Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173

User:Wheres Dan reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * (4th indirect revert by recopying in the material)
 * 5th revert, 4th undeniable

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Pretty the bottom half of Talk:Tribe of Dan, especially Talk:Tribe of Dan.

Comments:

User has a history of using bad sources and has had this explained in various ways in various talk pages and edit summaries. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Already blocked for 7d. Black Kite (t)   19:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:JaMikePA reported by User:CRRaysHead90 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1) 18:31, 18 November 2011  (edit summary: "blogs are not reliable sources per WP")
 * 2) 18:41, 18 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* Baseball Hall of Famers */")
 * 3) 02:06, 19 November 2011  (edit summary: "fixing colors to accurate use. WP makes no exception about types of blogs; blogs are not reliable sources, period.")
 * 4) 16:37, 19 November 2011  (edit summary: "Try learning WP's rules before editing:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources")
 * 5) 19:53, 20 November 2011  (edit summary: "What we have here is a failure to follow the rules. WP has "no blog" policy in most cases.")

I don't think I'm putting this at the right place, AN confuses me. Anyway, JaMikePA, refuses to build consensus and would rather revert repeatedly. Recently, the Miami Marlins and and Toronto Blue Jays had a makeover of their logos and uniforms. As such the article for the two was updated. I updated the the colors using a graphic design industry trusted blog. Determined he was right he's revert me at least 20 times of the past 6 days saying blogs cannot be reliable sources and citing this failed proposal. As the blog is reliable, I and other have reverted him every time and asked him a couple times to stop and if disputes the reliability to start a discussion on the talk page. He hasn't, instead he's continued to revert and redo the colors. And just today he warned me on my talk page using that same failed proposal. I would like someone to either tell him to stop or block him for disruptive edit warring. Thanks.

I have issued sever informal warnings and requests via edit summary.

I've tried to get him to talk it out, but he refuses and continues to revert without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRRaysHead90 (talk • contribs)

Comments:

CCRays is just as guilty for undoing my edits, especially when his don't conform to WP's general prohibition of blogs as sources. He uses his own interpretation of the policy to edit-war. Yet, the blog in question is not associated with Major League Baseball.JaMikePA (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I replaced the list of diffs provided by the submitter with the complete set as generated by the 3RR helper tool, including the edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that the blog needs to be associated with MLB to be reliable to cite. Reputation should suffice. And please get my name right, it's "CRRays" not "CCRays".  CRRays Head90  | We Believe! 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's possible, I'd just like to withdraw this report and just move on.  CRRays Head90  | We Believe! 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am declining this report. Both pages have been fully protected, and blocking would only be punitive - the sooner consensus is established, the better. Blocking will only delay it. WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:AgentPolkaDot reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (created new page, cannot be a diff)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am uninvolved in this edit war. BLP needs to be considered here, but there are civility problems. Worthy of note is that all of these reverts occured within the same 40 minutes.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, BLP can be a factor in this, but since reliable sources have already named the officer believed to be involved, I don't think that can apply here. Also, incivility and 5 reverts in an hour is pretty much always going to end up one way. Blocked for 31h.  Black Kite (t)   23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. See ANI thread.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Worstcook reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: -20:27, 18 November 2011
 * 2nd revert: - 20:42, 18 November 2011
 * 3rd revert: - 15:28, 19 November 2011
 * 4th revert: - 19 November 2011


 * In addition, an apparent IP sockpuppet: 06:23, 19 November 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Note: The discussion above is my attempt to build the narrative portion of the article, and is not related to the 3RR case at all; the discussion took place several days before the dispute above.  I stepped away from the article for a few days to take a breather, and to give Worstcook and her friends the opportunity to (hopefully) write the narrative I recommended.  Instead, I came back to find a series of inflammatory and selective reverts of content that is easily sourced to the episode, as is done with numerous elimination-style reality show articles all over Wikipedia.  Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

The editor has a history of edit-warring, and rather than engage in substantive discussion on the article talk page, he gives minimal and defensive responses. Multiple editors have reverted him and have tried discussion. His latest volley of reverts have occurred with no discussion by him, despite requests in edit summaries for him to discuss his edits.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While I have had my issues with Worstcook, who I believe treats Wikipedia as a fan page, and a pace to keep elimination tables, rather than being a serious editor, I have real issues with the selective nature of this 3RR claim. Yes, it's clear Worstcook violated 3RR on this article; with that I have no dispute.  However, there are two problems that are being overlooked, I believe.  Worstcook has consistently IP edited with one IP:  205.209.83.211, geolocated in Rockland, ME.  Here, she is being accused of editing with another one, 155.47.192.82, which geolocates to Wheaton College in Massachusetts.  While I suppose it's possible it's the same person, I have my doubts, and the evidence backs me up.  Worstcook has been completely consistent about the use of an IP in the past, the original IP has been silent since the sockpuppet case against Worstcook, and most importantly, the new IP editor's edit history and Worstcook's are extensive, show concurrent editing and are far more different than alike, and that's apparently solely on cursory examination.  Moreover, Worstcook demonstrates very poor command of basic English spelling and grammar, inconsistent with someone who would be attending a small selective religious college like Wheaton.  I don't think there's any substantiation to believe Worstcook is socking using IP 155.47.192.82.  Having been once been falsely accused of IP editing from Oklahoma while I was on the west coast by an admin who took no time to conduct even the most rudimentary investigation, I'm sensitive to the ease with which such accusations may be made and accepted.


 * Even more troubling is the selective nature of this accusation. Again, I recognize Worstcook's offense, but it takes two to edit war, and Worstcook didn't start this one.  User:Sparthorse made five reverts between 04:11 and 23:45 on November 18.  His was the original revert, and he exchanged most of the reverts cited above with Worstcook, before Tenebrae stepped in.   Yet, I see no 3RR complaint against him, and no good reason why he was not reported for 3RR when Worstcook was.  There isn't even a 3RR warning on his talk page.  It defies understanding why only Worstcook was cited, not both editors.  I believe this case demands some careful scrutiny.  Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Worstcook did technically violate WP:3RR and that's the main reason for this noticeboard to exist. I've semiprotected the article to shut down any possible socking, and invited Worstcook to respond here. Worstcook does seem to be editing like a single-minded fan, and it is understandable that this might set off the instincts of regular editors to feel as though abuse was occurring. You are correct that Sparthorse has made four reverts also, and his actions should be considered by the closer. I will notify Sparthorse that his edits are being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to EdJohnston for notifying me about the discussion. Yes, I did violate WP:3RR (making four reverts on the article), so I will accept any sanctions arising from this. 3RR is an important policy and I violated it. I will note that my intention was to remove unsourced material from the article, but accept without qualification that I should not have continued to revert the article to that state. Sparthorse (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No question that Worstcook violated 3RR, which I acknowledge twice above. But in all fairness, so did Sparthorse, who I applaud for recognizing as much and taking his/her lumps, should there be any.  My big concern was that this report was one-sided with no apparent reason why, and as such, unfair, which I felt should be pointed out.  I do believe Worstcook is a long-term problem editor who loves, loves, loves those elimination tables, but with rare exceptions, doesn't give a hoot about the rules, procedures or the best interests of the articles in which the tables appear, and demonstrates a complete lack of willingness to abide by policy, improve her editing or do anything but keep up those tables.  But in this case, as goes Worstcook, so goes Sparthorse, and the end result should reflect that.  Drmargi (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I, too, admire Sparthorse's forthrightness, and perhaps I should have included both. However, it had seemed to me he was trying to revert a habitual edit-warrior who was not responding to requests for substantive discussion and for proper documentation, and stubbornly insisting on reinserting an uncited table.


 * Of course elimination tables are an important, perhaps even critically necessary, part of competition reality-show articles. The issue isn't tables per se &mdash; it's having tables that are supported by the primary-source plot descriptions. That is what Worstcook refused to provide, and all that Sparthouse was asking for. And reverts for blatant vandalism or, in the case, blatant policy violation can be exceptions to 3RR.


 * I respect Drmargi, a responsible and meticulous editor, and clearly one with great empathy and caring for other editors. I do understand why he she might feel this, but I don't believe it's unfair to look at the larger nature and the habitual behavior of problematic editors. Worstcook could have brought a 3RR case against Sparthorse herself; no one was preventing her from doing so. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tenabrae, thank you for the clarification. Absent what you've just told me, this appeared to be quite arbitrary.  With an explanation, your choice makes far more sense.  However, while I agree that vandalism allows us to revert without being accountable for 3RR, I don't believe blatant policy violations do as well; Wikipedia has other remedies in those instances.  Rather, while I do agree, and have said in very emphatic terms, that the article needs a fully developed narrative describing the show and the judging procedures, I don't think using the assertion that the content is unsourced is the way to get that accomplished, particularly given, as I said on the talk page, that there is too well established a precedent for sourcing with the episodes to not have it apply in this case.  All that did was inflame the situation, and create an edit war that didn't need to have happened.  Instead, we need to think in terms of all or nothing: either the article is brought up to standard, or it's recommended for deletion.  Reverting it to a stub will accomplish nothing, just galvanize Worstcook and other IP editors who see the inconsistency from one article to another.  (Oh, and for the sake of the permanent record, I'm a she-type, not a he-type.) Drmargi (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 31 hours to Worstcook for long-term edit warring. Worstcook's refusal to discuss is noted. Drmargi's large revert while the 3RR report was open is also noted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:76.118.227.161 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Blue Army (Poland)

Comments:

Fifth revert: .Faustian (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned about this editor. HAving made a large number of edits to the article Polish Armed Forces, adding about 8kb of new and referenced text, this editor arrived out of the blue, claimed he had earlier edited the page, and reverted to an earlier version which halved the coverage on the page. His complaints can be see at Talk:Polish Armed Forces, but the only one he's insisted on changing is removing a Communist-era Polish army picture and substituting a whole bunch of pictures previous and since 1990. Looking at the page history of Blue Army, I've reverted him here as he seemed to remove any mention of the atrocities the Blue Army committed. From the evidence I have seen, I am worried that this editor is determined to present only one, positive, view of the history of the Polish military, omitting mention of any periods that might seem less honourable. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * He's switched IPs: .Faustian (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Page semiprotected three days by T. Canens. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:27.122.16.74 reported by User:Geo Swan (Result: 2 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: prior to repeated blanking


 * 1st revert: 14:33, 2011 November 18
 * 2nd revert: 02:00, 2011 November 20
 * 3rd revert: 08:20, 2011 November 20
 * 4th revert: 08:48, 2011 November 20

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

This is not an instance of the official 3RR warning. I have used that tag so infrequently I couldn't recall it, so I voiced my concern without using the template, but I think I did an OK job, without the template.

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

I haven't tried to further address the IP's article blankings, as, after they made two more page blankings, another contributor addressed the blankings quite competently.

Comments:

User:Iqinn was placed under a permanent block on 2011-08-24. The style of User:27.122.16.74's reply to my warning is remarkably similar to the typical response User:Iqinn would offer to good faith expressions of concern. Specifically, Iqinn, rather than offer a meaningful response, would turn the expression of concern on its head -- without regard to whether it made any sense at all to do so.

