Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172

User:Orartu reported by User:Alborz Fallah (Result: Both blocked 24hr (see tit-for-tat filing below))
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:

Almost all other edits that I have done is reverted by this user :
 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User:TechnologyIsPower reported by User:SudoGhost (Result:24 hr block )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (Somone deleted my work here!!!! Please dont delete my work. Now you are welcome to fix any typo's you see but I like leaving my external links right then and there for all to see and follow. I think its better that way)
 * 2nd revert: (HEY QUIT F*CKING WITH ME!!!! Ok this is an online free encyclopedia and everything I have contributed is true!!! Ok people come one here and I want them to know the truth. Truth is Intel is number one. Ray Kurzweil is a real futurist, highly regarded)
 * 3rd revert: (HEY IT ISN'T COPYRIGHT CAUSE I PROVIDE THE SOURCE RIGHT THERE DAMMIT!!!! JESUS!!! Listen I want people to know the truth!!! The truth is Intel has single handedly changed our world! When it comes to futurology Ray Kurzweil is number one!)
 * 4th revert: (Hey check me out in on the talk page and drop a message for me. I am trying to provide the truth here dammit. Intel is number one in the world. Photonics, 3D transistor, and moores law itself. All thanks to Intel. People need to know the truth)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Moore's law & Talk:Moore's law

Comments:

Copyvio concerns among other things, the information being inserted in the article is being copy-pasted directly from the sources, and the editor has not addressed these copyright violation issues on the talk page or anywhere else. The user's page was created after being notified of 3RR, declaring "May the edit wars commence!!!!!!" His behavior on the talk page and edit summaries also leaves much to be desired, but that perhaps is a subject for another board. - SudoGhost 14:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Although an additional warning was provided, the attitude, WP:NPA, WP:TRUTH violations from the editor are just a little too heavy-handed for me to WP:AGF. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User:58.7.226.210 reported by User:Dmcq (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No but this is probably the same person who did a load of earlier edits to add rubbish to the page and kept being reverted as ip 124.169.35.204, 58.7.154.150, and 203.206.0.59

Comments:

Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP has reverted some more. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the same editor: the edit summaries are similar in tone and style. DrKiernan (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We've got a major problem on our hands. Editor is back as 124.168.240.132. I guessing a computer & a cellphone is being used. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, as 58.7.244.17 - GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected for one week.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 19:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User:109.69.9.10 reported by User:Chzz (Result: 24h block)
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:

Further information, just for the links: This began on the help-desk, there was some subsequent discussion on my user talk page  Chzz  ►  17:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have blocked User:109.69.9.10 for edit-warring and not engaging in any discussion (block states 3RR violation, but that's just me being bad at math, I clarified on talk page). I do hope removing the ability to edit-war on that page will bring him to discussing the issue on his/her talk page. I'll try to keep an eye open for subsequent developments. I have not rollbacked his latest revert, but it probably needs to be done.  Snowolf How can I help? 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I do the rollback do I risk being blocked, or is my 3RR warning now voided? Roger (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would probably better if you avoid doing so, there's enough eyeballs on that page anyway now, I hope. One would imagine a user would react better if it's not always the same guy reverting him over and over. If there are more reverts within 24 hours, that would make it a new ip, and semi-protection or other measures might have to be considered. In any case, I'd say on the balance it's probably better if you don't revert him.  Snowolf  How can I help? 18:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll just watch. Thanks everyone for helping resolve this - let's hope it stays resolved now. Roger (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding template for the block.  Snowolf How can I help? 18:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ken McRitchie reported by User:Yobol (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

WP:SPA editor on Astrology page edit warring against multiple users. Yobol (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Plot Spoiler reported by User:Truthtellers78 (Result: reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: He claims that the content I want to put up is not valid and because it doesn't fit his POV
 * 3rd revert: I'm pretty sure that "Pristino" is his sockpuppet because they edit exacly at the same times. I hope somebody can examine this.
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm very new to Wikipedia but I did notice that the user I'm reporting and what I assume is his socketpuppet prevented other views from being expressed and reverted back any content that did not fit his political point of views. There was virtually no discussion taking place on the talkpage but at least two users wanted to change to name to "Operation Red Coalition" because it was more neutral and better reflected thirld party publication. Truthtellers78 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't even know how I should respond to these ridiculous claims. First of all the second and fourth revert that truthteller provides are exactly the same edit. Secondly, truthteller has absurdly accused User:Pristino of being a sockpuppet of mine without presenting any sort of evidence. This is definitely untrue and an inflammatory accusation.


 * The root of the matter here seems to be that truthteller has been unilaterally changing the page title of Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot to Operation Red Coalition without any sort of discussion on the talk page or consensus, while claiming he has. As a result, I have reverted truthteller's title change multiple times, because he refuses to employ the appropriate protocol.


 * I ultimately tired of this and tried to do the fair thing by warning truthteller here on his talk page that if he did not follow the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines I would be forced to take him to WP:ANEW. Seems like truthteller decided to preempt me with this report while once again unilaterally changing the title of Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot to Operation Red Coalition. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, but there doesn't appear to be a 3RR violation here... and those edits happened several days ago (blocks for edit warring are meant to be preventative, not punitive). Also, I see nothing to indicate that User:Pristino is a sockpuppet of Plot Spoiler (and this would be the wrong place to make that accusation anyways; go to WP:SPI).  However, it does appear that Truthtellers78 is correct in that he is discussing it on the Talk Page while Plot Spoiler keeps reverting the move without joining the discussion (see Talk:Operation_Red_Coalition).  I'd recommend that both parties cease fire on flipping the page move back and forth any further with reverts and start discussing the move in earnest on the Talk Page.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I missed that truthteller commented on the talk page and I have now added my own response. Regardless, truthteller did not have the consensus to make such a key change in the article. He just commented himself in support and then used that as license to change the article to his liking. His WP:Soapboxing views are also evident. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reporter blocked. WP:EW covers more than just 3RR. I am leaving the article where it is for now and unprotected, but encourage the involved parties to work out what title is best supported by the sources before move-warring about it any more. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm very critical of this decision, because both me and my counterpart acted in a similar way, I did not in any way violate the 3PR, but I did one change in a 24 hour period that took 3 saved to accomplish, my counterpart did exactly the same yet I'm the one who got blocked. Why? We should both have been blocked or the application declined.

Truthtellers78 (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Haraldwallin reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result:Blocked 1 week )
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: see below

Comments:

This is edit warring across multiple articles not just one, Galling, Wear and Stress (mechanics) as well as Talk:Galling, trying to insert links to a personal thesis then refusing to engage constructively with other editors on the article talk pages as well as his own talk page. It's been going on for a long time judging by his talk page but has recently become much more intensive.

-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * I don´t have the skill to navigate through the Wikipedia’s official bureaucracy.
 * However I think it´s clear that a couple of editors delet the references to waste amounts of text and pictures which I´m the author and original creator to, in the articles Galling, Wear and Stress (mechanics) as well as my helpful discussions with other users in Talk:Galling
 * I also gave away my copyright to the Wikipedia commons so it´s clear I don´t hide behind aliases or make phony user accounts to get my scientific work public.
 * For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if these policies of yours make it impossible to give away your own pictures and hinders you to include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.


 * The main goal these people have is not to improve Wikipedia, rather miss credit me by using bureaucratic means, ses User talk:Haraldwallin, User talk:Mgnbar, User talk:Johnuniq, User talk:Tournesol and User talk:GameOn.
 * I suggest they all get a warning and are banned from my deleting my edits.--Haraldwallin (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think he could be a good contributor if he is prepared to work within policy, so the block is not any longer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User:JohnBlackburne User:Tournesol reported by User:Haraldwallin (Result:Filing editor blocked )
Page:

User being reported: /

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

And the list goes on and on and on......
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: [Revision as of 18:46, 4 November 2011 (edit)]
 * 4th revert: [Latest revision as of 14:33, 6 November 2011 ]
 * 5th revert: [Revision as of 19:39, 4 November 2011 (edit) (undo)]
 * 6th revert:
 * 7rd revert:
 * 8rd revert:
 * 9rd revert:
 * 10rd revert:
 * 11rd revert:
 * 12rd revert:

I don´t have the skill to navigate through the Wikipedia’s official bureaucracy.

However I think it´s clear that a couple of editors delet the references to waste amounts of text and pictures which I´m the author to, in the articles Galling, Wear and Stress (mechanics) as well as my helpful discussions with other users in Talk:Galling

I also gave away my copyright to the Wikipedia commons so it´s clear I don´t hide behind aliases or make phony user accounts to get my scientific work public.

For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if these policies of yours make it impossible to give away your own pictures and hinders you to include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.

The main goal these people have is not to improve Wikipedia, rather miss credit me by using bureaucratic means, se User talk:Haraldwallin, User talk:Mgnbar, User talk:Johnuniq, User talk:Tournesol and User talk:GameOn.

I suggest they all get a warning and are banned from deleting my edits.

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

Comments:

I don´t have the skill to navigate through the Wikipedia’s official bureaucracy. However I think it´s clear that a couple of editors delet the references to waste amounts of text and pictures which I´m the author to, in the articles Galling, Wear and Stress (mechanics) as well as my helpful discussions with other users in Talk:Galling I also gave away my copyright to the Wikipedia commons so it´s clear I don´t hide behind aliases or make phony user accounts to get my scientific work public. For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if these policies of yours make it impossible to give away your own pictures and hinders you to include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.

