Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive174

User:Biosketch reported by User:YehudaTelAviv64 (Result:No action, missing warning restored )
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:

Comments:

There is an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page that only User:Biosketch and I have participated in so far and consensus has not been reached. User:Biosketch decided to go ahead and do the revert anyway and did not post a message about the revert in the talk page.

The Golan Heights article includes this warning on the edit page: "WARNING: In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks."

User:Biosketch did NOT explain the revert on the talk page. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result The talk page notice was inadvertently removed when P-I topic-wide 1RR sanction was put in place in Nov 2010. I have restored the warning but won't take any action since it was missing. WGFinley (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:80.78.79.156 reported by User:Plot Spoiler (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP user is edit warring by insisting on including the reactions of Kosovo and Albania to this diplomatic incident, against the wishes of multiple editors. The user argues that "every international entity has its own importance." Yes, we understand that under international law all states are juridically equal but it has nothing to do with the relevant Wikipedia policies for inclusion of material in this case: WP:RS and WP:Undue. The RS issue is that the IP's sources are principally self-published government sources and not reliable international media sources. Secondly, it is terribly undue to include the reactions of two states that had no connection whatsoever to this incident. If we extended the IP users logic and included the reaction of all states worldwide, it would naturally be a mess. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've notified the IP editor that they are being discussed here. Let's wait and see if there is a response. There are many contributions to this article by good-faith IPs so semiprotection might not be wise. There is already a talk thread about whether the positions of Albania and Kosovo are important enough to include. If you can't get the IP to join in discussion on the talk page, then editors might consider removing the excessive material from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result:' No action. The IP has not edited the article since 3 December so imposing a sanction at this time would not make sense. Editors who are confident that consensus has been reached on the talk page about the Albania and Kosovo paragraphs are welcome to act in accordance with that. The IP made no response to my reminder about this 3RR. If edit warring flares up again, report it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Flyspes reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: No action for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (editing as 83.108.133.148
 * 2nd revert: (editing as 83.108.133.148
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: (editing as 83.108.133.148

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Flyspes seems to believe that his own original research belongs in the article, even though he cannot provide a reliable source. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning that Flyspes was edit warring but I did want to let the deciding admin know that there is a calm conversation going on at both Flyspes' talkpage and my own talkpage. I began talking to Flyspes after seeing part of their first conversation [deleted] from MikeWazowski's talkpage. The level of frustration and confusion seemed pretty high so I began talking to Flyspes to help them understand the situation. Cloveapple (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think its only fair that I try to give my side of the story.Adding the labels discography to the general information about TAKRL was my first contribution to Wikipedia.I just did as Wikipedia encouraged me to do,share information.I admit that I did 2 mistakes as a beginner.I uploaded the information partly without being logged in to my user account and partly logged inn.I can see now that it was a mistake.I also appologize for re-entering the information after it had been deleted.However,I think Mr Wazowski could handled this is a more polite way.He could had informed me about the need to verify the information from a reliable source BEFORE he deleted everything.I also find the remark..quote " edits appear to constitute vandalism" quite harsh and unfair.Finally,I DO HAVE a reliable source for all the information,it is not my personal reseach.Everything can be found in the book HOT WACKS "THE LAST WACKS" issued by THE HOT WACKS PRESS.BOX 544.OWEN SOUND N4K 5RI.CANADA in 1992.The book have been on sale through Amazon.com.If anybody can tell how to link my information to this source,then I will be happy to do so.I notice that there are already other users who have started to link part of the discography to valid sources.It is also my intention to finish the discography with the last part of releases and I apply to the Administrator to not lock me out of wikipedia..regards runeFlyspes (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting - not once did I use the phrase "edits appear to constitute vandalism" in my messages to Flyspes, either in template messages or regular conversation. Perhaps you could show me where I supposedly did this, as you appear to be mistaken. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to inform the Wikipedia administrators that I will try my utmost to obay the rules layed down and play by the book.I have now linked the TAKRL discography I have uploaded on Wikipedia to a valid source.The book Hot Wacks "The last wacks" is still on sale on Amazon.com and I have also supplied the page numbers and ISBN number.I would like to be informed that I can go on and Flyspes (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)update the TAKRL article with the last part of the discography.


 * Comment Flyspes is a new user and seems genuine enough. I would say this requires no further action, it's easy enough for someone to open a dispute at a later date if this proves unsuccessful. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No action for now. Since the cited editor made a conciliatory response, let's wait and see if they will accept consensus. The case can be resubmitted if this doesn't work out. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:MathewTownsend reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: Closed with no action taken)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of 3RR, edit warring, and numerous other WP policies including how to not use edit summaries, personal attacks, and civility and has been notified of same on his talk page several times over the last 24+ hours. Before his latest revert on the page noted above, I filed a report at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard here because of his behavior at the Talk:Natalie Wood page. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Response I am a new editor here, although I have been watching for a while, and I'm trying to learn the rules. I repeatedly tried to remove/redact comments I had made from the noticeboard that I regretted. No one had responded to them and I believed that redacting or removing such a comment was ok. I was repeatedly reverted and  told that it was against the rules to remove or redact comments, but that was contrary to what I have observed. Finally I asked at Editor assistance/Requests and was told that there was no rule against removing such a comment. The last revert was due to a mistake by an editor who apologized to me on my page for doing so. I merely restored what he had mistakenly removed. Please assume good faith here. All the "reverts" were me trying to clarify my own comments, nothing more. Unlike Lhb1239's reverts, where he reverted my attempts to clarify my own comments, all my changes were confined to my own comments which had not been responded to on the Noticeboard.


 * In truth, I am just trying to be clear in my comments on a discussion page and have no interest in edit warring over article content. Rather, I am interested in explaining myself on the talk pages. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Two reverts that returned my redacted comments by Lhb1239
 * "Undid revision 463846292 by MathewTownsend (talk)on noticeboards, you can strike your comments with a ' /'' ' but not remove)
 * "(Undid revision 463869286 by MathewTownsend (talk)as stated previously, you can't remove comments from a noticeboard - striking is sufficient and transparent)"
 * Accidental reversion by User talk:Leaky caldron for which he apologized.
 * Lhb12339 also file an action against me at Wikiquette assistance but the responder agreed with me:
 * "Is there anything more? The four diffs show pretty ordinary back-and-forth on a user talk page. When I did a quick skim of User talk:MathewTownsend I was surprised to see MathewTownsend say he is new as he seems to be discussing the BLP issue in an appropriate manner. If there is an article accusing living person X of having caused the death of Y (yet X has never been charged), it is highly inappropriate (laughable actually) to respond with "There is no deadline in Wikipedia". I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level". It may well be that some inappropriate behavior is going on somewhere, but WP:CIVIL is not a guarantee that editors will not face frank opinions when raising an issue at a user talk page."


 * I don't think that trying to clarify one's own comments on a discussion page (comments that have not been responded to) should be considered a "revert", especially since such removal/redaction is allowed. This would mean that editors could not reword their comments, which I see them doing frequently. I see editors making multiple edits to their own comments on talk/discussion pages and on ones gets them for a "revert". This is not the same as article content edit warring in my eyes as the "war" was over my comments, but maybe I am wrong. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * p.s. Lhb1239 has made 29 edits to my talk page over the last day or so. I'm really unable to understand what is going on and can't understand the information in so may posts to my page, mostly with threats and warnings, so it has rattled me. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something. I apologize for any wrong doing. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverting your own actions is a clear exemption to the three-revert-rule so, while striking comments is more appropriate, the 1st and 2nd reverts are not counted for the purposes of 3RR. The "3rd revert" isn't a reversion at all, it's an addition of comments made necessary by Lhb1239's inappropriate reversions of edits that MathewTownsend had made to his own edits, as is the "4th revert". The "5th revert" is also a case of an editor reverting his own actions, so that also is an exemption to 3RR. Lhb1239's restoration of MathewTownsend's comments after they had been removed was inappropriate, as was the reversion of the changes that MathewTownsend had made to his own comments. It is disturbing to see Lhb1239 continue to edit-war with editors despite a recent block, a warning and nawrrowly missing a block only 4 days ago, where it was stated "Lhb1239 should not expect that continued reverting on this article is a safe activity". It is even more disturbing to see that he seems more than happy to report others for edit warring, while he seems to believe himself to be immune from such action. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If any administrators do look into this report, I would hope that they would not take AussieLegend's biased viewpoint in regard to me at face value. Aussie has within the last few days suggested I leave editing a TV article he frequents.  One of Aussie's TV project Wiki-friends is one of the editors who placed an edit warring notice on my talk page prior to the report mentioned above being filed - and that editor has stated that wherever I go in Wikipedia, I will be "shouted down" because I do not see eye-to-eye with their views on certain television project articles.  Aussie has an agenda with the above comments.  Whether something is done about this report by the hand of an administrator should be determined by an administrator, not a non-sysop editor who tries to muddy up with waters because he has a personal beef against the person reporting the offender. And, just for the record, it was determined by at least one admin that I wasn't edit warring in the situation Aussie is referencing (hence, the reason I wasn't blocked).  I'm not the issue here - MathewTownsend's edit warring behavior is.  Lhb1239 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, self-reverts are permitted under WP:3RR - the only issue on a discussion area would be if another editor had already responded to those posts, which does not appear to be the case here. As no one had responded there's no issues caused by removing the text, although striking the comments would still be preferred; or as an option, to remove the text and clearly mark that it had been redacted (as MathewTownsend did in at least two of the edits).  Regardless of the underlying content dispute - the claimed 3RR issue described here is not actionable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

