Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive171

User:98.98.237.70 and User:Jivesh boodhun reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Massive edit war over a release date. The IP is trying to remove sourced content with their own unreferenced version. IP is also a possible sock of 216.6.232.238, who was just blocked as a sock of Brexx. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * IP was apparently a block evader. Blocked for a month, and page semi-protected for a month by Kww.  Swarm   X 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User:109.148.28.4 reported by User:Michig (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: N/A

Comments:

IP has repeatedly added unsourced claim about a BLP. Warnings have been met with abuse on my talk page. Blockable either on BLP or edit-warring grounds - you decide. The same addition has also been made from IP 109.151.12.193.
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:87.210.232.221 reported by User:Taivo (Result: 60h)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Lozovaya) (Sumy) (Romny)

Lozovaya
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Here wikilawyering user switches to adding WP:POINTy citation tag
 * 5th revert:

Sumy
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Here wikilawyering user switches to adding WP:POINTy citation tag
 * 5th revert:

Romny
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Here wikilawyering user switches to adding WP:POINTy citation tag
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User has been told on his Talk Page that Russian variants are standard and useful Wikipedia information in eastern Ukrainian articles.

Comments:

This is another example of a common Ukrainian nationalistic edit war--removing Russian variants of place names in eastern Ukraine, where roughly half the population speaks Russian natively. Indeed, it is especially egregious in the case of Lozovaya, since the article title is the Russian variant and the edit warring anonymous IP is pushing a Ukrainian nationalistic POV to remove reference to the Russian variant in the city name template as well as in the text of the article. The editor is clearly aware of edit warring rules in Wikipedia since he/she switched from simply reverting after three reverts to placing WP:POINTy citation tags instead in an effort to avoid penalties surrounding edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit warrior has also begun expanding his nationalistic edit war to other articles: Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Mykolaiv, Cherkasy, and Luhansk.  --Taivo (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This anonymous IP is not just pushing his POV on these other articles, but edit warring besides. --Taivo (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * - systematic edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:173.52.212.151 reported by User:129.94.78.162 (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Multiple appeals in edit summaries to IP
 * IP's talk page where the editor is direct
 * 

Comments:

The user is highly aware of WP policy see where they are attempting to build consensus around their own position, editing with internal comments. They are not good at consensus, or listening to others, or restricting their own reverts. They are less good at building consensus when multiple article editors disagree with them, and they turn to political invective in edit summaries. 129.94.78.162 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * IP has attacked me and accused me of going over 3 reverts (I currently am at three and have no intention of going over). IP has shown no respect for 3RR or consensus, and continues reverting.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * . Try giving actual warnings for 3RR and edit warring on the talk page in the future as well. Edit summaries don't count; neither do vague references to vandalism (see WP:DV), which will only enflame the situation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan reported by &bull; Astynax talk (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:07, 19 October 2011  (edit summary: "per User:Dank and User:Malleus Fatuorum at Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive2")
 * 2) 14:12, 19 October 2011  (edit summary: "per talk; Pedro II is linked both in the lead and the article body, so I'll do the same for Teresa Cristina")
 * 3) 14:59, 19 October 2011  (edit summary: "It isn't a foreign word; it's used in english.")
 * 4) 18:23, 20 October 2011  (edit summary: "That's just a dictionary of names; what you need is a source using the name for this individual.")
 * 5) 18:25, 20 October 2011  (edit summary: "according to the sources given at FAC 1")
 * 6) 18:26, 20 October 2011  (edit summary: "remove italics for an English word")
 * 7) 07:04, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "failed verification: the source given does not mention Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil")
 * 8) 16:11, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "As I said in my edit summary, the sources are given at the FAC 1 page.")
 * 9) 16:12, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 16:14, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 16:20, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "Restore sourced information. The books are written in English.")
 * 12) 19:12, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "if not suitable for the lead, put it somewhere else; tag original research")

Comment: DrK is an admin and well aware of the need to avoid this sort of edit warring. &bull; Astynax talk 19:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not the first time he has got involved in edit warring and been blocked for doing so. There are four editors opposing his actions in the article, nonetheless, he kept on:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Astynax filled this complain and nothing happened to DrKiernan. Why? --Lecen (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * It doesn't actually look like he violated 3RR. Some of those edits are consecutive edits, which for the the purpose of 3RR only count as one edit. He only performed two reverts on the 19th, and one on the 20th. On the 22nd, his first five edits constitute three reverts (three of the edits are consecutive).  The last edit was the relocation of information which was in specific response to an edit summary that stated the content was not appropriate for the lede. So there is not 3rr violation and no case for a mandatory block.  However, on the subject of edit-warring then he is probably guilty of that, but if you are going to look at it in that context and impose sanctions, then I think we have to take a look at the actions of all the editors involved in the dispute becuase he clearly isn't the only editor who has been edit-warred.  I recommend taking no action against any of the editors, but putting the article under full-protection for a week; there are discussions already underway on the talk page, and those need to be concluded before there is further editing. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're talking does not make any sense. Who else was edit warring? Each editor reverted a single time what DrKiernan did. --Lecen (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit history no editor has violated 3rr. However, both you and Paulista01 along with DrKiernan have edit-warred. If blocks are deemed necessary then they should be applied equally, which means all three you should receive one.  However, itt seems to me the discussion on the talk page could have a productive outcome so I don't think blocks for any editor involved would be conducive in this dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan, you should be careful with what you say. I only reverted a single time DrKiernan's edit. Do not accuse me of edit warring. Paulista01 reverted him two times because DrKiernan had removed sourced content for unsourced content. That's not edit warring. --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the reporting tool lists edits over a couple of days, the specific 3RR (of the cited information which does indeed give the "Alphonso" spelling which DrK claims failed his source verification):
 * 00:04, 22 October 2011
 * 09:11, 22 October 2011
 * 09:20, 22 October 2011
 * There are indeed continuing disputes, even after the FAC process, over frustratingly minor points that in this case crossed the "bright line". &bull; Astynax talk 18:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DrKiernan was pretty clearly edit warring. It's been about 24 hours since his last revert, though, which would make this incident a bit stale for a block. If it continues (on either side), report it back here. The fact that this report went ignored by sysops up until now is concerning.  Swarm   X 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DrKiernan has just reverted for the fifth time in less than 24 hours. Will someone do something about it? There are fours editors who are oposing him and still does it. No one in here seems to be taking this situation serious. Add: "It's been about 24 hours since his last revert, though, which would make this incident a bit stale for a block". It has been 24h because none of the four editors wants to be accused of edit warring, since since DrKiernan is allowed to revert as many times as he pleases. Now the article is stuck in DrKiernan's last revert. This is why there hasn't been "quiet" for the last 24h. --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been more than 24 hours since his last revert so his revert count has been reset, and he's entitled to revert an alteration to the article as per WP:BRD. I suggest in accordance with BRD you propose your edit on the talk page and see if there is consensus for adding it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * His last revert here (the fifth in less than 24h) was at 19:37 on 23 October 2011. Unless you live in a different planet, that's not more than 24h. Since it's quite clear that you're not even trying to understand the problem and you're clearly biased and has shown no desire to help, I see no reason to continue talking to you. --Lecen (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mis-representing the issue: The "fifth" revert as you so call it is the only one in a 24 hour period. His last edit on the article was at 19:12 on the PREVIOUS DAY i.e. more than 24 hours earlier.  Therefore the edit at 19:37 couldn't have been the fifth in in 24 hours could it?  It is true he has edit-warred, but that was only in response to you violating WP:BRD.  You made an edit (as permitted), he reverted (as permitted), and instead of taking it to the discussion page (as advised) and getting support you reverted him (i.e. you edit-warred)!  A clearly provocative action.  Yes he broke the rules, but only in response to someone else doing so first. No-one is guilty of violating 3rr, but several editors have edit-warred. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The development of the article was going pretty fine when user Kiernan started to impose his POV, destroying the edit history of the article for a meaningless discussion about an information which is there just as a small addition. Other users asked him to stop with that, including me, but he insisted until the limit. I agree with user Swarm: any new irregular revert must be reported. Tonyjeff (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that isn't how WP:CONSENSUS works. Everyone is permitted to revert new alterations to the article. If that happens WP:BRD stipulates you must take it to the talk page and reach a consensus.  You have a week to do that now so I suggest you propose your edits with sources on the talk page; if Dr Kiernan objects to them it is his job to come up with a policy/guideline based rationale as to why they aren't appropriate. Hopefully you can come to a compromise, but if you can't then an RFC should be posted on the appropriate Project page and then impartial editors can judge the proposed edits taking account of the respective policy based arguments for and against them. We don't allow groups of editors to out-gun a single editor since that is subsceptible to agenda pushing.  In a dispute the edits and the rationales need to be clearly laid out so a decision can be made based on those rationales, not by editors using a majority to force through edits. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the point that it I the one who brought the article to GA status and it was I the one who brought it to FA status. Not DrKiernan. He does not speak Portuguese, he does not know about Brazilian history and he never helped me in any form before. You talk like four different editors were bullying him. Now these four editors (three of whom are Brazilians) who have always contributed to Brazilian-history related articles are supposed to be taken hostage by the will of a single editor who does not speak Portuguese and never read a book about Brazilian history before? Are you kidding? Do you believe I brought eight articles about Brazilian history to FA standard by what? Luck? --Lecen (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan, the way you accuse and yes, you are taking DrKiernan side, everything you have done favored him, very odd, have you seen the users connected to DrKiernan? One guy called Lecen a "dickhead", they are acting like a gang. Paulista01 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Page protected by Fastily.  Swarm   X 21:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:122.160.126.4 reported by User:Presearch (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

This is edit warring. A detailed report was filed on this noticeboard a couple of days ago, and User:Swarm blocked the offending IP who was engaging in disruptive editing. But now the IP just went back and has continued edit-warring (DIFF). I have given another warning (DIFF). Seems to me like it's time for a block that is longer than 48 hours. -- Presearch (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know further details, here is the previous report, now archived HERE. 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:


 * (((BEGIN COPY OF ARCHIVED RESPONSE: Aside from the revert warring, the edits themselves are blatantly disruptive.   Swarm   X 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC) END COPY OF ARCHIVED RESPONSE)))
 * Blocked again for 3 days.  Swarm   X 16:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:85.122.25.236 reported by User:Daizus (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 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:

As you can see on the talk page, this user refused to cooperate or at least to discuss before reverting my edits. I also warned him not to continue with the reverts, but my warnings had apparently no effect. Daizus (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring from all sides; a block based solely on technical grounds of 3RR violation will leave the IP unable to continue dispute resolution, and will leave Daizus unable to revert for 19 hours as well (thus completely stunting the process). Page protection accomplishes nothing, as it appears Daizus will stop at 3RR. If Daizus does in fact revert again, then both sides can be blocked for 3RR violation. Daizus is recommended to seek a third opinion at WP:NPOV/N; if further edit warring occurs before 13:09 UTC tomorrow, feel free to cross out the decision in the header above and reopen the case (although please don't secretly meatpuppet). Apologies to Daizus if his opinion is temporarily railroaded (whether it is legitimate or not). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: 84 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:

XLR8TRON made a fourth revert (linked above), and at the same time told me that "You're heading to your 3RR." I noted this on his talkpage and asked for a self-revert (the warning above), and they replied on my talkpage that "I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out...Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert." So not only did they break 3RR, they did so knowingly and then warned me not to break it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User [Chipmunk Davis] is an editorial hypocrite. Please note that on October 7th he edited this article on  and did not remove Turkey nor Cyprus from the list? Why not? The fact is that he's wrong. Cyprus is not Middle East! Alaska is near Russia. DOes that make it part of Asia? NO! Cyprus has had a Greek culture for centuries. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ASIA!

With regards to Turkey, Turkey is defined by the Wikipedia article on Europe as being part of that continent. Wikipedia articles on continents are NOT determined by the United Nations. The definition of Europe has remained unchanged for centuries. Turkey is part of Europe. Istanbul is in Europe. The Bosphurus is the mouth to the Black Sea. Russia's territory stretches out to Russia but that doesn't make Russia an Asian country. They are not part of ASEAN or any other regional Asian orginization. Take a step back and realize that you're wrong. It's ok to accept a mistake, but please put an end to this ridiculous edit war and accept the facts set forth in the Wikipedia article of Europe. Ihave use talk page discussions but he has reverted the article without using rational discussion. Please see the Wikipedia article on Europe and the list of states on that continent, and you can say that ChipmunkDavis is simply vandilizing the article due to stereotypes and ignornace.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the above rant by Xlr8tion which has a personal attack and a false attribution of vandalism does not address for one second the problem of edit warring, and fails to see that the ends do not justify the means when dealing with opposing points of view on Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joseph201 reported by User:Sabrebd (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

 Swarm   X 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Increased to 72h, see below section.  Swarm   X 22:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joseph201 reported by User:Moxy (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: -

First ongoing edit war
 * 1st revert: -16:35, October 21, 2011‎   October 21, 2011‎
 * 2nd revert: - 16:41, October 21, 2011‎
 * 3rd revert: - 17:17, October 21, 2011
 * 4th revert: - 22:57, October 21, 2011
 * 5th revert: Restart of edit war on this matter - - 17:20, October 24, 2011

Secondary edit war over album sales by same user on the same page - using different numbers at differ points
 * 1st revert: claim of almost 21m sold
 * 2nd revert: - now claiming 50m
 * 3rd revert: - now claiming 21m again
 * 4th revert: - now claiming 50m again
 * 5th revert: - claiming 50m again
 * 6th revert: - claiming 50m again
 * 7th revert: - claiming 50m again

3RR warning: Copyright vio warning:

Comments:
 * Resolve dispute on user talk page: With no reply by  User talk:Joseph201 to any inquiries.
 * Resolve dispute on article talk page: A conversation did start at Talk:Nickelback but the editor in question has disengaged and continues to edit war and copy and past from other sites.

We have more serious problem then just the "edit wars". We have copy right problem (copy and pasting) that is simply being ignored by the editor. Such as: "Reviewer Erik Pedersen of the Hollywood Reporter seemed to grasp the essence of the band. Reporting on a Nickelback show in West Hollywood in October of 2001, Pedersen noted that the band had mixed the hard rock sound that had taken the airwaves back around the turn of the millennium with enough melody to appeal to a wide audience. They seemed equally familiar with late-1990s post-grunge, 1980s metal, and Led Zeppelin-style 1970s rock. Proud to be hard rockers, the band "shrugged at subtlety and hissed at trendiness," Pedersen wrote. He also noticed that Chad Kroeger, with his striking long hair and goatee, had become a charismatic rock frontman, noting that the lead singer easily got the crowd to scream when he wanted them to and that his performance of a more sensitive song, "Too Bad," addressed to Kroeger's father, "drew shrieks from the numerous females in the crowd." that is coped from Copyright © 2011 Net Industries and its Licensors – All Rights Reserved


 * In addition to all of the above, he's broken 3RR at How You Remind Me. As you can see on his talk page, myself and several other users have informed, warned, and tried to help him change, but to no avail. His more recent edit warring tries to blame it on his brother, not him, who of course is doing the same exact reverting he was... Sergecross73   msg me   22:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  Swarm   X 22:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After reviewing his edits, I've upped the block from one day to three days due to the addition of copyvios.  Swarm   X 22:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiki101xyz reported by User:The Last Angry Man (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: [diff]

Comments:

The talk page has not been used, the user is adding unsourced and non neutral content to the article The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Was warned; reverted again. Kuru   (talk)  23:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Happyhubie reported by User:Hourick (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

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

Comments:

This was previously discussed last year, but apparently he's at it again and seems to be using an IP to do it as well.. I'm hoping to prevent another edit war. This guy is tiring.--Hourick (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bold Clone reported by Alucardbarnivous (talk) (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:13, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Black Light's Power Ring */")
 * 2) 18:15, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Similar devices */ Not related to the Green Lanterns")
 * 3) 00:21, 25 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 456921129 by Alucardbarnivous (talk) They are not similiar devices. If you disagree, you can bring the matter up.")
 * 4) 02:44, 25 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457254007 by Alucardbarnivous (talk) Vandalism is a large and vague term. You'll have to explain before you can accuse me of anything.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Alucardbarnivous (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Only two reverts. There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bold Clone reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: (Made after the user replied and was aware of this report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Power ring (DC Comics)

Comments:

User continues to edit war, reverting three four other users despite a rough talk page consensus against them, and any notification of WP:3RR is "beauracracy" which is ignored. User has demonstrated they have no intention of ceasing to edit war on the article. - SudoGhost 15:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus with me, therefore there is no consensus. I am waiting for you to respond to me on the TP. You are not doing so, and you so no indication os later doing so. User seems unwilling to try to reach consensus...--Bold Clone (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the user removed diffs from the report to make it appear as though they did not violate WP:3RR. Three users on the talk page have expressed the opinion that your edits are not beneficial to the article, forming a rough consensus.  That the consensus is not "with you" and therefore not a consensus is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - SudoGhost 15:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They did not violate the 3RR! It has to be a whole reversion, right? There is no consensus with me. If you are trying to reach a consensus, then you need to include me in the discussion. --Bold Clone (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC) [[Media:Example.ogg]]
 * Again the user has removed diffs to make it seem as though they did not violate WP:3RR. And no, right there in bold on WP:3RR, which was linked to you several times, "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."  Also, no.  You are not required for a consensus, you disagreeing with the consensus does not make it magically go away just because you didn't approve. - SudoGhost 15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:TomCat4680 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Several editors have added the same unsourced misinformation. I removed it and asked them to provide a reliable source yet they refuse. I am not breaking any rules. Stealbeard1 and any editor that has reverted this without providing a reliable source is clearly violating WP:PROVEIT: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

TomCat4680 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Responsible editors, such as myself, would simply add a 'citation needed' tag and wait a few days for the citation to appear. But TomCat4680 reverts even those edits without waiting for a citation. I can say at my end that a suitable citation has not been found yet. WJRT-TV's Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/#!/ABC12WJRT mentions the HD newscasts, but I do not think it qualifies as a citation for Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The third and fourth reverts are the same edit, and the edits above are not within 24 hours of each other. Is this a 3RR report, or a general edit warring report? Because unless I'm miscounting something, I'm not seeing four reversions within a 24 hour time period. If I'm mistaken in this, please clarify. - SudoGhost 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a general edit warring report because it is one editor reverting the edits of about a half dozen editors without requesting a citation, just reverting instead of adding a 'citation needed' tag and wait a few days for the citation to appear. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please note that if this is the case, that you are as guilty of edit warring as the user you are reporting, as you reverted the content despite knowing there was a dispute regarding said content, without attempting to discuss it on the talk page beforehand. The number of editors involved is immaterial to this.  However, there is now a discussion taking place on the article's talk page. - SudoGhost 18:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was simply following WP:3RR #3 Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. In this instance, the policy is WP:PROVEIT which all other editors were clearly violating by refusing to provide a reliable source. Also please be advised that Stealbeard1 started this report BEFORE he attempted to resolve the dispute on the article's talkgpage. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WJRT-TV hasn't been edited in over an hour. Myself and Stealbeard1 are attempting to resolve the dispute on Talk:WJRT-TV. I will not revert the article until the dispute is resolved. This report was unnecessary. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question to TomCat4680 regarding "I was simply following...": Is there a specific exemption in this section of the 3RR policies that you deem applies? If not, is there another place that lists the specific exemptions? I understand the section you quote is a summary explanation - but my understanding is that (as noted by the "For example" part) for each type of article, the specific exemptions must be met. I may be wrong. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stopped reverting even though Stealbeard1 re-added the information in question WITHOUT a reliable source, clearly violating WP:PROVEIT yet again (apparently this "rule" is not enforced though). TomCat4680 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * - although I'm fairly close to blocking one party or the other (still not sure which it would be, as both edit warred). FYI, quoting BLP to apply to an organization for a completely non-controversial piece of material isn't going to cut it - that's WP:WIKILAWYERing. As I assume both parties are still watching this page, they are under notice that further edit warring may result in blocks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/129.1.193.107 reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: No action)
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: This is simple vandalism so no resolution is possible.