The main goal these people have is not to improve Wikipedia, rather miss credit me by using bureaucratic means, se User talk:Haraldwallin, User talk:Mgnbar, User talk:Johnuniq, User talk:Tournesol and User talk:GameOn. I suggest they all get a warning and are banned from deleting my edits. --Haraldwallin (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't shoot yourself in the foot - Wow you have reverted so many times people cant keep track - When the block is over can we get you to start a conversation on the talk page before editing again.Moxy (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Filing editor blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Stamcose reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Warned)
User: Stamcose has reverted to an unreferenced version of the article that he/she prefers, rather than abide by the results of this AfD which resulted in merging Newcomb's formula into Newcomb's Tables of the Sun. Stamcose was notified of the Afd and in a moment will be notified of this report. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Page in dispute:
 * User being reported:
 * It was only one revert, but if they start edit warring, please report back here.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 19:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Cyrrk reported by User:Bryonmorrigan (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He did not post to the talk page, but I gave him a Level 1 Warning on his talk page: User talk:Cyrrk

Comments:

It states clearly on the [Talk:Fascism|talk page]:

"Please recall the announcement in June, 2009 that this article is under a one-revert-per-day restriction. Violations of this restriction can be reported at the Edit-warring noticeboard. If you make a change to this article and it gets reverted, open a discussion on the talk page instead of reverting again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)"

Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted my edit, and we can discuss this matter on the fascism talk page. --Cyrrk (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the reasonable choice.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 06:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (Result:declined )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * Contribution: diff (etc.); 1st revert: diff (removing "Ph.D." from infobox alma mater field and information from its profession field
 * Re-contribution: diff (etc.); 2nd revert: diff (ditto, plus removing info from citizenship field)
 * Re-contribution: diff (etc.); 3rd revert: diff (ditto)
 * Re-contribution: diff (etc.); 4th revert: diff (ditto)
 * Re-contribution: diff (etc.).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Faced with edits filling out the infobox fields under contention, reported editor passes up discussion on talkpage and (tentative?) consensus there, bestirring themself to but proffer terse edit summaries, presumably believing their position obvious (or---something else?)--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden] (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not all of these edits are made by the same username - I can only see the editor complained about remove the information a couple of times in four or five days, and I can't see any consensus on the talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Point was: Lone-wolf editor kept removing (the precise, four deletions listed above) data without engaging on the talk page, with several editors championing its inclusion, either on the discussion page or via their edits.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Alborz Fallah reported by User:Orartu (Result: Both blocked)
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:

Almost all other edits that I have done is reverted by this user : 
 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be more edit warring related to this. On the page Iranian Kurdistan they are edit warring. It appears Orartu is marking the page as an orphan while also having reverting edits to add links to other related pages  previously. The other user appears to be engaging in the edit war also. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Laurifindil reported by De728631 (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: keeps removing references to a web page that several editors have been classified as reliable and that is frequently used by WP:WikiProject Middle-earth. While this is not 3RR it is still edit-warring and highly disruptive.

Time reported: 18:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:44,  4 November 2011  (edit summary: "Internet is not a reliable source.")
 * 2) 16:01,  4 November 2011  (edit summary: "Internet is not a reliable source.")
 * 3) 15:17,  5 November 2011  (edit summary: "Internet is not a reliable source.")
 * 4) 13:21,  6 November 2011  (edit summary: "Internet is not a reliable source.")


 * Diffs of warnings:, ,.

It should also be noted that Laurifindil seems not to be interested in cooperating and discussing consensus. The only time he ever responded to personal communication on his talk page was early this year when I told him how to move pages despite several notices and edit warnings that have been left there. And since a dicussion about another page move in January 2011 he has not participated in any other article talk.

—De728631 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User hasn't edited since their last warning, so I'd say report back back if they revert again. Obviously disruptive edit warring.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just want to let you know that User:Laurifindil is actually Edward Kloczko, which can explain a major part of his attiude and behavior on his edits on en:Wikipedia. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? How does that explain his edits? I'm going to protect the page so this can be discussed. I've left a note on the talk page.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 17:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He is well known in France for his tendency to criticize all the websites about Tolkien languages (good or bad, including WP:EN and WP:FR, althought he uses it to self-promotion). On the other hand, he invented a global theory about languages, which includes all the conceptions of Tolkien, earliest like latest, even this conception is in contradiction with Tolkien views. For more about his global theory, see this study. In short, all his contributions, additions like deletions by the way, must be seen with more attention than another contributor, I think. Druth (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is consensus at WikiProject Middle-earth that the Encyclopedia of Arda is a standard source in the absence of primary sources: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards. As to Laurifindil and the scholarly fractions regarding Tolkien linguistics, see also JCBradfield's comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wpiki reported by Fat&#38;Happy (talk) (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 21:56,  6 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: ""Revelant" facts as opposed to opinions")
 * 2) 22:25,  6 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Revision of "Revelant", "terrible writing"")
 * 3) 14:05,  7 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "On "topic" revision")
 * 4) 16:09,  7 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: ""Relevant" censored fiscal policy information reposted")
 * 5) 18:26,  7 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Relisted censored facts pertaining to Perry. Certainly not Bush, Richards, White or Clements...you tell me?")
 * 6) 18:50,  7 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Unlike his predecessors pay as you go Governors, Perry supported bonds [i.e. debt] could have used his veto power!")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Swarm   X 11|11|11 19:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:NoToEurocentist reported by User:Withevenoff (Result: Malformed)
His edits are POV pushing and he continuously make ethnic racial personal attacks to other people.

--Withevenoff (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * Your report does not indicate what article was in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Obsidian Soul (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Please see the article history instead as this involves multiple users. The disputed content in question is the proposal to suppress the use of the word "myth" in the article, originally proposed by User:Zenkai251 in this edit. User:Til Eulenspiegel has apparently done this before to the same article back in August, as evidenced from his talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Genesis creation narrative (initiated by User:Zenkai251)

Comments:

I myself will voluntarily cease reverting the changes again to that article (and probably discussion as well). Freezing the article revision to show their desired changes may have been the intent, however. I'll leave it to the administrator to decide if the latest change should be reverted to the version before the current dispute per our policies on WP:FRINGE, WP:VALID, and WP:DUE.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is the violation? The article intro had a carefully worked out consensus from last time around many months ago. Jesanj upset the balance in late October with his own version, and since then you and he have been reverting to it steadily against at least 5 others.  Yet you want to pretend that you and he somehow make up a 'consensus' agains the other 5 because we are "wrong" and therefore only you and he count for purposes of determining that there is consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please discuss this in Talk:Genesis creation narrative and do not misrepresent the fact that there are more editors against your changes than the ones doing the reverting, let the admin decide on the history and the discussion in question. I will not comment on it any further other than you were warned and still reverted four times rather than continue the discussion initiated by User:Zenkai251.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And where did I revert four times? Yet another false statement Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, good point, I guess I was conflating your reverts with User:PiCo's. Still, taken together they are insistent reverts to a revision not supported by the discussion. I request the page be protected until the dispute is resolved.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   14:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Per this discussion (WP:AN), this report was accidental, and the issue is more appropriate for dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User:talknic reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: blocked 48 hours)
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: [diff]

Comments:

This article is under a 1RR restriction per ARBPIA active remedies, as can be seen at the top of the talk page. This editor has been blocked for a 1RR violation on this exact article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User:BryonmorriganUser:VoluntarySlave reported by User:Benjamin9832 (Result: malformed report)
Fascism:

VoluntarySlave|Bryonmorrigan:


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

Comments:

There's no point in trying to resolve this dispute as it has been going on for some time before I got involved. The talk page is not helping. Too many passionate people. This page needs to be frozen because there is a mini-political war going on over the left vs right nature of fascism. Several users are coordinating with one another on blocking additions, reverting edits to get around policy, being nasty, and POV pushing. We all need some cooling off time.

Evidence

--

More Nonsense Edit Warring To Come!
And of course, it will be by some POV Warrior who wants to whitewash Fascism being on the Right. It's not as if we haven't had this discussion a bajillion times, or that every reputable scholar on the planet considers Fascism to be Right-Wing. Of course, since I've already reverted the silliness, and he's reverted it back, I can't touch it without violating 1RR, so someone else will have to delete all of his deliberate attempts at propagandizing here. I've also reported him to the Edit Warring Noticeboard for his violations of the restrictions placed on this page. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that he has self-reverted, which is a good sign. Lets hope that we can discuss this sensibly now.
 * It is not so much named editors with different understandings of the subject that puzzle me; It is the never-ending flow of POV IP editors. It sometimes feels a bit like an organised campaign to wear us down, but that way paranoia lies. I think it is just that there are a lot of ill-educated people about who think right=good, left=bad and that nuance is a type of French perfume. Whether somebody is pointing them in our direction I really don't know. The other things I find puzzling are why they get so upset and why they take it out on us. Do they write indignant letters to the historians we use as sources telling them they have got it all wrong? I doubt it. I wish they could just realise that Fascism being on the right doesn't taint the non-Fascist right any more than the non-Stalinist left needs to apologise for Stalin. They are defending themselves against an accusation that isn't even being made. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of it is due to people getting their "information" from non-scholars, usually radio talk-show hosts with nothing more than a high-school diploma, or debunked journalists that no reputable historian supports. They have heard all their lives, from everyone from their high-school history teacher onwards, that Fascism is a Right-Wing ideology, so when someone contradicts this, usually by twisting the meanings of the definitions of the terms "Left" and "Right," (usually into some ludicrous "Big Government" vs. "Small Government" paradigm...) or by relying on fraudulent information, or the works of non-historians, they feel that they have learned a "secret truth," and must spread the "news" to all.  It's like the "zealotry of the newly-converted."  But yes, your comparisons to Stalinism are particularly apt.  Your average Right-Winger is no more a "Fascist" than a Left-Winger like Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "Stalinist."  -- Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't view it as very becoming for you to speak of me or what my intentions could have been in my absence. I should point out that I haven't encountered a "1RR" article before, I'm afraid I'm not one of you seasoned Wikipedians. I wasn't trying to whitewash anything, my intention was to have the article worded in as objective a way as possible. What is "right" or "left" varies between different countries and different time periods. To try to place fascism on some nonexistent universal left-right scale trivializes the conversation. How for example would you categorize fascism within the left-right paradigm existing in the United States? "Right wing" in US politics refers to the belief in a free market economic system with little to no intervention on the part of the state, and a decentralized, constitutionally limited form of government with more power and autonomy granted to the states. This contrasts greatly with fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler who criticized free market capitalism and favored a highly centralized authoritarian state. Also, despite what your favorite talking heads have told you, just because someone disagrees with you on something does not automatically make them a Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly fan.--Cyrrk (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC) ---
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