Here are some instances, ,

I am concerned that this may not be a coincidence, and that 27.122.16.74 is User:Iqinn trying to evade their block.

It seems to me that the style of the comments 27.122.16.74 left on Talk:Guantanamo Review Task Force are also typical of Iqinn's style:
 * 1)  -- an immediate accusation another contributor is "disruptive" merely for voicing concerns over 27's edits;
 * 2)  -- evasive;
 * 3)  -- evasive;
 * 4)  -- repetitious and evasive;

I think there is a three month window for using the underlying IP address to determine if an IP contribution comes from a contributor who has gone inactive, or who has been blocked. If this is correct there are only a few days during which sockpuppetry can be determined. Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are the diffs for recent edits made by the IP 27.122.16.74 at Guantanamo Review Task Force as generated by the 3RR helper tool, including edit summaries:


 * 1) 19:33, 18 November 2011  (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect because the sources have been misinterpreted and mischaracterized, just have a look at the Washington post article")
 * 2) 07:00, 20 November 2011  (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect because the sources have been misinterpreted and mischaracterized, just have a look at the Washington post article")
 * 3) 13:20, 20 November 2011  (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect ~ misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources  []")
 * 4) 13:48, 20 November 2011  (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect ~ misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources [User_talk:Geo_Swan#misinterpretation_and_mischaracterization_of_sources] please do reply there")
 * 5) 13:56, 20 November 2011  (edit summary: "misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources   please do reply here [User_talk:Geo_Swan#misinterpretation_and_mischaracterization_of_sources] please do discuss instead of reverting")
 * All the times in my list are given in UTC. The fifth edit by the IP, the one at 13:56 UTC, is new since this report was filed by Geo Swan. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a proxy for 2 months, not by me.  Swarm   X 22:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Aprock (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Below is a list of four sets of edits over the span of four hours where Lhb1239 reverts content just added by three different editors.


 * 0th revert: 01:23, 19 November 2011 4 edits, "returning...", "rewording...", "returning...", "return..."
 * 1st revert: 01:42, 19 November 2011 "Reverted good faith edits by Television fan (talk)..."
 * 2nd revert: 03:56, 19 November 2011 "Reverted 1 edit by 99.19.56.28 (talk)..."
 * 3rd revert: 05:36, 19 November 2011 "Reverted good faith edits by Gujuguy (talk)..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:16, 19 November 2011

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

Comments:

I am an entirely uninvolved editor here, and wouldn't normally bring such a report, especially since it's a couple day old. But this user was blocked less than a week ago for edit warring in the same topic area, so it's clear that the 48 hour block was not effective in managing the disruptive behavior.

aprock (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The list of diffs above is a successive grouping of edits that was marked mainly by a group of us trying to pare down a TV show episode summary to an allowable number of words. At least one of the edits was a reversion due to a copy vio from an IP editor who has been persistent in adding verbatim episode summaries plagiarized from online sources. There was an editor edit warring at the above article, but it wasn't me and I asked the other editor to please stop edit warring on their talk page. Frankly, I am stunned by this report. I don't think I've ever even heard of the editor making this report until earlier tonight when I reverted his additions to the following article because it was too close to the original wording in the source given and a WP:COPYVIO. (See this diff) This report, in my opinion, is retaliation for reverting his edit. For what it's worth, I think the number of days having passed between above listed edits occurring and this filing is a bit of a clue to the witch-hunt nature behind this report. Lhb1239 (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, your poorly thought out revert prompted my looking into your editing behavior. As noted above, I'm generally disinclined to make these sort of reports.  Had it not been for the fact that you were continuing to serially revert other users in the face of a warning less than a week after your previous block in the same topic area, I would not have made the report.  Instead of thinking of this as a witch hunt, think of it as an attempt to reign in your disruptive behavior. aprock (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Edits were nearly three days ago.  Swarm   X 21:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Yworo reported by User:Sheodred (Result: No violation )
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_O'Toole

Comments:

He has been continously been warned on his talk page and article pages for his editing and personal attacks, but he continues with the behaviour and editing without consequence, and deleted the discussions from his talk pages he even tried to delete the discussion on the CS Lewis talk pages. Editors are becoming convinced that it is blatant POV pushing. Sheodred (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC) -->

WP:BOOMERANG, anyone? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These edits aren't even on the same page ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wwwaa1234 reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ;

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is possibly a sock or is using an unannounced alternate account. Has so far only edited the Wood article and seems to know a lot about undue weight for only being here for a few days. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Lhb1239(Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Juli Inkster


 * 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:


 * Comment: All of the above edit warring was done during and after the same editor had placed the following personal attacks on the talk page of editor he had the dispute with:


 * Diff 1:
 * Diff 2:

He has also been reported to the Wikikette board here.


 * Two editors, crunch and the above one, keep editing out the following

LPGA Tour playoff record (6-4)

That wasn't in the player's article Until the last day and for the citations, they aren't done in win boxes. Crunch knows that, why isn't a citation added here when he edited a win box here when that box was just added today? That edit he did was done before the Inkster reverts. I'm being consistent, putting in legit material, and people are reverting without looking at what they're doing and or at the same time conveniently forgetting their own edit histories.- William 02:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor making the case against me really is so wrong and he keeps making incorrect statements which I challenged on his talk page. Look at his first listing of me violating 3RR


 * 1st revert:

Carefully study that edit. Do you see I put in new information aka a playoff results chart that's seen in golfer articles from Tiger Woods down to Marty Fleckman. I can list 30 edits similar to this one where I put in playoff boxes for golfers. I'll list every single one of them, including this one[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beth_Daniel&oldid=461638402} where Crunch wrongly reverted my work. Ask editor Tewapack, who have had run-ins with, if what Crunch did was right or wrong? His answer seems apparent, he made structural fixes to my edit but left it up.

When editors accuse me of 3rr for violations after a warning and falsely accuse me of a reversion that never happened., I get a very strong opinion of people arranging a kangaroo court. Especially when you consider this editor's own actions of deleting the playoff box himself and then accusing me of 3rr on his talk page after I was warned. That didn't happen, check my history.

He called me a fool for correcting mistakes. I called him an imbecile for repeatedly not looking at what he is doing and repeating the same mistakes. One time is a accident, 4 times(3 of which happened in a very short time span) is a clear pattern.- William 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — 31 hours. Editor has reverted four times in 24 hours. (The edit history shows him removing 5810 bytes from the article four times since November 20). He was asked to promise to stop warring and apologize for personal attacks, on his talk page. Neither occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

User:96.32.129.220 reported by User:Ute in DC (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
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:


 * . IP blocked by JamesBWatson for "Disruptive editing: over a prolonged period". Minima  ©  ( talk ) 09:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Emerson 07 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31h)
Page: and

User being reported:

Slow but persistent edit-warring on several articles, just below 3RR:

On History of the French line of succession
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=461101125&oldid=460955019 18 Nov] (rv to 17 Nov)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=461379566&oldid=461323780 19 Nov] (partial rv; removal of material previously re-added by )
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=461752918&oldid=461711914 21 Nov, 11:46]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=461845016&oldid=461819858 21 Nov, 22:57]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=461859953&oldid=461851654 22 Nov, 00:49]

On Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=458819521&oldid=457866451 3 Nov]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=459601741&oldid=458928383 8 Nov]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=459745319&oldid=459727500 9 Nov]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=459803647&oldid=459768625 9 Nov]
 * ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=461052417&oldid=460924450 17 Nov]; possible sock IP, see SPI case)
 * ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=461095742&oldid=461078723 17 Nov]; possible throwaway sock account, see SPI)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=461193810&oldid=461146834 17 Nov]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=461289953&oldid=461248552 18 Nov]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=461849106&oldid=461845710 21 Nov, 23:26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emerson_07&diff=461861379&oldid=461196476]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=461819912&oldid=461770119]

Comments:

is a single-purpose agenda account who has been persistently pushing for a fringe-within-the-fringe political position on French royalism. He persistently misuses talk pages for arguing the "TRUTH" of his agenda ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legitimists&diff=prev&oldid=455233130], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=prev&oldid=461114961], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=prev&oldid=461280512], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=prev&oldid=461376962] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_French_line_of_succession&diff=prev&oldid=461858406]), uses disruptive WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS tactics to push his views ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=prev&oldid=461195409], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=prev&oldid=461231125], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Line_of_succession_to_the_French_throne_(Legitimist)&diff=prev&oldid=461233241]), and has upheld a slow but persistent revert-war over several related articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Also, clearly edited while logged out after being warned of edit warring on the main account. -- slakr \ talk / 05:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Blusts reported by User:Jhortman (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: orig revision by Jhortman


 * Original edit/addition of machine-translated material: diff
 * 1st revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None (see comments)

Comments:

This user currently only has 1 revert on this round, but has a long history of edit warring on Glücksgas Stadium and Talk:Glücksgas Stadium. he adds the same machine-translated, unsourced content over and over, then engages in a revert war without any discussion when his edits are changed in any way. He also randomly deletes items on the Talk page. He has been blocked multiple times for this behavior in the past, so I am reporting it again in the hopes of nipping this in the bud.
 * You are dealing with a sock of User:Fox53, aka Kay Körner, who keeps reappearing uner differnt user accounts from time to time, gets blocked and reappears again after a break. He tends to edit the same group of pages, associated with East Germany, especially the SV Dynamo. Most of the times nowadays he behaves himself, compare to the old times at least. If he gets blocked on this account he will just come back on another. Calistemon (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * if this is a sock, it should be reported at WP:SSI or WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Indef blocked by another admin per Sockpuppet investigations/Fox53. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 25 November, 2011

User:Dominus Vobisdu reported by User:Robertcurrey (Result: Self ban for a week accepted)
Page: User being reported:


 * 1st revert: - 03:17, 22 November, 2011


 * 2nd revert: - 15:16, 22 November 2011


 * 3rd revert: - 17:37, 22 November 2011


 * 4th revert: - 18:17 22 November 2011

Comments:

The editor has a history of blanking astrology-related content, proposing that the subject has no authorities and arguing that “Deletion is the best option when it is reasonable to expect that adequate sourcing will never be found”. 

Other editors have responded that the sources used are not problematic in reporting what astrologers or those who write about the subject believe. 

He refuses to allow attempts to improve content in the section on the mythology on Scorpio (astrology), and is constantly reverting information that is well known, widely reported and reliably sourced. His edits leave the page with only a brief inclusion of poor quality content, which is disputed for its accuracy and lacks reliable references.

The editor has been warned that his attitude is antagonistic and has a history of causing offense to other editors working on pages related to astrology, by his insistence that the subject is “complete and utter fraudulent bullshit” and its sources are as worthless as “used-ass-wipe”.