Comments: I apologize if this is the incorrect forum for this, but the editor has added this vandalism to the article eight times in an hour. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User has been warned by a sysop and hasn't edited since that warning. It's no big deal that you reported this here, but just for future reference, vandalism such as this should be reported at WP:AIV, so if this continues, just bring it there. It's much easier to make a report there, too ;).  Swarm   X 18:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a more appropriate forum, I just couldn't remember what it was. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll keep an eye on the article, too. Regards,  Swarm   X 18:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:108.67.181.12 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: warned blocked 3 months, article protected)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Please note this is BLP-violating long-term edit-warring by IPs bent on labelling Viktor Yanukovych as a criminal at the lead. See also: User:71.224.207.195 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month) on 16 October.

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: Labelling my revert as vandalism. The MO is the same as the IP User:71.224.207.195 from the previous case on 16 October. Possible sock:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Specifically about BLP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think however that they will resume, given their past record. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added No. 4 revert. They are continuing unabated. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Both main accounts blocked and article protected for 3 months. Be sure to mention the rampant misbehavior if another report is necessary in 3 months. If the editor creates an account to evade the block, report to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Magog. Both for the decisive action and for the advice. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Canadian2000 reported by User:Tachfin (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:15, 24 October 2011
 * 2nd revert: 00:19, 25 October 2011
 * 3rd revert: 16:28, 25 October 2011
 * 4th revert: 18:44, 25 October 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User is new and was never made aware of 3RR. If edit warring occurs again, please report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ashermadan reported by User:Binksternet (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 00:54, October 26, 2011. Removing Rediff review. Changing "mixed reviews" to "generally positive reviews".
 * 2nd revert: 01:05, October 26, 2011. Removing Rediff review.
 * 3rd revert: 05:41, October 26, 2011. Revert of User:Monishrecords.
 * 4th revert: 08:43, October 26, 2011. Revert of User:Guru coolguy, changing "generally mixed reviews" to "generally positive reviews".
 * 5th revert: 08:49, October 26, 2011. Revert of User:Guru coolguy, removing Rediff review.
 * 6th revert: 10:15, October 26, 2011. Changing "generally mixed to positive reviews" to "mostly positive reviews".
 * 7th revert: 10:34, October 26, 2011. Changing "positive reviews" to "mostly positive reviews".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ashermadan appears to be overly concerned that the film be portrayed positively on the day it opens its main theatrical run. Many other editors are all over that film page, and edit warring is rife. This many reversions, however, stands above the other excitable article action. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bink, I agree re:edit-warring, but since your warning they haven't been back. I've given them a level-3 warning for non-neutral editing, and subsequent "improvements" can be met with a final warning for vandalism, as far as I'm concerned. Since they weren't warned before, in my opinion we have no choice but to decline this; still, I feel they might be back, so perhaps we can leave this up for a day or so. And any time they're back, you are more than welcome to copy all of this and repost it with updates, and I'm sure the matter will be dealt with swiftly. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I will be away from Wikipedia for about 12 hours. I'll check on our friend after that. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No edit warring since warning by . As stated before, warnings for disruptive editing/vandalism do nothing to stop the behavior or inform the user of penalties for edit warring.Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:G90025 reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: already protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:13, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "undoing vandalism by Patyo1994")
 * 2) 15:29, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "undoing destructive edit by TaalVerbeteraar. Winehouse not confirmed for 27 Club due to no historically significant contribution to music")
 * 3) 15:31, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 15:50, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid vandalism by 12bigbrother12 (talk).  Community must provide evidence and agreement that Winehouse be added to list")
 * 5) 16:03, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457503809-- Unfortunately, the community never provided consencus or sufficient data to confirm her listing so it was invalid in the first place. There was a long discussion about this before.")
 * 6) 16:06, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "/* Musicians usually included in the 27 Club */")
 * 7) 16:13, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Sorry, cannot stop because you're vandalizing the page, as stated on your user page")
 * 8) 16:33, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457507543 by Escape Orbit (talk) Community must have concesus on talk page that Winehouse be added with reasonable data to support")
 * 9) 16:39, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457510105 by Escape Orbit (talk): Edit had invalid summary tag/disruptive edit/edit warring")
 * 10) 16:41, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 16:43, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 12) 16:47, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457511732 by Escape Orbit (talk) PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING.  SEE DISCUSSION PAGE TO SUGGEST WINEHOUSE BE ADDED TO THE LIST")
 * 13) 16:54, October 26, 2011 (Undid revision 457512019 by Escape Orbit (talk) Misleading edit summary-- said it was a cite but actually was edit warring. Please see discussion page, thank you)
 * 14) 16:56, October 26, 2011 (Undid revision 457512990 by Muboshgu (talk) PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION PAGE TO VOICE YOUR OPINION ON THE MATTER and stop edit war please. You have been warned)
 * By . Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dohezarsersdah reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:02, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457165101 by Dougweller (talk) there were no Turks in Khorasan. Stop edit-warring.")
 * 2) 13:32, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457481681 by Kafka Liz (talk) source is antiquated and CONTRADICTED by the other sources")
 * 3) 19:45, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457513332 by Dougweller (talk)")
 * 4) 20:22, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457540138 by Kafka Liz (talk) DON'T DELETE SOURCES!")


 * Diff of warning: here

I was considering ANI as he is edit-warring in several articles, with some odd edit summaries, eg twice deleting well-sourced material saying it wasn't sourced, a little while ago deleting a source with an edit summary in caps saying don't delete sources, etc. He's had quite a few warnings which have been blanked (as is his right). Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC) —Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Comments:

John Foxe was placed on a 1RR restriction (see here and here) on Mormon-related articles for 2 years.


 * Comment - this one is kind of complex; I'm notifying DeltaQuad, who placed the restriction. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember how long it took me to decide on the editing restrictions I imposed on John Foxe almost exactly two months ago. This one wasn't an easy consideration, but if you look at the content, there was revert of material, and would be just as equivalent as if it were separate diffs. That being said, the reverts did look like they were trying to improve the article, but as John Foxe knows, he's under restriction, and the intent of the revert is what is convincing me issue this block. The two weeks time that I recommended before would be punitive more than anything at this point. So the block time of one week is per John's disruptive intent (as per "added back the mention of the Shakers and the Oneida community mentioned in the Ostlings book; my version is also better written" in the edit summary, noting the part where John says that his version is 'written better'), knowing of previous such blocks, and violation of restrictions. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:3dhardway and user:71.164.122.172 and user:71.164.122.226 reported by User:Labor Watch (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

User being reported:

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:

SPA account was close to 3RR when they started using Anon IP accounts. 14 reverts in the last hour.

Labor Watch (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Page now semi-protected by . That should take care of the anon-IP reversions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * re the user: stale now, report back if the edit warring continues.  Swarm   X 04:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Nickswatman reported by User:Yunshui (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Ghmyrtle's warning) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (my warning)

Attempt to start discussion:, ignored by user. User has now joined talkpage discussion, although he has continued to revert the article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User does not seem willing to open dialogue on this topic, despite being given the opportunity several times by myself and other editors. User also appears to have made no other edits outside this topic. Yunshui 雲水 13:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Yunshui - Nickswatman seems unwilling to recognise that his/her edits contravene WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc., and have so far attracted no support from other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Debresser (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

Chesdovi has recently returned to his old pattern of WP:TE tendentious editing, adding "Palestine" and or "Palestinian" where such is controversial, ambiguous or awkward. I have warned him repeatedly he should not return to this. I also warned him to stop edit warring, in general and on this page specifically. (User_talk:Chesdovi)

In addition he uses the deletion discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Palestinian_rabbis as an argument that he can add the words "Palestinian rabbi" to all articles about rabbis who ever lived in that area of the world, ignoring repeated reminders that the existence of an article and the tagging of a person are two different issues. This was explicitly mentioned by several editors (myself being among the foremost) in a discussion at Talk:Palestine.