User:RoslynSKP reported by Anotherclown (talk) (Result: article fully protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 07:59,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463293680 by Jim Sweeney (talk)Stop cutting information from this GA")
 * 2) 08:09,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463299635 by Jim Sweeney (talk)This is a GA please discuss edits on talk page")
 * 3) 08:11,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463303595 by AnomieBOT (talk)unnecessary")
 * 4) 08:15,  1 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463299224 by Jim Sweeney (talk)This is a GA do not edit without first discussing on talk page")
 * 5) 00:18,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463471714 by Jim Sweeney (talk)move on")
 * 6) 00:19,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463471680 by Jim Sweeney (talk)deletion of info general readers won't be aware of")
 * 7) 00:20,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463470740 by AnomieBOT (talk)unnecessary")
 * 8) 00:21,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463468934 by Anotherclown (talk)undone because previous wording awarded GA")
 * 9) 00:24,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463468827 by Anotherclown (talk)undone because information does not improve article")
 * 10) 02:15,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* British forces */ move photo and map to more clearly set out deployments")
 * 11) 02:26,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "cut reference to India as no India units mentioned as being involved in this battle")
 * 12) 02:27,  2 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 13) 00:48,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463860861 by Jim Sweeneyreinstate information the general reader may appreciate (talk)")
 * 14) 00:50,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463859995 by Jim Sweeney nothing wrong with Anzac(talk)")
 * 15) 00:54,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463808868 by Jim Sweeneyscattered is a better word (talk)")
 * 16) 00:59,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* British forces */ cut clarification, do the reserarch and improve the article if you can")
 * 17) 01:06,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* German and Ottoman force */ reinstate link")
 * 18) 01:10,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Prelude */ correct name")
 * 19) 01:12,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463796653 by Anotherclown (talk)No its not")
 * 20) 01:14,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463796008 by Anotherclown (talk)given the context the term is fine")
 * 21) 01:16,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Background */ reinstate para")
 * 22) 01:21,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Casualties */ Anzac is not incorrect")
 * 23) 01:25,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Aftermath */ Anzac not incorrect Battle proper noun")
 * 24) 01:27,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Casualties */ Anzac not incorrect")
 * 25) 01:31,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Action of Bir el Abd – 9 to 12 August */ Anzac not incorrect counterattack not incorrect, firefight not incorrect")
 * 26) 01:35,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Chauvel's force advance on Ottoman rearguards */ reinstate information general readers may appreciate")
 * 27) 01:42,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Battle on 5 August */ southeasterly not incorrect Anzac not incorrect infantry not wrong")
 * 28) 01:52,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Battle on 4 August */ undo red links not required, reinsert infantry counterattack not wrong, firepower not wrong; reinstate Falls quote")
 * 29) 01:54,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* British forces */ firepower not wrong; red links not required")
 * 30) 01:59,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* British forces */ reinstate links; reinstate info;this was an all arms operation and the fact that they were infantry or mounted units needs to be provided particularly for the general reader")
 * 31) 02:04,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Development of defensive positions */ reinstate infantry this is an all arms operation and these units need to be clearly differentiated for the genral reader")
 * 32) 02:06,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Light Horse patrols before the battle */reinstate counterattack")
 * 33) 02:08,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Prelude */ reinstate link")
 * 34) 02:09,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* German and Ottoman force */ cut links to nowhere not required")
 * 35) 02:11,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Prelude */ reinstate infantry; reinstate affair")
 * 36) 02:13,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Background */ reinstate affair, Anzac both not incorrect")
 * 37) 02:17,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Affair reinstated cut red links not required;reinstate substantial not POV")
 * 38) 02:18,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "reinstate names of countries involved in Battle of Romani")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to endorse theses comments, with the caveat that I am an involved party. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This has continued today:


 * 1) 03:40,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Casualties */ reinsert sandcart")
 * 2) 05:48,  5 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463989038 by Jim Sweeney (talk)there are too many red links in this article")
 * 3) 05:51,  5 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463988641 by Jim Sweeney (talk)Cut hyphen reinstate brackets cut more red links")
 * 4) 05:54,  5 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463988420 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate infantry division name")
 * 5) 05:56,  5 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463988154 by Jim Sweeney (talk)cut another red link")
 * 6) 05:58,  5 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463987695 by Jim Sweeney (talk)cut another red link")
 * 7) 06:02,  5 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463987573 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate brackets cut more red links")
 * 8) 06:07,  5 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463979208 by Jim Sweeney (talk)The whole British Empire did not fight at Romani, cut more red links, counterattack, Anzac, Affair of Katia not incorrect")

— Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR says, "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." In the above list of diffs, 1-4 count as a single revert, as do 5-12 and 13-38. In the list of diffs added today, #1 is part of the previous revert involving diffs 13-38 and diffs 2-8 are also one revert. RoslynSKP has provided edit summaries for all but one diff. In total these constitute 4 edits over 4 days. This is a content dispute and the page has now been protected as a result. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Theseus1776 reported by User:Aciel (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 06:23,  4 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")

Comments:

This guy reverted my additions to his talk page, which included a discussion of the neutrality of the article and links to the autobiography guidelines. He also reverted some template additions to his regular article page, which were related to the discussion page information he removed. This really needs another editor's attention because the editor in question believes I'm personally attacking him. —mohawkjohn (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The editor has not continued to remove others' talk comments. Let's hope he got the message. If it happens a second time he may not be so lucky. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:70.27.194.185 and User:Cookiehead reported by nprice (talk) (Result: articles protected)
Page:

Page:

Users being reported:

Time reported: 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Angelo Mosca
 * 1) 19:08,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "trivia")
 * 2) 19:22,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 464080487 by 70.27.194.185 (talk)")
 * 3) 19:38,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Its useless fluff that has nothing to do with this man's notoriety. This is the kind of crap that gives wiki a bad name])")
 * 4) 20:43,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 464085047 by 70.27.194.185 (talk) Mosca was a pro wrestler, so this hardly violates BLP standards...sourcing is impeccable this media sensation event")
 * 5) 21:46,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Have a little class and restraint. Its people like you that make wikipedia the place where you go to smell stale internet farts.")
 * 6) 23:08,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 464105162 by 70.27.194.185 (talk) docuemnting mosca class and restraint")
 * 7) 23:28,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 464117543 by Cookiehead (talk)")


 * Joe Kapp
 * 1) 19:10,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "useless trivia")
 * 2) 19:21,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 464080713 by 70.27.194.185 (talk) story is national sensation in Canada/US, extensive media coverage")
 * 3) 19:37,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Its useless fluff that has nothing to do with this man's achievements or accomplishments. This is the kind of crap that gives wiki a bad name.")
 * 4) 20:24,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 464084887 by 70.27.194.185 (talk)")
 * 5) 21:48,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Have a little class and restraint. Its people like you that make wikipedia the place where you go to smell stale internet farts")
 * 6) 23:07,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 464105411 by 70.27.194.185 (talk) thanks for the laugh with that last comment")
 * 7) 23:28,  4 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 464117342 by Cookiehead (talk)")

Comments:

Apparently the subjects of these two articles recently got into a scuffle, which was covered by a significant amount of media. A user added information about the incident to both relevant pages. The IP editor in question has then removed the information from both pages repeatedly, deeming it "fluff." He appears to have otherwise edited constructively.

—nprice (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither editor crossed the 3RR threshold (narrowly defined) and they seem to have stopped edit warring for now. They haven't started discussing this content dispute though, so I've protected both articles for one week to encourage this and prevent further outbreaks. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:Taylornate (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: - Admitted revert per a not very nice edit summary.
 * 2nd revert: - I had just added the dubious tag  and he did not justify removing it.
 * 3rd revert: - a reversion of the previous edit  - Per the edit summaries, the intent of the first edit was to add the word speculate, and the intent of the second was to revert that.
 * 4th revert: - I would think pure removal of text would be a revert in any context.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - This section of the talk page is regarding the dubious tag, which is the dispute that pertains to me. I have skimmed through the talk page and seen discussion pertaining to the other reverts, but didn't want to wade through that mess unless I'm asked to.

Comments:

This is a 1RR article. Viriditas disagrees that he has violated 1RR and has invited me to make this report to decide. With the definition of 3RR on this page, I think it's clear he has.--Taylornate (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * May hit "bright line" on a 1RR article with edits which I count as reverts being at 3:40 on 3 Dec and 3:37 on 4 Dec -- looks like he was trying to exactly pass the 24 hur mark and failed. Removing a tag (first revert) has long been held to be a "revert" and counts.   Second one at 3:40 is a clear revert.  23 hours 53 minutes < 24 hours, I fear.  Collect (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:88.123.232.186 reported by User:Hans Adler (Result: blocked for one week )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (first removal of the information by this editor plus movement of footnotes, 3 December)


 * 1st revert: 8:55 (removal/footnotes)
 * 2nd revert: 8:58 (removal/footnotes)
 * 3rd revert: 9:09 (footnotes only)
 * 4th revert: 16:26 (removal and footnotes)
 * 5th revert: 17:57 (removal only)

(The reverting editors in the opposite direction were Stephan Schulz, Ryulong, Ryulong, VsevolodKrolikov, Hans Adler.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Roy Spencer (scientist)/Archive 1.