11 Nov 16 Nov 11 Nov 16 Nov

He has been asked to specify what sources he objects to and why, but refuses to do this, while claiming in his edit summaries that other editors should ‘see talk’. Robert Currey  talk  08:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I appear to have lost count. Changes were made to two sections of the article, and I didn't realize the latter also reverts reverted material that I had already reverted in my first reversion. The latter three reverts were made in response to an ip hopper that reverted 5 times with no discussion on talk page. I reverted three times and stopped, thinking that I had reached my limit at that point.


 * FWIW, this is my first time I've been brought to #RRN. I'm very careful about not exceeding 3RR. I offer a voluntary self-ban from the article for the period of a week.


 * As to the charge that I have not discussed this on the talk page, there is a discussion about this section on progress on talk page concerning sourcing and other issues, and a clear consensus that the section would not be added until adequately sourced. I spent a good bit of my own time finding additional sources and posted them in that discussion.


 * As for calling astrology "bullshit", the language was perhaps a bit colorful, but accuarate and does not cross the civility boundary in my opinion. No personal attacks were made. Nevertheless, I stopped using colorful language when I was asked to by the editors involved a week ago. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The sudden appearance of several reverting anons on that page is disturbing. Semi? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. I was going to request one myself but didn't have time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: "I offer a voluntary self-ban from the article for the period of a week." This offer is accepted (since there appears to be an apology as well, and its a first offence). Violations of the self ban should be brought back here. I have semi-protected the article for 3 days only. --BozMo talk 13:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Natty4bumpo reported by User:Weazie (Result: blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: These are a cluster of partial reverts. But demonstrate a pattern to prefer edits/reverts rather than discussing on talk page. --Weazie (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Niel Mokerjee reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

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

A new editor, who created a page for a subject that already has an existing article Bengali Brahmins. Another editor than myself redirected their preferred name, full of unorthodox capitalizations to say the least, and informed them at their talk. The offending editor worked at the actual article for a bit, until it became clear that they couldn't use their alternate spelling in the article. User has yet to acknowledge a talkpage or edit summary message and are edit warring to keep the duplicate article with their preferred naming.  He  iro 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Their alternate spelling seems to be to push this religiously based Facebook page or group, which seems to be the only use of this spelling (besides us now) according to Google.  He  iro 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fatima.new reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: page deleted)
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]

It's not a content dispute. Maybe this is the wrong place to report it? User is edit-warring with the bot over removal of speedy deletion template.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Page deleted and salted as copyvio. No need to block at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:174.99.127.20 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:19, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* Comments by other users */ It is entirely inappropriate to refactor other's comments on any talk page. Please stop.")
 * 2) 22:26, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* Comments by other users */ r")
 * 3) 22:29, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322532 by Yworo (talk)")
 * 4) 22:35, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322918 by Yworo (talk)")

Also broke 3RR on a second page, Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse:
 * 1) 22:31, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322671 by Yworo (talk)")
 * 2) 22:34, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322900 by Yworo (talk)")
 * 3) 22:46, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462324224 by Yworo (talk)")
 * 4) 22:53, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462325398 by Yworo (talk)")
 * 5) 23:02, 24 November 2011 (Undid revision 462326313 by Sjones23 (talk))


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Comment: User repeatedly undoing striking of their personal attacks.


 * Block history, please note that this dynamic IP is a suspected sockpuppet and has been previously blocked for two weeks as (see block logs).

—Yworo (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Admin: I'm not trying to make excuses for myself, but I would ask that you also look at Yworo's reverts on the same page. He imposes his interpretation of "personal attacks" (even though he has made several of them himself today), and claims that he is allowed to repeatedly strike my comments on a talk page. In fact, I won't be surprised if he removes my comments I am making right now. If I'm guilty of edit warring, he is equally guilty. And that's not to mention his history of incivility to IPs and newly registered editors. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Striking of personal attacks is explicitly allowed. You were informed of this but did not read up on it. You're clearly in the wrong here. Yworo (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First, they were not personal attacks. I was simply responding to your own false accusations and personal attacks on me on a page in which I am allowed to defend myself. Secondly, you reverted as much or more than I did. Both of us (and that includes you, Yworo) need to leave things alone and let an admin decide this. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, you reverted four times on two different pages one page and five times on another. I have not reverted four times on any page. Yworo (talk) Yworo (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo, let the admin do the math. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. My math is correct and you can stop ordering me around right now. Enjoy your upcoming month long block. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to stop screwing around with other editors' comments. If the IP is a sock, have him dealt with as such. But don't try to alter his comments. Just add comments of your own demonstrating that he's incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:CentristFiasco reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This user is very excited to rewrite the lede to reflect what he thinks is true about the world. He's not excited to add sources, or to discuss the article in any form but his preferred form. I have reverted him only once - there is no apparent support for his bold edit (well, twice, but I assumed one of his reverts was mistaken)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   01:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:CentristFiasco reported by User:Becritical (Result: ) (merged to heading above, resolved

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:

User:Wwwaa1234 reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ;

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * NOTE: This was never dealt with and was archived. I am bringing this out from the archives so a decision can be made one way or the other.  I don't know if it slipped through the cracks or was intentionally ignored - if I wrong bringing it back out for review, my apologies.  Lhb1239 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User is possibly a sock or is using an unannounced alternate account. Has so far only edited the Wood article and seems to know a lot about undue weight for only being here for a few days. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User has not edited in 3 days; blocks are preventative and not punative. Sockpuppetry problems should be investigated via WP:SPI.   Jayron  32  04:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Webwires reported by User:Hollyckuhno (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Comment: This user acts as if he/she is the only one that could improve the article. Guess what, this user reverted my edits just because for his opinion his version is better. I thought wikipedia is a collaborative program? - Hollyckuhno (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 13:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:36, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 462229191 by Packerfansam: stable versaion - brd. using TW")
 * 2) 19:12, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Jayjg (talk): This weight as regards his jewisn ness or lack of it was discussed over length andf I am in my rights to brd it - the talkpage is whewre youy should make your cas...")
 * 3) 19:32, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Plot Spoiler (talk): Please do no t tag team - the stable version was discussed at lenfghth - BRD is on the talkpage. using TW")
 * 4) 19:49, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Plot Spoiler (talk): Please stop tag teaming - BRD - well discussed content - the talkpage is where you should make your case. using TW")
 * 5) 20:01, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity (talk): No - WP;BRD is ihn action- on the talkpage - stop tag teaming without discussion. using TW")
 * 6) 20:24, 24 November 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Jayjg (talk): Under discussion - on the talk page - yes you. using TW")

Surely this is as clear as it needs to be -- 5 6 separate reverts in the space of four and a half hours. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Time of warning to editor (as prescribed)? Discussions on article talk page concerning the material (which seem quite notable by their absence)? Absent such, and considering that there are BLP issues involved, I fear that the evidence is less than compelling that sanctions are needed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting Rob was unaware that he was edit-warring? I held off when it was only 4 reverts -- but by the time it's 5 6 it's not plausible that his "finger slipped".  Oh, and the "BLP issues" is a canard (look it up) -- not even Rob is claiming it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And now that there is an additional revert after this report was filed, surely the question of a warning is moot. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no "BLP issues involved" here, since the material itself is unchanged, merely re-organized. Please review the actual changes. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * - reply - This is a tag teaming report. This user reporting has made three edits today - one to revert against me - one to make this report and one to tell me about it. Another of the tag teamers - User:Plot spoilers never having any interest or edits at all to Ed Miliband his edit history clearly shows he is a tag team reverter. I have repeatedly, to no avail requested talkpage discussion but none of them have posted a single post - the content that User:Jayjg is desirous of altering was discussed over length and its totally normal to request WP:BRD on the talkpage. With the lack of discussion - I requested full protection on RFPP but it as yet was not actioned. I am the only person that worked to raise the Ed Miliband article to GA status - here is my report at RFPP - full protect request. Here is the Ed Miliband talkpage history, as you will see not a single one of them has posted there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a persistent behavioral pattern; edit-war with several editors and accuse them of "tag-teaming" - the fact that my Talk: page is watched by over 540 editors never seems to occur to him. The most recent time this happened (a week ago - Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172, Off2riorob avoided sanction by reverting himself, but he's refused to do so this time. He's obviously familiar with WP:3RR - he's been reported at AN3RR (or reported others) dozens of times. It's not even the first time he's been reported by this editor; see Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive134, where Off2riorob avoided sanctioned by promising not to edit the article in question for a week, and at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive158. He's also tried to get the current article permanently protected (after reverting again, of course). He has no specific reason for reverting, other than the claim that the WP:BRD essay gives him a "right" to do so. He claims to "have repeatedly, to no avail requested talkpage discussion" but has quite notably refused to initiate such a discussion himself, despite being explicitly asked on his User talk: page to do so. He's also reverted under the claim that the matter is "Under discussion - on the talk page", despite there obviously being no such discussion on the Talk: page. He's even using Twinkle to revert. I don't know what will convince him to stop edit-warring. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jay, if someone was to define your behaviour in terms of your ARBCOM sanctions and called it "a persistent behavioural pattern", how would you feel? Yours isn't and neither is Robs.  Clearly he's going through a tough time, how about you lay off?101.118.18.102 (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to change an article, it is for them to explain why, if reverted. Given the lengthy previous discussions on this issue, all involved should be aware of the need for dialogue - this inappropriate tag-teaming seems more harmful to Wikipedia in the long run than a single violation of WP:3RR. Sadly though, some contributors clearly think pushing their agendas more important than Wikipedia content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) 6RR violations, reliance on an essay to claim a "right" to revert uncontroversial copyedits without any rationale whatsoever, and false accusations of "tag-teaming" and "pushing an agenda", are far more "harmful to Wikipedia in the long run" than any corrective action meted out to Off2riorob here. The last issue of the false accusations also applies directly to you, Andy - and please don't use my pointing that out as an excuse to call editors here "idiots" or tell them to go fuck themselves. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming once again how committed you are to pursuing your agenda, and how little concern you have for the actual issues here. Now explain to me where I was wrong to state that the correct response to a reverted edit is talk-page dialogue, initiated by the person wishing to make the change - or are we supposed to respond without knowing why they are proposing the change in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, this is the WP:AN/3RR board. The "actual issues here" are that Off2riorob reverted six times, and the only rationale he gave was "it's my right to do so, per WP:BRD". If you want to discuss other issues, please do so in the relevant forum. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And your links to my past comments (both of which I'm fully prepared to defend, BTW, given the context) were actually relevant, were they? And the point I made about who needs to start a dialogue wasn't? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I recently experienced a tag-team-like attack on my edits from Off2riorob and Collect at Matt Drudge and associated BLPN and ANI kerfuffles. Strangely enough, they seem to be showing mutual support on this page too.  Jabbsworth   23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And you think your post at BLP/N is going to get you points here" To wit:
 * [Gewn Gale? She was blocked many, many times before herself, and was even restricted by ArbCom. To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality. You'll note that she quickly unblocked me too, and I have never contravened BLP again. And this Herman Cain edit hardly violates BLP, from my reading.
 * The only problem is absolutely no one backed your "reading" of WP:BLP at the BLP/N noticeboard. BLPN.  Not just O2RR and I - but also Nomoskedasticity (hardly a tag team with O2RR!), the other person in the present case.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Several editors opined that the material should be boiled down to "a careful, well-sourced sentence" because of weight issues. As usual, you seem to miss the point.  Jabbsworth   00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3RR is a bright line; no exemptions apply here. T. Canens (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mythical Curse reported by User:Edgepedia (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit comments in reverts above