68.118.201.107 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 8 November, 2011
 * 2nd revert: 8 November, 2011
 * 3rd revert: 8 November, 2011
 * 4th revert: 8 November, 2011
 * 5th revert: 8 November, 2011
 * 6th revert: 8 November, 2011
 * 7th revert: 8 November, 2011
 * 8th revert: 8 November, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I'm not great at following 3RR all the time - but 4 reverts after the 4th revert, is ridiculous. Note: Ip currently has the latest edit on the article, after 8th revert. (Is this the correct venue in reporting IPs who are in violation of 3RR? Apologies if isn't) -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: IP has been blocked 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Jordgette (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Since October 19, The Devil's Advocate, who has a history of being blocked for edit warring, has attempted numerous substantial edits to 7 World Trade Center, a Featured Article that had been stable for many months. In many of his edits, he has removed sourced material in a manner consistent with POV-pushing or whitewashing the article toward 9/11 conspiracy theories, and against talk-page consensus. Examples:

Removal of sourced information about physical evidence used by firefighters to predict that the building would collapse due to fire

Weakening of language to support the idea that NIST could not "rule out" the use of thermite to demolish 7WTC

Removal of engineering and fire-safety organizations that collaborated with NIST, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (the mentions are injurious to CT claims that the investigation was secret, insular, and inadequate)

and Repeated removals of image of Fiterman Hall, a building across the street that was damaged by 7WTC's collapse (the image is injurious to the CT claim that 7WTC collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ... among numerous others. Most discussion on the talk page from the last two weeks has been various editors trying to explain process and consensus to the user, with his repeated resistance and disruption, for example:

Comments: The user disingenuously hides behind a pretense of impartiality, for example when it was pointed out that his deletions would be applauded by conspiracy theorists.

Thank you for your attention.

 -Jord gette  [talk]  01:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I would like to thank Jordgette for notifying me of the listing before doing so, a courtesy I was not afforded in the previous case mentioned, only finding out about the notice after I was blocked. I would also implore any admin looking at this notice to review my response to the blocking admin on my user talk page and pay attention to the edits (namely that several editors were engaging in tag team reverts thus skirting 3RR). I freely admit I was edit-warring in that case and was wrong to do so, however in this case I am not engaging in any sort of edit war.


 * While I have made a few reversions, this so-called "edit war" has really just been me pursuing the normal path of WP:BRD. Jordgette is putting forward the false notion that I was simply deleting important information on the collapse. However, my edits arose from a suggestion on splitting the article and all the information I removed from this article was moved to Collapse of the World Trade Center, specifically the sections concerning building 7. I also | specifically changed the wikilink in the building 7 article's section on the collapse to go directly to one of those sections in the collapse article.


 * As for Fiterman Hall two of the edits were part of those efforts to shorten the section. Both of them were before Jordgette expressed any specific issue with removing the information concerning Fiterman Hall. | An effort I made to shorten the section after Jordgette's objection left the Fiterman Hall information untouched. Though I did later remove the image again, I still left mentions of Fiterman Hall, including the wikilink to an article that has the exact same image. However I did err in the sense that I did not recall Jordgette specifically objecting to removal of the image, as opposed to removal of the information. Similar to the changes I previously made to the article after discussion I believed that retaining the mention of Fiterman Hall satisfied those previous objections.


 * Further I would like to note that, although three efforts I made to shorten the section were reverted, I made two later changes that also shortened the article taking consideration of the objections made to previous edits. Jordgette and Tom harrison, another editor who objected to the previous trims, both appear to have agreed with those changes. So my efforts led to exactly what the process is supposed to achieve, a consensus position.


 * Now, I should mention what Jordgette has excluded, which is a disagreement over the content of a sentence. | That change took a sentence that was exactly copied from the source and put it in quotations. Jordgette reverted this change and I reverted that noting it was an exact quote. This was one of two instances over the duration of this period that I simply reverted another editor's changes and, in this case, | Jordgette apparently agreed with my reasoning for the revert and rewrites the sentence in response. After that I added the words "According to NIST" and this was reverted by Tom harrison so I insert a similar remark with different wording to see if that would make it more acceptable. When this change was also reverted I started a section in the talk page to express my reasons for wanting the change, specifically focusing on the undue weight it gave to one comment in the source, without considering the greater uncertainty expressed in another part of the source. I also raised a point about the addition improving the flow of the paragraph. That latter argument was completely overlooked by all the other editors and their main response was to discuss issues other than the ones I raised. It should be noted that with Tom and Jordgette's reversions considered (with every single change they undid the insertion of "According to NIST" or similar wording) together they made four reverts over a 24-hour period, circumventing WP:3RR in a perfect example of relay reverting.


 * The last edit I made appears to be the reason for Jordgette bringing this action and it does involve the same sentence. I made a more substantial change to the sentence that I think had more authoritative wording than my previous changes, thus seeking to accommodate the concerns of Jordgette and other editors, while still avoiding the strict absolutism of the wording they were insisting on. Additionally, the sentence was moved to the intro, which I thought was a much more suitable place for it. I also shortened two paragraphs, including the Fiterman Hall one I mentioned already, with another discussing SEC files and moved this information further up in the section so that they would immediately follow the other paragraphs on the collapse, rather than interrupting talk of the NIST investigation. Jordgette reverted the entirety of the edit and mentioned the admin noticeboard in, what I thought, was a warning not to repeat some change Jordgette found objectionable. In response I once more started a section asking for clarification on what Jordgette specifically objected to about my edit. Two hours after I asked this good faith question is when Jordgette left the comment on my user talk page notifying me of this posting on the noticeboard and Jordgette seemingly indicates having seen my call for discussion only to toss it aside saying: "I'm really not interested in hearing you defend your actions again, so please spare us both the time and energy."


 * Earlier I mentioned that I had performed two reversions. Aside from the one mentioned above where my reasoning was apparently accepted as legitimate there was | another revert that I made two weeks prior. So far the results of that reversion have gone almost completely unchallenged by any editor, with only one part being challenged in the past day. On the other hand, Jordgette and Tom harrison have performed several times more reverts over the same time period, in two cases undoing uncontroversial changes as well as the ones they disliked that | I had to | restore, with five of their reverts being in the past two days. In light of these facts I hope any admin evaluating this action by Jordgette will dismiss the accusations. I apologize for the length.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm inclined to declined this. It is too complicated for an edit warring case and should probably go through WP:ANI or Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (whichever is more appropriate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - If User:The Devil's Advocate keeps trying to slant the article toward controlled demolition, it will have to be taken to Requests for Enforcement. Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here are the diffs where I merged the information from the building 7 article to the collapse article: . If you look at the current version of that article you will see I have not made any significant changes to the material after moving it. To claim my efforts at summarizing the information on the collapse in the building 7 article are POV-pushing is just absurd. My edits in that respect were consistent with merging information from one article to another.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate  (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Enforcement is perhaps a more appropriate forum for this complaint, and that will be the next stop if the action continues. This includes any further attempts to remove sourced information in a manner consistent with whitewashing the 7 World Trade Center article, regardless of whether the information then appears elsewhere (such as in the middle of the much longer, poorly organized article primarily on the collapse of the Twin Towers).  -Jord gette  [talk]  22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Four reverts by The Devil's Advocate since November 5 and a history of similar reverting in October. I think this should be closed with an edit-warring block and a warning about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911. The reverts can be observed just by looking at the edit history. A verdict on the necessity of admin action can be reached without doing an analysis of the content. It is enough to observe that the editor is consistently pushing one point of view over a period of time and that there is no supporting consensus for his changes on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I admit it is long, I implore you to read my explanation thoroughly if you have not. What you are talking about in October can hardly be called edit-warring on my part as each edit involved numerous uncontroversial edits, good faith changes that could not even remotely be construed as POV (removing the material SEC files being destroyed would seem to favor those opposing conspiracy theories don't you think), and each new change removed less and less material in response to discussion on the talk page. It was WP:BRD in action and ultimately resulted in a consensus that still stands.
 * As for me supposedly making "four reverts" I think you are being excessive in describing them all as reverts. In one case, as I noted, the reasoning for the revert was acknowledged as legitimate and the editor made an effort to accommodate that. I reinserted part of the wording because that change did not satisfy all my concerns. Another editor reverted this, and I inserted new wording to see if that would be more acceptable. When it was clear that would not satisfy the concerns of those editors I initiated a discussion in the talk page. All of this would be consistent with WP:BRD again. The next edit, which I presume you are calling a fourth revert, was anything but a revert. It was a substantial rewrite covering several issues that did not restore any previous edit in fact or in spirit. To suggest I was simply restoring some old POV version each time is disingenuous. On the other hand, those two editors pushing hard for a block did exactly that acting as if WP:V overrides WP:NPOV.
 * For you to even seriously consider a push for a block from someone who makes the push while accusing me of elaborate deceit, demonstrating a woeful inability to assume good faith is incredible. On the other hand, Jordgette clearly expresses a bizarre idea that all information I removed, again in order to shorten the section per WP:SUMMARY, after moving the information to another article was essential for the article so as to counter the claims of conspiracy theorists and that my good faith efforts to shorten the article were solely motivated by POV. It is as absurd in its hypocrisy as it is in its presumptuousness.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not want to seem too pushy in making repeated comments, though I think, since Jordgette is accusing me of pushing a specific point of view that it would be apt for me to explain my opinions on this issue. Generally I do not consider the idea of collapse as a result of fires to be a serious point of contention. While I have not closed my mind to the prospect of a controlled demolition explanation it is not, for me, a matter that I seriously consider or one that I find particularly important to focus on. For me the scientific investigations in this regard present compelling reasons for accepting the official version of events, thought NIST's apparent uncertainty about thermite does not allow me to objectively consider the matter to have been reasonably settled. At the same time I do not consider controlled demolition by any means to be necessary in any way to explain the collapse of building 7 or the twin towers.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked one week for edit warring. It is common to hold off admin sanctions when we feel that an editor is basically well-intentioned but just went over the line inadvertently. My own review of the article talk page suggests that was not the case. The editor was previously blocked for edit warring on another article unrelated to 9/11 but where the word 'conspiracy' occurs in the discussion. The previous issue is detailed in Talk:North American Union/Archive 7.  The editor is articulate and can follow a thread of argument but seems oblivious to the fact that his suggestions for article improvement are motivated by his own POV.  In this case he wants to take out of a featured article the elements which would make it most useful to the reader, since it tends to reduce the plausibility of the conspiracy theory. I'm also notifying him of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911. What a surprise that someone interested in improving this article would mention 'thermite' and want to modify what it says in that area.  You probably won't get the full flavor of his reasoning unless you read Talk:7 World Trade Center and the sections below it.  EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:DMSBel reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 04:18, 9 November 2011


 * 1st revert: 05:07, 9 November 2011
 * 2nd revert: 05:25, 9 November 2011
 * 3rd revert: n/a, as abortion-related articles are under 1RR
 * 4th revert: n/a

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a in this instance, user is well aware of the restrictions as he has been warned and subsequently blocked in the past for the same behavior on the same article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Abortion, dispute ongoing, no consensus for DMSBel's edit

Comments: User has a long history of tendentious problematic editing both on articles and on talkpages with regard both to this subject and to others.

