Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive177

User:67.248.31.193 reported by User:NatGertler (Result:31 h.)
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 did enter discussion after the third revert, but just to post and immediately revert the fourth time. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am the user. I mistakenly violated the 3RR rule (once) after having lost count due to the tendentious and POV edits of NatGertler and other users.  My fourth revert has already been undone by another user.  I will keep better track next time.08:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.31.193 (talk)


 * by  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pelaisse reported by User:Soewinhan (Result: Both pages protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: diff
 * 6th revert: diff
 * 7th revert (Using an IP): diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning from User:Jim1138.

Request for discussion from me.

Warning from me.

Other long term edit-warrings
Whenever he gets a chance, he'll remove Burma related information at various articles (diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) despite being warned repeatedly that such edits are unacceptable. (There is a list of warnings from other users at his talk page ).

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

Comments:

User:Pelaisse tried to split Burmese–Siamese War (1594–1605) into two different wars. User:Hybernator and I think it is inappropriate since the two invasions were part of a single war. I have started a discussion at Talk:Burmese–Siamese wars. But User:Pelaisse does not participate and keeps reverting. This is not the first time. (Check out his talk page) He was blocked there times for copyright violations and attempts to push nationalist POV. He also removes Burma related information from various pages whenever he gets a chance. S WH  talk  13:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * for three days. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Seanwal111111 reported by 93.107.94.93 (Result: No action)
Page: and other articles User being reported:

Edit Warring
 * 1st :
 * 2nd :
 * 3rd :
 * 4th :
 * 5th :
 * 6th :
 * 7th :
 * 8th :
 * 9th :
 * 10th :
 * 11th :
 * 12th :
 * 13th :
 * 14th :
 * 15th :
 * 16th :
 * 17th :
 * 18th :
 * 19th :

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I am reporting this user for long-term edit warring.

This user has been actively engaged in this behaviour, but does it subtlely and over a period of time under the pretence of IMOS to avoid unwanted admin attention and scrutiny it seems, surprisingly this user has not been warned about his recent behaviour and this mass-scale reverting on the same articles must be deterred, it is is disruptive and very fustrating, this behaviour warrants an edit restriction or more under TROUBLES as these actions meet the neccessary criteria for it to fall under it. This user has been warned before but persists.

As you can see that is a long list. 93.107.94.93 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope that whoever closes this report will consider the possibility that 93.107.94.93 is a sock of User:Sheodred, who is currently blocked for long-term edit warring about Irish nationality. I've filed a report at Sockpuppet investigations/Sheodred. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:EW
 * "Reverting edits by banned users is not edit warring." (indef block is de facto ban)
 * WP:3RRNO
 * "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts."
 * Seanwal111111 reverted a number of questionable edits originally made under the false impression that they were sanctioned by MOS.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 18:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * - IP blocked as a block-evading sock.  Swarm   X 22:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Socking. How very disappointing :( GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Thefightmaster reported by User:Reyemile (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reyemile (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Thefightmaster may be blocked if he keeps restoring material which includes a copyright notice. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:99.246.70.190 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Three of those reverts were of an anti-spam bot. Was edit warring well past the warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:90.200.63.139 reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 24h)
Page:'

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:38, 16 January 2012  (edit summary: "rv")
 * 2) 15:15, 16 January 2012  (edit summary: "rv")
 * 3) 20:28, 16 January 2012  (edit summary: "rv unreferenced material")
 * 4) 21:35, 16 January 2012  (edit summary: "rv")


 * Diff of warning: here

—  Will Beback    talk    21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * .  Swarm   X 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jdey123 reported by Rostz (talk) (Result: 48 hr block)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:10, 17 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 471873340 by Squiddy (talk) vandalism")
 * 2) 16:30, 17 January 2012  (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions */  Any removal of this cited entry will result in a complaint to the moderators.")
 * 3) 16:48, 17 January 2012  (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions */  The title of this article is Global warming controversy. Removing cited entries just because you disagree with them is irresponsible.")
 * 4) 16:53, 17 January 2012  (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions */  This is getting tiresome guys. Stop vandalising cited entries.")
 * 5) 17:07, 17 January 2012‎  (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions */  Editor: Please block Dave Souza for repeated vandalism of this article.")
 * 6) 17:15, 17 January 2012  (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions: I have complied with all Wiki terms of use. Please desist from removing cited entries just because you disagree with them. This is not a political tool.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Rostz (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously this is a new user who would be better off getting some mentoring. He has been reverted, for so far as I can see, with no real justification.. And he did use the talk page, also he was the first to do so (shame on experienced editors here). He also asked a user on the issue at hand. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * reverted... with no real justification - you're wrong. See . Feel free to join the talk there if you still disagree, after reading it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Another one: Undid revision 471895647 by Dave souza (talk) Please ban this clown. He keeps removing cited entries. His last reason is citing a well known political website that promotes AGW ideology. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Vsmith (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff reported by 71.184.188.254 (Result: IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&diff=471023841&oldid=471021433


