was the Arab Spring or the Chinese Fall? The Constitution amendment stuff is important and I'd like to know why anyone thinks it isn't. 71.33.169.3 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)" (The constitutional matter has also been the subject of a separate edit war. This At this point an article that needs improvement has been taken hostage by reverts and filibusters.


 * This is completely absurd. The edits listed here are more than two days apart. If this is not conclusive evidence that I am being WP:TAGTEAMed, then what is? Dualus (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor is | threatening to go against consensus and to restart reverting. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Johncvb reported by User:WiiKiBoyz (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

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

Comments:

Although I'm not an admin, I'll making a report to warn you. Why you remove something from that article and replacing them with another ones? I had reverted some times by putting them back to that article. WKB (talk here/This is not Facebook nor Malaysia) 10:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * - indeed, they have not even taken place in the last 24hrs. Content disputes should be resolved on the article talkpage, or taken to WP:DR  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Overagainst reported by User:Berean Hunter (Result: 24hr block )
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1


 * 2


 * 3


 * 4


 * 5


 * 6


 * Discussion on talk page


 * 3RR Warning

After receiving warning, Overagainst came back and resumed edit warring over an issue which the consensus on the talk page is obviously against. Overagainst is telling people "you must accept that they decided a miscarriage of justice had taken place." and pushing a POV. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 14:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kanjawe reported by User:Buffs (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: (see above...if they aren't going to respond to a message that pops up at the top of their screen, they aren't going to go to the talk page when they've already been asked & provided a link)

Comments:

Edit summaries for the article clearly explain the removal of this material by multiple editors. Request semi-protection and/or a block until such time as the user explains (using reliable sources) why this image should be included; note that this page is frequently vandalized and a longer semi-protection is in order, IMNSHO. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 24 hours by User:Salvio giuliano. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kanjawe reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24 h.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (Not me)

Comments:

Blatanty edit-warring and no willing to cooperate. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  20:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Maiorem reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 08:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Recent reverts:
 * 1) 15:48, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 456764379 by Mann jess (talk) We've already been through this before; YouTube can be a reliable source.")
 * 2) 16:37, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 456841927 by Mann jess (talk) Please check again. When I went to WP:RSN it was on other issues; nobody contributed to WP:BLPN concerning YT as a source.")
 * 3) 06:36, 23 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 456855078 by Mann jess (talk) There is no such consensus on RSN and talk; video is uploaded by The University of Notre Dame, and it is the source for a direct quote.")

Selected old reverts:
 * 1) 14:39, October 12, 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455241423 by Theowarner (talk) Unnecessary addition of a comma.") ]
 * 2) 11:00, September 27, 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 452681308 by Huon (talk) Already stated that primary sources are acceptable for WP:BLP under WP:SELFPUB")
 * 3) 14:45, September 26, 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 452537081 by Mann jess (talk) The materials were originally removed without sufficient cause or reason; current consensus in favor of reintroduction")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: No breach of 3rr, but a definite breach of EW over a long period. He's currently reverting against consensus to include a youtube clip as a reference. This article received off-site canvassing here on September 9th, which drew in a few SPAs, including Maiorem. Since then, he's done almost nothing but argue on the talk page and combatively revert. (See, for instance, his revert of a comma. His edit wars have previously resulted in page protection) This current edit war is a continuation of the first dispute he became involved in, which was was already settled via consensus on the talk page, and then subsequently taken to BLPN and RSN, as well as an RFC for additional opinions, all resulting in support for existing consensus. However, Maiorem wouldn't let it drop, and now he's still edit warring over the same sentence, a month and a half later. I've repeatedly linked him to other relevant discussions on RSN, including this one, but he insists on IDHT behavior, and I can't just get him to stop reverting. I will likely be withdrawing from the article now, but I'm afraid that someone will have to step in and handle this battleground/EW mentality if the article is to return to a productive atmosphere. Thanks.

— &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 08:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No 3RR breach, but he's continued to revert after being warned for edit warring.  Swarm   X 18:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)