–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like he was attempting to fix a typo and intervening edits tripped him up, akin to an edit conflict. Lots of discussion on talk shows he's attempting to edit in good faith. I think we should just warn him to use inuse next time. – Lionel (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion on talk shows that no one agrees with him, but he keeps reinserting the same material anyway. It's not about a typo. If it were, other editors would have fixed the typo for him. MastCell Talk 06:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of DMSBel's reverts look like partial reverts but a partial revert counts as 1 revert per this statement "The 1RR says an editor must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The phrase "a study by David A. Grimes of maternal mortality from 1990 - 1999 estimated" was re-inserted by DMSBel twice via edit-warring. I'm sure now that a block is on the cards. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like DMSBel does not like the result of the Grimes study which found abortion to be 12.5 times safer than childbirth, by some mortality measure. (I have no opinion on whether it belongs in the article or how it should be described, but whether it leaves or goes should depend on consensus). He is trying to change the article to minimize the significance of the Grimes study, ever since he reverted out that reference entirely on 7 November. His edit summary complained that it's more than 10 years old, even though it was published in 2006. He opened a discussion thread at Talk:Abortion to argue for the change, but he has found no support there. Three other editors joined that thread to defend the validity of the Grimes results. His persistence in making Grimes-related reverts on 9 November suggests he is planning to ignore the lack of any consensus in his favor. EdJohnston (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left the page substantially as it was. I re-edited part of the safety section to correct an error with dates in it (it stated 1999 when it should have stated 1990-1999 this was an oversight on another editors part), and to specify author of a report which was already mentioned, that with a couple of other minor changes. I have not made any further edits on other matters under discussion on the talk page. I was cut and pasting some material from Wordpad, and cut more than I intended hence mention of another report I imediately took out, pending discussion. The three or four editors there with the same POV might like to wait for others to enter the discussion who could offer a fresh perspective from time to time, and also to allow editors time who are in the process of tidying up edits. I was not aware of the {inuse} template, or how it functions. But thankyou for explaining that. DMSBel (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I took out the Grimes study when I was told by MastCell that research from the last 5 years normally prefered.DMSBel (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so a) I never said anything like that, and b) even if I had, the study is from the last 5 years (it was published in 2006). I'm starting to feel like we're outside the realm of objective reality here. MastCell Talk 07:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have argued not for its removal since then but for contextualisation of it with suggestion a more recent study that would serve that purpose. DMSBel (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Block logged at General sanctions/Abortion/Log. NW ( Talk ) 15:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Wayiran (Result: block 60hr)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  and many other times

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user has already violated the 3rr three times before on the same article and each time was reported here. This time he has reverted 5 times in last 24 hours, without paying any attention to discussions. --Wayiran (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is related to tags, not content. My understanding is that users can't tag an article and never bother to start a discussion or explain why. Here is what the template documentation say: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." Just a cursory look at the contributions of, , will show that these editors have been doing nothing but adding tags using vague edit summaries then come here complaining when their tag is removed. I've asked these editors to be more specific about their concerns many times, even started a discussion on their behalf , but none of theme actually substantiated any of their claims. Tags cannot stay forever and without reason. I would say this is just an example of trying to game the system and get me blocked without ever explaining why these tags are needed. Wiqi( 55 ) 11:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Night of the Big Wind reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 07:07 (more or less; the last added paragraph is re-added essentially intact in all revisions)


 * 1st revert: 08:33 (edit summary = undid censorship)
 * 2nd revert: 08:40 (edit summary = bowed for censorship)
 * 3rd revert: 09:15 (edit summary = hope this one comes through the censorship)
 * 4th revert: 11:24 (edit summary = undid vandalistic edit. Text is correct in the Australian, American, British and Irish variations of English.) Added by NotBW

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:50

I'm afraid I haven't. But, then, again, he hasn't attempted to justify the addition's relevance to the article, although he did rail against "censorship" at 09:00. I see he responded to my comment about relevance at 14:18. I'll check to see what the response was. not on point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

There was no attempt to communicate between Mr. Rubin and me. I got a 3RR warning already after two reverts and then complained at the talkpage about the censorship on the article (see: Talk:Bank Transfer Day. Please notice that the complaint comes only minutes after a highly critical reply on his actions! Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no fourth revert yet, or the anonymous must be identical what I don't believe. This is clearly a case of a black kettle. Night of the Big Wind talk  15:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * I agree that the article needs to be balanced, but the addition requires sensible context, which doesn't seem to be present in the article. I've edited the sentence he wanted to balance down to what was actually said, and note that it requires context.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And that is why you support a vandal? See: User talk:70.170.112.174. Night of the Big Wind  talk  17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 48 hours for edit warring. Editor seems to think he has no duty to negotiate with anyone to get agreement on the wording. His edit summaries complain about censorship. Previous edit warring block was in July. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

68.115.188.230: reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 48h)
Isle of Wight Academy:

68.115.188.230:

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: from the end of october

Since then User:Onorem and I have both tried to engage the IP in conversation through edit summaries, but xe won't talk.

Comments:

The article history shows a long-running slow revert war on the part of this IP address, although this seems to be the first time xe's crossed the 3RR line.

&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Swarm   X 11|11|11 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User:OCIDLE reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 48 hrs)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:53,  9 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 20:08,  9 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 21:21,  9 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 22:05,  9 November 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

I've also raised the issues of copyvio of some images at Commons. —Dougweller (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was writing a report at the same time as Dougweller. This is simple sock/meatpuppetry. Note that each numbered diff listed above is a revert plus the addition of new material, just continuing the edit-warring of after this ip was blocked. When the protection from the article was been removed, the edit-warring immediately continueed, first by 198.188.96.4, then by OCIDLE. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with above reports, straightforward POV/edit-warring, although the edits by the IP are different in character than OCIDLE's efforts.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

5: 22:33, 9 November 2011‎ --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hrs - disruptive editing. Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ramcrk reported by User:Vamsisv (result:reporter blocked)
Page:

User is pushing POVs into the article even after 4 levels of explanation given in the discussion page. 
 * Reporter blocked for 24 hours for violation of 3 revert rule, which reportee did not break. Please take a hard look at WP:DV (my pet essay) and WP:BOOMERANG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User:208.110.220.133 reported by User:Taylornate (Result: 2 months)
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:

Made another revert after warnings and after acknowledging that he is already in violation of 3RR. Does not seem to be cooperating with discussion.--Taylornate (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked two months as an open proxy, per the result of . This IP address was previously blocked in February for hosting an open proxy service. The current behavior is nonsensical and represents an abuse of the talk page per WP:FORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User:204.248.119.140 reported by User:Taylornate (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Same nonsense as my previous report. This IP has not made any comment at all in the discussion.
 * - 1 week. Evidently this is the same person who was reported above for warring at Talk:Suicide methods. Edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Kristoferb reported by User:129.234.252.67 (Result: declined )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm perfectly willing to accept that his photo deserves to be on the page, if he can prove that it is actually a photo of that phone. He's not said a word in reply on the talk page, or provided any evidence. --129.234.252.67 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Three reverts over 16 months, and none within the past 45 days, nor any since receiving a warning and an attempt was made on the talk page. Slow moving edit wars are bad, but a full discussion is essential. Please consider further use of dispute resolution (and if necessary, you can let the user know about the talk page with the talkback template). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll try that if he changes it again. (The last change was since the warning and note on talk page, btw; otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up here) --129.234.252.67 (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Gandydancer reported by Mtking (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 00:49, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "I think it goes without saying that food, shelter, etc., are concerns and not worth mention in the lede")
 * 2) 01:06, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "is this better?")
 * 3) 01:10, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "this does not seem to be needed in the lede...to me...")
 * 4) 01:14, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "removed sentence that pretty much just repeats what's in the first paragraph")
 * 5) 04:19, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Unions */ removed broken ref and combine some repeated information for brevity")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Did post to Gandydancer's talk page he replied that he did not see how he had broken the WP:3RR and then went on to make the last revert on the list. Mt king  (edits)  04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Mtking, you are not editing the article currently and I do not see your name on the talk page. Do you disagree with anything that Gandydancer has done? These edits seem to be minor rewording in most cases. Has he undone anything more than once? The edit summaries sound diplomatic. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have edited it the past, and the page has been subject to edit-warring in the past, I asked the user to consider stopping his edits, he carried on. Is my reading of WP:3RR wrong in that he has not broken the rule ?  Mt  king  (edits)  05:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is hard to see an actual dispute here. 3RR is used to measure the extent of a dispute, when there is one. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A little background. Yesterday editor Amadscientist made sweeping changes to the lede without prior discussion.  In my opinion his bold edits were justified because the OWS discussion page is so bogged down in petty, poorly referenced demands to "un-bias" the article, and related long discussions that never go anywhere.  I believe that I have a good working relationship with Amadscientist and the other major editors to the page and that they welcome disagreement and are reasonable in their efforts to work out differences. My lede edits were related to information I considered to be repeated twice and removing the examples of "crime" and adding copy to balance the issue.  My Union edits merely combined  a couple of sentences for brevity and deleting some info that seemed not so important since I wanted to add recent info without letting that section get too long.  As always, I welcome different points of view and at times other editors have helped me to see that their ideas are more appropriate than mine.  But if the rule restricts me to less than three edits a day that include deleting any copy written by another editor, that will certainly make editing more difficult. BTW, just for the record, I am not a "he", I'm a "she". Gandydancer (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Technical reverts only, if that, while editor was following the spirit of WP:BRD. The point of our rules is to avoid edit warring, not punish someone for making cosmetic changes. See Wikilawyering, 3rd definition. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:61.14.143.119 reported by User:27.33.183.136 (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments:

Pretty sure I'm in for a block as well, but this guy is obviously not going to stop reverting without reading the reliable source added that contradicts his information. 27.33.183.136 (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea; somebody lock the page, and then you two can fight over this on the talkpage . That'd be a novel concept... since neither one of you has done that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

None. I am purposely limiting my interactions with Wtshymanski because of his long history of sarcasm and lack of civility towards anyone who disagrees with him. See Administrators noticeboard: Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively.