Comments:

Warning was after the 5th revert, but user had a 3RR warning for a related article on 1 December, followed by a 24h block for breaking 1RR. Hans Adler 18:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP editor for one week, which may have been generous given the extent of their edit warring and the sensitivity of this issue. Drop me a line directly if this re-occurs. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:108.64.173.236 reported by User:Kansan (Result: blocked for 24 hours)
User being reported:

Has been edit warring constantly. Kansan (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They have been blocked for 24 hours by Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:91.154.106.199 reported by User:De728631 (Result: blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: diff Edit summary: "i have created paloma faiths own discography page!" (referring to )
 * 2nd revert: diff Edit summary: "stop DISCOGRAPHY HAS OWN PAGE!!"
 * 3rd revert: diff Edit summary: "discuss before starting to do something else, its better to have this way, because every singers page has it like this." where I had already begun a discussion on the article's talk page and notified the IP about that.
 * 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

See also the comments the IP left on my user talk page: et seq. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 5th revert by User:91.154.106.199, edit summary: "singles are already shown in the dischography page, only albums are shown on the main page, look: Jessie J." Obviously the IP thinks that there is a rule that if a discography exists we must not have other recordings listed in the artist's article than albums. And obviously they didn't read the discussion on the article talk either. De728631 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:ElSaxo reported by User:Allen3 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of notification user that WP:STRONGNAT calls for articles with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country to use the date format common to that country: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User with a past history of edit warring apparently attempting to impose UK/European style dates in an article about a US based organization in clear violation of WP:STRONGNAT. --Allen3 talk 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do note the following cases here as well:
 * ClassTV_MSNBC
 * User received a warning and a block (2 weeks) for these, commented not to be interested in any form in discussion with 'coward IPs' or others (see e.g. User_talk:ElSaxo and User_talk:ElSaxo..
 * Municipal police (Italy) and Talk:Municipal police (Italy)
 * After last block, move warring, again no discussion.
 * Television in Italy
 * After last block, slow edit war, again no discussion.
 * Note that the last talk space comment is on the 14th of June, regarding the mentioned block (typo fix) (see also edit history - other edits are moves of pages in talk space or removal of comments without answer: diff, diff). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This one probably needs a block. 1 month, I'd say. T. Canens (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving it to another admin, I would not choose objectively anymore I am afraid. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked indef. Any admin may lift or modify this block if they are convinced the editor is now willing to follow our policies. His edits during last May's dispute (which led to a two-week block and a talk page ban) indicate extreme stubbornness. "Imagine how I am willing to 'discuss' with a coward anonymous user"; " in peace and quiet - please go to the hell." The whole discussion is still visible at User talk:ElSaxo. His recent edit warring was accompanied by no discussion whatsoever. In my opinion he should remain blocked until he expresses willingness to discuss his edits and agrees to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Gabe19 reported by User:ADKIc3mAnX (Result: page protected for three days)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463454977

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463576785


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463576785
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463941129
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=464051822
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=464182328

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)

Comments: I keep fixing this page with official information and Gabe19 keeps reverting it every single time.

--ADKIc3mAnX (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I gave enough reason for the removal of the deluxe cover in the edit summary here stating the "Image fail[ed] WP:FUC, as it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and as I stated on the talk page, "The deluxe edition cover clearly violates WP:FUC as it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It's the same image and the same text just a different color, which is not enough to warrant its inclusion. I will be removing it once again, and the next time it is added back in, I will reporting it to the Edit Warring noticeboard and request this page be locked. I'm tired of stubborn editors who fail to follow policy." Now I see User:ADKIc3mAnX is trying to turn the tables by reporting me when in fact they refuse to abide by Wikipedia Policy. —  Gabe 19  ( talk contribs) 05:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added the picture to the article since the Deluxe cover is different than the regular cover and stores show both covers and it does NOT violate anything since it's an alternative cover for another edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADKIc3mAnX (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On what grounds, just the background color? Is that your only argument? Because its different? Not enough. Same image and text in the same place as the original. Have you not clicked on WP:FUC? Have you not read where it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."? Quit being so naive and follow the rules. —  Gabe 19  ( talk contribs) 07:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Both editors appear to have violated WP:3RR, but Gabe19's reading of WP:FUC seems correct so I don't think that blocks would solve anything. I've protected the article to allow for a discussion on what version of the image to use. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Tillman reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (n/a, multiple reverts)

Note: the page is under 1RR restriction, I'm reporting here as it tells me to.


 * 1st revert: (reverts )
 * 2nd revert: (reverts )
 * 3rd revert: (reverts )
 * 4th revert: (the page is under 1RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No explicit warning given. But PT has been around and knows about edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Misc discussion, inclunding Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy, but the last two reverts happened overnight; even a self-revert now wouldn't pull him back under 1R.

Comments:


 * Reply: WMC is generally correct. I clearly lost track, and apologize for breaking 1RR. A few words of explanation may be helpful:

"Revert#1" was discussed here at some length. Not quite a revert, but restoration of the news item discussed there, and certainly not "edit warring".

""Revert#3" was not a revert (except perhaps technically): See, which is a discussion of whether to use opinion quotes at this stage. I removed the text in question as an attempt to restore NPOV, while the subject was being discussed. I went to self-revert this as an indication of compliance with the 1RR rules, but found another editor had already reverted. Again, no "edit warring" was intended.

I'll be taking a voluntary break from editing this page to help cool things down there. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rv #3 most certainly is a revert, there is no "technical" about it. I'm not happy with you quibbling that. I should have given the full diff you reverted though: . Nor I am happy with you quibbling rv 1, either. And how long is "a voluntary break" - with no duration specified, this is meaningless William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If the goal is a "preventative" block then the break is sufficient (any short block would be meaningless). If the goal is to "punish"  (long or indefinite block) then this is really the wrong noticeboard.   Try AE.   Collect (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This may be the wrong noticeboard, in which case give guidance and I'll move it, but it relates to the context of Pete's edit warring. This revert reintroduced accusations against living people presented in a questionable source. Since the end of November Pete Tillman has been pushing the boundaries of BLP, introducing blog based accusations against living people, posting leaked primary sources taken out of context to attack the conduct of living people, arguing that a living person has committed misconduct on the basis of Pete's own reading of leaked primary sources taken out of context, and citing a blog to back up his claim, and adding criticism of a living person based on a misreading of the sources he cited. [see section now headed "Ramstorf lawsuit removed, why?"] In my view Pete should show more care, and perhaps take a break from the topic area rather than just one article. . dave souza, talk 19:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, the proper place to take a topic-ban proposal would probably be arbitration enforcement given that the article is under sanctions from WP:ARBCC (and behavior at this article was one of the primary drivers behind opening of that case, if I understand correctly). Regarding the edit warring reported here, a voluntary break of a few days from the CC pages would probably serve more good than a block at this point.  Whether an involuntary topic ban is in order is a longer discussion more appropriate for other forums.... Sailsbystars (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll consider that if Pete resumes the same behaviour after his break from editing. My concern was that the offer was confined to the one page, that's now been made moot by the decision below. . . dave souza, talk 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours and notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. Tillman's edits at 23:06 on December 5 and 05:17 on December 6 were both reverts. Together they violate the WP:1RR restriction on these articles. If Tillman were a new editor we would probably close with no action if the person offered to abstain, but he is a veteran of the ARBCC debate. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Prinz.Deases reported by User:Reddogsix (Result: indef)
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: Editor has habitually added hoax article Richard Andrew Deases and is trying to change Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia and Template:Prussian princes ‎ to support hoax.


 * T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Sarsathug and User:Vikas.insan reported by User:De728631 (Result: Block)
Page:

Users being reported:
 * for breaking 3RR and repeatedly removing well-referenced content as in the previous section "Controversies", and
 * for being involved in that edit war with massive use of promotional text and non-NPOV edits.

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Sarsathug
 * Vikas.insan

Vikas.insan had previously been contacted on their talk page about promotional edits on that article:, and Sarsathug has announced that he will continue his dispruptive editing despite of several warnings.

Comments:

Note also these IP edits where accusations to the article's subject are made in the edit summary that are similar in wording to Sarsathug's first revert. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sarsathug has now been blocked temporarily by Materialscientist for edit-warring and violation of WP:NPOV. Vikas.insan is however continuing his promotional campaign. De728631 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Sarsathug is now reblocked for continued warring after the initial block. I hope the submitter of this report will keep an eye on Vikas.insan and see whether a further report is necessary. From a quick look, it seems that the two editors are POV-pushers on opposite sides of an issue. Since Vikas.insan has received plenty of notices and still not changed his approach, his next undiscussed revert of the article should result in a block. Vikas.insan removed criticism here from a different article. He adds promotional fluff to Dera Sacha Sauda here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I shall have a look on Vikas.insan's activities. We might also want to keep an eye on whose account is brand new and whose only edit as of now consists of reverting Sarsathug. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:174.57.156.12 reported by User:Rehevkor (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:


 * Semi-protected for a day by Malinaccier for "Excessive unsourced changes". Minima  ©  ( talk ) 07:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Sabot-7 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:27,  6 December 2011  (edit summary: "I myself edited this page,DATES and TIMES the facts herein are true and accurate. Can you please not modify it? Thank you. Doug Williams")
 * 2) 21:57,  6 December 2011  (edit summary: "I only added a brief background on myself, and tried to expand the article by adding separator lines and Bold Type. I'm still trying to learn to do this correctly. ")
 * 3) 22:46,  6 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid deletions to page by Bot? I inserted this personal information about myself by myself. ")
 * 4) 22:50,  6 December 2011  (edit summary: "Douglas A Williams, a living person made these canges helpme")
 * 5) 22:54,  6 December 2011  (edit summary: )
 * 6) 04:52,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "Revision updated 11/7/2011 by Doug Williams")
 * 7) 04:54,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "Citations repaired by Doug Williams")
 * 8) 04:59,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "Removed any Non-Cited Information")
 * 9) 05:06,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "Added Citing Sources")
 * 10) 11:35,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* References */ ")
 * 11) 11:47,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "Attempted to rebuild page helpme if I need to add Citing Information and exactly on which parts?")
 * 12) 12:04,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "helpmeI am confused as to exactly what needs to be Cited")
 * 13) 12:21,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "1 more attempt to modify helpme")
 * 14) 12:23,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "I drew a "Line")
 * 15) 12:34,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "/* Cephalic Carnage */")
 * 16) 12:35,  7 December 2011  (edit summary: "added spaces")


 * Diff of warning: here

The first edit in the list above might not be a revert (I include it here only to show that this editor is the subject of the article). But there are four subsequent edits/groups (as apparent in the history) that are reverts. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the editor in question (and his self-admitted IP 69.242.147.105) continue to restore the contentious info despite consensus via BLPN discussion that the material should not be included. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Sarsathug reported by User:Vikas.insan (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported: breaking the WP policies, earlier as well he was reported by User:De728631, for 3RR and repeatedly removing well-referenced content Link to the complaint : which I undid earlier because he was putting abusive language and removed almost the entire content, and continued doing that, so I undid his baseless and abusive changes, stoping someone from using abuses should be appreciated, but I got warning for the same for being a part of edit war, but i think edit war is of view with respect to some topic, when someone is using abuses, it should be strongly opposed by everyone, and this is what I did earlier. Now the moment this user is unblocked after being blocked for 3 days, He is again doing such abusive and baseless changes, so request to please block this user.
 * for using abusing language and removing the cited and referenced material and doing non-sense changes hence