He has learned from past experience and doesn't make mass edits any more. Instead he edits 1-3 articles a day, but continues with the problematic edits. Since this is an old issue, for which Chesdovi has been seriously warned in the past with the threat of of a topic ban, I think this should be dealt with harshly. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Menahem Lonzano was created in 2008:, and was described as being a "Palestinian Masoretic and midrashic scholar".
 * In Nov 2010 an IP removed the word “Palestinian”:
 * In April 11, I add category “Palestinian rabbis”: and Debresser removed it:
 * On May 1, Supreme Deliciousness re-adds this category: and later on May 11, Debresser removes it again:
 * In June 11, after a month and a half of debate in which it is obvious that such a designation is valid, I re-add the cat:, but Debresser immediately removes it again:
 * Notwithstanding a successful Afd, I add the link “Palestinian rabbi” to the text of the article yet Debresser again reverts:
 * 10 days later after consensus is reached at wikiproject, I re-link: and Debresser straight away reverts:.
 * I am not sure how to go about this when Debresser says adding "Palestinian rabbi" is against consensus, while there were 6 people involved with the word Palestinian on this page. Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, SD and I opted for the term, while an IP, a blocked sock and Debresser removed it. That is besides all the other editors who have edited the page in-between and have left the term, (Sbowers3, Attilios, FeanorStar7, מרכז מידע הר הזיתים, Davshul, Ulric1313, Dsp13.) So if I do my math right, that makes 10 against 1. Still no consensus? And you can forget about "consensus" here, when the fact of the matter is that it is only ever Debresser who is doing any reverting of the word "Palestinian" which only he unfortunatley finds offensive when used in conjunction with articles relating to Judaism. You see, Debresser thinks to call Lonzano Palestinian is "Quite preposterous" because it "singles out that he lived there." Well, he should take it up with the editors of the Jewish Encylopedia first. They obviously had a different view. In a similar vein, he tries, ludicrously, to add Israel as the place where a 16th-centruy rabbi lived! . When I counter that "Israel" was only established 373 years later, it is too much for him, and he resorts to using his all to common coarse quips: "You know damn well that this is being discussed". Quite frankley, I have no time for this user. As FormerIP said at Talk:Palestine:
 * "Well, like I say, I'm not sure I understand what the RfC is specifically about. But, in those cases, I don't think an RfC is needed. They are covered by COMMONNAME.'"
 * When I aksed him why he had not changed Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan, he said to wait and see if the 6 he changed "sticks". They did. So it is high time to change Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan to the accurate demonym. Chesdovi (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As per this. I will be starting full discussion about full topic/interaction ban for both editors. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Samisahiri reported by User:Eaglestorm (Result: 2 blocked, 3 should have been)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 6th revert: (most recent as of 15:37GMT 27 OCt)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (None at the moment because we are waiting for him to open the discussion.)

Comments: This user's edits on a certain number of articles on How I Met Your Mother have been reverted many times such as in Desperation Day, but yet refuses to discuss the matter in a talk page. All he does is to revert without any sufficient explanation. All of his edits do not have any summaries included at all. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC) (


 * . There's a pesky IP who I also would have included in the block, but they are dynamic, and a rangeblock might yield too much collateral damage.  This is a slow edit war by 3 separate parties, and thus a block for all parties is necessary for protection ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Sheodred reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:12, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 15:58, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457499495 by Deor (talk) see  Neutral point of view")
 * 3) 09:16, 27 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457569239 by Deor (talk) I already have, if you have a problem with ommitting British as a description for an Irish person who self described as Irish talk to an admin/mod.")
 * 4) 15:16, 27 October 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Note that though this was posted after the fourth revert, editor had been previously made aware of 3RR on 16 Nov 2010 here and was subsequently blocked for edit warring on 30 Nov 2010, so they are not ignorant of the policy.

—Yworo (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP on the fifth revert is fairly obviously the same editor as well; given the previous blocks for the same reason I have blocked for longer this time.
 * Black Kite (t) (c) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Indra1sen reported by Wiqi( 55 ) (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:01, 26 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 15:29, 27 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 20:11, 27 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457674052 by William M. Connolley (talk)")
 * 4) 20:15, 27 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457712639 by Wiqi55 (talk)")
 * 5) 21:02, 27 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457718056 by Wiqi55 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Wiqi( 55 ) 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fairly obvious. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Eckerslike reported by User:Bjmullan (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

A ongoing discussion was happening at the talkpage which Eckerslike has taken part in (last time was 19 December 2010 ) but the change is without consensus. Talk page section where attempt to resolve dispute:

Comments: The warning on the users talkpage happened at the same time (21:46) as the last edit but was actually before the edit (as per my watchlist order). I have reverted again as per BRD and asked the user to return to the talkpage discussions. Bjmullan (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Mardanpana reported by Wiqi( 55 ) (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:51, 21 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 16:59, 22 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 10:06, 23 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 10:11, 23 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 09:58, 24 October 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 21:44, 27 October 2011  (edit summary: "")

The user has been warned, etc, on their talk page.

—Wiqi( 55 ) 22:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not technically a 3RR, but obvious edit warring against multiple editors.

User:Jeff Song reported by User:Dailycare (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Previous warning ("However, your continued reverting behaviour may be seen as disruptive.") diff

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

Comments: This is a case of ongoing discussion concerning content on the talkpage, but Jeff Song insists on reverting the material for the duration of the discussion, whereas normal procedure is that the version that was up when the discussion began remains during the discussion, and changes are only made once consensus is reached. This situation has been ongoing for a few days and I probably should have reported this earlier. In the discussion, we've already reached consensus on a way to resolve the content itself, but implementing it will take a while as a locked template is modified (if possible).

The content in question has been in the article for four months, Jeff Song makes the point that inserting it wouldn't have had consensus to begin with, and so reverting for the duration of discussion would be OK. Before inserting the material four months ago, I first queried on the talkpage if anyone was against it, and since no objections were voiced I made the edit, which remained in the article for seven weeks until an IP user from Israel of only two edits so far (contribs) made an unexplained drive-by revert, which I reversed. There have since been a few other reverts and some discussion, but no agreement to remove the content. Overall since the material has been in the article for four months, it's IMO clearly the long-standing version, and Jeff Song's repeated reverting behaviour isn't what we need in the Project. To clarify, it's the edit warring that's the subject of this report, not the content. --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * the editor making this report has made a revert of his own for at least every one I have made, how can he complain of edit warring?


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

He has been comically telling me to stop edit warring, while he keeps reverting! 4 other editors have also removed the change he is trying to introduce without consensus -
 * User:Ruby Tuesday ALMWR -
 * User:Alssa1 -
 * User:Firkin Flying Fox -
 * User:87.68.160.34 - -  And he has reverted each one of these editors, too.

The content that he is reverting has been in the article for 8 YEARS and not a single editor has agreed with his change. Jeff Song (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 7th
 * 8th
 * 9th
 * 10th
 * Very short reply by Dailycare: Before the text Jeff Song is reverting from the article was first removed by the unexplained drive-by IP-user revert, it had been in the article for seven weeks, during which time East Germany was loaded about 100.000 times. That sounds like a consensus version to me. We discussed the issue with Firkin Flying Fox, and the discussion result was no change. Alssa1 made an unexplained revert. Responsive to the revert by Ruby Tuesday ALMWR, the wording was slightly modified. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. If either party reverts the article again before consensus is obtained on the talk page, that person may be blocked. If necessary to obtain a clear consensus, open a WP:Request for comment. Dailycare's comments about the nature of consensus do not sound like Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Anish9500 reported by User:Hassanhn5 (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Vandalism only account:

Contributions list:

Warnings on talk

Edits: Disruptive: Blanking: Hate speech:

Also propose to delete revision from the article in the last edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * . I think you're looking for WP:AIV, although with only 3 edits by the editor, that's rather difficult. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll report on the right noticeboard. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Mirrored Love reported by User:Xwomanizerx (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user clearly does not want to discuss the notability of the article, even after I asked him to open a discussion. The user also said that I "fail nobility". Anyway... Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Should force him to discuss without this edit warring, your in the game of edit warring (even if not 3RR) too. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  06:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous reported by User:DD2K (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Comments:


 * , not by me.  Swarm   X 05:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:200.104.120.204 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Already received a block under a previous IP address for abusive editing. Still continuing in the same vein but now adding removing sources to his repertoire. greeted me this morning and now he's edit warring on my talk page to restore abusive comments and expand on them. Although his edits are removing sources and are vandalism, didn't want to continue reverting in case I was blocked myself - no intention of further reverts and I'm on 3. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31h. I have also rolled back the IPs edits, as they are clearly not an improvement to the article.  Black Kite (t)   12:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Black Kite. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (Outside) comment. The problem is not with his edits by themselves, which I believe are in good faith, it is his attitude of reverting before discussion and replying in a manner that may be considered incivil. I have no personal opinion on the block. Nageh (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all are constructive though and he reacts in the same way in each case if you dare to revert his "improvements". I didn't revert all of his edits only those which were problematic such as removing sources.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Factiod reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted discussion at User talk:AndyTheGrump, User talk:Bbb23, and User talk:Binksternet

Comments:

User is bringing multiple primary sources to the article to support a far more positive rewrite. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah! User was blocked while I was preparing this report. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Edday1051 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:56, 29 October 2011  (edit summary: "o you know anything about football? Being one of the worst draft picks is a very notable piece of information.Also, having an all-pro linebacker commenting on the potential of signing you is very releveant.It was relevant enough to be a news artic")
 * 2) 17:24, 29 October 2011  (edit summary: "This was a list compiled by fox sports, not some random fan blogger. The tweet was made by a team captain commenting on the potential signing of Carr. Both of these are relevant and valid pieces of information pertaining to Carr's NFL career")
 * 3) 17:28, 29 October 2011  (edit summary: "are you serious? Being a notable draft bust isn't notable enough to be in the lead description? Ask the Houston Texans franchise who Carr setback for years with his poor play if it's not a notable piece of information.")
 * 4) 18:22, 29 October 2011  (edit summary: "stop trolling bro. I thought wikipedia was an open source website. I had no idea Wikipedia was headquartered in communist china where valid edits are being deleted. This is unreal.")

—– Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * , again, not by me.  Swarm   X 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The most recent reversion by Edday1051 may need to be reverted.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm already at three. It's okay to make a fourth revert when it's to remove an edit that got someone blocked, right? I'd still rather someone else do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You should definitely not revert again. It's not clear why you disallow the contested content.  You at least tried to engage in talk, which he didn't, but that's enough.  If others agree with you, and it looks like one does, the latest addition will be reverted, I expect.  But keep in mind that "notable" is not a criterion for including sourced content (WP:NOTE is about what can have its own article, that's all).  Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The content may be sourced, but it is clearly biased and undue. I tried to discuss here before Edday1051 reverted twice more.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not appropriate for a BLP. Consensus should be reached before it's included. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:96.41.78.82 reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

—– Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 20:42, 28 October 2011  (edit summary: "the foo fighters were not established until the nirvana band was already deceased. they are in no way an associated act of nirvana")
 * 2) 20:58, 29 October 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 457875392 by 96.41.78.82 (talk) stop chaning this the the melvins were a huge staple to the grunge scene, and highly associated with Nirvana.. stop changing this")
 * 3) 21:51, 29 October 2011  (edit summary: "melvins were a closely related band to nirvana buzz osbourne from the melvins also taught kurt cobain how to play guitar and cobain also produced the melvins houdini album before his death. Foo fighters were not even established till after nirvana")
 * 4) 22:39, 29 October 2011  (edit summary: "IT IS A KNOW FACT THAT TAD AND THE MELVINS WERE HIGHLY ASSCOCIATED WITH NIRVANA")
 * 5) 22:41, 29 October 2011  (edit summary: "THIS IS VANDALISM")
 * 6) 22:43, October 29, 2011‎ (edit summary: Undid revision 458040573 by Hewhoamareismyself (talk)


 * Kuru  (talk)  23:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:HeyheyMJ reported by User:Dugnad (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Comments:

Obvious 3RR violation. Dugnad (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  Swarm   X 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Erpert (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: In this article about a pornographic film director, I added a Personal life section that was sourced from the director's own company. The user above keeps removing the information and dismissing it as "retailer hype", which I could understand if the article didn't clearly state that the information is, once again, from the director's own company. For this reason, I re-added the info and also mentioned my reasoning for doing so on the article's talk page, but then the user just deleted it again. I didn't want to put it back just yet because I don't want to be accused of engaging an edit war myself (not to mention being accused of WP:OWN), so...can someone else please weigh in on this? (BTW, this user has been blocked for edit warring in the past and s/he still does it; WP:IDHT, anyone?)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 18:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That appears to be only two reverts, over what is essentially a content dispute. I assume you added the material and he reverted it?  Are you familiar with the concept of WP:BRD? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As AzureCitizen suggests, this is a content dispute. Consider dispute resolution.  Swarm   X 18:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that there were only two reverts, but I thought this was the edit warring noticeboard as well as the 3RR noticeboard. But I'll take the matter to the BLP noticeboard when I get home from work (no time right now).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you weren't wrong to bring this here or anything; 3RR does not need to have been breached to constitute edit warring. I just think in this particular instance, discussion and DR will be more helpful then admin intervention.  Swarm   X 20:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out on the article talk page, Erpert has been adding text to a BLP sourced to various advertising/promotional pages, failing RS and BLP. Rather than responding, Erpert brought the dispute here. The only argument supporting his edits he's advanced is that it's advertising/promotion by the article subject, which is clearly not independent sourcing. As Jimbo Wales noted a while ago in a similar dispute, such promotion is often "kayfabe" in nature and not suitable content for an encyclopedia article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rather than responding"? What do you call this? But I'm going to end this here and instead take the matter to WP:3.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Chogol/User:Dokkot reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: 31h)
Page:

User(s) being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Socks indefblocked. Prolog (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Voyevoda reported by User:Colchicum (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * Then Voyevoda recruits a meatpuppet to help him in the edit-war: meatpuppetry request, google translate. Recruited by Voyevoda, Greyhood makes the 3rd revert revert which, I believe, doesn't constitute an independent revert for the purpose of 3RR:
 * And then Voyevoda makes the 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Voyevoda has been blocked for edit-warring seven times before.

Even though partially their position may have some merit, edit-warring is inexcusable for a person blocked precisely for that 7 times before, and so is recruiting meatpuppets. Colchicum (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * User was blocked indefinitely by FPAS.  Kuru   (talk)  01:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:HuskyHuskie reported by User:Tigerwiki2 (Result: Both warned)
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 am new here, I don't know how to report a user/ask that he gets investigated but that is my goal. The user mentioned here is threatening to block me for deleting his biased language and then in turn is trying to turn it around on me. If you review the article in question and look at the language used by this person, you will see the bias I am referring to. And in contrast, look at my edits, they are concise and neutral. Below is my initial attempt to ask for help, evidently I posted it in the wrong area. I apologize for any inconvenience that my ignorance about your reporting process causes you. But I do hope you can spend the time and review my request. Thank you.

This person (User:HuskyHuskie) is editing with bias. Take a look at all of the edits this person made and the language used. I change the language to a neutral tone and this person accuses me of what they are guilty of. Read the edits I made and the edits they made and tell me which one is the neutral edit and which one has a biased slant. The phrase "crept in" among others, are examples of this bias in this particular section of the NIU article in question.

Also, this person accuses me of cherry-picking when, again, that is what they are doing. The "Rankings" section is under the larger section "Academics" making these "Academic Rankings." The Forbes list ("Rankings") are value rankings that take into consideration the tuition cost and total cost of attendance such as cost-of-living in the particular town the university is located in. These are not "academic rankings" in that the formula used to compile these "rankings" do not have a direct correlation to the educational value of the University. On top of that, the supposed citation takes you to a dead link or something other than what is supposedly being cited. The Forbes list being referenced is over 3 years old. There is an editorializing tack-on phrase added to the sentenced being "cited." This is hack "editor" work.

Also, I read some of the articles this person created and it seems that this person is consistently writing with a biased slant. The following is taken from the person's "Downstate Illinois" article: "While no one can say with certainty when the term became part of Illinois' vernacular, that it has become so is undeniable." Not only is this just a statement of opinion, but the last phrase "that it has become so is undeniable" is an attempt to frame this person's opinion as a fact. Reading some of the contributions by this person makes it clear that this is a tactic often employed by this person and it is something this person is often guilty of. The term "Downstate Illinois" does not refer to every part of Illinois outside of the Chicagoland area, in merely refers to the part of Illinois south of an imaginary line that is usually considered to start at I-80. Nobody in Rockford, IL or Sterling, IL would say that they live in "Downstate Illinois."

Please do not block me from this page, and in fact I request that you block this other user from the Northern Illinois University page. I doubt that this person has real ties to NIU and I believe that their user name/handle is an over-the-top attempt to mask that they are actually from Central Illinois and have ties to U of I, ISU, and the central Illinois area. The connection to Central Illinois and things in that area is clear when looking at the articles they have created as well as the pages they contribute to. Or maybe they are just an extremely poor writer and unaware that they are actually being biased with their choice of language. EDIT: For the non-Administrators too dense to understand that I never stated that where one attended college is a factor, I am aware of this. I understand that all that matters is that the content is accurate, concise, and neutral. That describes my edits not the offending party being reported. I simply pointed out that it is suspect that the user puts it way out there that they love NIU, then writes up biased slanted copy and that this is an attempt to disguised that bias in the language. Awaiting administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerwiki2 (talk • contribs)


 * Really, the first thing for you to do would not be to try and file a case on this editor, but rather to join in the discussion on the article's talk page that editor started about the edits. Dayewalker (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* The general guideline for edit warring is WP:3RR, basically, wait until someone reverts more than three times in a 24 hour period before reporting them.  HuskyHuskie has reverted no more than twice in a 24 hour period, and has attempted discussion on the article's talk page, in the edit summaries, and your talk page.  You have refused all discussion with him and have gone forum shopping to look for a guilty verdict instead of trying to civily cooperate and discuss the changes with him (all of which would mark you as the disruptive editor).  As was explained to you over at WP:Editor_assistance/Requests, who went to what college does not matter, what matters is neutrally summarizing reliable sources.  If you don't like it, that's your problem.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG may apply nicely here.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. This is really remarkable.  I had actually begun to write out a statement to place on this page earlier, but held off because in part because I was confused by the format, but also because I was still hoping that we could talk it out.  Seeing that Tigerwiki has actually come here and expressed his/her feelings is the first sign I have had that perhaps we can have a discussion.  But first I am going to put the truth (about our interaction, not the content of the article) on the record here.


 * I have repeatedly asked Tigerwiki2 to engage in a discussion of our differences (you see, unlike some other editors, I am willing to acknowledge that I may not have a monopoly on good editing). What do I mean by "repeatedly"?  Well, here are my edit summaries on the contested article:
 * (Respectfully reverting two edits; please discuss on talk page.)
 * (As I indicated in my previous ES, I have placed an explanation on the talk page (at Talk:Northern Illinois University). Let's avoid an edit war and instead discuss this matter.)
 * (Removing puffery-oriented edit of article. I have already asked, and continue to ask, the editor deleting this material to DISCUSS his or her thoughts on the talk page and achieve consensus there.)
 * (I continue to ask the editor deleting this material to DISCUSS his or her thoughts on the talk page)
 * But I have not counted on just communicating through edit summaries.
 * On the article's talk page, I created a section specifically addressing  my concerns with Tigerwiki's edits.  I posted this prior to all the diffs above, and it is to this section that I am making reference in said diffs.
 * I also posted to Tigerwiki's talk page twice in a beyond-the-call-of-duty attempt to engage him/her in discussion. Finally, and with overwhelming reluctance, I placed an edit warring tag on the user's talk page, which appears to have finally elicited a response, namely, his posting here.
 * To say that I find this to be frustrating is an understatement. I can't imagine many other editors being as patient as me, and if I was more familiar with the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikipedia, perhaps I may not have been so patient.  Be that as it may, if Tigerwiki is willing to engage in discussion on the article's talk page, perhaps we can move forward.