Comments:

Wtshymanski's previous block for edit warring:

There has also been what appears to be edit warring in opposition to Wtshymanski by some IP addresses, but I am not sure whether I am seeing one editor using multiple IPs or multiple editors. Should I warn the IPs as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected. It is very difficult to engage in conversation with someone who is hopping IPs and not using a talk page (all the IPs resolve to Columbus, Ohio). If edit warring persists after the person registers an account, please report again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Chuckfreyconsultant reported by User:Snowded (Result: Blocked indef)
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: here

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

Comments:

I received an email (copy available to any admin who wants to see it) threatening various attacks on the Cynefin article and myself by the editor referenced above. Sure enough next day we get that editors commentary on Cynefin which is a clear case of original research. The material has now been reverted by three different editors (I am one) as OR. The principles of WP:OR have been explained to the user but they have persisted in inserting the material. The user's talk page also contains some wild stuff about contacting Government Agencies who have used the model, and what can only be described as polemic covering my religious preferences amount other things.

I should say that I don't think this editor is a sock of Irvine22 who has been vandalizing the article recently. Whatever a skim of the users comments on their talk page is slightly disturbing. -- Snowded TALK  11:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above we have this somewhat sad set of threats. -- Snowded TALK  12:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * indefinitely by . NW ( Talk ) 18:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:86.24.46.135 reported by User:David Eppstein (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=459984802&oldid=425636097


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460027538&oldid=459984971
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460032528&oldid=460032290
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460042709&oldid=460038616
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460050715&oldid=460045367
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460063638&oldid=460062446
 * 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460135456&oldid=460117685
 * 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460184539&oldid=460177042

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.24.46.135&oldid=460064660 (somewhere around revert#5, I think)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See WT:WPM

Comments:

—David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Znorz reported by User:Ronz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 21:10, 11 November 2011
 * 2nd revert: 21:29, 11 November 2011
 * 3rd revert: 21:54, 11 November 2011
 * 4th revert: 22:04, 11 November 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:54, 11 November 2011

Comments:

Continuation of the edit-warring by blocked editor listed above. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * SPI raised, and the images are copyright violations. Dougweller (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of OCIDLE. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Encyclotadd reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Voluntary restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (not needed, all 4 reverts below are clearly marked as such)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (by another user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming

Comments:

The edit war has grown, but I think only E has broken 3RR. Note that the page is a long-term source of conflict William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would love it if anyone involved in the conversation would discuss the subject matter we are editing. Instead the conversation has been a back and forth about rules, instead of about truth. It would be so welcome if a member of the community would discuss plasticity, mirroring or any of the other parts of NLP, and it's sad that only discussion of rules comes up. --Encyclotadd (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of "control" at that article User:Snowded has a real life involvement and a website dedicated to the topic and is central to the control of the content - there was tag teaming against this user and then User:Snowded went to tell User:WMC on his userpage and User:WMC immediately reverted to the groups favored position and then created this report. Discussion is preferable to wiki lawyering and tag team reverting and reports. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My web site has mentioned NLP just over ten times in seven years of nearly daily blogging and a previous COI case on this subject did not support your position. I went to WMC as a neutral party as it was obvious you were making this issue personal so I decided to back off -- Snowded  TALK  22:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are inserting material which you say provides empirical support for NLP, but that material does not mention NLP. That is original research and/or synthesis.  It would be wrong for editors to discuss the subject matter as wikipedia relies on third party sources.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW shows Snowded soliciting assistance from Mr. Connolley WMC (emended per post therefrom). (Would you be prepared to have another look at the NLP article? Encyclotadd still doesn't get the principle of OR and is now in breech of 3rr. I could just make a 3rr report, but I am (for the umpteenth time) being accused of a COI and Offtoriorob has jumped in as well (any area of wikipedia where I am involved in any controversy he arrives). With Chuckfreyconsultant permanently banned after taking umbrage over NLP issues I think this needs a neutral perspective at 21:48 11/11/11 - shortly before this report was filed) so this report may be the result of a CANVASS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If its a red line 3RR then it remains one. Leaky  Caldron  23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest User:Encyclotadd reads WT:V during his block. Leaky  Caldron  23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Where Off2riorob starts Collect follows. When are you guys going to get over the fact that the community did not support your position on the UAF article?   I stepped back because my involvement with the NLP article was being used as part of that long running sore and asked an admin who had previously taken a neutral position to have a look.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where in hell did that come from?  O2RR and I share some concerns on BLPs, but being called a tag team? Never - especially since we disagree on a lot of topics.   Read WP:NPA again - I find your post here quite improper.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:William M. Connolley is not an administrator, he was de-sysopped for violations in his "expert" area. The UAF and the community position in relation to such is meaningless to me, just to clear that up. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that (the desysop), will remember that in future. -- Snowded  TALK  23:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is puzzling that Encyclotadd will make no concessions whatever, since this looks like a plain vanilla case for a WP:3RR block. The fact that one or more parties could have real-world connection to the topic is irrelevant to the problem of reverting too many times. Encyclotadd cannot claim to have been reverting vandalism or BLP violations. Encyclotadd is reverting against four other people which ought to suggest to him that he does not have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * O2RR is wrong, as usual William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I regret making the 3rr mistake, and also for neglecting to sign a few posts (thanks Signbot for helping me out), and I hope everyone understands that I'm a total newbie at editing Wikipedia. Believe me, my intentions are not only honorable but I'm very eager to contribute very positively.

I have been trying to add references to leading faculty at ivy league institutions. They have been removed on the grounds that the sources referenced do not specifically mention NLP. However, folks can agree the sources discuss ideas from NLP, because this is very easily verified by reading the sources I referenced along with the inclusion, or by doing simple Google searches..... For example, a search for "Mirroring" and "NLP" produces a million plus results. Anyone who has read substantially about the subject matter knows mirroring is part of NLP. Plasticity is the same-- dating back to the original writings by the founders, and showing up in a million search results since then. So I feel strongly that removal of references to leading faculty of ivy league institutions discussing these parts of NLP amounted to vandalism regardless as to whether it was intended as such by the editors. This isn't about expressing a particular viewpoint. This is about including the facts. Thanks. --Encyclotadd (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Voluntary restriction. Encyclotadd accepted this offer on his talk page: "if you will promise not to make any more edits to Neuro-linguistic programming in the month of November unless prior consensus is found on the talk page, you can avoid a block." EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User:HotMAN0199 reported by User:The Bushranger (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:  (as well as several edit-summary cautions re WP:NOT    and request to take it to the talk page re:WP:BRD, and early talk page caution re:WP:NOT )

Comments: This editor is edit-warring to include a large, WP:NOT-violating table of the driver's wins in major and minor racing series in the article. He has, so far, not responded even once to multiple requests on his talk page, edit summaries, and the article talk page to discuss his contributions, instead repeatedly reinserting the tables into the article without even so much as an edit summary. Is probably in violation of WP:3RR now (first revert restored one table from the first diff and added several others; remaining three, reversions of all tables in dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. If the user restores the table again without getting consensus he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Feresias reported by User:62.56.98.173 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Feresias

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

User is adding his or her own opinionated commentary to the article, and will not allow reverts without adding back in said commentary. 62.56.98.173 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked indef by User:Elockid as a vandalism-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User appears to have returned as, reverting to exactly the same thing. Pfainuk talk 16:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (Resolved, socks blocked, see ) Pfainuk talk 17:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Thoughtfortheday reported by User:188.227.160.244 (Result: Proxy block of the IP)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Please note that I have raised this issue at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Both editors are in violation of 3RR. I don't think the fact that one is an IP should make any difference.  Second opinion?  Black Kite (t)   21:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest 31 hours for Thoughtfortheday and semiprotection to stop the dynamic IP. If the question of who distributed her book in the US is considered important and if there is a risk that Heartland Institute is not actually involved, that material could be removed until consensus is found. This article is in the domain of WP:ARBCC, and the IP's edits appear to be devoted to that topic. A one week rangeblock of 188.227.160.0/18 might be considered. See the rangecontribs results. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've identified the person behind the IP - it's User:Marknutley, who was banned from the CC topic area in WP:ARBCC and was subsequently caught sockpuppeting in the same topic area and is currently indefinitely blocked. See this comment. Prioryman (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (added) I've now raised this at Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Alexandria has issued a two-year proxy block of per the outcome of the SPI. Since the IP signs himself 'Mark' and it's probably Mark Nutley we shouldn't sanction Thoughtfortheday for reverting them, though breaking 3RR for any reason is risky. Extra credit to the sock for filing a 3RR report. Maybe he was checking to see if anyone was awake. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 05:24, 13 November 2011


 * 1st revert: 12:25, 13 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460424515 by B.Davis2003 (talk)revert per :WP:REDLINK - "wikipedia is not yet finished"")
 * 2nd revert: 16:27, 13 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460433865 by AussieLegend (talk)rvt per WP:REDLINK - "...Wikipedia is not yet finished"")
 * 3rd revert: 16:49, 13 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460460757 by AussieLegend (talk)why would you revert a wikilink?")
 * 4th revert: 02:17, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "If I'm not mistaken, there's still an RfC in progress as well as a question on police re: this matter at a noticeboard.  Formal consensus never was asked for nor did it occur - reverted.")
 * 5th revert: 02:32, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Elizium23 (talk): When there's an active RfC and a noticeboard issues there is a reason for formal consensus. (TW)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: 16:53, 13 November 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing RfC

Comments:

Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

With this edit I've taken the liberty of expanding the report submitted by Elizium23. Obviously, if anybody opposes this change I'm more than happy to undo the edit, or anyone else is more than welcome to. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I made the mistake of choosing to comment on an open RfC at this article a few days ago, and have since done some work on the newly created episode list article, so both are in my watchlist. This edit summary caught my eye. User:Television fan had made some reasonable changes to the article earlier, explaining his reasons in his edit summary. The changes were reverted by Lhb1239, who really didn't provide any justification. A modified and "improved" version of the content was restored. Lhb1239 then reverted and left a warning on the editor's talk page. Not content with that, he then continued to harass this editor about edit-warring. The editor that he harassed had actually attempted to discuss the matter on Lhb1239's talk page, but Lhb1239 deleted his post without replying. He is still attempting to discuss.