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Result: Sarsathug is already blocked two weeks. No further sanction is needed. Vikas.insan, thank you for taking an interest in how disputes are resolved on Wikipedia. Be aware that you may be blocked yourself if you continue to edit non-neutrally at Dera Sacha Sauda. Some problems with your editing have already been described at WP:AN3. To avoid further criticism, please use the talk page to arrive at consensus for the article and do not use the article as a promotional vehicle.  EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:159.53.46.141 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported: User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Michigan–Ohio_State_football_rivalry User_talk:JohnInDC

Comments:

This shows 4 IP addresses, all within the same range and all registered to JP Morgan Chase, making essentially identical edits adding and removing certain text to the subject page, 8 edits and 7 reverts in total within about three and a half hours. (Three separate editors endeavored to maintain the text as it had been originally.) I placed warnings on three of the four editors' pages (missed one). Final reversion came after the warnings, and by an IP address that had received one. JohnInDC (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected three days by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:72.231.8.53 reported by User:Snoozlepet (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This IP continues to add Cathay Pacific to HKG without specifing an actual date per WP:AIRPORTS. It was reverted by me and 2 other editors. We also left 3RR message on his talk page. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocket 24 hours by User:TerriersFan. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:GarnetAndBlack reported by User:LesPhilky (Result: No action)
Page:

User: I have retracted my complaint as I don't feel it will accomplish much regardless of the outcome. I apologize for any inconvenience.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Greyhood reported by User:Fred Bauder (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2011_Russian_protests

Comments:

User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On the fourth time I just inserted the new information, which rendered the previous stuff outdated (the Moscow goverment just have sanctioned the meeting, and a new place and new numbers were announced, different from the old ones ). I've made a technical self-rv now, but I hope that more sense will be shown in judging the situation. I hope one is allowed to update the article with incoming information. Now insert the new info on your own if you like. Grey Hood   Talk  20:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * then user self-reverted, as shown here and on on his talk page. -- slakr \ talk / 01:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tremendous Vandalism & Abusive Remarks (Result: blocked)
User Storeylas keeps vandalizing the article Seyed Mohammad Marandi and makes abusive remarks. I have already warned him twice, but he keeps coming back. I demand that his account be blocked. Timelesstune (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both of them for 24 hours for edit-warring that went way over 3RR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:71.235.163.70 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:34,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 22:38,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 22:38,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 22:38,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 22:57,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 23:03,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "HELLLLLLLO government puppets!  Not only Will I be updating this all day long!  As I find my job at my place of residence, I will also be updating that piece of shat you call a 2012 page.")
 * 7) 23:05,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 23:11,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 464855624 by Tgeairn (talk)")
 * 9) 23:11,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 23:14,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 23:25,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

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

—Tgeairn (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * ...for 31 hours by another admin. -- slakr \ talk / 01:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I tried to leave this meessage earlier, but I just noticed the edit conflict now, hours later. Here's the explanation  I came across this from WP:AIV (where the editor was improperly reported for vandalism, but after looking at the article, there's no question that this is edit warring. Note that I think the above count of diffs is too high--I think that some of those are consecutive edits, thus counting as a single edit, and I'm not certain that every single one of them counts as a revert...but looking through the article history I still see at least 5 reverts in a 24 hours period. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User:LesPhilky reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  - both warnings removed by user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User stopped responding to article's Talk page and instead decided to wage a campaign on his own Talk page. User has been disruptively editing this article for the better part of three days, originally using an anonymous IP and then a registered account. User filed a retaliatory 3RR report on me previously, and then withdrew it once they realized how much evidence was presented as to their own violation of the policy. Evidence presented again in comment section.

Comments:

This "new" user has been tendentiously editing this once-stable article for the past few days and continued disruptive behavior well after being informed of the relevant policy regarding 3RR/edit warring. Here are the diffs from the user's first round of warring with an anonymous IP editor on Dec 7:


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

When these reverts were added to a 3RR report that the user filed against me in retaliation for a 3RR warning template that was placed on the user's page, the user suddenly felt the need to withdraw the report, I think it's quite obvious why. After claiming a desire to follow Wikipedia policies of consensus seeking and discussing potentially contentious edits in an article's Talk page, the user returns this evening to continue making the same edits that were being reverted to on Dec 7. Editor then began personal attacks (which I admittedly allowed myself to be dragged into) and after deleting two 3RR warnings (one from myself, another from a different editor), this user then expressed their ultimate goal to get themself blocked along with me, because the user claims not to care about the project or being blocked. This stated goal is not surprising given that the user has shown not one instance of attempting to comply with Wikipedia policies, and instead only seems intent on making POV content changes without regard to consensus-seeking. In fact, the user admits to knowingly and intentionally violating policies in an effort to have me blocked along with him. Not exactly an auspicious start for this user at Wikipedia. I'm not proud of stooping to the level of this user's personal attacks, but my goal here is to maintain articles in accordance with policy and that can certainly be a trying job when disruptive editors like this wander into Wikipedia with a personal agenda. If an admin decides that I've crossed the line in an overzealous attempt to help the project, I'll accept whatever consequences that entails and try to learn from my mistakes. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Article has been fully protected by another admin. A lucky thing, because when I saw this issue break out again the most logical response would have been to block both editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User:FourteenClowns reported by User:Bagumba (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User also left what could be considered a threat in edit summary of "Where can we duke this out?".—Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week, due to the excessively hostile edit summaries. The attempt to slip "I Love L.A." into a section header is stretching well toward outright vandalism, and the user has received multiple warnings on several occasions for edit warring and hostile behavior. On the subject of the "threat" in particular, though, the user's request under that header was for someone to "moderate the discussion", and to "duke (it) out" is a common colloquialism for a disagreement. I don't find a credible threat of violence in that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User:182.177.248.119 reported by User:Qwyrxian (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: See all of Talk:Leel (only 1 thread so far)

Comments:

In fairness, I reverted this editor 3 times myself, and I know that 3 reverts is not an entitlement; perhaps I should have stopped a little sooner. However, after looking at the user's edits, and the discussion on the talk page, I have come to believe that this editor is either not editing in good faith, or simply has such a radical difference in worldview that they aren't compatible with Wikipedia's principle. In particular, the user's claims that he did a PhD thesis on this topic, but at the same time he used Urban Dictionary as a source in the article; additionally he added books as references, that have English titles, that don't have even a single mention anywhere on the internet other than on the WP article page. Add to that the basically incredulous claim of the article itself, and I highly doubt this user's contributions.

Also, if you look at the article's history, you will notice that user's IP has changed a few times in the last few days; specifically, I also see:

Using the Rangeblock calculator, the 182 set can be caught in a /17 range (182.177.128.0/17), and the 119 set can be caught in a /18 (119.158.64.0/18). Alternatively, semi-protection may just be an easier approach. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected for a week. This isn't a legitimate content dispute when fake/nonexistent sources become involved. And no one's going to sanction you for reverting in that scenario, either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Goliath74 reported by Wanderer602 (talk) (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:01, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 23:01, 30 November 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 14:56,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 463465291 by Wanderer602 (talk)")
 * 4) 16:16,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 18:20,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 18:44,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 18:56,  8 December 2011  (edit summary: "")

—Wanderer602 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Both warned. It is too late to issue blocks, but if we had done so, both parties could have been blocked. What else would you expect in a revert war with exactly two parties, if both break WP:3RR? If either party continues to revert before consensus is reached on talk, blocks may be issued. The page on WP:Dispute resolution has some ideas you can use to get outside input on this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:PassaMethod reported by User:MikeWazowski (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:

Comments:

Well, just to flesh this out some, he erased my engagement on his talk page (twice), then erased a templated warning from another editor. I usually look at at editor's talk page as part of the effort to get a handle on where an editor is coming from, but if he scrubs his talk page regularly that's a lot harder, one has to trawl through the history. So that's annoying and wish he wouldn't do that.

Some other stuff this user has been involved in have been kind of sketchy, but a great deal of the material regarding this has been oversighted by Fred Bauder because an IP user called him a [bad name], which was of course far out of line, and that editor has been blocked. He was called a [bad name] because he added some sketchy material to a page having to with puberty and apparently using a ref which didn't support the material. Which, you know, is kind of red flag. Because of the massive oversighting of discussions around this one IP editor I can't figure out how to find the exact diff for that anymore, though.

Beyond that, there's just something odd going on here. For instance, here the user added some kind of odd material to Erection which, hmmm, and then re-added it when reverted, which, hmmm hmmm. There's a fair amount of doubling down on pretty sketchy edits, such as here when the editor, for the second time, removed a section of talk page which included contributions from various editors with an edit summary of "I started this thread so i can close it". Not 3RR or edit warring exactly, but still.