Comments:


 * This editor seems unwilling to discuss this edit. He received two WP:3RR warnings on his talk page, both of which were reverted without comment.  Even after I provided the link to the (extensive) consensus discussion, he continued to revert.  Worryingly, he also chided a newbie for changing series to season on the article List of Top Gear episodes, referring to the edits as vandalism.  This is a young editor who assumes what's done now is what's always been done, hasn't taken the care to do his homework, and appears unwilling to work within the system.  Drmargi (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edgepedia (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the assessment but I think it's wiser for now to protect the page. I also restored the pre-editwar version, so that if the editor is really interested in working with others, they will be forced to do so on the talk page. If they still wish to continue edit-warring afterwards, please re-report them here. Regards  So Why  12:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:TopGun reported by User:The Last Angry Man (Result: No violation)
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:

I set up auto archiving as there are sections on the talk page at least one year old, I have no idea as to why TopGun has edit warred the days for archiving and when asked he says 5 days is not enough time for a discussion to finish? This is the most idiotic thing I have seen since my short time on this godforsaken website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Last Angry Man (talk • contribs)


 * Reply: Please note that the first edit (of setting up archiving) was made by the reporting user and he was reverted on that. Follow the edits given by him to see that he is repeatedly changing back the age of archival instead of using talkpage and rather blames me of editwarring when I was ready to discuss it on the talk. He was repeatedly giving the argument that he wants to archive the other sections while they were still older than 14 days (the age I had set) and would still be archived, and instead told me to add null comments to keep the rfc or any other discussions from archiving thus giving me a WP:DEADLINE. When he finally did 'discuss' on talk, the only thing he did was be uncivil and make personal attacks. Please see Talk:Taliban. In anycase if the decision is against me, i.e. to make it 5 days (even though with him being the reverted user here) I will withdraw from this conflict myself, but I do consider that serious action should be taken on the personal attacks and the uncivil comments made by the user.  The policy WP:BOOMERANG rules here very well. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Standard setup for archiving article talkpages is usually 30 days, except on busy articles. 14 days is sane at this point.  5 days effectively penalizes editors who happen to only edit 1 or 2 days a week.  if you wish to take action on percieved WP:NPA's, start with WP:WQA ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel reported by User:Niteshift36 (Result: )
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: Not a technical violation of 3RR because there is a little more than 24 hours between the first edit and last one because Gamaliel is gaming the timing, but still edit warring. More than one experienced editor has contested the entry and, despite the suggestion to discuss, he has refused doing so. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

When have I refused to discuss? I'm more than willing to discuss. Let's discuss. Where's your discussion? In all your complaints and template spamming, you haven't linked to or participated in any discussion yourself. You haven't even bothered to inform me of this discussion. (There's a template for that, I guess you missed that one.) I have no idea what your objections are to the edits, but I've gotten an earful of your objections about me. So when you are willing to drop that nonsense, we can move on to an actual discussion of the edits. Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you to discuss in the edit summary of the diff I provided above. I also read that this is not the place to continue the dispute. Does that only apply to non-admins? (It's ok, I'm sure the admin corps will have your back) BTW, I did use the template provided on this page. Clearly, you got the clue and found your way here to continue the dispute, so stop your whining. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good grief, would both of you just go to the talkpage? I'm thinking about just blocking you both, as you both easily have enough experience here to know that edit warring (not technically 3RR, but definitely edit warring) and sniping each other in edit summaries are not acceptable. But I'd prefer to just have you discuss this and me not have to use the block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be lying if I said I was surprised that I'd get threatened with a block. Being told I'm experienced enough to know better when it's the admin with 4 reverts does seem a little odd, but again, not unexpected. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do believe I said you were both experienced enough to know better. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You did. I guess I wasn't clear enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So what is the result? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:205.208.160.5 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 48h)
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: (on IP's talk page, article talk page not applicable here)

Comments:

I think this IP should be blocked outright for blatant advertising/trolling. Obviously WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly 3RR except in a very technical sense, but it is disruptive editing in a more general sense . blocked for 48 hours.  DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Move protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girls%27_Domestic_Science_and_Arts_Building&diff=462434809&oldid=462434416


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girls%27_Domestic_Science_and_Arts_Building&diff=462467945&oldid=462467835
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girls%27_Domestic_Science_and_Arts_Building&diff=462493007&oldid=462489125
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girls%27_Domestic_Science_and_Arts_Building&diff=462496098&oldid=462494118
 * 4th revert: none yet

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not needed, obviously

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. It shouldn't be a contested move

Comments:

Yes, I am reporting myself for move-warring, because I refuse to open an RM discussion for something this obvious.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Move protected. 'It shouldn't be a contested move' makes no sense. If somebody moved the article back then it's a contested move. The only hint about the real naming problem is a comment by Yworo at Talk:Girls' Domestic Science and Arts Building.  We look forward to each side explaining the case for their position in an actual move discussion.  It's not a good surprise to see both Sarek and Doncram involved in another edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to discuss, as soon as Doncram decides to open a move discussion instead of move warring.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan has been following my edits, apparently to find fault and to dispute whatever he can. For one recent example, disputing a DYK nomination by claiming, incorrectly, that the article did not meet DYK length standards. In the context, I noted his following my recent creation of the Girls' Domestic Science and Arts Building-Arkansas Tech University at its official name given in its NRHP listing, and his moving it to. I thought at first that it was a kneejerk move on his part, where he was just making up what he thought was a better name, with no justification whatsoever, only seeking to register a small disagreement with me (as in following a stupid vendetta). He has also opened an ANI proceeding and a copyright violation accusation and registered other petty disagreements. I don't welcome his following me and doing this.

I fully understand wikipedia naming policy and am not one to insist that an "official" NRHP name must be used if there is a different, better common name. But the official name is one very valid candidate for name, and it is what I chose to use rather than making something else up. I moved it back to the official name.

That should be enough to register to SarekOfVulcan that the move was disputed. Since then he claimed in one edit summary that the name he preferred, "Domestic Science and Arts Building" is supported by two references he had added to the article. His claim is false, the reference to this PDF does NOT support that exact name. The other reference is not online or he did not provide a link to it in the article. (If it is available online why the hell not provide a URL in the article.) In the context of SarekOfVulcan following a campaign seeking to find fault with anything, and his apparent misreading on the one PDF reference, I don't tend to believe he is making an objective evaluation of the other reference, either. This is not the forum to discuss the proper name. At any rate, the move is disputed, and the default name for the article should be the original, official name. The proper forum, rather than edit warring or opening a 3RR or other ANI proceeding, is to open a Requested Move, which I suggested (in edit summaries and note to SarekOfVulcan's Talk page) to SarekOfVulcan that he do. Instead he re-moves the article and opens this bizarre 3RR proceeding, in which he accurately documents that he is in violation of the 3RR bright line rule.

I don't think that SarekOfVulcan actually cares about the name of this article. I don't really either. Why on earth should anyone. What is SarekOfVulcan trying to accomplish? Is it to claim that he has succeeded in finding some point where I am wrong and a different judgement is possible? I consider this all to be a disruption of wikipedia, a wp:POINTY, bad faith campaign. Or the point to engage in an edit war and obtain differential impacts upon my editing and his editing. SarekOfVulcan has seemingly shown in previous edit warring campaigns that he is willing to take a dive for wikipedia, or something stupid like that, by getting himself blocked at the same time as getting me blocked for longer. In the other previous cases he has acted similarly, refusing to seriously discuss at a Talk page or to use available AFD or RM procedures to provide a proper discussion.

Here, I request that an administrator move the article back to the original name, and leave it open for SarekOfVulcan to open the RM for a proper, civil discussion. Edit warring and ANI proceedings are not civil. And, it is bizarre if administrators wish to reward SarekOfVulcan for his edit warring by freezing the article at the target he chose. It simply is a contested move he seeks to make, and he should not be rewarded for pursuing edit warring to obtain it. -- do ncr  am  16:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, Doncram makes accusations of bad faith editing instead of acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, there might be something wrong with his editing. Anybody noticing a trend here? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And speaking of trends, note Doncram above asking admins to move the article to his preferred title, instead of using the RM process he insisted I had to use, as he did at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Howabout90 reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User has ignored warnings and has been displaying similar tendencies to ignore requests for discussion on other articles.


 * The reason I'm leaving the other warring editor Unreal7 right now is that many of the edits weren't actually reverts but updations or additions. But will leave a note. Wifione  Message 19:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Picaballo reported by User:Trasamundo (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The User:Picaballo is trying to impose a map that does not adjust to the content the article: without contributing with an alone source, he assimilates Napoleonic empire with the colonial empire, when the article does not mention anything about the matter. He includes an invented map, in which, without any reliable source, the borders of the first Napoleonic empire spreads around the whole Europe. This situation has motivated periodic protests such map, that User Picaballo has reverted without any explanation  and without writing an alone line in the talk page  defending the accuracy of his map. Again he is trying to impose the map made by himself. Trasamundo (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 19:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexandre8 reported by Xijky (Result: 24h to submitter)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:01, 25 November 2011  (edit summary: "reverting POV and unsourced content in intro by xijky.")
 * 2) 00:48, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462480357 by Xijky (talk) reverting unsourced claims")
 * 3) 01:04, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* Policies */  This is not a policy. Revert.")
 * 4) 02:42, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "final revert. unsourced")
 * 5) 11:25, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462553732 by Xijky (talk)")
 * 6) 11:34, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462554247 by Xijky (talk)")

Unwilling to constructively discuss on talk, where there was consensus for some of the edits being performed and no consensus against others.—Xijky (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Submitter blocked 24 hours. My attempt to negotiate at User talk:Xijky was unsuccessful. Both parties have exceeded three reverts in 24 hours, but some of Alexandre8's changes fall under the BLP exception to WP:3RR. For example, this one. The rapid-fire addition of negative material by Xijky without waiting for discussion to finish causes concern, and suggests he may have difficulty editing neutrally on this topic. He continued to revert the article while the 3RR report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi ed Johnston, what is your suggestion on the offending material that he put jsut before his block? Should I revert it, but like I've said on my initial filing here, I am unhappy reverting content repeatedly as it just fuels the edit war. Should I revert it once more or let an external admin do it? Thanks. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also this is a new user and seems have a lot of experience editing. I don't want to jump to sock conclusions, but it would be a lie to say I'm not suspicious. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Other admins have extended the editor's block to a week. I suggest letting the normal editorial process resume. Use the talk page to get advice on whether your changes are acceptable. I am warning User:Englandstruth about 3RR. There is a new ANI thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK thanks very much for your help. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:DBSSURFER reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This is not a 3RR report, but a general edit warring one. Editor was blocked for violating 3RR on the article, and then immediately after being unblocked, the user immediately resumed making the edit that caused him to be blocked, causing him to be reblocked for a week. He just came off of being unblocked, and his first action was to return to the article in question and make the same exact edit again. User has shown again and again that he has no intention to stop edit warring, despite being reverted by 6-7 other editors. - SudoGhost 21:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Has been blocked by Eagles247 for two weeks. Kuru   (talk)  16:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mariusmw reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: --Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