Later, at Pan Am (TV series), another editor removed a couple of red-links. Lhb1239 restored one of these redlinks with the rationale that "wikipedia is not yet finished".1st revert As the article had been deleted at AfD and the subject still fails WP:NACTOR, I removed the link again, with a direction to WP:REDNOT. Lhb1239 then reverted that.2nd revert I again pointed him to WP:REDNOT. A review of Lhb1239's recent contributions shows that he has been in conflict with numerous editors in just about every discussion that he has had, demonstrating incivility, ownership of articles and a general unwillingness to collaborate, so I chose to give him a 3RR warning at this point, rather than wait until his third revert. He deleted the warning before I had even had a chance to add some clarification, and then made his third revert in the article.

I've since discovered that he has made two further reverts in the article, making his fifth revert only 14 hours after his first. While I do think that the last two reverts were appropriate (had somebody else made them), this still breaches 3RR. Lhb1239 is well aware of the requirements of 3RR, having been warned, and even blocked for 3RR breaches in the past, as recently two weeks ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've received no notification of this report being made and contrary to AussieLegend's claim above, I was not blocked for anything two weeks ago. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, you managed to find it, so all should be well. I didn't say that you were blocked 2 weeks ago. The diffs that I provided show that you were warned about making four reverts in 24 hours two weeks ago. On 21 June you were blocked for 24 hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was you who wrote above, "and even blocked for 3RR breaches in the past, as recently two weeks ago.", wasn't it? What's more, "Still you managed to find it, so all should be well" is not sufficient.  Editors in good standing are to be notified of AN reports such as this when the report is about them.  No exceptions. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if what I wrote was unclear to you. I thought the diffs would make it clear, which is why I provided them. The fact is, you now obviously know about this discussion and nothing can be done about not notifying you. Elizium23 may not have realised that he should contact you, but really, you should have been looking anyway because you know the ramifications of making so many reverts in a 24 hour period. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Taunting in the above response and accompanying edit summary ("no point crying over spilt milk - better to mount a defence") noted. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My edit summary summarises the thrust of my post, which is what it's supposed to do on a talk page. We've discussed this sort of thing previously. You really would be better off mounting a defence instead of complaining that you hadn't been notified of a discussion that you found easily. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation. This is the user's second block for edit warring since June. He was warned for breaking 3RR at Hart of Dixie on 31 October. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Oldschooldsl reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 31h, semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

New editor, warned repeatedly, edit-warring over adding unreferenced content like there's no tomorrow. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: User was blocked 31 hours by another admin. An IP showed up immediately to make the same edit, so the article is semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:NorthernPashtun (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Mar4d's edits in Afghans in Pakistan are all anti-Afghan, he's trying to make Afghan refugees living in Pakistan demonized or evil-doers by searching the internet to find only negative news about them, so that he makes them criminals and terrorists. Yet, he did not add one single positive thing about them. But in Pakistanis in Afghanistan, he's trying to make Pakistanis look good. He has some kind of anti-Afghan agenda in Wikipedia, going around labelling European porn stars as Afghans. I notimated stolen images and he kept reverting my nomination and those stolen images all got deleted now..--NorthernPashtun (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, I would like to make it clear that NorthernPashtun started the edit warring and is solely responsible for initiating it too. I have been editing Afghans in Pakistan with neutrality and have expanded on the "Crime" section only with sources that meet WP:RS. Admins are welcome to check my contributions and confirm this. Yet, this user has constantly been tampering with information to suit his POV, making personal attacks and has continously removed content that I add from the article without discussion. This is vandalism and a clear-cut violation of the 3RR rule. I have already made a complaint elsewhere and asked NorthernPashtun to not edit the article, while I am working on it for a while, but he clearly has not listened.

I would like admins to give me some time for me to file my own report here which goes into detail into some of the content dispute. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict (sorry)) I checked here after being alerted by NorthernPashtun and Mar4d of the discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. See there for evidence.
 * Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:210.50.83.33 reported by User:Jack Merridrew (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:24, 15 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 460598507 by Apparition11 (talk)can you stop?")
 * 2) 02:33, 15 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 460713431 by Rothorpe (talk)can you please stop?")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Jack Merridrew (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Looks like plain vandalism. Blocked 24 hours by another admin. The submitter of this request is having some difficulties of his own, due to his choice of a user name similar to that of a well-known editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:علی ویکی reported by User:Orartu (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

There appears to be some edit warring here --Orartu (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. there is not edit warring. The only point is that I don't have access to roll back. If you wanna be sure, just check the content that I've reverted. Another point is that if one have a fast look to User Orartu's contributions, s/he will understand the reason of this report. He proposed a deletion, and he has started accusing all the users who has disagreed with him there. I'll keep this report in mind.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are the links of two other false accusation of this user:, . I kindly ask admins to pay more attention to these behaviors, and don't let such users misuse noticeboards, just because they want to push away anyone that has an opposite view to them. thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Aliwiki himself has disruptive activities(Please take a look at his talk page and his activities must be under consideration.His statement "I'll keep this report in mind." shows he has vendetta against me.--Orartu (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. The submitter did not list four reverts in a 24-hour period. The edit warring policy says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting reported by User:Aircorn (Result: No vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

One revert away from breaking 3RR, but does not seem to understand that pushing strongly for their case is edit warring. Maybe someone other than me could leave a friendly message. AIR corn (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverting any more than once should be met with disapproval, but this is not blockable. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So what do I do then? I have expressed my disapproval, but that doesn't help me with the article. I could revert again taking me to 3RR and wait and see, although that seems against the spirit of the rule. AIR corn (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What else does WP:DR suggest :-) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter anymore, this one is lost. Another has decided that alphabeticalising is better than using logic. Guess it's content editors 1, drive-by editors 2. AIR corn (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now don't cut off your nose to spite your face here. Have a drink, go to bed, go to work tomorrow, then come back when you're feeling less upset. Even better: wait at least two days. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Biosketch (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – User:Off2riorob initiated a discussion on my Talk page.

Comments: 39 minutes, four reverts, no WP:BLP violation as the edits were sourced to a WP:RS.

—Biosketch (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I never got a warning - I got a vague request to self revert - one user came in and then this user came along joining in, tag team reverting - the reporter has never edited the article or the talkpage of the article - I requested discussion on the talkpage and nothing has occurred - I started all the discussion about this - although I disagree with the edit from User:Jayjg have self reverted because who is a jew is unworthy of losing my editing privileges. Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite right – he's self-reverted, so the edit warring's effectively ceased. If the reviewing Admin elects to close this with a warning or no action, I have no objection.—Biosketch (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It seems to be a principle of these things that whoever reverts the most will give helpful advice to others asking them to talk rather than revert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Braindead2011 reported by User:MahavishnuChris (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User:Braindead2011

Comments:

The abuse is coming from a former user of the forums being slandered, this user has a great dislike for the website and has persisted with edit warring. I feel he should be barred from editing this wiki page for he has nothing positive to contribute. MahavishnuChris (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to notify the user about WP:3RR on their talk page, not their user page. I have done so now. Let's wait to see if there is a response. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why the chose to post at WP:COIN, but they posted this there. SmartSE (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Byelf2007 reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: both blocked)
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:

User has been warned and blocked for 3RR before. User has been warned about this recent edit warring episode on his talk page: User_talk:Byelf2007

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Extensive discussion on the Austrian school talk page starting here: Talk:Austrian_School

Comments:

has had a bit of history of edit warring. His quick knee-jerk reverts is causing pandemonium at Austrian school. For example, this revert came in the middle of my last editing session. Suggest a cooldown period and future 1RR restriction for Austrian school. LK (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 48 hours for reported editor, 24 for reporter. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mustihussain reported by User:PassaMethod (Result: protected)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (edit summary: "rv vandalism")
 * 2nd revert: (edit ummary: "rv vandalism")
 * 3rd revert: (edit ummary: "rv vandalism")

On the other page;