It's just odd. The editor has 4,500 edits and the better part of a year's service, so we don't want to just throw him overboard. On the other hand, he ought to know better about some of this basic stuff by now. Looking at just the editor's recent edits, It's just.... if the editor's goal is to insert himself into as many highly contentious areas as possible, and in a fairly obstreperous and unskilled way, he seems to be accomplishing that. I see that there's a thread right above this one where it's him reporting another editor. This is worrisome, and this editor may need mentoring or something. Judging by this this editor is feeling somewhat put-upon right now, so this situation may require some skill. --Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Herostratus, I don't think you should be edit warring with the guy to keep messages on his talk page if he doesn't want them there (please read WP:BLANKING), and I don't think you should be taking accusations that have been oversighted and then deliberately repeating the bulk of them here accompanied by comments about "red flags". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I don't really agree with the thrust of WP:BLANKING and consider a pattern of deleting valid warnings and engagements to be problematic and not helpful. As to the other, there are a number of problematic edits here. Misrepresenting the content of refs on highly sensitive material is a problem. Pretending it isn't is probably not useful. That the editor was called a bad name is wrong (and I took the person who did that that harshly to task) but doesn't make the original behavior go away. --Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For a period of 3 days; that should be plenty enough time to discern whether the sources in question are reliable. There is edit-warring going on, but no one party is more guilty than the rest, and this looks like a legitimate dispute; I think discussion will prevent the need for blocking. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Thunderlippps reported by User:IllaZilla (Result: Blocked for 50 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:

I've requested additional input into the discussion at WT:FILMS. has also been involved in the discussion, and he and have also reverted Thunderlippps' edit-warring. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Thunderlippps by Ks0stm. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Nabil rais2008 reported by User:Longwayround (Result: Closed per another report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Also:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apologies if I have failed to provide appropriate diffs. There is some dispute as to use of grammar, rankings and whether the Princess Tower has been topped out. Discussion on the talk page seems to be going nowhere. I've sought a WP:THIRD opinion and stopped reverting as soon as I realised I had reverted three times. Discussion on the talk page seems to be going nowhere. Longwayround (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Dispute already dealt with at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:ScrallyRal reported by User:184.100.184.253 (Result: Warning, semiprotection)
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:

I requested protection over at RPP. This should stop this edit war.--1966batfan (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: User:ScrallyRal warned to wait for consensus. The article has already been semiprotected by another admin per RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:75.37.30.175 and User:75.36.186.82 reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: 2nd 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Two IPs in the same range, both with the same agenda. If you compare with  these two IPs have made very similar edits / comments. Ignoring discussion despite 3 separate users intervening.
 * Please note that I have opened a talk page discussion and also have requested that the article be semi-protected, due to the IP address of the editor changing. - SudoGhost 08:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Already semiprotected per RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Longwayround reported by User:Nabil rais2008 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is some ongoing dispute over the reliable sources of this article, verification of the sources, rankings, and whether the princess tower is topped out or not. Over these issues this user claims the failure of the sources of the whole article, eventhough i have provided him with enough sources to support the content. At first i had asked him to discuss on talk page before making any changes so i stopped reverting his edits, but then he reverted my edits one by one.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Both warned. Any further revert by either party may lead to a block. Use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TopGun reported by User:JCAla (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

The established version of the article:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User:TopGun is again starting an edit war as he did multiple times on the Taliban article. See or It is very common for TopGun to remove large parts of articles which are sourced very reliably.  And although he does not breach 3RR, his behaviour constitutes edit-warring. When involved on talk pages he sticks to his point and pseudo-wiki-lawyers around until other editors are either tired of continuing debate or reach an uneasy compromise which does not further the accuracy of wikipedia. Note, that I am not reporting him out of revenge or because he reported me once in the past (where we both ended being blocked for two reverts each). I am reporting because I find his editing behaviour very problematic and it is very difficult for serious and experienced editors to deal with such an editing pattern. Note also, that he has been warned only some days ago (and blocked) for edit warring, but already continues his behaviour. He took his block (which he now archives under "punitive block") to ANI where he continued the wikilawyering-around behaviour he has shown in all his other discussions.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 1st revert: (where he stated there was a consensus which wasn't there, see an consensus being reached only yesterday)
 * 2nd revert:

I am not sure if this will get him blocked or not, that is not the reason I reported. I just want to make people aware of this very problematic behaviour which, as I said, is making it difficult for other editors to maintain accuracy in articles when they do not have the time to engage in endless discussions in which the content of reliable sources is most of the times simply being ignored. JCAla (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This report is completely based on a personal grudge by the user since the consensus went against him at Talk:Taliban. To start with, the user gave me a warning without mentioning the page I was allegedly warring at and has filed this report without me editing the page listed here after his 'warning'. Even this report is incorrect and I have not editwarred. Please see the timestamps from the article history. I removed the duplicate content on 05:32, November 18, 2011‎. A user re added the content after a month on 11:31, December 8, 2011‎ which was reverted by me and then I was WP:NINJA by another user. I did 2 reverts in total and stopped to discuss on talk page. I don't see how that is editwar (since the only thing I did was break 1RR which is not being applied here). The users are still not discussing the content and rather making personal attacks on the talk page where I'm insisting repeatedly to be presented with content related arguments. The reporting user is not even involved in this article's dispute and is reporting on his malintentions from another article where he failed to build consensus and was reverted by other users. This completely amounts to WP:BOOMERANG and wiki hounding. The report about Taliban article is where both of us were blocked for 48 hours and this user is seeking to penalize me over the already settled dispute and prevented edit war again for getting a work around to by pass the consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not hold any personal grudge against TopGun. I think his editing pattern is very problematic and makes it difficult for various editors to keep the accuracy when they do not have the time to engage in endless discussions in which the content of reliable sources is most of the times simply being ignored. He starts edit wars with purpose by reverting up to two-three times, then stops and starts endless discussions in which he simplies ignores the existence and content of very reliable sources. Also, TopGun is repeating his behaviour by again mispresenting "consensus". If you think that is my personal pov, read what User:JamesBWatson wrote: "In fact had I made the block I would have given the reason as something like "disruptive editing, including edit warring". There were other problems before the block too, such as abuse of claims of "consensus" which might well have been included in the block reason." JCAla (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My contributions list is open for review by an admin; I have only made edits under the wiki's guideline. However, the reporting user's intentions should be reviewed. He was warned by many users for this exact reason of not hearing where he took the dispute to extreme length. The comments can be reviewed at WP:NPOVN in the end of the discussion and in the consensus summary. Anyway that is a resolved dispute and the user is bringing it here to get even for that. The fact that my editing in this specific case reported does not constitute an edit war since I stopped as soon as I saw this was to become one (that is after making 2 edits). JCAla's POVs don't settle with me and he will take even this discussion to an extreme length to make his point. I don't know seriously what is his problem. The only thing he is showing here is getting into an uninvolved disputed to hound me for the previous case where he failed to build consensus and things went the other way as per the suggestions of uninvolved users. He now repeatedly raises the stale issue where we have both been already blocked in attempts to get me blocked. JCAla did not even notify me of filing this report with intention to get me blocked without getting to reply on this page. This can be verified. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as the article listed for alleged edit war is concerned please see that I've not edited that article since one day and both his warning and this report have been filed today for the purposes I've mentioned. I've called for discussion the 2 editors who reverted me both on their talk page and the article talk page and am discussing the issue on the talk page although they have not yet given any content related argument there. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Result: Fully protected one week. Use this time to attempt to reach agreement. If any party continues with the 10,000-byte reverts after protection expires, blocks may be issued. Top Gun has recently been blocked for edit warring (December 1) which suggests he should be more careful. I have some concern he is going to ignore this advice, in which case we may see him here again soon. He has removed over 10K bytes of material three times since November 18, with no evidence of consensus that I can see. People on the other side have been reverting as well. EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the accepted revision since 18 Nov till the editor removed it, that would be my explanation of consensus. I will not revert this now even after the protection expires till resolved. I would however request some admin to keep an eye on the article because the editors are reluctant to discuss content. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:MarshallBagramyan reported by User:Verman1 (Result: Arbitration enforcement)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments:

An editor by the name MarshallBagramyan has engaged in edit war in his last edits While the source insists that event has happened before the Askeran clashes (it is quite possible that this was main reason behind those clashes), the user apparently wants to erase this fact from articles without even discussing it. I would like to to negotiate with him before reporting this, but he has made other disruptive edits in articles Yerevan and Kars, and during discussions about his edits, he has shown very little interest to get a consensus. In one particular case, in the article Kars, he repeatedly inserted only Armenian spelling to the city and his main reason was that there was some "consensus" in talk page (which is very controversial statement). Instead of letting other editors to put their versions and assuming good faith, he made Wikipedia a battleground with his one-sided edits (,, , , , , , , , , the list is too long, it goes back to several years, but I showed edits only for this year). For your attention, user MarshallBagramyan has been repeatedly topic banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan articles (his blocking list can be seen in WP:ARBAA2) It is fair to note that, MarshallBagramyan has never engaged in any edit warring and disruptive edits outside of Azerbaijan-Armenia and Turkey topics, but when we come to these topics he unfortunately exhibits bad behavior for the Wikipedia.

For the User:Vacio case, I noticed this warning in his talk page. But during the last days, he clearly violated terms displayed in this warning. Particularly, in his last edits, he engaged in edit warring and deleted well-sourced material from articles Unfortunately, before doing these reverts, he has made no discussion talk pages of relevant articles. I am afraid if someone restores previous forms, he again will not demonstrate any interest to the discussion and will make reverts again. --Verman1 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems like retaliation for my original report against Verman1 a few days ago. I am not going to waste my time defending myself against these trumped-up allegations and administrators and neutral observers are more than welcome to study the comments made by other editors regarding Verman1's troubling editing behavior in my initial complaint. I have tried to engage all users to use the talk page and articulate their viewpoints numerous times, all to no avail. And yet I am being reported for playing by the rules? lol --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Administrative note: I'm moving this here from ANI. For more context, see here. A note to both of you: ANI is not a content dispute noticeboard. Please do not use it as such. m.o.p  19:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the acrimonious and apparently intractable nature of this dispute, and the fact that it is in the topic areas covered by the Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration, I will examine the conduct of the editors involved and appropriate enforcement remedies. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment, it might be useful to point out that one of the examples Verman1 has trotted out to support the contention that I have been edit-warring dates back to September of this year. It might also be useful to note that while he has accused me of edit-warring, he has over the past few days continued to revert and undo edits on a series of articles without so much as making a single contribution on their respective talk pages, as a perusal of his contributions page will indicate. It's rather astonishing - he adds or removes controversial material and then tells others to discuss why his edits should remain the same. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:69.86.195.242 reported by Old Moonraker (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:13, 11 December 2011  (edit summary: "clarify")
 * 2) 13:23, 11 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 465283698 by Peter cohen (talk)")
 * 3) 03:30, 12 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 465396831 by Peter cohen (talk)")
 * 4) 04:25, 12 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 465402321 by Johnuniq (talk)")
 * 5) 07:39, 12 December 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 465423833 by Old Moonraker (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Old Moonraker (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  Swarm   X 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:A1Z2 reported by User:Danjel (Result: 31 hour block )
Page:

User being reported:


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

The user is also active in censoring


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A - User is a SPA attempting to censor the article.