I just filed an identical report a few minutes after Bbb23 (I've self-reverted as it was a straight duplication, except for a 6th revert which I've added above to Bbb23's report). SPA reinserting the same disputed BLP material time and time again, edit-warring against four other editors, while discussions of the appropriateness of the material are ongoing. Request block and topic ban from this BLP; appears in some form to be a continuation of an off-wiki dispute. -- J N  466  01:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While it's obviously why Jayen would like to eliminate an editor who disagrees with him, a block will be sufficient here. There's no actual evidence of this being an off-wiki dispute.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * . Page protected.  Wifione  Message 08:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Anupam reported by Glider87 (talk) (Result: No action, reported user acknowledgment accepted)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 07:21, 27 November 2011  (edit summary: "rv removal of information; qualified statement with reference; discuss removal of longstanding content on talk page; qualified statement with reference")
 * 2) 07:24, 27 November 2011  (edit summary: "added quote in reference")
 * 3) 08:27, 27 November 2011  (edit summary: "rv vandalism")
 * 4) 08:42, 27 November 2011  (edit summary: "rv removal of content - please gain consensus at talk page")
 * 5) 09:12, 27 November 2011‎
 * 6) 09:09, 27 November 2011
 * 7) 09:06, 27 November 2011‎
 * 8) 09:00, 27 November 2011‎
 * 9) 08:44, 27 November 2011‎
 * 10) 08:28, 27 November 2011‎  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glider87 (talk • contribs)

—Glider87 (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

The same user has also been adding incorrect tags to my talk page and despite requests not to keep on posting things to my talk page has insisted on reverting to add the user's changes back again. As the following links demonstrate:. Since the user is aware of the 3RR rule and it feels like the user is harassing me and won't stop so I'm requesting a longer block period. Glider87 (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked the user on his talk page to please discuss his edits before removing a longstanding clause from the article, but when I did so, I was reverted by the user on his own talk page for "harassment". Rather than discussing his removal of information from the article, to which I even added a reference, the user continued to revert. I also did not violate WP:3RR, as the user incorrectly asserts (which is evident from only three reverts listed above). Moreover, after filing this report, he conveniently then added a warning to my talk page, despite the fact that when I warned him, while he was actively reverting, it was also considered "harassment." As a veteran user with a clean record, I find this behaviour to be unwarranted and highly disruptive. I hope the reviewing administrator will take this into consideration. Additionally, if I am found to be engaging in ill behaviour, I promise that if it is pointed out to me here by an administrator to apologise for it and to rectify the situation. Respectfully, AnupamTalk 09:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam is at 3RR and has not crossed the line. Glider did not post a warning on Anupam's talk page. Nor did Glider attempt to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. – Lionel (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam is beyond 3RR on the articles and my talk page. Anupam is also aware of the 3RR rule having beeing paty to a 3RR report before, as such according to the 3RR rules it is not required to post a warning on the talk page. Glider87 (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I might also note that User:Glider87 was warned by another user for edit warring at the Christmas Eve article (repeatedly removing longstanding material from the article without attempting to discuss it on the article's talk page or respond to others' concerns on his own talk page). Instead of responding to the other users' warning, he simply removed it with the edit summary "Remove harassment." Thanks, AnupamTalk 09:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The other user just happened to restore exactly the same kind of tags made by Anupam on my talk page. I suggest a sock puppet investigation is in order. Glider87 (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anupam, although neither of you has gone beyond 3RR on the article in question, 3RR applies to any page on Wikipedia, including user talk pages. You've crossed 3RR on Glider's talk page. Users have been given quite a wide latitude on their own talk pages to delete any warning or notice that they've read (whether or not they agree with it); only a few exceptions to this exist, and none of them apply here. So Glider's reversion on his/her own page is not being counted by me as 3RR. By all counts, I should be blocking you right now. I'll wait for half an hour to see a valid response from you. If I don't see a clear acceptance of your mistake and a promise that you will not indulge in crossing this bright line again anywhere on Wikipedia, you will be blocked immediately.
 * On another front, both you and Glider need to continue discussions on the talk page of the article in question without gaming the system. I'll watch for some days and check how the progress is.  Wifione  Message 10:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Wifione, I apologize for crossing WP:3RR on User:Glider87's talk page. I did not realize that WP:3RR applied to talk pages and my addition of the discussion on his talk page was meant to initiate discussion about content he had removed. Now that I was informed by you of this fact, I will not breach this line again. Thanks for your willingness to accept an apology from me. I really appreciate it. Also, another user started a discussion on the Christmas Eve talk page about the dispute so I look forward to discussing any content disputes with User:Glider87 there. I hope you have a good morning. Thanks again for your kindness. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 10:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 *  Wifione  Message 10:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result:1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:06, 25 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462401164 by Collect (talk) - it is well-referenced information that he has repeatedly denied and spoken to; any deletion of this is an abuse of the BLP policy")
 * 2) 20:03, 25 November 2011  (edit summary: "this is not a simple innuendo. This is referenced information. FYI, every time a person is speculated as a possible candidate, the media attention merits sections on BLPs. I also don't see this as an issue, and I want clear rationale, not IDONTLIKEIT")
 * 3) 05:25, 27 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462454883 by Collect (talk) - it is not a rumor that he attended an Opus Dei event and that he's been asked about his connection multiple times; this is completely true informatio")
 * 4) 17:23, 27 November 2011 (edit summary:Undid revision 462730295 by Collect (talk) - again, it is not right to throw away an entire section without using any constructive input; u are misinterpretting the policy and deleting ref info")
 * 5) 18:13, 27 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 462761583 by SarekOfVulcan (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

— SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * . For me this is not so much the question of how close the editor was to breaking 3RR, it is the disruptive tendentious edit-warring on a BLP that has been going on for days. Given the number of blocks and warnings this editor has received for edit-warring in the past, a block in this case is warranted. Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:137.204.148.73 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No action right now)
Page:

User being reported:

NOTE: Last four reverts were over a timespan of 30 hours and 42 minutes. The first three were a day earlier over a timespan of 11 hours and 18 minutes and are included to show a pattern of behavior.

1RRa: 22:09, 24 November 2011

2RRa: 22:17, 24 November 2011

3RRa: 09:27, 25 November 2011

---

1RRb: 13:03, 26 November 2011

2RRb: 02:38, 27 November 2011

3RRb: 03:41, 27 November 2011

4RRb: 19:45, 27 November 2011

(Expanded history with previous version and RR count for each revert)


 * Guy Macon makes edit: 17:08, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Copyedit to reflect broader range of emulators. Present article has narrow focus on emulators with PC-FDD")


 * 137.204.148.73 reverts plus additional copyediting, 1RR: 22:09, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Abstracting on universal emulation +DS3 signal")


 * Guy Macon reverts, 1RR 22:13, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 137.204.148.73 (talk) to last version by Guy Macon")


 * 137.204.148.73 reverts, 2RR: 22:17, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "User:Guy Macon is back...")


 * Guy Macon makes changes as discussed without opposition on talk page: 06:03, 25 November 2011 (edit summary: "Removed links to websites that sell floppy disk hardware emulators per discussion on talk page. Please discuss before re-inserting.")


 * 137.204.148.73 reverts plus small amount of copyediting 3RR: 09:27, 25 November 2011 (edit summary: "+minimal pinout table version - legacy machinery")


 * Rwessel makes major copyedit: 05:54, 26 November 2011 (edit summary: "major copyedit. Remove/generalize excessively implementation specific details, make more encylopedic, etc.")


 * Minor tweak of above by Guy Macon: 06:47, 26 November 2011 (edit summary: "Emulators and real drives are equally able to be designed to connect to a number of different interfaces. It's standard electronics engineering either way.")


 * 137.204.148.73 reverts (new day, so 1RR): 13:03, 26 November 2011 (edit summary: "typing")


 * Guy Macon reverts, 1RR: 18:44, 26 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 137.204.148.73 (talk) to last version by Guy Macon")


 * 137.204.148.73 reverts, 2RR: 02:38, 27 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid : WP:POINT by User:Guy Macon")


 * Qwyrxian Reverts, 1RR: 03:26, 27 November 2011 (edit summary: "appears to bias article towards one particular type; please discuss on talk")


 * 137.204.148.73 reverts, 3RR: 03:41, 27 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid : No bias. In case remove biased terms from last revision.")


 * Guy Macon reverts, 2RR with explanation for making a second revert in edit summary: 05:42, 27 November 2011 (edit summary: "I am undoing previous undiscussed 3RR revert because restoring Rwessel's edits is NOT "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point" but rather a good-faith effort to keep out details that bias the article towards PCs. PLEASE discuss on Talk Page!!")


 * 137.204.148.73 reverts, 4RR 19:45, 27 November 2011 (edit summary: "(1) legacy is standard definition (2) writing errors (3) "most fdc" error (4) "because..." bad english - reverting is edit warring.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Also see edit comments above: multiple requests by multiple editors asking 137.204.148.73 to discuss on talk page instead of reverting.