 * 1st revert: (edit ummary: "rv vandalism")
 * 2nd revert: (edit ummary: "rv vandalism")
 * 3rd revert: (edit ummary: "rv vandalism")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Musti has a habit of adding the term anti-muslim to the lead sentence or infobox of anyone critical of islam, whilst using questionable soures. Pass a Method  talk  18:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * roflmao!! you're the one who started removing the term which is adequately backed by reliable sources, and it wasn't i who added that term in the first place. how dense are you? user passa is also edit warring on another page . he is doing exactly what another editor, User:Filippusson, was doing just a week ago. that ended with a ban of User:Filippusson . i suggest to ban user passa as he is continuing the edit war of user User:Filippusson.--  mustihussain   18:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point worth noting is mh's revert of PM's changes as vandalism, which they clearly aren't, even if you don't agree with them William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Mustihussain doesn't appear to have crossed the 3RR bright line, so this must be a generalized edit-warring report rather than a 4RR report. But surely then the reporter is also to blame? Mustihussain at least has the excuse of restoring material supported by sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply You've been involved in tag-teaming with Musti, so you're not exactly a reliable opinion. Pass a Method   talk  18:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In none of these cases has MH come near to violating 3RR and thus to needing a tag-teaming intervention, so the claim that any two users who disagree with your POV-pushing removal of excellently sourced material are tag-teaming is a rather stupid one. Sometimes, if more than one person reverts you...it's because your edit was bad. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The "excellently sourced material" you keep referring to is nothing but a couple of cherrypicked news reports where (sloppy) journalists have failed to distinguish between anti-Islam(ism) and anti-Muslim. I have also raised the question about whether "anti-Muslim" is a political ideology; the closest article we have on Wikipedia to such a phenomena would be Persecution of Muslims. — Filippusson (t.) 19:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a problem with telling the truth when it conflicts with your ideology? Or did you just not bother to look at the sources already cited? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ludwigjim reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: resolved elsewhere)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 07:12, 16 November 2011
 * 2nd revert: 20:29, 16 November 2011
 * 3rd revert: 20:39, 16 November 2011
 * 4th revert: 20:50, 16 November 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Oft-repeated claim by various groups, frequently discussed on the talk page. Editor continues to revert. Also note similar changes to Central bank article. Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not by me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - user has been blocked by Excirial.  This report can be closed.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:DBSSURFER reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: these two talk page sections

Comments:

This is not a technical 3RR report, but a general edit warring one. User has been notified of edit warring before and has been blocked for such in the past, so this is not something they are unaware of. The user, who self-identifies as a Nepali citizen (and whose edit history reflects a strong pro-Nepali POV), is removing any and all reliable sources from the article that suggest that Siddhartha Gautama may not have been born present-day Nepal. The reason they give is not because it is factually inaccurate, or that the sources are unreliable, but because "Nepal is in the brink of celebrating Visit Lumbini 2012 for Buddhas celebration sake. Thousans of tourists and people from the world will be misled with sudo's information." (as a note, I was not the one to introduce the information into the article) However, this conflict of interest and constant mislabeling of any editor that they disagree with as a "vandal" aside, the persistent edit warring is why this is being brought here. Despite the fact that it is known that there is a disagreement and that their reason for removing the content is not to improve Wikipedia, but to support an outside interest, they continue to edit war, showing no intention of stopping. - SudoGhost 21:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * . Additionally, User:Snowcream warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:92.98.24.125 reported by Funandtrvl (talk) (Result: Already protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:16, 14 November 2011  (edit summary: "rvv- better before. If you have a disagreement here, please discuss it first.")
 * 2) 18:49, 14 November 2011  (edit summary: "rv- the previous revision looks better. You were told this before, and you ignored it. Wiktionary explains the word, TOC on the right makes sense to make the page shorter, etc. Hope this helps.")
 * 3) 19:16, 14 November 2011  (edit summary: "rv- I just *gave* you an explanation that you've requested on the talk page in my previous edit summary. I assume you can read, which means your intent here is disruption, not help the article.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Funandtrvl (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Comments:

Please advise if I should rqst semi-protection for the page. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To the administrators- I was only trying to keep the article's quality. I was also hoping to reach understanding through my edit summaries, obviously I have failed. If I am being in the wrong here, please let me know and I will stop editing it. Thanks. 92.98.24.125 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are indeed in the wrong, for failure to communicate after three separate requests. Please use the talk page: Talk:Itinerant. I also recommend undoing your most recent revert as a show of good faith while you discuss the issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre? Is that from World of Warcraft? 187.33.225.150 (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In an attempt to get some input, and settle this disagreement, I have added comments to the article's talk page today, in addition to comments I left there yesterday. I will be glad to wait a few days, however, based on the article's history of a few revert wars in the article's past, I am not too optimistic that the same battles will not return at the next copy-edit. Any suggestions on how to handle this situation would be appreciated. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the IP doesn't come and discuss the issue within a half day or so, I'd just revert it. I'm normally never for revert warring, but you've done your part, and now s/he must do his. Also, IP: see Magog (Bible) and Gog and Magog (both are in all Abrahamic religions). Guar is just a stupid name I saw the day I created my SN. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well taken, thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it is about this article, but my copy-edits were reverted again yesterday by an IP. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Article is already protected per another 3RR report further down on this page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2011

User:TSWikis1 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:TSWikis1, an SPA who only edits with regard to the subject of the article involved in this dispute, is repeatedly adding content to the article claiming that a once (somewhat) prominent transgender activist, who was interviewed on the Entertainment Tonight TV show, has since become a performer in pornographic videos. No references or sources of any type have been provided for the identification of the interviewee as the porn performer, just links documenting that the interview was broadcast. The performer uses a different name from the interviewee. After I posted a warning on TSwikis1's talk page, a modified text of the unsupported claim was added back to the article by an IP with no edit history, who I infer is TSwikis1; no other editor has made any substantive contribution to the article. Neither TSwikis1 nor the IP account have engaged in talk page discussion. For the record, I believe my removals of the disputed content fall within the BLP exception to 3RR, since there is no reliable sourcing for the identification of the interviewee as the porn performer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your characterization of the dispute may be a bit inaccurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not contesting that she (he?) is a pornographic actress; you're only contesting that she was on ET. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm contesting is that the person who appeared on ET became a porn performer. That's the unsourced claim. "Jacki" appeared on ET, and is a real, identifiable person. "Amy" is a porn performer for whom we have no reliable biographical information. Nothing supports the claim that Jacki changed their name to Amy and went into porn. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User Hullabaloo Wolfawitz has a frivolous delete dispute and is trying to win his argument, which is why s/he keeps hounding my changes and it is coming down to harassment. Porn Actors and Non porn actors all use stage names in their performances.  I have been in contact with the performer and she has granted me permission to use her real name on the article. Otherwise, it would not of been posted at all.  The person that the article is about is identified by non stage name and a photo on the source.  In the actor's biography on her website and youtube secondary source, she notes being Jackie in the video and it is plain to see because the video and the source photo included clearly identify Jackie as Amy Daly.  She also has photos of her on the entertainment tonight set on her website.  This article has been thoroughly researched as I am a huge follower of the transsexual pornography industry.  This user continues to harass this article, removing whole chunks of the persons life prior to the porn industry, which were all sourced as well, but s/he removed it all and did not tell you about that part.  In his/her delete request, there are users asking her/him to stop harassing newer members, which is evidence that this is the sort of thing that he likes to do.  I would like to request that wolfawitz is blocked from further edits to this article as s/he is vandalizing to get the article deleted.  I am going to revert his vandalism and request action be taken to his account due to the repeated reverts of valid content and sources.  I would like to continue to update these transgender performers for better accuracy, as I am a fan of both porn and wikipedia, but this user will make it impossible for me to do if I am being continually harassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSWikis1 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to continue to revert under BLP for the time being, until you can come to consensus (if the other editor is willing to engage in discussion rather than blindly reverting). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm going to ask for further input at WP:BLPN, although it may take me a little while before I can write it up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dr. JTT reported by User:Clovis Sangrail (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Multiple removals of referenced material, no discussion or edit summaries. Other users have requested discussion on talk page