Comments:

The user is attempting to censor the article by removing mention of a sex abuse scandal at the school. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added Yeshivah Centre to the above report. I imagine that this user will get past 3RR there too. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:46.174.24.10 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Nonconstructive response: which just a reposting of the original warning with a strange quixotic statement, and, which makes even less sense.

Previous warnings about similar behavior:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Nonconstructive response: which is just re-posting of the image that the user is removing from the article without explanation and with a strange caption.

Comments:

I'm not sure what the actual, if any, agenda is at work here. The edits/reverts themselves, regardless of their number, are border line vandalisms - the user is removing an image from the article without any explanation and adding "citation needed" tags to ... the titles of the articles (as in the first few words of the first sentence of the lede).

The user is also engaged in similar edit wars - or in attempts to provoke these - on other articles: Koliyivshchyna, District of Galicia, Treblinka extermination camp, Stutthof concentration camp. All of these are of the same border-line vandalism sort.

The edit summaries accompying these edits are also strange - s/he is basically repeating the edit summary of what the person that s/he is reverting said.

I hesitated before bringing it here (hence it's 7RR not just 3RR) because the user might be new (though doesn't appear so). There might be some COMPETENCY issues here but obviously that's not all that's going on - s/he is not responding to attempts at discussion or responding in strange ways.


 * 24 hours for disruptive editing by User:Jayjg. If this IP editor has any good intentions he is keeping them well hidden. He is also active on the German and Polish wikipedias. He has got into some trouble on the German wiki (The German word Vandalismus is easy to translate). If he really won't communicate and explain what he is up to a longer block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:2.219.36.10 reported by Shadowjams (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:25, 12 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Michael Jackson */  Proved to be incorrect/ Fox news and Barbera walters are not Neutral references.")
 * 2) 20:30, 12 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Michael Jackson */")
 * 3) 20:31, 12 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Michael Jackson */ updated. Fox news, barbera walters are not neutral references.")
 * 4) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Zaire/Congo */")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Comment: User's been undone by 3 separate users, Cluebot also undid the IP once too. Removing reference continually. Probably could count as vandalism but seems to be some good faith, but clear violation of 3RR. Shadowjams (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:85.15.44.152 reported by MelbourneStar (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - 13th of December
 * 2nd revert: - "It doesn't if you know English" - 13th of December
 * 3rd revert: - "Undid revision 465561103 by Wikih101 (talk)" - 13th of December
 * 4th revert: - "Undid revision 465561103 by Wikih101 (talk)" - 13th of December
 * 5th revert: - "Undid revision 465561103 by Wikih101 (talk)" - 13th of December
 * 6th revert: - "Revert sockpuppet vandalism." - 13th of December
 * 7th revert: - "Revert sockpuppet vandalism." - 13th of December
 * 8th revert: - "Undid revision 465565363 by MelbourneStar (talk)" - 13th of December
 * 9th revert: - "Revert vandal abusing multiple accounts" - 13th of December
 * 10th revert: - "Undid revision 465566654 by Slightsmile (talk)" - 13th of December
 * 11th revert: - "Undid revision 465567774 by 61.106.148.158 (talk)" - 13th of December

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP has gone to great lengths to remove the word "the" from a sentence - that actually requires the word. Has accused multiple editors of sockpuppeting - called them vandals (including myself) - and not only do I find that insulting - it's a personal attack. In an edit summary I kindly asked the editor to discuss on the talk page, instead their next revert was a Personal attack on myself. The Ip continues to revert after multiple editors have joined in. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 02:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

.  Swarm   X 04:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Coscopper reported by User:bwmoll3 (Result: Warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Have revered edits twice on 510th Missile Squadron page, also once on 351st Missile Wing LGM-30 Minuteman Missile Launch Sites. No clear justification for removal of information other than user stating "incorrect" but not correcting information other than by removal. The information IS correct, was verified before the articles were written. Have asked user on talk page to put correct information on my talk page if unable to correctly edit as a new user. Suspect this may be a case of user attempting to self-censor information. User shows no other edits in editing history. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Test.quality3 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:Blocked 48h for copyvios )
Page:

User being reported:

Lovely Professional University is an Indian university. The article has been here some time, but is almost entirely unreferenced by anything other than its own WP:SPS sources. One interesting section, Lovely_Professional_University, lists most of the external league table references one might expect in an Indian college article, with the note that the college was not ranked in any of these &mdash; an article thus with many references, but still no sourcing!

The editor has a long history with this university, and with little else.

I recently added a section, appropriately sourced, on a highly negative aspect of Lovely Professional University: a student being beaten to death over the summer. This section is just about the only section in the article that has any reasonable sourcing. The wording is also carefully neutral, per WP:NPOV - most of the sources, let alone the 'net comment, are far more critical of the university's management over this matter. However it's worded though, this is never going to be a positive chapter in the university's history and it would be no surprise if the university sought to delete it.

The new section has been deleted four times in recent days, three times by Test.quality3 and once by an unknown IP from a large Indian ISP. Latest reversion. The comments on reverting the addition were:
 * no edit summary
 * "It is a case of vandalism. The event has been highlighted in particular by some opposition. This is one side of the event. The parents of the Mizo student who died were satisfied with university's actions."
 * "The delebrate highlighting of this information sounds to be a case of vandalism. As Wikipedia allows a netral point for any information, the constant highlighting of the information shows some personal interest of the person to exxagerate the issue."

This is not yet edit warring, and I have no interest in escalating it to such. However I do consider it a clear case of repeated POV removals by a COI editor, probably connected with the subject of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't see this report earlier, but I've blocked the user for 48hours for repeated copyright violations. I'll leave a warning note related to this report too, but don't see the need for any specific action now given the other block. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're happy to warn the user for deleting a referenced section (i.e. if you see it as a bad deletion), it would have been useful if you'd also restored it. As it is, I'm now at risk of a block for edit warring if I restore it myself. So POV editing is yet again accepted and supported by the implicit results of admin actions. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:RMc reported by User:Doc9871 (Result: blocked for 96h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: Not wanting to violate 3RR myself for removing the uncited original research, I had removed the bad reference and tagged it with a citation needed template - which was removed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user (under this account and various IPs) has been inserting the same bad, unreferenced original research to the article for over five years. It keeps getting appropriately removed by different editors, most recently here before the most current problems. Recently, they added it with a blog source that does not support the material. After reverting it and explaining what original research and reliable sources are, the user has decided to become nasty after edit-warring to keep it in. If I do the right thing and remove this, I am confident he will reinsert it.

Doc  talk  16:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit waring and pure nastiness, both things he's had more than sufficent warning for before. Courcelles 16:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you - after 5+ years I don't know if he will stop inserting it, but this sends a clear message that he should. Doc   talk  16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Victor Chmara reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 17:46, 13 December 2011‎
 * 2nd revert: 18:20, 13 December 2011‎ reverts in part
 * 3rd revert: 18:39, 13 December 2011
 * 4th revert: 19:30, 13 December 2011 removes "scientists," reverting in part

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: There's no reason for him to be reverting, insisting that other people need to run their changes to the article on the talk page, and not running his on the talk page. Ownership of this article has apparently been problematic for years. Solve it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This episode started when Hipocrite deleted   large sections of Race and intelligence, claiming that the sections were not based on reliable sources. The given reason for these deletions was a transparent lie; the sources in question are reliable, as per Wikipedia's content guidelines -- they include, among others, peer-reviewed works by leading researchers. Because Hipocrite deleted much of the article's content, and gave clearly mendacious reasons for it, I regarded his edits as vandalism and reverted them. Among the edits I reverted was also this one , which Hipocrite later admitted was a misrepresentation of the source and which he himself then replaced with a different formulation.

4th revert above refers to changes I made based on the discussion here. They're not reverts, and Hipocrite has accepted as correct most of my edits to that section.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Victor has no authority to speak for me - at no point have I admitted to misrepresentating anything, at no point have I accepted as correct most of his edits. Any accommodations I have made are just that - accommodations. If such accommodations mean that he can violate 3rr while I have to piece through each of his blind reverts to try to figure out what he really wants and then try to give him something, then I'll be certain never to make such again, and just revert to my preferred wording over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment As a neutral, I can only see one direct revert. Doesn't look like a 3RR violation from where I am. Might I suggest doing an RFC? GimliDotNet (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:REVERT - a revert is "any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." Two of the listed difs have edit summaries that state they are reverts, so I don't quite understand how you can't see them, and that leads me to question the diligence you put in. The other two revert in part previous edits - the first reverts American Psychological Association and removes the reference (added in the referenced diff), the second reverts "Scientists" to "Richard Nisbett," a particularly problematic violation of Specific (now called "In text") attribution, which was changed in the referenced diff. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're being far too strict in your definition of 'revert', under those circumstances any edit made to an article is a reversion (as it changes a previous version). GimliDotNet (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're involving yourself here, but I don't feel that I am being overly strict - the edits that I point out specifically revert changes made to the article very slightly beforehand - and while they do other things, they are specifically targeted to revert those changes. If in one edit a user adds "X is agreed to by A and B" and in the next edit it is changed to "X is agreed to by A," that's a revert of "and B," especially if it's not the first time that "and B' has been removed. Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are Victor Chmara's recent edits: By my count, this is four reverts altogether on 13 December. That is: 1&2 (together) are a revert; 3 is a revert, 4&5 are a revert; 6&7 are a revert. The edit summaries tend to give it away:
 * 17:46, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 465658981 by Hipocrite (talk) discuss on talk page before deleting sourced material")
 * 17:48, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "reverting hipocrite's pov pushing")
 * 18:20, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Genetic arguments */ misrepresentation of apa report")
 * 18:39, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 465678546 by Hipocrite (talk) hereditarian is used by all parties; PLEASE discuss on talk page before rewriting the whole article")
 * 18:46, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Genetic arguments */ another misrepresentation of apa report: apa is agnostic, whereas nisbett says no genetic contributions")
 * 19:30, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Genetic arguments */ correcting apa's view; it's pov to refer to nisbett (and flynn) as "scientists", when the other side is referred by names; flynn removed until his views can be ascertained")
 * 19:33, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Genetic arguments */ it's all about the b-w gap")
 * — EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should look at the number of reverts Hipocrite has made, because he was edit warring against both me and Victor Chmara (I reverted twice). It might be better to just protect the page.Boothello (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Boothello, you're confused. I'm trying to correct the problems in an article that was tagged for cleanup since August 2011 that lay fallow for almost a month. Tags related to the overuse of minority theorists. I edited the article - just to move up a see also - and you reverted - twice. Then I tried to remove undue weight placed on questionably reliable sources (those authored by an individual whose views the Village Voice called "on the extreme fringe," and who is listed as a White Nationalist, who frequently posts to the fringe anti-immigrant site Vdare. Hipocrite (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed Johnson, by your standards two users cannot edit the same section of an article within the same day without reverting each other. #1 & #2 is a revert of vandalism, and #4 is a revert. The rest are edits based on discussion on my talk page and article talk page.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, are you calling my edits vandalism? Please be clear. Hipocrite (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, when you deleted many sections from the article. See above for details.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If Hipocrite removed sections from the article on the grounds that the sources were not reliable, his edits can't be described as vandalism. Going over the 3RR limit yourself is not justified. There may still be time for Victor to avoid sanctions if he will apologize for breaking 3RR and agree to take a break from the article. If you continue to act on a misunderstanding of policy there could be worse trouble in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, okay. Upon reflection, Hipocrite's deletions cannot be characterized as vandalism. I went overboard trying to stop him/her from removing important sources and misportraying others. I may have violated the 3RR rule (it would be a first for me ever), but honestly I cannot say, because many of those edits listed above were the result of discussions on talk page. But let's say I did, and I'm sorry for that. I would not mind staying away from the article for a while; in fact, I hadn't edited it in months until yesterday. I've been involved with the article for a long time, and know it as one where any change is debated endlessly on the talk page--so when Hipocrite, a new editor, continued making radical changes to the article even after I reverted his deletions and asked him to discuss his edits, I ended up overreacting.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it worrisome when I see editors in contentious areas describing non-vandalism edits as vandalism, particularly when they are using to excuse their own edit warring; it's really a serious red flag.
 * I remind Victor Chmara that the race and intelligence article (and subject area) are subject to discretionary sanctions, and that one of the least restrictive limits that might be imposed is a 1-revert-per-day limit (1RR restriction) if his editing should continue in this vein. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I count four reverts from Hipocrite also.