Comments:

Related: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator

137.204.148.73 (previously Blackvisionit) See Below owns a company that sells one particular type of floppy disk hardware emulator - the kind that is used on IBM-Compatible PCs. His edit war is an attempt to focus the page on the low-level details which differentiate his floppy disk hardware emulator from his competitor's products. The other editors of the page are trying to make it more encyclopedic, treating all floppy disk hardware emulators - PC, Mac, Commodore, Atari, etc. equally. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Guy, how do you know the ip is Blackvisionit? There's no 3RR that's been broken. There's a quasi edit war going on; yet, I'll wait before doing anything. I don't see any reason to block the ip right now. Moreover, I'm concerned about your conclusion that the ip is Blackvisionit. Please do provide definite evidence linking the two. See both Duck and Outing for additional assistance before commenting. The first one is an essay, the second is a policy.  Wifione  Message 04:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are my reasons for believing that the IP is Blackvisionit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwyrxian#Blackvisionit.2F137.204.148.73_connection


 * And here Admin Qwyrxian concludes from 137.204.148.73's editing pattern that my suspicion was well-founded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator_discussion


 * Here is Clerk HelloAnnyong concluding that a previous batch of IP edits (not 137.204.148.73) from the same region of Italy that I documented above were clearly the same person or working in collusion with Blackvisionit. This shows a history of using IP edits to evade an administrator's instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blackvisionit/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments


 * It seems unlikely that 137.204.148.73 just happens to be from the same town in Italy as Blackvisionit, both primarily edit the same rather obscure page, both insert the same table with the same "whitesmoke" background color, both get into a fight with the same editor over the same issues (with 137.204.148.73 making a reference in an edit comment to the previous fight that Blackvisionit was in), both ignore repeated requests to discuss edits on the talk page, both wikikilawyer without any real understanding of policy (WP:BEANS? Really?) and both want to put information on the page that describe features of Blackvisionit's products that are superior to his competitors products. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I do appreciate the links you've brought up and I understand and respect Qwyrxian's view. But coincidences happen. The SPI desk is the place you should re-open this investigation. And in case their view is that their is a connection of this ip with Blackvisionit, you should only then mention a visible connection with respect to the Blackvisionit and the ip. Otherwise, you should immediately and necessarily remove all such quoted connections from at least the talk page of the article in question. My view might sound extreme to you (and I can tell you that this is after I believe the ip passes the duck theory quite well), but I don't agree with you that one can have a conjecture of a definite connection between Blackvisionit and the ip until the SPI administrator/clerk agrees. Currently, I'll go with the technical definition of 3RR and not block the ip. However, I encourage you to immediately report any further edit warring here, with a link to this discussion, so that I or the admins manning this desk at that time may take appropriate action. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 05:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 05:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the above is a very good decision. I will go through and remove the material you have suggested, except in the case of Qwyrxian's talk page (it's his page, so he gets to decide what to delete). I will also be opening a SPI on this. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Updated list of recent administrative actions regarding IP Address 137.204.148.73

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:137.204.148.73 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No action right now.)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator (Closed)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Active "hunt & attack" by editor

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:92.150.128.173 reported by Nableezy (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:54, 28 November 2011  (edit summary: "this one is notable, it had significant media coverage in many sources. if you have reason to believe otherwise feel free to explain on the discussion page!!")
 * 2) 14:05, 28 November 2011  (edit summary: "clarified connection!! thx for discussion")

Violation of ARBPIA 1RR. The anon was informed that he had violated the rule but has not self-reverted.  nableezy  - 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Two different IPs have now added this material, and I assume they are the same person. (Three edits altogether, the first by 93.2.245.234, then with the last two being reverts by the 92.150 IP). Unless there is a self-revert I believe that a block is necessary plus semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Article semi'd for a week. I see little to be gained from blocking the IPs in addition to the semi (unless they're static, but that looks unlikely), but have no objection to another admin doing so. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Behrozaltaf reported by User:TopGun (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: (By sock that proved positive and got blocked )
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: The user is slow edit warring since last month (inserting POV or factually inaccurate content) and stops just short of 3RR every time he is warned on his talk page. He has been reverted by atleast 4 editors over his long edit war and warned appropriately many times and invited to discuss on talk. Instead he used this sock to make a revert which was timely blocked by an admin but his real ID was not blocked because the admin felt that the block might be punitive. As of now, he has resorted to editwar again without paying heed to repeated invitations to discuss on talk. This time serious action needs to be taken as a preventive measure since he doesn't intend to take heed in future. Although I strongly suggest an indef block, but in case the decision is of less than that, a block less than two weeks will be ineffective since the user goes inactive for a week anyway after he gets a warning. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * . I was considering full protection, but the use of a sockpuppet drastically reduced my willingness to assume good faith. We'll start with 24 hours, but the duration will rapidly escalate if the disruption continues after the block expires. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mariannan (Result: Protected)
4 reverts of one article, plus numerous revers to redirects done via AFD. I have used up my 3 reverts.

revert links :
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ant_From_Uncle_(The_Ant_and_the_Aardvark)&oldid=462920174
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ant_From_Uncle_(The_Ant_and_the_Aardvark)&oldid=462916122
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ant_From_Uncle_(The_Ant_and_the_Aardvark)&oldid=462880703
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ant_From_Uncle_(The_Ant_and_the_Aardvark)&oldid=462773860

User has refused all attempts at communication. Deleted multiple warnings via template and manual warnings on her talk page. Link to 3rr warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mariannan&oldid=462920797 Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect restored, per the AfD result, and page protected in redirect form. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Reisio reported by User:Tachfin (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:03:06, 26 November 2011 (edit summary: "redirect per naming conventions, again")
 * 2nd revert:06:28, 26 November 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NAME")
 * 3rd revert: 06:49, 26 November 2011 (edit summary: "open another RfC if you like")
 * 4th revert:07:10, 26 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462531412 by Night w (talk) revert disruptive editor") ]
 * 5th revert:04:40, 27 November 2011 (edit summary: "there is always a status quo, not that one is needed to redirect this page")
 * 6th revert 19:03, 28 November 2011 (edit summary: "still pretending it's the original version, interesting")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: talk page warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: article talk page attempt Thread opened in the dispute resolution board (many users commented and it seemed we were heading for a promising consensus)

Comments:


 * Note: the 4th revert has been done by an IP, given that the page has been unedited for 5 months until Reisio came to revert two days ago, and that the IP popped out of nowhere to revert minutes after Reisio, it is either Reisio log-out or a meat puppet, but there is an infinitesimal chance that it is neither. (The only edit ever of the IP was to revert to Reisio revision)
 * Note: That this seems disrespectful and disruptive as there is an ongoing discussion in the content dispute notice board, where several editors put a good faith effort into proposing an acceptable solution, yet Reisio wants to impose his ways and discard the ongoing talks. His only contribution to the discussion was a lengthy diatribe borderline on personal attacks and targeting users not the content. (quotes: "one side's blatant lie", "certain people and their agenda", "it's just another step in the victory of their agenda.") --Tachfin (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Miguillen reported by User:Fry1989 (Result: Reportee warned; reporter blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Miguillen is showing extreme ownership of this template and it's content. He will only allow it to use his version of the flag map for Navarre. It started when I the Navarre flag map on Commons. He repeatedly uploaded a different version saying mine was wrong. I asked for sources, and he wouldn't give any. Eventually, he his own version, and started edit-warring on the template to insert his prefered version. It started on 8 April 2011‎. I repeatedly asked him for sources, he still refused to give any, and eventually gave up his edit war on 12 April 2011‎, waiting until 17 August 2011‎ to start it up again, no doubt hoping nobody (especially me) would notice after such a long pause. However, I did, and I have again asked him for sources, he simply refuses to give any, and even though I gave a source myself, he just says it's wrong. I have already been blocked for edit-warring on the template myself (block has since passed) which I accepted, however Miguillen has gotten away with it free, and this has only emboldened him furthur. He needs to understand that A: he does not own the template, and B: He must have a source to back his claims, and C: when another user has a source themselves, saying "it's wrong" doesn't cut it. I already warned Mguillen that I would have to bring it to a report as I no longer have time for his nonsense, and so it has come to this. Whether Mguillen is blocked for a couple days, or simply warned to stop inserting his prefered version (unsourced) against a sourced version, does not bother me. I simply want him to stop fighting a sourced version, unless he himself has a source for his claim as well.  Fry1989  eh? 21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I have warned Miguillen that he will be blocked for any future edit-warring and have blocked Fry1989 for edit-warring after just coming off a 72-hour block for similar behaviour. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The image that was there before he had intervened is the same i want to include even though in png format(2009/08/25 image that had the problem before you start a 2011/04/02 time when the problem started). My intention is not to impose my image but to avoid including a wrong one.

It is wrong mainly because it has highlighted effects in the crown and emerald using more than one color tone, and this is not just wrong because the coat of arms described as a model for formal events and official flag (BON No. 140, 20-11-1985) where although not defined color tones if you see a color image where these effects are not seen relief. Besides I think it's totally inappropriate to try to imitate a model of a flag, coat of arms engraved on which exhibits the highlighted effects of its original features and that this supports the coats of arms are painted or embroidered.

This flag has a simple description "Red with the coat of arms of Navarre in the center." and in addition can only add the previously discussed with respect to the model a coat of arms must use in the flag.

As happens in other flag officers exposed sites there are two variants: those with and coat of arms embroidered and painted and it has ambasla difference between representation are the colors used and the definition of its edges. I think in this case represent more logical to have the coat of arms painted, which are less common but their definition is clearer and we interpreted as a graph.

Finally i'd like to apologize for my not native English if that makes it hard for you to understand me. regards.--Miguillen (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:190.46.108.149 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Haven't exactly been formal about this because it's not this user's first first time warring over this same article and content, so the warn was informal, and actually occurred on my own talk page. Article talk was not used as recidivism and hostility both pointed directly at an unwillingness to discuss or compromise. GRAPPLE   X  00:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 23:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ksenofontoff reported by User:Beagel (Result: 31h)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Seems to be meatpuppet of user:Christiankkk or vice versa. Beagel (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 31 hours by another admin. The newly created article at Activ Solar appears to be worth keeping, but Christiankkk and Ksenofontoff have edit warred to remove material from it, perhaps because it was unflattering to the company. They might be connected with the enterprise. I hope that the experienced editors such as User:Beagel will continue to keep an eye on things and will try to explain our policies. Christiankkk is now blocked one week per a sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ksenofontoff is back. This time not doing block removals, but taking bit-by-bit out of information about links reported by sources and labeling these sources as "gutter media". Do avoid any edit warring from my side, I would like to ask that some not-involved admin will keep his/her eye on this article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * After block ending user:Ksenofontoff first edit was to add one additional reference to the Polysilicon production section and labeling the sources he previously tried to remove as "gutter press" and "untrusted sources" . By three following edits, I fixed formatting of the added reference and restored the previous text of Ownership section per WP:NPOV. However, after checking the added source I removed it as it does not contain information after which it was put. There is no problem of using this reference in the article in general as it is published by Bloomberg and says that Active Solar has invested in the semiconductors plant. The only reason from removing it from the specific location, as described in edit summary, was that it says nothing about specific products or capacities which were provided in the text before citation. This edits were reverted by user:Ksenofontoff and all text and most of sources about company linkage to the Ukrainian authorities were removed. After that I explained on the talk page why the previous version about owners which gave different versions from different sources is more neutral than version edited by user:Ksenofontoff, and why  I will restore the latest stable version.  I also raised potential COI issue.  After that I reverted the article back to this version. I was reverted by following two edits.  To avoid edit warring I did not revert these edits anymore, but restored one reference and added a not-in citation tag the added reference for the reasons given above.   I was reverted again.   In addition, user:Ksenofontoff made a personal attack at the talk page accusing me to be "payed person hired by competitors". I don't know how to prove that this claim is nonsense. However, everybody is welcome to check my edit history. I don't want to continue editing that page any longer but I also think that it would be very bad example if potential COI editor(s) is/are able to censor information in Wikipedia. If necessary, all disputed sources could be submitted to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for discussion. Beagel (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Notified Ksenofontoff that he's continuing to violate our policy. Asked him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:149.169.201.191 reported by User:Buggie111 (Result: Semiprotected)
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:


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Multiple IPs are trying to push the same material into the article (WP:SOCK) and they never participate on the talk page. Buggie111 is cautioned that the 3RR limit applies to both sides of this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I wasn't able to file a report early in the article, and thuts only had time about half a day after it started. I understand that 3RR applies to both sides of a dispute, and promise that in future cases, I won't make a third revert unless I know I will have time to file a report soon after. Again, my apologies. Buggie111 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Aprock (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st 20:12, 29 November 2011:, "Reverted 1 edit by Jasonbres (talk)"
 * 2nd 20:23, 29 November 2011:, "Reverted good faith edits by 128.189.200.210"
 * 3rd 20:55, 29 November 2011:, "Reverted to revision 463076976 by DocWatson42"
 * 4th 23:37, 29 November 2011‎:, "Reverted to revision 463169647 by Lhb1239"
 * 5th, 00:12, 30 November 2011:, "remove some wording per WP:CRYSTAL"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 23:49, 29 November 2011‎
 * previously,

Previous reports for page Pan Am (TV series):
 * 04:06, 14 November 2011 User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: 48h)
 * 07:28, 21 November 2011: User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Aprock (Result: Stale)

Comments:

Third barrage of edit warring on this article in the last two weeks. aprock (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * An internet rumor started today regarding the cancellation of the TV show Pan Am (the subject of the article in question) has inspired a spate of editors to add unreferenced and dubious content to the article. Edits in question/listed above commented on below:
 * 1 = A dead link for a reference was added by an editor and subsequently removed by me. The editor was cautioned on his talk page about adding unreliable references - also by me (as seen here).
 * 2 = An IP added the rumor back in, without a reference. The IP was cautioned on his talk page about this - also by me (as seen here).
 * 3 = Changing back to last stable version of article since more IPs and others had readded the rumored cancellation - as well, I provided a reference that debunked the rumor in the edit summary (see edit summary here)
 * 4 = Removing speculation reported by an unreliable source per WP:CITE (as seen here)
 * 5 = Not a revert, but a cooperative edit improving language and removing phrasing per WP:CRYSTAL.


 * Lhb1239 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Admin comment: I don't like getting involved with 3R, since it's often difficult to figure out what edits were reverted when, but in this case it's easy: the reverts cited are not the same reverts, and they all appear to be good-faith edits in which information based on unreliable sources is removed. No action; Aprock is urged to be more careful since this complaint is without merit. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that this is without merit is curious. It appears that canvassing/discussion of this issue between you and Lhb1239 has occurred off-wiki:, .  Please do recall that 3RR isn't a privilege, it's a bright line.  That Lhb1239 has repeatedly engaged edit warring on this article instead of using talk page discussion to resolve disputes is more than clear here.  While it may be inconvenient for Lhb1239 to participate in talk page discussion, edit warring is not an acceptable alternative. aprock (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case Lhb is correct, with these specific reverts, narrowly construed--in my opinion. I was asked to look at the report, which I did; I was not asked to give a general overview of the editor's work but I do share EdJohnston's thoughts about the article. Moreover, it is well possible that broadly construed there is more to this, perhaps OWNership, but you have to understand that these are judgment calls, and that different admins can have different opinions. Finally, I fully support EdJohnston's final statement, on 'continued reverting.' Does this help? And I'll do one more thing: I will strike my "without merit" comment, since it was too strong, with a closing remark: please don't think that what is crystal clear in your eyes is crystal clear in someone else's, and that's especially true on this board. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Fully protected one week, with the consent of Drmies. The submitter of this report has correctly supplied a list of five reverts. A flow of bulletins on the web about the status of this show can make it hard to reach a firm conclusion, but in my view there is no reason for the article to bounce around like a ping pong ball with each new rumor. There is plenty of time to hold a discussion on the talk page. If consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted.  Lhb1239 should not expect that continued reverting on this article is a safe activity. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite two blocks, a warning, narrowly missing a block because another 3RR report was stale and numerous warnings on his talk page, Lhb1239 still doesn't seem to get that there are only limited exceptions to 3RR and that there are times where you simply can't revert any more that day, because you've already made three reverts, and that you have to request page protection or hope that some other editor will rescue the page. He's good at making mistakes and apologies but he doesn't seem to want to follow policy unless it suits him to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Rajagopal11 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - on user talk page: the issue has been discussed on and off for months on the article talk page. This is simply unexplained removal of sourced content (& well sourced, at that). Very common POV-pushing behaviour at Nair, unfortunately.

Comments:


 * Result: Blocked indef by User:Materialscientist for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jsmcdo reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 20:25, November 30, 2011
 * 2nd revert: 22:06, November 30, 2011
 * 3rd revert: 22:11, November 30, 2011
 * 4th revert: 22:13, November 30, 2011
 * 5th revert: 23:57, November 30, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:27, November 30, 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Jsmcdo was warned at each revert. After the fourth revert, he was warned about 3RR and blocking. 90 minutes later he went ahead and reverted once again. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Straightforward. Kuru   (talk)  00:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Gertrude Lawrence reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of warning / going against consensus: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - this link gives a complete picture of the combative nature of the editor's editing and reversions and the collective attempt by three editors (including myself) to try and work with the edit warring editor per consensus already reached about 10 days ago.

Comments:

The first revert diff is a reversion and re-inclusion of content that was decided - via consensus on the article's talk page - the "Final months" section was not appropriate for the article. See link to that discussion here:. The editor being reported does not seem to understand edit warring to begin with, who is actually edit warring (he placed an edit warring warning on my talk page today as seen here). The editor also seems to have ownership issues (as seen in this edit summary) - '...keep your hands off my "Final months"'. His continued editing of the article (seen in 4th diff above) shows that preventative measures (e.g., an administrator's warning or short 3RR block) might be in order here. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How is your 4th diff a revert rather than just editing? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  01:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the original diff is a reversion, not just an edit. The 4th diff is of an edit that shouldn't have happened since he was already aware he had violated 3RR.  Near the top of this page it states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."  Frankly, I don't want to see the editor blocked, just warned so he understands what edit warring is and how disruptive it is and how he can't just keep putting stuff into articles that he likes but is against consensus.  Lhb1239 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and how is this preventative when the user has acknowledged and backed away from the article. Indeed, Lhb1239's notice looks punitive in nature. No, that 4th diff is just editing...there is no violation. There was no violation before the 4th edit as you state. There is no problem with that user currently. ⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  02:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "...No violation"? That's for an administrator to decide (you are not an administrator, are you?)  As I said above, I'm not looking for punitive action, only preventative - and that stands for now and in the future.  If the editor is warned and he gets the message, terrific.  If an administrator believes a block is in order so he gets the message, that's the administrator's call.  All I'm interested in is an end to the disruption (and practically every time he edits the Wood article he's disruptive) and for him to be a better, more informed editor.  That's what "preventative" is supposed to be about.  And just for the record, accusing me unjustly of wanting punitive action taken against the editor when there's no evidence of that is definitely non-AGF and borders on a a personal attack.  And I don't appreciate it in the least. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you threaten with reporting here and three hours later with the user discussing on the talk page in good faith, you decide that the time was right to report. Well, we'll see how the admins decide but for future reference editors are allowed to comment here. I have been trying to work with a good faith editor and this combative soul has tried to butt in and badger rather than help deescalate. Have fun with your NPA claim. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative, and the user is talking now. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  02:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Peoeagle reported by User:EdJohnston (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

(1-10 are consecutive so they count as one revert)
 * 1) 18:43, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "The article is very similar to many other high school pages both inside the Peoria Unified as well as throughout the United States. You showed me one page without the fs and other information, but I can easily show you others that do.")
 * 2) 18:46, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 18:47, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 18:48, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable Clubs */")
 * 5) 18:48, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* Clubs & Activities */")
 * 6) 18:59, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* Diversity */")
 * 7) 19:01, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "Updated Information In Box")
 * 8) 19:01, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* Ironwood Fight Song */")
 * 9) 19:03, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "Removed random "-"")
 * 10) 19:05, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* Summer Theater */")
 * 11) 00:47,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted Back and updated statistical information about the school of the DOE")

User:Peoeagle is presumably the same editor as a whole series of 149.169.* IPs who were warring on this article prior to the semiprotection that was imposed. Peoeagle may have dusted off a little-used account on November 30 when he found he could no longer edit as multiple IPs. The IPs collectively reverted the material added by Peoeagle back into the article about 13 times since 24 November. The series of reverts started when Buggie111 made an attempt to clean up the article on 24 November. Buggie has also gone over the revert limit, but he seems to aspire to improving the article so that it will pass GA review. He apologized for his violation in the previous 3RR. The previous 3RR report about this high school was closed by me with semiprotection and can still be seen at AN3.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I asked Peoeagle to stop reverting and wait for consensus, but he has continued after the warning. This article will never improve unless normal article standards can be applied. My inclination is to block Peoeagle for long-term edit warring, but I would like this case looked at by a second admin so my reasoning can be reviewed. Another option is a sock block per WP:DUCK (revert warring with multiple IPs plus a registered account). EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * . I would rather of seen the user notified of the discussion, but they have found it themselves and keep trying to push their agenda by editing. Any admin reviewing the block, with the user stating that they will not revert the article, but discuss, doesn't need to contact me to unblock. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  02:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Megwhich reported by User:Dan653 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donkey_punch&oldid=461319093 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:

Dan653 (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month, since the process of reaching a consensus version is being impeded by IPs (from both sides of the dispute) who are reverting without discussion. The 3RR complaint against Megwhich is stale since the edits listed are from 25 November. Anyone who continues to revert before the RfC is finished is risking a block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: Both blocked 48hrs )
Page:

User being reported:

The consensus version of the article:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: I've not reverted him after the 3rd time and chose to report here since it is obvious that he will keep on editwarring since he's doing so after a consensus (refer to comments bellow).
 * Another edit: User made another edit on top of his own completely removing attribution to contentious text which was already not supposed to be in the lead.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (in the edit summary instead of his talk page so as to not start a flame war which I suspected).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, RFC and WP:NPOVN:.

Comments: The user dragged the conversation to a highly disruptive length filibustering all the time and at the end the closure was done by admin intervention in which admins have specifically stated not to included the disputed information in the infobox or lead (which the user was previously editwarring on) and to attribute the claims in the body. Reading the NPOVN conclusion and admin comments in the end by TP you can see how this user is not hearing. Incase the preventive action is a full protection instead of a block, I'll request the administrator to revert to the consensus version given on the top i.e. the previous version before the reported user's top edits (which have all been declared contentious at WP:NPOVN). Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: lTopGunl is misusing wikipedia forms such as this to further his pov. He misrepresents the consensus. The consensus was only in regard to not including the ISI as a current ally of the Taliban in the infobox which I have not done. There was no discussion held on the past involvement of Pakistan with the Taliban. And the discussion was certainly not with regards to the lead which none of us was edit-warring on at the time the dispute resolution started. In the end of the RFC, I agreed to remove the ISI from the infobox and to close the RFC either to go to another dispute resolution forum or to close the issue for the time being.