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5th revert
 * 6th revert
 * 7th revert
 * 8th revert
 * 9th revert
 * Anyone home? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * , not by me.  Swarm   X 02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:118.90.92.253 reported by User:Schwede66 (Result: 24h )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The editor is fully aware of the 3RR rule, as this edit shows.  Schwede 66  03:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * - if the user socks under a different IP, by all means request semi-protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for actioning this. I don't know whether this is relevant here, but for what it's worth, another editor has opened a Sockpuppet investigation that involves this IP.  Schwede 66  17:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Antique Rose reported by User:Gazifikator (Result: Block, semi, Antique Rose 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: User:Antique Rose participated in an editwarring without any serious explanations at talk, with ironic and uncivil ( tone. The opposing IP-user was recently blocked, while Rose, who was an aggressive part of editwarring, feels free to continue his aggressive behaviour. Gazifikator (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * - I've notified and asked him to reconsider. I agree it was a poor idea to only block the IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied to Magog on my talk page (User_talk:Edgar181) giving my reasoning for my admin actions. Unfortunately, I've got only a few minutes before I'll be away from the computer at least until tomorrow. So I'm going to apologize and let another admin proceed as he or she sees fit.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I may have been out of order here. Is it considered edit warring, when one reverts apparent vandalism, e.g. removal of cited references? Anyway, it is quite obvious that user 85.141.14.195, now blocked, has been using several IP accounts, e.g. 176.14.208.219 and 176.14.208.162, making exactly or almost exactly the same edits. The user reporting me, Gazifikator, supports the Armenian cause in this particular case, citing the same sources as 85.141.14.195.  I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I must question Gazifikator's neutrality on this topic. Best regards, Antique Rose &mdash;  Drop me a line  20:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not neutral despite I tried and explained my view at talk, but I never participated at this editwarring like Rose done. Gazifikator (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 03:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't edit-warring, it was fighting vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Edgar181 has semiprotected the article and blocked . He has suggested that another admin take over closing this case since he is temporarily away. Using a fluctuating IP to conduct a campaign of reverts certainly violates WP:SOCK, so the sanctions on the IP appear correct. Since this is a dispute related to nationality (Georgian vs. Armenian descent) Magog's ARBAA notices for both the IP and Antique Rose appear logical. User:Antique Rose did break 3RR while reverting the sock-IP, but it is a stretch to want to apply a block to her at this time. The IP's actions (which include removing references supporting the other side) wander into vandal territory. This dispute has been running a long time. At first glance the arguments for an Armenian connection seem remote (e.g. descent from a family who were said to have been Armenian in the 12th century) and editors have put a lot of Russian-language information on the talk page with no translation. Nonetheless the subject's ethnicity is not for admins to decide. I recommend that the RfC at Talk:Tamara Toumanova be finished and be closed by an admin if necessary. If anyone believes that Antique Rose has been socking they should open an SPI. Antique Rose is warned against any further edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:79.170.50.135 reported by Funandtrvl (talk) (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:56, 17 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 461038182 by Funandtrvl (talk) wrong caption")
 * 2) 21:10, 17 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 461146630 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
 * 3) 21:33, 17 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 461174149 by Funandtrvl (talk) revert vandalism")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Funandtrvl (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Second time this week that I keep getting reverted by an IP on the same article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you're just as at fault with edit-warring here, right? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. See my 3RR report at the top of this page, showing that each time, I have requested responses from the IPs, I have described my copy-edits in detail in both my edit summaries and the article's talk page. Also, if you read the Talk:Itinerant, there have been revert wars before by several IPs, with the IPs personally attacking the registered editors. Also, please note that if one does not revert the IPs edit, then what you are suggesting is a Catch-22. The 1st 3RR that I reported this week, I waited several days, and the first IP disappeared, and note, nothing was done essentially. The behavior of these IPs is very disruptive, and I believe, not in good faith, since both IPs have refused to discuss why they keep reverting the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and you know that what you said above is not an excuse for edit-warring, right? It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBR.  WP:DR is there for a reason ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 00:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if one believes that it is not an excuse for edit warring, I'm not sure I understand what you mean that BRD would apply to this case, as the IPs obviously did not wish to discuss. (see IPs talk pages, there are no responses from them.) And how would DR help in this case, when there is no active discussion from the other editors? I am not optimistic that when the article is un-protected next week, that this same cycle would not start again, and I would appreciate some input on what to do. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Request page protection is a first place - prevents you from breaking 3RR yourself. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * by BWilkins. Also, I've restored the pre-dispute version. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:58.109.81.229 reported by Sparthorse (talk) (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 00:21, 17 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "My source is ive been watching football for 51 years you seem to have incorrect in formation yesterday argentina defeated bosnia on may 14 now it's may 15 if you refuse to change the 6-2 please enjoy having false information")
 * 2) 00:24, 17 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=60094/profile/index.html please visit this uefa official website specifically list's portugal 6-2 as bosnia's biggest defeat")
 * 3) 02:16, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=60094/profile/index.html OFFICIAL UEFA WEBSITE SPECIFICALLY STATES BOSNIA'S BIGGEST DEFEAT AS 6-2 DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS IS SOLID PROOF THE FACTS ARE RIGHT HERE PLEASE GET YOU FACT'S STRAIGHT")
 * 4) 10:44, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "thank you for helping post falsified information on wikipedia and ingnoring truthful facts even when they are in your face  (http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=60094/profile/index.html  because no one dare be right expect for you")
 * 5) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "the link on the right hand side specifically states 6-2 as bosnia's biggest ever defeat in all competitions  you have to be blind to not see and something you may not no the argentina bosnia  match was a friendly Uefa organizes all friendlys between")
 * 6) 11:32, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "International friendlys  between nations the link list all competitions and you may not know that fifa does not sanction friendlys Uefa does especially being that bosnia and european nation was involved uefa definatly sanctioned this event")
 * 7) 11:37, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "And the estonia win was retracted because of those cheating alligations estonia is also a european nation it's also falls under Uefa")
 * 8) 11:49, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Sorry i miswrote what i meant to say is aa match with a uefa nation and any nation from any arena concaf oceania etc is always organized buy uefa and not fifa just like the argentina game had it been bosnia biggest defeat uefa would of listed it as")
 * 9) 12:39, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "The defination of defeat according to fifa is how many  is how many goals you conceded the number of goals you scored is irrelevant and goal diffrence 6-2   4 goal to 5-0diffrence makes no sense at all  bosnia conceded more then 5 goals therefor 6-2")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Sparthorse (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a violation here (consecutive edits to an article do not count separately). And the only edit since the warning was a formatting change . Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Knispel reported by User:Binksternet (Result: already semiprotected)
Page:

Users being reported: Previous version reverted to:
 * (probably Knispel logged out)
 * (probably Knispel logged out)
 * (probably Knispel logged out)
 * (probably Knispel logged out)
 * 1st revert: 17:51, November 15, 2011
 * 2nd revert: 18:10, November 15, 2011
 * 3rd revert: 12:54, November 16, 2011
 * 4th revert: 13:14, November 18, 2011
 * 5th revert: 18:31, November 18, 2011
 * 6th revert: 06:57, November 19, 2011
 * 7th revert: 07:14, November 19, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Erich_von_Manstein

Comments:


 * I've warned the user. Let's see how the editor reacts. I'm not closing this report yet. Wifione  Message 09:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Knispel said on the article talk page that he "will be relentless in deleting the stuff", referring to what I see as well-cited text added by User:A.S. Brown. It looks like Knispel made a statement of intent to edit war. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: N/A -- Abortion 1RR
 * 4th revert: N/A -- Abortion 1RR

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

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

Comments:

High edit account user very active in Abortion area. Knows the drill. Long block log. Clear edit warring in violation of Abortion 1RR. Their previous block was for 3 months, reduced to 1 month.– Lionel (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He is edit warring against two other editors (myself included).– Lionel (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who put the 1RR notice on the article's talk page, so of course I am aware of restrictions. The above diffs do not show a violation of 1RR as they are 24:01 apart rather than within 24 hours. I have been involved in improving the article with more scholarly opinions and I have been actively working toward consensus on the talk page. Right before making the second edit shown above, I submitted this detailed argument on the talk page. I am not revert warring, I am working toward improving the article and gaining consensus. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 minute past the cutoff is gaming the system. A person whose last block was for 3 months in duration and who just came off a 6 month 1RR restriction should do more talking and less edit warring. – Lionel (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were truly "working toward consensus" you would've waited for someone, anyone to respond to your "detailed argument" before imposing your will and POV on the article. This "detailed argument" is nothing more than a cover to hide behind to avoid a block for 1RR. – Lionel (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One post on the talk page without any input from anyone else, and then proceeding to revert against 2 other editors is not consensus. It is the out of control behavior of a POV edit warrior.– Lionel (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * With all the past friction between you and me, Lionelt, you are perhaps not the most neutral observer here. You would celebrate me being blocked, I'm sure. The article Maafa 21 is a tiny blip of a thing, orphaned and terribly faulty. I'm helping improve it, as you can see. Maybe you can help, too. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing a big problem here. Not a 1RR violation, and talk page discussion of the disagreement is ongoing. If he wasn't discussing it, I'd say block him, but with discussion no. Calling 2 reverts in >24 hours "out of control behavior of a POV edit warrior" is just a wee bit hyperbolic.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Falcon don't be taken in. I'm sorry: 1 minute past 24 hrs is gaming the system and qualifies as 1RR. The so-called "discussion" is token at best. – Lionel (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would be inclined to agree. However, combined with discussion and the hyperbole here, I don't think he should be blocked for it. "Token" discussion or not, discussion is occuring.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 01:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) "not the most neutral observer"? How neutral were you when you reported Knispel in the above thread? How many neutral editors make reports here? 1 percent? Give me a break. This is about you reverting an editor, making a token post at talk, and immediately going back to the article and reverting a second editor. How can anyone possibly improve the article with your disruption? Stop edit warring. Stop disrupting. Than we'll see improvement. Your POV is not the right POV.– Lionel (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is this user's sixth block in a year and a half, and they clearly have a long history of edit warring (apparently with their most recent 1RR restriction expiring in July). They are familiar with the article's sanctions, and presumably what 1RR entails, having agreed to self-imposed 1RR restrictions multiple times in the past. What's arguably worst of all, though, is the blatant WP:GAMING to avoid 1RR by waiting one minute past the 24-hour time slot, which they've actually tried to defend (in addition to snidely acknowledging it here). WP:3RR clearly states that any appearance of gaming the system like that is likely to be treated as a violation. I'm taking into account that their last block was nearly a year ago (which I'll assume is a result of good behavior overall rather than successfully gaming the system), but future edit warring and/or gaming will probably result in longer blocks again.  Swarm   X 01:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:187.56.44.155 reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, and as this near identical IP less than 24 hr ago User talk:187.56.45.152

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

Comments:

IP has edit warred with at least 2 IPs in the l;ast 24 hrs to insert uncited information into several articles, with numerous warnings to stop thieir disruptive behavior. He  iro 07:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Now continuing the same edits as this IP 187.101.19.219. Maybe a range block would be more effect than block, as this user seems to IP hop alot. He  iro 07:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think blocking will have much use. I requested semi-protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I also started this Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents after they once again changed IPs, but no action as of yet.  He  iro 09:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:86.24.46.135 & others reported by User:Ozob (Result: 1 week/semi)
Page:

User being reported: This is an IP user who has used several IPs, primarily the first one:

Version before the current dispute:

The user is continuing an edit war he was already blocked once for. See for the first seven reverts.
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The original discussion occurred at the mathematics WikiProject. See. But there hasn't been any discussion since the first block. All "discussion" has taken place in edit summaries.

Comments:

He responded to my edit war notice with the following:. To be completely honest, I should include the diffs of my own contributions to this war:
 * From before this user's first block:
 * Since then:

Ozob (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian.thomson reported by Wheres Dan (Result: No vio )
Tribe of Dan

Ian.thomson

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


 * 1st revert: [|1st revert]
 * 2nd revert: [|2nd revert]
 * 3rd revert: [|3rd revert]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tribe of Dan additions Talk:Tribe of Dan reliable sources

Comments:

The editor in question |has professed a devout religion historically at odds with this tribe and its history, indicating a bias in the edits. A neutral editor is needed to approve the edits attempting to be made.

Wheres Dan (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, you would be far better off actually amending your own editing, understanding reliable sources, and apparently responding at WP:ANI - this also looks like a tit-for-tat filing, which never goes well ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted no more than you have, I have yet to violate 3rr, and you are using unreliable sources, spreading outdated fringe material, failing to assume good faith, and have made various personal attacks (which lead to your last block). Since when are Baptists historically at odds with the tribe of Dan?  The Baptist church is only a few centuries old, and the Tribe of Dan has been lost for how many thousand years?  What's more, most Christians (except Marcion) historically saw the Israelites as their forebearers.  I'm no longer going to be nice about it: Wheres Dan, you are completely useless to this site and should be blocked.  Multiple editors over at WP:ANI agree, and think you should be banned or are close to another ban.  The main thing we're waiting on is an uninvolved editor, who you thankfully will be attracting with this report.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)