 * Two final comments, to hopefully assure Tigerwiki that I will, despite his/her obstinate behavior to date, pursue our discussions on the content in good faith. First of all, despite your speculation, you are in error about where I am from.  My connection to NIU (which is, as another editor pointed out, irrelevant) is very real.  I don't know how old you are, and I am cautious about giving too much personal information on Wikipedia, but let's just say that my bicycle was regularly parked outside the NIU library years before the invention of the personal computer.  However, I have lived long enough to have information about other parts of the state, including other state universities (I freely admit that my siblinigs and wife went to U of I and ISU).  That hardly  disqualifies me from contributing to the article on my beloved NIU.   However, (and this is my second point), having a parochial outlook is disqualifying.  I am guided by the belief that fellow supporters of NIU who try to whitewash the record do the university no good.  We have MUCH to be proud of, but, as I have posted elsewhere for you to read, we have an obligation to achieve balance.  The fact that you and I disagree is actually something that can work to the advantage of the article, for if we both engage in good faith discussions, a better, more balanced article, is likely to emerge.HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. Tigerwiki2 is being both aggressive and erratic which is not a good combination for a new editor. HuskyHuskie is warned that we can count his reverts too. Both should stop until consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 reported by User:josephkugelmass (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:
 * After reverting one of josephkugelmass' edits, this new user came to my talk page and threatened me here with, "you better leave [my edits] as is". His threats have continued with "Stop messing with my edits", as seen here.  Prior to this, he stated (also on my talk page) "deleting somebody's writing is incivil".  Even in the face of his belligerant attitude and actions toward me, I've been doing what I can to help educate him about editing in Wikipedia.  As you can see here, I made a to point to add a welcome notice with policies and other helpful tips and information on his talk page (and this was following his first threatening post to my talk page).  The uncivil attitude, threats, and behavior on both my talk page and the Hart of Dixie talk page leads me to believe this brand new user is not really understanding some of the finer points of editing Wikipedia collegially, cooperatively, and civilly; he has continued to revert even with the discussion still continuing regarding the changes he is protesting.  Oh, and I wasn't informed on my talk page about this report being filed, either.  Lhb1239 (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As a response to this, I have no qualms promising to stop reverting the article Hart of Dixie until a talk page consensus is reached. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Thanks to Lhb1239 for their response. Both editors are warned that further reverts may lead to blocks. A third person, User:MilkStraw532, has already given an opinion on the article talk page and you might try to start a discussion with him so you would have at least three people. See WP:Dispute resolution for other steps that you could take. User:Josephkugelmass is advised to try using diplomacy before coming to this noticeboard. "I will happily escalate this issue with Wikipedia's oversight team" is not a smart way to find a solution to a simple editing dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Lhb1239 for promising not to make any more edits now that the page is exactly the way they want it? What a sacrifice! Ed, while I appreciate the need to respond to both parties civilly and fairly, the most important issue here is not whether Lhb1239 and I are going to be best buddies, but whether the needs of Wikipedia's visitors are being met. Right now the CW is running advertisements claiming that Hart of Dixie is a critical darling, and nothing could be further from the truth. By letting Lhb1239's edits stand, and actually praising him for "ceasing reversions" when his edits are the ones that currently define the page, you are acting in a manner contrary to Wikipedia's principles. That's not uncivil; it's just straight talk, in a circumstance when Wikipedia either tells the truth, or abets the advertisers. Josephkugelmass (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass

User:76.201.145.83 reported by User:Lionelt (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:

Editor is edit warring against 2 editors. – Lionel (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverts at 17:26, 13:09, 00:52, 00:33, 23:44, 18:01. Specific 3RR warning was removed at 01:42.  Kuru   (talk)  01:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a simplistic closure of the dispute. The IP has obviously crossed the bright line of 3RR and was correctly blocked, but Kuru is ignoring the fact that Lionelt and NYyankees51 are tag-teaming to remove cited material on spurious grounds (check out the article history and see how their excuses change as the IP refutes them) and claiming a BLP exemption to edit-warring policies which obviously does not apply. "The three revert rule...is not a definition of what 'edit warring' means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule," and "most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule." A two-person tag team does not, as Lionelt seems to be claiming, represent consensus. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then by all mean utilize one of our many dispute resolution methodologies to resolve your conflict and help them seek consensus. If you feel I am "ignoring" something, please report this to ANI and seek review of my administrative actions.  Kuru   (talk)  11:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:Tigerwiki2 (Result: 24h to submitter)
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:

User:Moxy is edit warring in conjunction with User:HuskyHuskie. I am sure this is against the rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Illinois_University&action=history

The history here shows that Moxy undid a legitimate edit of mine that was eliminating biased language by HuskyHuskie exactly two minutes after I posted it. Moxy did not even read the article and just edited for his fellow gang member.

We don't block editors for a single revert unless they under probation by the community. I don't see you using the talk page of the article that you been revert warring on. I recommend no block for Moxy, and unless you decide to follow consensus in the talk page, and stop revert warring yourself, you may get blocked. Secret account 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: User:WilliamH has blocked User:Tigerwiki2 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict: This request is not made in good faith. I have blocked for 24 hours; he has ignored every single reasonable invitation for him to discuss his changes on the talk page despite previous warnings for edit warring, instead taking it it to places like this, and not for the first time. WilliamH (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, not only have I not been acting in concert with User:Moxy, I had never even heard of him or her until this matter came up. If we have ever edited the same articles in the past, it is news to me. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * End note (replay as its me being reported): The article is on my watch list - I noticed that the page was undergoing some problems, thus I looked at the talk page (first place to turn to when there's a problem). I  saw that User:HuskyHuskie (whom I have never meet before) was undergoing some problems. He did not understand why sourced material was being deleted. I agree with him in the fact that the material is sourced and presented in a  balanced  way (well as good as you can when its at the bottom). So i preceded to revers the additions when they were added back  in an attempt to convey that there are now many (3) editors that wish this to be talked about and are waiting to be engaged.  All that said there is no reason that after the editors block is over  he/she cant join in on the talk page. Being new to Wikipedia can be hard sometimes - but all can be resolved by way of a nice chat on the articles talk page .Moxy (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:65.88.88.202 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:65.88.88.202 - pretty much the entire user talk page is taken up with this issue

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

Comments:

Please can you take a look at User_talk:C.Fred, where I have discussed this issue with two admins. This is a tricky one to block because the IP is using a library/public hotspot but there is an extremely long history of abuse and some sort of narrow range block is probably desirable. As an example of another in the range, please see this.

There are other US-based IPs making the same edits but less frequently, being User:208.125.14.67 and User:24.146.243.96. I have tried to ameliorate concerns by removing from the lead a statement that is true but is proving difficult to source, but that has not stopped the continued adding of a completely unsourced and definitely "glorification" statement there. I am going to inform User:C.Fred and User:The Bushranger of this report. They may or may not choose to add a comment. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. (As an aside, this might be better dealt with at AN/I rather than AN/EW, but I dunno. Anyway:) The NYPL IP addresses seem to be chronic vandal-bots; one of them - 65.88.88.175 - got to the point where it was indef'd (full disclosure: by me) a month ago. This is pretty much the same behavior - to put it simply, "our Ayrans are Aryans and your Aryans are scum". And, looking back over this IP's contribs, he's been hitting some of the same articles too - that this is the same editor as was using the indef'd IP. Indeffing IPs is rare but given the fact that the number of productive edits made by this IP appears to be near or equal to zero, I'd suggest at the very least blocking for a year (and standing by the day the block expires). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said in the thread at User:C.Fred, it would not surprise me if the patrolling admin chooses to refer a decision to WP:ANI & it would not reflect badly on them if they did so. It is extremely awkward, but my name crops up far too often at ANI and so I'll go through the preliminary motions if only to cover my back. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless there is reason not to, I would go ahead and block the IP for three months. Two of the admins who issued past blocks of this IP believed it was in use by User:Ron liebman. For background see WP:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman, and Long term abuse. It is not uncommon for a public computer terminal to be blocked long-term when it is often used by an abusive editor. If it is blocked anon-only then a registered editor can still use it to edit Wikipedia. If blocking this IP cures the problem then it's a workable solution. If it turns out the guy has access to many IPs, then semiprotection of a bunch of articles might be considered instead. Edits from this IP from the last three months are probably all the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. Location fits, but there aren't any baseball edits being made by this chap - it's all Indian/Kashmiri stuff. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this looks like the sort of coincidence that could cause problems if a block is put in place: two persistent but different disruptive contributors. I am pretty sure that blocking just *.202 will achieve nothing because it seems that they've already moved over from *.175. If they pop up on another IP in the range then we're in the realms of having to choose between semi-PPing what could end up being a fairly wide group of articles or range blocking, both of which would affect a fair few other potential contributors.
 * Maybe block *.202 now and then refer the entire issue to ANI if it recurs? BTW, I've just noticed that *.202, 24.146.243.96 and 208.125.14.67 have all recently been contributing to Talk:Lawrence School, Sanawar this month, and that all three have edited the actual article since August. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Single IP blocked three months anon-only, per the above reasoning. Long-term nationalist edit-warring on Kashmir-related articles: ("These Brahmins of Kashmir are the original Rigvedic Aryans.") If similar edits start coming from other IP addresses, consider opening a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Germinal1848 reported by User:Randy2063 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor refuses to respond on the article's talk page. He even deleted the 3RR warning on his user talk page, which is now blank: 

Randy2063 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Fully protected for three days. Germinal1848 should use this time to open a discussion at WP:BLP/N. If reverts continue before consensus is found, blocks may be issued. The main reference calling Lasn anti-semitic was this October 2011 post by Alana Goodman in a blog operated by Commentary magazine. The blog post sounds like an editorial ('a history of anti-Jewish writing')  and I have a concern about WP:UNDUE if it is the main pillar on which the coverage of Lasn's possible anti-semitism is based. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Nevoexpo reported by User:SudoGhost (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: User talk:SudoGhost

Comments:

Apparent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, user appears to be a SPA that was created to promote this program, and is restoring the unsourced example in the article, despite an explanation of why the information needs to be backed up by reliable source and not blogs and other unreliable sources. - SudoGhost 07:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:65.88.88.126, User:65.88.88.46 reported by User:Sunray (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This resort to edit warring seems (sadly) to be typical of the kind of response to any attempt by anyone other than the IP to improve the article. Materialscientist's edit was to clean up some of the code of this extremely lengthy article (now the longest non-list article in Wikipedia). I have raised the problem of article length previously and have been subjected to attacks rather than any reasonable discussion of content. Because this IP is located at the New York Library, it may be impossible to block the user. If the article is locked, I would request that it be locked on Materialscientist's version here. Sunray (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: The prolific contributor at the NY Public Library strikes again. I've blocked both IPs one month anon-only. (In a report above the guy reverting about Kashmir from 65.88.88.* was blocked for longer). At some point this should perhaps be discussed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations to see if there is a more efficient way to deal with these cases. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that will work, although I notice a new version of the IP (65.88.88.214) popped up about an hour before the block. I've just reverted back to Materialscientist's edit. The New York Library is now closed, but if they can do it, I would expect them to revert again during library hours (8:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. EDT, on November 2. It may be worth holding this open for awhile. If there is further action, I shall discuss it at WP:SPI as well. Sunray (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Further violation: 65.88.88.XXX reverted once more: IPs 65.88.88.127 and 65.88.88.214 are active on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:76.201.145.83 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of maintenance tag removal warning:

Comments:

This a report of edit warring, not 3RR. In fact the editor has just come off a block for 3RR. The report is still on this page a few sections above. The editor is removing a tag on sight which 2 editors have properly placed. The editor was edit warring before the block, and resumed immediately once the block was lifted. This tag is important to alert other editors that there is a discussion on the talk page. Without the tag it will be difficult to achieve a broad consensus. The editor was warned (1) not to edit war and (2) not to remove the tag. The warnings have been ignored. Besides the disruption caused by edit warring, the editor, without any provocation whatsoever, is displaying hostility and incivility. It has been very difficult to reason with them. – Lionel (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Swarm   X 01:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As with the previous report, a result that results merely in the IP being blocked, without so much as a warning for the other editors, is an endorsement of edit-warring and an official pronouncement that edit-warring is okay when it's two people instead of one. Filing reports seems to be the resort of these two when they can no longer refute the policy-based arguments the IP is presenting in edit summaries and on the talk page (their argument for adding the "unbalanced" tag, for instance, was that the section cited too many LGBT writers), but it isn't any less edit-warring because it's two people who are taking turns reverting instead of just one. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly accused 2 editors of tag teaming--with no proof. You're accusing the same editors of edit warring--when they aren't. You're accusing 2 admins of either complicity, or incompetence-take your pick. I have no idea how you get away with this outrageous conduct. There is an RFCU in your future and I predict sanctions addressing your behavior will be forthcoming.– Lionel (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking turns reverting in order to stay under 3RR and otherwise avoid scrutiny for edit-warring, as is apparent from the article history (isn't it convenient how NYY, who had never edited the article before, showed up when you'd hit 3RR in order to make that fourth revert?), is the definition of tag-teaming. Threaten all you like, attack admins all you like (I don't think it requires complicity or incompetence to make this mistake, but you seem to do so), but you're only making your behavior more public. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw this on Lionel's talk page, that's why I showed up. It was not coordinated, no need to allege another conspiracy. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Having looked at this, apart from the accusations of tag-teaming my bigger concern on those reverts by yourself and NYY is that each of 3 reverts had a different reason and they're simply wrong; there was no BLP violation, Besen's own YouTube channel is an RS to source his own views, and Besen is clearly a notable source on the ex-gay movement. I would suggest you are more careful to provide solid policy-based reasons when removing sourced commentary in future.  Black Kite (t)   02:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Be careful, Ros, when relying on controversial essays to make unsubstantiated accusations:
 * – Lionel (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Black--I have to disagree. The content sourced to Besen was highly critical of Lisa Ling. The youtube video is obviously self-published. I see no scenario where a youtube video critical of a living person passes WP:BLPSPS. And I see no exception in the policy for a recognized expert. – Lionel (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, hang on. You're conflating two different issues. If that source was being used to reference a sentence such as "Lisa Ling doesn't do her research" (stating opinion as fact) then you would be correct; but it isn't; it is being used to reference "Besen claimed that the program was poorly researched" (clearly stating that this is Besens's opinion only).  Reasonable criticism is allowed in a criticism section (and anyway, the Advocate reported his comments in their own article here, which immediately makes it not a SPS).  Black Kite (t)   03:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct the Advocate makes this moot. That said, I did not read in the policy a distinction beimg made between "offering opinion" and "stating a fact." Nor does BLPSPS provide an exception for "reasonable criticism." If I'm missing something please direct me to the relevant policy. With all due respect my justification for removal under BLPSPS was valid then and is still valid now. – Lionel (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct the Advocate makes this moot. That said, I did not read in the policy a distinction beimg made between "offering opinion" and "stating a fact." Nor does BLPSPS provide an exception for "reasonable criticism." If I'm missing something please direct me to the relevant policy. With all due respect my justification for removal under BLPSPS was valid then and is still valid now. – Lionel (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to the IP user: It appears s/he is evading the block - 70.226.167.68 has appeared at the article making the same points. Geolocation shows both IPs, 76.201.145.83 and 70.226.167.68, registered at the same zip code, 53562 and even the same latitude and longitude. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, why is it that what's done under an IP is "edit warring" while what three editors with names (Lionelt, NYYankees51 and Black Kite) are doing isn't? Is it just a question of who files a report first? I'm also curious as to why the removal of an improperly placed maintenance tag which even one of this gang of three acknowledges was incorrectly placed constitutes "edit warring"? A simple look at the history of this article shows that Lionelt has been ripping great chunks out of it for months and, when his actions are questioned and his excuses become ever more ludicrous, he runs off and cries 'edit war" and complains that he's being treated "uncivilly," which as near as I can tell from looking at his edit history is his default complaint to deflect attention from his own poor conduct.
 * Now as to the specific issues raised regarding the article: The idea that sources which are critical of a living person's professional performance violates any policy is ludicrous on its face. If that were the case then we could never include a critical review that said a living actor did a bad job, or a book review that criticized the author's scholarship, or an opinion piece that criticizes a politician's policies or actions. The idea that a link to The Advocate is disallowed because it links to Excerpts from the program is wrong under basic fair use copyright law. The idea that a link to Besen's YouTube video to support what Besen said is ridiculous since primary sources, including self-published ones, can always be used to establish matters of fact and it is a fact that Besen criticized the episode and Ling. The challenge to the review by "John" is incorrect because the publisher, AfterElton.com is editorially vetted and accepted as a reliable source in over 300 other articles. The challenge to the Advocate op-ed piece by Besen is incorrect because it was fully editorially vetted. The people challenging this content change their stories every time they challenge it. 70.226.167.68 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:FormerIP reported by User:Local Panel (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Warning is right there in plain English at the top of the page when you click Edit.

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

Comments:


 * Thanks for the non-notification. I was using Twinkle, so I didn't get the 1RR warning. However, you do appear to have been inserting unsourced opinion into the article, which is why I reverted you. --FormerIP (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Page 5, second paragraph of the source. Local Panel (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That paragraph doesn't say anything about "contemporary America" or "European" perspectives. Yes, it is a source, but it has nothing to do with the content you added. Looks like you have a boomerang to deal with below. --FormerIP (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * - editor has self-reverted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Local Panel reported by User:Bryonmorrigan (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 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: Yes, there is a 1RR warning on this page, and on the talk page, User:EdJohnston specifically states that, "If you make a change to this article and it gets reverted, open a discussion on the talk page instead of reverting again." User:Local Panel has clearly violated this rule, and is trying to mask this by reporting the person (User:FormerIP) stepping in and reverting his absurd edits, which are OR and not backed up by his citation.


 * - significant edit warring over several days against more than one editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Just granpa reported by User:Lisa (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:

This sort of POV pushing is inappropriate. It's a violation of both WP:OR and WP:RS. The user apparently thinks that because the mistranslation and misrepresentation is found "all over the internet" that it qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * . Although 3RR was not formally broken, this slow-motion edit-war is not permitted.  Editor has received final warning ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Yobol reported by User:Sunray (Result: Protected)
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:

There have been extensive discussion on the talk page regarding how best to present current research on Reiki. Ludwigs2 made a proposal and I have tweaked that. No one disagreed with my addition on the talk page. Now Yobol and Ronz are attempting to add an old version with a dead link. This will probably need to go to WP:RSN. However, in the meantime one might hope that Yobol would cool down and cease edit warring. Sunray (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting again, but I will note that it appears that Sunray is the only person to object to the current version, with two other editors preferring the current version (including myself). The appropriate venue would seem to be WP:RSN. I would also ask that Sunray stop edit warring over the warning on my talk page, which I have removed multiple times now. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yobol has been reverting every addition I have made to the article for weeks now. This time he has violated 3RR. His approach seems to be pushing a particular POV. I will AGF about that, but the fact is he has been edit warring continuously and needs to cool off. Sunray (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite cool, actually, thanks. As I said, I have no plans to make any more reversions, and I would like to point out that your edits seem to me to be POV pushing in the opposite direction (though I'll AGF), and that it takes two to edit war.  I'm also quite surprised you're spending so much effort trying to get me sanctioned (when I haven't even technically violated 3RR) instead of continuing this discussion on the talk page or taking this up at WP:RSN as you yourself suggested, when the only other editor to comment on the talk page agrees with me and disagrees with you.  Yobol (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Fully protected one month. Please use this time to arrive at consensus on the talk page. Ask for unprotection if consensus is reached. You guys should know how to open a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:65.88.88.127 reported by User:Sunray (Result: Semi)
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:

I think we will have to do this by the numbers. IP 65.88.88.127 is continuing edit warring (two previous IPs used by this same user have been blocked already). The edit warring continues. Four serious editors have weighed in on the talk page to explain to this individual that the change by Materialscientist is valid and the IP does not own the article. Since another IP (65.88.88.214) has already spoken on the talk page (using the exact same voice, i.e., a sock), I would suggest either blocking both or blocking just 65.88.88.127 and semi protecting the article. If that is outside the purview here, I can take it to ANI. Sunray (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. We've tried blocking, but he seems to move around at will in the /24 range, and a block of the whole range is not feasible. All the 65.88.* editors in the article history are presumably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:79.6.145.208 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: Page semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 21:44, 1 November 2011
 * 2nd revert: 18:00, 2 November 2011 reverts
 * 3rd revert: 18:06, 2 November 2011
 * 4th revert: 18:18, 2 November 2011
 * 5th revert: 21:34, 2 November 2011‎
 * 6th revert: 21:40, 2 November 2011‎
 * 7th revert: 21:43, 2 November 2011‎
 * 8th revert: 21:46, 2 November 2011‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:42, 2 November 2011‎

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

Comments:

It is nearly certain that 79.6.145.208 has a massive financial interest in the device under discussion (email for more details, but review editing history for clarity). Note also that the article is under discretionary sanctions - Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an affected article if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision).