 * 1: 22:27 yesterday - undoing this edit from me.
 * 2: 13:25 today - partial revert of this edit, re-adding the APA cite after Victor removed it.
 * 3: 13:51 today - This one is labeled as a revert in the edit summary.
 * 4: 16:50 today - Partial revert of this edit. Victor replaced the word "scientists" with an attribution to Nisbett, and Hipocrite changed it back.


 * I think you should protect the page. It isn't fair to block only Victor when he and Hipocrite both had four reverts in 24 hours.Boothello (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Three days. Admins might consider placing some of the hot-button R&I articles under a 1RR/day restriction, since this can be done under discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Kiftaan reported by User:PassaMethod (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (edit summary: "(rvv -- not sourced addition but deliberate falsification")
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He has been reverted by 2 seperate people, and his reasoning has been rejected by a third editor on the talk page. Also, notice his false and uncivil edit aummary in the 2nd revert. Pass a Method  talk  11:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Kiftaan warned. He has been consistently reverting since December 5 to force in his preferred figure for the percent of Muslims who are Sunni. He has made about five reverts altogether. If he does so again before consensus is reached on the talk page he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read my several explanations at Talk:Islam, nobody else is opposing me except this person who reported me here. He is falsifying the percentage of Sunni Muslims in the Islam article and I'm trying to correct that. He puts Sunnis at 75% minimum and adds CIA factbook which states that Shias are 20% so how can the remaining Sunnis be 75%? This percentage is rejected by all the experts (Pew Research Center, Encyclopædia Britannica, Vali Nasr, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, Library of Congress Country Studies), and they all tell us that Sunnis are 85-90%. Btw, I did not make 3 reverts or even 2 reverts, I kindly asked this edit-warrior (User:PassaMethod) to please don't change the percentage and let a third party decide the appropriate wording but instead he/she came and reported me here and then went and reverted it to the false 75% again.--Kiftaan (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reminder: I am not PassaMethod, we are two different people, so he's not the only person who wants to include the more general figures. Also, noone has voiced support for your criticism of the source being added or used.  I did come in as a third party and started the thread "Third party intervention re Sunni numbers."  Please be sure your statements about the situation are more accurate in the future.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you saying that you're not user:PassaMethod? And why do you say noone has voiced support for my criticism of the source being used when someone did support my view, what is wser:Wiqi55 saying here? Tell yourself "Please be sure your statements about the situation are more accurate in the future."--Kiftaan (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You said "nobody else is opposing me except this person who reported me here" after I had got involved in the discussion, and after you had accused me and PassaMethod of being the same person. Wiki55's statement that the CIA source should not be given undue weight (not that the source should be thrown out, and not that minority sects should be lumped in with Sunni Islam) were made roughly the same time as my previous post, so it's reasonable for me to have missed it. I was involved for DAYS before you said "nobody else is opposing me except this person," and you actually responded to my points, so you knew he was not the only person. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Soosim reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h, ARBPIA notice)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: "re-added removed rs"
 * 2nd revert: "Undid revision 465344771 by Malik Shabazz"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New Israel Fund, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed, is subject to a 1RR restriction. See WP:ARBPIA for more information. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * hi malik, thanks for bringing this here. i suppose i can open up a case against you as well because of this diff:  which clearly shows (if i copied the diff right, or just look at the history page of the article to see the time difference of less than 24 hours) that you did the revert first, with in the 24 hour no-no rule. i see above here that you listed something on the talk page - you did not make me aware of it until you wrote that note on my own talk page a few moments ago. and instead of waiting for the response, you jumped right to here. no problem. defend your violation, please. not sure why you would revert when it was still in question, only by you? also, i see you bring a lot of people here, rather than working it out directly with them. why is that? let me know (and i guess, let ANE know too) thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Soosim, I don't owe you an explanation, because I didn't break 1RR. Why don't you explain why you think you are entitled to make as many reversions as you'd like without penalty? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malik Shabazz has only edited this article twice in the month of December. The second edit adds a 'verification needed' tag and does not remove any content. Hence I don't believe it is a revert. This leaves Soosim as the only apparent violator of 1RR. If Soosim will agree not to revert any more until a talk consensus is reached or a verdict is given at RSN I suggest this might be closed with no other action. The article talk page shows Malik requesting verification regarding 'foreign corporation' but does not show a response by Soosim. There could be an issue of primary sourcing which it is reasonable to expect Soosim to address, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your effort to resolve this without a block, but may I ask you to review User talk:Soosim. Soosim has repeatedly violated 1RR on this article (abbreviated as NIF), but I chose not to report those instances in the hope she/he would learn from her/his mistakes. Obviously I was wrong. Please consider that this is not a first offense. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Restraint should characterize the way administrators conduct themselves at Wikipedia and we don't see that here in this edit summary. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, Bus stop: I shouldn't have lost my cool. I should have reported the serial copyright violator to WP:CCI instead. But what exactly does that have to do with this 1RR violation? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Malik Shabazz—you say, "I shouldn't have lost my cool." But having lost your cool, and having been reported at "Wikiquette assistance" by Soosim, shouldn't you have just admitted your mistake and offered some conciliatory language? I don't think Soosim liked the way you spoke to him in this edit summary, and I find that understandable. Here we find the thread at "Wikiquette assistance". Another editor, in that thread, called Soosim a "dick". I assume you saw that comment. You didn't say anything. Do you not think that a reprimand was in order? Do you think you set a good example for others? Shouldn't part of the role of an Administrator involve setting a good example for others? Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 24 hours for WP:1RR violation and notified of WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * oh well....ed, you didn't even give me a chance to respond. that's ok. i accept my punishment. Soosim (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User:204.185.181.250 reported by User:Mark Arsten (Result: Semi)
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 (user talk in this case) talk page:

Comments:

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected six months for plain vandalism. IP blocked three months. This kind of problem could also be reported at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will do that in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Left as edited by the user so as not to edit war after reverting twice (Needs to be reverted by admin).


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is moving my comments (and another user's comments) without permission repeatedly to another section while the comments given were partly in context to the section rightly added to (the comments are actually an 'oppose' to his suggestion). This being politely clarified to the user, was ineffective, and the user has now lawyered to remove the section from the comments subsequently having the same result. I'm under some scrutiny about editwar so I've not reverted him more than two times and am instead reporting here for his 3 consecutive moves of others' comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * — JCAla moved a pair of comments twice and TopGun moved them back twice. JCAla is advised not to do this in the future. If the two editors continue sniping at each other I think that admins should consider blocking both of them for WP:BATTLE editing. Their level of hostility makes the talk page unpleasant for everyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, in order to make it pleasant for other neutral editors to join and provide their own feedback without having to read all of our previous dispute, I explicitly created a new section (which was supposed to remain free of the dispute we had before). I encourage TopGun to only make content-focused statements under the new section and make any other comments either on my talk or below the old section. Also, your advice, EdJohnston, is duly noted. JCAla (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I or (preferably) someone move the comments to their original position now? --lTopGunl (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User:87.228.143.217 and User:87.228.193.254 reported by Dr.K. (Result: PP 3 days)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Please note: This is not the textbook 3RR case in 24 hours. It is rather long-term edit-warring by a dynamic IP over a few days. without participating in any discussion and ignoring warnings. BLP violations are also a concern. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - 10th of December
 * 2nd revert: - 11th of December
 * 3rd revert: - 11th of December
 * 4th revert: 12th of December
 * 5th revert: 13th of December

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on WP:BLPN: and invitation to participate on the discussion by January and invitation to participate on talk by Dr.K..