 * The first "revert" that he mentions was not a revert. I was adding new content which none had removed before. Additionally, TopGun reverted as many times as I did and I reverted two times. I never was involved in such disputes and always was able to figure things out with other editors through talking except for the time when notorious sockpuppet user Lagoo sab was vandalizing wikipedia. JCAla (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The admins should review the consensus on given section of NPOV notice board and admin comments on closure and at the end of the discussion with respect to 3 issues I presented on top of the NPOVN section to start the discussion. That will talk for itself. For the obvious editwar that could be seen coming (since he reverted even after my warning), I unilaterally stopped editing in favour of reporting here while the user has made top on, even more contentious, edits to it removing attributions. And I'm afraid he'll bring the already resolved dispute here with more essays for us to read. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for TopGun to assume I would have gone above the 3RR, since I never did (except to revert vandal Lagoo sab in the past). The consensus was only with regards to the present relation between the Taliban and Pakistan. And, the discussion was in regard to the infobox and the term "ally". The Last Angry Man and Darkness Shines shared my interpretation of wikipedia policy, while four editors shared TopGun's interpretation. That is why the ISI was removed from the infobox as a current ally. The relation up to 2001 of Taliban/Pakistan is a totally different issue which has not been discussed yet. JCAla (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * . Note: although normal escalation would have given 1 editor more than 48 hours, I have implemented identical-length blocks for their part in this edit-war ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Galeriechezvalentin reported by User:Reddogsix (Result: 3 days)
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:


 * Result: Blocked three days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Sheodred reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:39, 29 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463118372 by Ruhrfisch (talk) Its not a nationality, and it is pipelinked. I left Anglo-irish in the lede, so whats your problem?")
 * 2) 15:46, 29 November 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463119362 by Ruhrfisch (talk)  Ireland is not part of Great Britain (I can guess that you are doing this to get me blocked for "edit warring"")
 * 3) 10:58,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463429116 by Τασουλα (talk) IT IS NOT A NATIONALITY, IT DOES NOT BELONG IN LEDE, LOOK UP MOS")
 * 4) 12:00,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463484584 by Ruhrfisch (talk)Persistently violating MOS")
 * 5) 12:17,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "See IMOS, removed Anglo-Irish, does not belong there, but I have not readded Irish, so it is a violation of the 3RR")


 * Diff of warning: here

See also recent history of .— SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sarek fails to mention that I only edited these articles because certain editors have been violating the IMOS, which I was trying to point out, I have not broken the 3RR on Shackleton, and I am trying to be undisruptive as possible, my latest edits to Shackleton (the last two) were not reverts, which Sarek has failed to mention also. Just to add about Sarek, he stalks me on Wikipedia, he has wrongly blocked me in the past which led him to unblock me quickly after, his conduct as admin has been called into question in the past, and funny enough I am the only editor that he has reported for engaging in edit warring behaviour.... Sheodred (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify Sarek's 5th diff example, I made a typo in the edit summary, I meant to say "not a violation of 3RR", if you look at the history page of Shackleton, you will see. Sheodred (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to WP:REVERT, "reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." (emphasis mine) Also, edit warring does not require a WP:3RR violation. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I made those in good faith, people here are forgetting the guidelines outlined by IMOS. Sheodred (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was blocked by an admin involved in the same article, who edit-warred, this is really unfair treatment by the people who are supposed to protect and serve the Wikipedian community and encyclopedia. Sheodred (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC
 * I unblocked shortly after and apologize. I am fine with being blocked or losing the bit for my failure to follow the rules. It does not alter the fact that you were going against consensus and edit warring. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was unblocked, thats fine I accept your apology, but it is up to uninvolved admins to determine if they believe I should be blocked for my edits. Sheodred (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I urge the uninvolved admins in question to check Sheodred's block log and related talk page entries while deciding if the recent short block was sufficient. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if Sheodred is correct regarding WP:IMOS, reverts which are performed in the service of a style guideline are not an exception to 3RR. I think that normally a block would be necessary, but I've proposed that Sheodred refrain from edits regarding Irish nationality for one month. In my opinion that would be enough to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked Sheodred and should not have as I was involved in the content dispute / edit war. I unblocked him/her shortly therafter, have apologized to Sheodred, and am willing to be blocked or lose my admin priveleges if that is the consensus of the community. However, I had previously warned Sheodred about 3RR violations, and s/he had been blocked for edit warring before. While I was wrong to block Sheodred, I think that Sheodred's edit warring was deserving of a block. Sorry to have screwed up, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will accept what you said EdJohnston regarding the one month self-restriction, but this whole issue with the incorrect usage of Anglo-Irish and other substitutes for Irish on what seems to only be a problem on Irish articles needs to be addressed, otherwise we wouldn't have half these problems, if there were proper concrete guidelines that prevented editors for pushing their POV on Irish articles, most of the problems would cease to exist. Also admins abusing their tools to push their POV must be disciplined somehow, it is a serious breach of protocol, and has diminished the standing of admins in the eyes of observers.


 * A note also, Sarek wrongfuly blocked me once before, that was remedied, BlackKite blocked me due to a false accusation of me being a sock (extended a short block from a similar problem with CS Lewis for a 3RR) without an RFC about it, he got away with that. Regarding Daniel Case's blocked me for breaking the 3RR (the Anglo-Irish problem again), I can accept that I broke the 3RR, I won't deny that. SarekOfVulcan, I strongly suspect you are stalking me on wikipedia, I suggest you stop, your conduct in the past as an admin has also been called into question before. Sheodred (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only refer you to Arkell v. Pressdram. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Closed with no block, per Sheodred's agreement to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month, as agreed on his talk page. He may still may use talk pages to make proposals regarding Irish nationality. This restriction expires at 22:56 on 1 January 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Seanwal111111 reported by User:Sheodred (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: This is another edit war on whether to describe the article subject as British or Irish. I am warning User:Seanwal111111 that if he reverts again he may be blocked. Sheodred is already restricted from any further changes of Tyndall's nationality per a separate report. It does not seem to me that WP:IMOS has anything to say about the matter here. Anyone who makes a further change in Tyndall's nationality without being able to link to a recent talk page consensus will be risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User:88.123.232.186 reported by User:Sailsbystars (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 0th revert:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This has been talked to death on the talk page. Repeatedly.

Comments:

Article may need semi-protection, lots of recent sockpuppetry.... Page is under 1RR. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three months. This matches the length of the last semi. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: also blocked the IP, without seeing this report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Yohoyoho12 reported by User:Seahorseruler (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Revision from before edit war: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sound_of_Music&oldid=463124948


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sound_of_Music&diff=463377725&oldid=463377180
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sound_of_Music&diff=463383324&oldid=463378711
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sound_of_Music&diff=463573223&oldid=463386599
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sound_of_Music&diff=463574558&oldid=463573701
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sound_of_Music&diff=463578346&oldid=463577395
 * 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sound_of_Music&diff=463578664&oldid=463578561

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yohoyoho12&diff=463575434&oldid=463377226

-- Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal) 23:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn reported by User:Namiba (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

What is most galling is the editor's response to the warning "I am willing to ignore all rules when dealing with advertisers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)". Saturn has been owning the template, creating rules for which articles should and should not be included, in clear violation of WP:REDLINK. He says it is a navigational tool, but WP:NAVBOX makes no mention for or against the use of redlinks in navigational templates.--TM 01:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC) --TM 01:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not create the rules. They were created by years of consensus. If we allow a candidate or their supporter to add a red link, then we must allow all candidates to add their red links as well. There are 290 people running for president. We must have a criteria to avoid cluttering the box and making navigation (the purpose of the template) difficult. That criteria is having a wikipedia article, which the template is meant to link to.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. IAR does not justify edit warring. Spartaz Humbug! 05:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:119.239.94.176 reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result:page semi-protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 10:36, 25 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 2) 23:28, 25 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 3) 00:34, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 01:06, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 08:11, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 09:27, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 12:58, 26 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 00:20, 27 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 09:12, 27 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 12:31, 28 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 11) 05:13, 29 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 12) 21:53, 29 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 13) 13:50, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 14) 23:37, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 15) 08:18,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 16) 13:38,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 17) 21:43,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 18) 07:34,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")
 * 19) 14:20,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* 1980 presidential campaign */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Onorem♠Dil 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I semiprotected the page, its a more effective way of dealing with IPs that won't play fair. Spartaz Humbug! 05:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Editor75439 reported by User:Mathsci (Result: 31 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: see

Comments:

This recently created single-purpose account, which has probably also previously edited using several IPs and one other recently created account, has destabilized this article in the last few days by edit warring. Mathsci (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 31 hours Spartaz Humbug! 05:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Biosketch reported by User:YehudaTelAviv64 (Result: WP:ARBPIA warning to submitter)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=463205191


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=463492771&oldid=463459889

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biosketch#1RR_Violation_in_Golan_Heights

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights&diff=463510124&oldid=463505812

Comments:

YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Preliminarily noting that YehudaTelAviv64 is most likely a returned banned editor, like the rest of uncareful socks that are very familiar with intricate WP policy and noticeboards barely a month into their new account.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not a WP:1RR violation and YehudaTelAviv64, have you ever edited under a previous account, if so, what was it ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not perceiving an actual 1RR by either party. Still, any newly-created account like YehudaTelAviv64 (created 29 October) that jumps into active reverting on a hot-button I/P article should get an WP:ARBPIA warning. The editor's sophistication indicates this is not his first time on Wikipedia. If he will respond here and promise to wait for consensus before making any further changes at Golan Heights the ARBPIA warning might be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, debating whether or not to formally issue an ARBPIA warning is unproductive bureaucratish. What we really need is a CU done pronto, and if that comes up empty block the user per WP:DUCK.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: The submitter User:YehudaTelAviv64 is warned under WP:ARBPIA. New account, knows a lot about Wikipedia, edits contentious I/P articles, ignores admin warnings, promptly removes others' comments from his talk page. Have we ever seen that pattern before? Meanwhile, a complaint has been opened about his edits at WP:Arbitration enforcement. If YehudaTelAviv64 stays on his current path he is likely to run off the rails soon enough, so I don't see an immediate need to enact a broad-based sanction.  There is not enough evidence to justify a checkuser unless you think you know who this is and you have behavioral data.  EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By "ignores admin warnings" you mean I removed this message you posted on my talk page where you, entirely without evidence, insinuated that I am a sockpuppet. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that warning does not say you are a sock puppet; that would be your interpretation. I am not the only person who suspects that you are a banned editor returning under another account. Since this is an admin board we are allowed to discuss those possibilities here.  If you want to stop looking like a banned editor I have several suggestions which I am willing to offer on your talk page if invited to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I referred and linked to your comments on my talk page, not here. It is juvenile to claim that "Hmm, new account, knows a lot about Wikipedia, edits contentious I/P articles, promptly removes others' comments from his talk page. Have we ever seen that pattern before?" does not insinuate that I am a sockpuppet. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)