 * Clearly a violation; because this editor appears to be using a dynamic IP, I've semiprotected the target page rather than issuing a block. MastCell Talk 22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Sundostund reported by User:Night w (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: @ 17:27, with no explanation
 * 2nd revert: @ 17:38, with rationale provided
 * 3rd revert: @ 20:25, with the summary, "sorry, I don't speak Chinese :)"
 * 4th revert: @ 21:48, with the summary, "Continuation of edit war? We'll see..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Was reverted by two editors, including myself. I directed the editor to the talk page where a thread had been started, but he hasn't posted a comment.  Night w   22:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I laid down a warning here. The user is now under a one revert limitation - report them to me if they revert again. m.o.p  22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A very reasonable result. Thanks,  Night w   22:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Greg Comlish reported by User:Plot Spoiler (Result: Warned)
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: This page is subject to WP:ARBPIA's 1RR restrictions. I've offered Greg the opportunity to self-revert but he refuses to recognize he's in violation of anything. Rather nip this in the bud right there than let it get out of controll. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Warned here. I'll offer one more chance to demonstrate good faith. m.o.p  06:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I would encourage people to actually carefully examine the links and judge for themselves whether or not a violation occurred. In point of fact, these edits concern disparate parts of the article. The one section of the article that was repeatedly addressed was not a "revert" but an authentic attempt to reconcile extant concerns on the articles' talk page. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:3RR?..."A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If Greg Comlish is going to openly say he rejects Wikipedia policy, I think a short block is in order so he makes sure these policies are real and there are consequences for not following them. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, not a helpful comment. That kind of block would be punitive, not preventative.  It's up to admins to determine what needs to be done here ... ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Greg, your set of 8 consecutive edits is your first revert, the revert to the IP technically doesn't count under Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement 1RR restrictions but your revert of Plot Spoiler after that does. It's a clear 1RR violation as I read it. I have added the ARBPIA template to the article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. reported by User:Xizer (Result: Submitter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Adams_%28judge%29&oldid=458719357

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Adams_(judge)&diff=458719725&oldid=458719357
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Adams_(judge)&diff=458744108&oldid=458743792
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Adams_(judge)&diff=458745715&oldid=458745473

Warned user, was reverted immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr.K.&diff=458746147&oldid=458651159

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr.K.&diff=458746387&oldid=458746286

Comments:

is currently edit-warring at William_Adams_(judge) overturning valuable, well-sourced contributions to this article that are not in any violation of Wikipedia policy. As this is now Dr.K.'s third revert of the article today, this user is now in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule as the rule clearly states that:
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.

No consensus on WP:BLPN has been reached as to whether or not this article should contain information pertaining to current events surrounding the controversial Internet video that has surfaced and has now been mentioned numerous times by credible news outlets such as CNN and NBC.

Go read the discussion of the article on WP:BLPN. It's literally just four dudes discussing whether or not the article should even exist, not what content should be included in said article. Xizer (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are you saying that the user is in violation of the 3RR rule, given that he didn't make more than three reversions? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the ANI threads regarding this case deserve a note here. Calabe1992 (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that. It appears the reporting user is already blocked for incivility now. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you guys. This article has been stubbed per a WP:BLPN discussion. The OP was reverting to BLP-violating versions. Dr.K. λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Calabe1992 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Submitter's userlinks:


 * Result: Submitter blocked 48 hours by User:Ks0stm per ANI thread. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ylightflight reported by User:Abhijay (Result: Stale two editors blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The users stopped reverting after the warnings were issued, and it is stale by almost 8 hours now. That said, had I come across this while it was in progress both editors would have been blocked. I'll watchlist the article and take action if they start back up. Tiptoety  talk 07:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Ylightflight for 31 hours and User:Gunmetal Angel for 96 hours (for a third offense). The user was not properly warned about edit warring at any point, but common sense says not to edit war so much, and it would send a much worse message to only block Gunmetal than it does to block both. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, according to this, he states another user was helping him with it. Abhijay (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Check it!

User:71.200.96.52 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:47,  1 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 17:03,  2 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 17:06,  2 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 17:08,  2 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 17:12,  2 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 14:56,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 15:04,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 15:20,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 15:21,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 15:23,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 15:25,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 12) 15:26,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 13) 15:27,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 14) 15:38,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 15) 16:08,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 16) 16:26,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 17) 16:30,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 18) 16:43,  3 November 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Page semi-protected, not by me.  Swarm   X 18:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Hengistmate reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

A personal agenda, an uncited change because Wikipedia Has It All Wrong, and now edit warring to support it (3R in 24h).


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

Raised at Talk:Renault_FT, although no real engagement with facts. Similarly at User_talk:Andy_Dingley & Talk:Tank, where they'll cheerfully tell other editors how wrong they are, but go quiet when refuted and asked to provide cites to support their own position. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is strange. I have provided many "cites" without being asked to do so. I have repeatedly asked Mr. Dingley for "cites," but none has been forthcoming. A personal agenda? How so? No real engagement with facts? I think this must mean that I have stated certain things with which Mr. Dingley does not agree. I think Mr. Dingley's personal agenda is that I have irritated him. You will note that his language above is somewhat immoderate. Please confirm that Mr. Dingley's first reply to me began with the words, "You condescending tosser." I await the outcome with confidence. Hengistmate (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nor have I ever referred to you as, "You condescending tosser", certainly not in my first reply. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: Fully protected two weeks. Please use this time to find a talk page consensus. See WP:DR for some options you should consider. If reverts continue after protection expires, blocks may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus reported by User:Chzz (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has previously been cautioned for edit-warring on several occasions (please refer to the user talk page for links to those, to save me gathering them here). It would appear that the user does not understand the principles of discussion/consensus, and seems to think that merely commenting on a talk page justifies continued addition, without obtaining the agreement of other edits from other editors.  Chzz  ► 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Minor corrective edit made subsequently  Chzz  ►  21:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The reverts listed span about three days. Each revert was discussed in detail prior to the reversion at Template talk:Healthcare in the United States where discussion is ongoing, and the issue has been listed at WP:EAR. The accuser has only participated on that template talk page once ("It's obviously inappropriate to include that. There is no consensus to add it, so please don't. Thanks.") before making this report.
 * The outstanding question to the accuser at that talk page is, "Why do you believe it is inappropriate? Pending reform legislation has been in this template for a long time and [the United States National Health Care Act] is the pending legislation which saves both the most lives and the most money, and enjoys the most popular support. I will continue to revert at least until a standard of inclusion is specified.... Reforms and pending reforms have been a part of this template for a long time."
 * Please note that another editor in agreement with the accuser has attempted to adjust the stated scope of the template without obtaining consensus to do so on the template's talk page.
 * I ask that the accuser please address the question and the six sources establishing notability and grounds for inclusion. Dualus (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: Fully protected one week. There have been discussions about this issue in several places. This may suggest that a formal WP:Request for comment is a good idea. Creation of an RfC may bring in more editors to look at the matter. If reverts continue after protection expires, blocks may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Meadyforzbs reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: prot)

 * He keeps reverting my edits on the Swamp Thing (1991 TV series) page. The series premiered on FOX on April 20, 1991. If he keeps this up, this may result in an edit war. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like he changed the premiere date here from 1991 to 1990, followed by you and him reverting each other once each on 1 November and 4 November (today). He isn't using any edit summaries - and you are, which is commendable on your part - but did you notice he posted on the article's discussion page here that the "first episode aired... in 1990"?  You didn't reply so I assume you may have missed that.  Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right, but this is a content dispute as opposed to a WP:3RR report, so perhaps you should respond there and engage him in a civil discussion to resolve the issue?  If he rejects all efforts to communicate, you'd have a more mature case to bring back here to the noticeboard (in my non-admin opinion).  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically per AzureCitizen. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)
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:

Please see the Justin Bieber discussion at WP:BLPN. User declares intention to edit war despite lack of consensus at BLPN and multiple warnings So let's wait for some other people to chime in." No. Let's follow WP policy. and per WP:BATTLEGROUND: I probably have more reverts, but I'm willing to take my chances because I've been reverting edits that are in violation of WP policy, and this discussion is going nowhere because the other camp have no argument.. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 04:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Courtesy notice to user's talk. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 04:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Longer than the usual for two reasons: (1) the editor has been blocked for edit-warring before; and (2) there were multiple aggravating circumstances, including the attitude that: "If I get blocked I get blocked. Soon enough I'll be unblocked again, but the Justin Bieber article will still say a scutter alleged he got her pregnant. Heads I win, tails they lose." In the circumstances, a highly contentious claim about a BLP, I am going to revert the article to its pre-edit war version. That is not an administrator fiat that that version is "correct"; discussion will no doubt continue on that front. Mkativerata (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mkativerata for your thorough investigation. I hadn't seen the "heads or tails" comment, but I am not surprised. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 09:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)