Comments: The IPs are edit-warring to add undue weight, synthetic information in the BLP of Orphanides and do not participate in any discussion. Sysop user:January took this issue to BLPN where I saw it and commented. The IP 87.228.193.254 blanked the page repeatedly in response to January's BLP warnings just the latest example, more here. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * - Best if everyone settles down and talks it over on the talk page. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I did not explain the situation here clearly enough. I didn't know about this article until I saw January's report on BLPN. Trying to help January maintain BLP compliance and seeing that the IPs do not engage in talk, or at least meaningful talk, despite the warnings, I went into this to help January in avoiding BLP violations at the article. Fully protecting the article does nothing that semi-protection could not do better. Full protection is needed when registered users disagree among themselves. This is not the case here. Only the IPs have this problem. The IPs are not talking anyway, I was not going to edit an article I never before edited until yesterday and only to remove a BLP violation, and January has no interest in it as she has commented on the article talk. Meanwhile the IPs get the message that they can edit-war with impunity and I am fairly sure they are just counting down the three day protection to start all over again. At this stage I give up on the article and walk away. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Butterly2013 reported by User:Lhb1239 (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 COPYVIO warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Did not try to resolve on article talk page as this user is violating WP:COPYVIO and was warned to not revert the content before edit warring occured/began. Editor has also received several other warnings on their talk page prior to the copyvio and 3RR warnings placed on their talk page (see here)

Comments:

Editor restored episode summaries to article after they had been previously removed twice on two separate days. Exhibitng WP:IDHT. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

— 48 hours for disruptive editing. They have repeatedly added copyrighted material to articles. Compliance with our copyright policies is not optional. User has been warned seven times but has never posted to a talk page or left an edit summary. Block may be lifted if the user will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While there's definitely a case of WP:IDHT, some edit-warring, and persistent copyright violations, there are flaws with the reverts listed by Lhb1239. Butterly2013's first edits were here, on 13 December. He/she then edited today, but today's version is somewhat different to the previous version. The first "revert" is considerably different to the first edits today, but it does appear to have added more copyvios. As Lhb1239 should be aware by now, "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" and reverts 2, 3 and 4 are all part of "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user" so they only count as one revert. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Tkuvho reported by User:Thenub314 (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I feel this is part of a larger issue, which I will briefly describe. Whenever Tkuvho and I edit the same article we end up in this sort of situation. This has led to me discontinuing my editing of any disputed material at Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach. He seems to knee-jerk revert my edits, such as here. In this case he thought he was removing a comment from a book by Boyer, but never examined closely enough to see I my edit had not added this comment by Boyer, but added soured material from a Historia Mathematica article.

Mostly his edits tend to very focused on removing any negative commentary on the subject of non-standard analysis or infinitesimals in general. (See Talk:Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach and search for smears and incoherent). His recent edits also seem to make famous public critics of the subject seem simply incorrect or possibly irrational,.

Recently I have made attempts to find compromises, but often attempts do not receive any reply. See this and this. Though to be fair, more recently I find if I do not edit the article following him, but raise my issues first he does reply. Not that this has lead to any common ground yet. Thenub314 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * &mdash; especially that he can still be blocked for edit warring, regardless of 3RR status. If he continues, please update this thread accordingly (or open a new one). -- slakr  \ talk / 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Slakr: your belligerent comment is based on erroneous information provided by user Thenub314.  Thenub314 misinterpreted the published comment by Hrbacek.  I made several attempts to engage him in a discussion of this, most recently on talk:(ε, δ)-definition of limit, without receiving a reply.  Tkuvho (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Thenub314's claims that I seek to "remov[e] any negative commentary on the subject of non-standard analysis" are factually incorrect. You can see for yourself that the information he placed at Elementary_Calculus:_An_Infinitesimal_Approach is still there.  Check your facts before issuing belligerent comments.  Tkuvho (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note a further error on Thenub314's part: the four deletions of erroneous material he added did not occur within a 24 hour period, nor within close to a 24 hour period. I understand his frustration with my insisting on accuracy on this page, but filing a false 3RR report does not create a productive atmosphere.  Tkuvho (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems I was incorrect in thinking this was strictly withing a 24 hour period. I would like to comment that the I came in this morning to find three further reverts of my edits without discussion at various pages, ,

User:Chrisieboy reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Though User has stopped reverting but has already violated 3RR. S M S  Talk 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a little unfair. In the first revert, I reinstated the words "or ophthalmic opticians" in parentheses and added references; in the second (after the references were deleted), I asked the user to take it to talk. The third revert was due to a further revert (and deletion of references) without edit summary or discussion and the fourth was of the sock. After the second, third and fourth reverts I left the appropriate warnings on the user's talk pages. I have now raised this at WP:AN/I. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Chrisieboy, Jshan was blocked for edit warring. The blocking admin apparently didn't notice that you violated 3RR as well, and you luckily escaped the same block (which was indeed warranted, from what I can tell). This report is definitely stale so there will be no action taken, but please keep 3RR in mind in the future&mdash;violations almost always result in a 24 hour block, regardless of who's right or wrong, or who's discussing and not discussing (though attempts at discussion will certainly help your case).  Swarm   X 02:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jshan826 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

S M S  Talk 21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * , not by me.  Swarm   X 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Various users reported by User:Ramaksoud2000 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, is a piece of organ music attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach.

I am outside observer reporting this as I have observed this. It appears the user has been making claims that this piece is not by Bach. He states that it has been challenged and refers to WP: OR as a basis for his argument. Users have tried to resolve this with him by proposing that they state it has been attributed to Bach but has been challenged but the user being reported has denied this and tries to dominate by edit warring. Has not broken 3RR rule but has been edit warring.


 * &mdash; I have doubts and suspicions on this one. The stable version of the page includes the disputed text, yet there's suddenly an influx of extremely new accounts that started edit warring against established editors and, who've been on the article for a while, over changing the exact same content block:
 * - created 12/15/2011
 * - created 12/14/2011
 * I'm thinking that there's some sockpuppetry going on.
 * -- slakr \ talk / 00:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The user in question(Rolusty33) has admitted to sockpuppetry on my talk page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramaksoud2000 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me deal with the sockpuppetry and then take a look at the edit warring incident...  Swarm   X 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the sock, but in light of their admission I'm going out on a limb and have given them an only warning for sockpuppetry. Regarding the edit war, I've reverted to the last stable version and protected the article for a few days, and I've instructed Rolusty to prepare and discuss their proposed changes. If there's further trouble with this user, report back here or let me know and I'll block them personally.  Swarm   X 03:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the sock, but in light of their admission I'm going out on a limb and have given them an only warning for sockpuppetry. Regarding the edit war, I've reverted to the last stable version and protected the article for a few days, and I've instructed Rolusty to prepare and discuss their proposed changes. If there's further trouble with this user, report back here or let me know and I'll block them personally.  Swarm   X 03:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Waleswatcher reported by User:Ramaksoud2000 (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am only an outside observer. The user in question has engaged in an edit war with an ip address instead of reporting the issue to the AIV or elsewhere. The user has not given warnings to those involved and instead of following guidelines, the user broke the 3RR rule by edit warring.


 * &mdash; feel free to update or re-report if the edit war continues. -- slakr \ talk / 02:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Cossde reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This user has removed information from this article with references supporting the things being removed. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions  03:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * for one week. Although it's tempting to pin the responsibility on the most prominent edit warrior, the fact is that multiple editors have been propagating the edit war over the past week. I'll also add that no one has made an attempt at discussion on the talk page. Thus, article protection is probably going to be more effective than a singular block.  Swarm   X 04:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor is also reverting edits on other articles as well (for ex. Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation). Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   04:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Same protection applied. Use the talk pages!  Swarm   X 04:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And note that I've personally warned them on their talk page.  Swarm   X 04:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125 reported by User:Cossde (Result: Already protected)
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: [diff]

Comments:Said user has removed categories from this article with references supporting the things being removed. Cossde (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * already&mdash; see above section.  Swarm   X 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Noformation (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warring is on a talk page so I'm not sure this applies. The user has been warned about 3RR and refactoring others comments.

Comments:

User had not breached 3RR at the time I posted this report but has now done so. Review recent history and it should be apparent. Update: User has now trolled my talk page with a 3RR warning. Very pointy. N o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  08:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse Something should be done. He has pushed the patience of the project too far.--Adam in MO Talk
 * Endorse Something should be done. He has pushed the patience of the project too far.--Adam in MO Talk


 * Oppose No one had the right to revert my edits. Zenkai251 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone has the right to revert your edits. You are at 5 reverts now. You are well over the block threshold. Please stop for your own sake before this develops any further.--Adam in MO Talk 09:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is under discussion at Incidents herel.--Adam in MO Talk 09:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * for now and apparently at ANI.  Swarm   X 05:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Petrukhina and User:Illyukhina reported by User:Dismas (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: link permitted


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

This case isn't just limited to the article mentioned above. If you take a look at the edit histories of both editors, you'll see that they're locked in an edit war on several articles. They all seem to have something to do with whether or not the Soviet Union should be linked or the country that is now one of the former republics of the Soviet Union.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

There are too many articles involved here. It's a conflict between the two editors about several articles. Not just one.

Comments:

Both  by User:JamesBWatson.  Swarm   X 05:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:60.240.231.203 reported by User:Footy Freak7 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Football_League_%28Australia%29&action=historysubmit&diff=466229172&oldid=466222355


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Football_League_%28Australia%29&action=historysubmit&diff=466253004&oldid=466229172
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Football_League_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=466282739
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Football_League_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=466407468
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Football_League_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=466432275

This user has previous form for 3RR violations.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANorthern_Football_League_%28Australia%29&action=historysubmit&diff=466433971&oldid=466229013

Comments:

This is very frustrating. I have had to halt my editing to avoid the 3RR rule myself and have asked for help. As this IP has been a previous issue I did not feel that another warning was required (I can be corrected on this). There is a clash of verifiable evidence and he refuses to acknowledge this, persisting in one side and refusing to provide the additional evidence required that will resolve the issue. At present the needed evidence only exists as original research so it can't be added. So in effect he is ignoring the reality of the By Laws as they have stood since 1981 (as I stated on the talk page). Footy Freak7 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * .  Swarm   X 04:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)