 * 1st revert: [deletion of longstanding material in article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&diff=471579333&oldid=471578890]
 * 2nd revert: [added back material deleted as fringe (economy cannot grow unless more gold is mined) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&diff=471595355&oldid=471594467]
 * 3rd revert: [same as #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&diff=471596697&oldid=471596422]
 * 4th revert: [deletion of cited material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&diff=471656867&oldid=471645096]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Repeated warnings against edit warring keep getting deleted from the gold standard talk page. I can't engage in conversation with someone whose only action action is to deleted the warnings. The only conversation to date with him involves him repeated twisting of wiki policy in order to get his way.

Link to edit revisions of talk page - So far he has deleted a 3RR warning on the page 4 times.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Both editors need to discuss more, edit less. I'd requested protection to stop an edit war and neither editor did much in that 3-day period.  The IP has been posting talk page sections calling out Somedifferentstuff by name which I've refactored and pointed them to WP:TALKNEW.  The talk page revert war is over an edit-war notice that absolutely does not belong on the article talk page.  The IP is making a WP:POINT without regard for other editors.  I frankly don't care about the specific content anymore - went through it a while ago with the IP and they are utterly relentless and are not interested in compromise.  These debates have happened before with them, and will continue to happen until the article is the way they want.  I'd prefer not to see anyone else chased off by their tendentious habits.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Somedifferentstuff deleted a similar warning on his talk page. As far as I know a person's talk page is his to do with as he pleases, and the deletion of the warning there precluded any attempt at conversation.


 * Ravensfire above seems to shift my complaint from Somedifferentstuff engaging in a edit war on the article, to him engaging in an edit war on whether he can be warned on the articles talk page. My complaint is that Somedifferentstuff engaged in an edit war on the article, refused to discuss the matter on his talk page by deleting the complaint there, and deleted a similar complaint on the article talk page, further indicating he had no wish to discuss anything there as well.71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — 71.184.188.254 blocked one month for long-term warring on this article. The protection log shows that two months of semiprotection was used on 29 August to damp down a war in which the IP was the prime mover. The article's talk page does not reveal anyone who supports the IP's changes, but he makes them anyway. We should not have to put up with endless turmoil on an article due to a user who will not follow consensus. More details on the IP's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jonchapple and User:Wee Curry Monster reported by User:Jim Sweeney (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Incompetence reported by User:Mercy11 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: LINK


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

I have two comments:

(1) I attempted to engage in a civil resolution of the dispute via the Talk page. The disagreeing user, User Incompetence, did make comments in response to my invitation. However, a review of the "conversation" thrat transpired at the Talk page shows that his responses were not a genuine attempt to engage in a civil resolution but to "game the system" by nominally "engaging" in the discussion. A review of the 3 diff edits above shows he used each opportunity, not to discuss, but fire back with factless accussations, to openly and blatantly show-off his who-cares/my-way-or-the-highway attitude (failure to exercise good faith), to exaggerate his claims (such as, "It's been reverted by two different people so far, more than once each") and, more generally, to indiscriminatedly establish an environment non-conductive to discussion.

(2) The page was locked immediately after the disagreeing User Incompetence's third revert within 24 hours - an event which froze the article into displaying contents that was consistent with the disagreeing User Incompetence's preferred form of the article. This is contrary to policy, whereby disputes by disagreeing editors should first be resolved via discussion thru the Talk page and once a cosensus/agreement is reached, the article is changed, if necessary, to reflect the consensus or agreement. I informed the disagreeing user (HERE) that, per Wikipedia procedures, the article should stay the way it originally read until the disagreement was resolved, but he continued to revert my work (HERE).

One last Note:

I never had any objections to discuss a different version of the article - one that would had been agreeable to both of our concepts of how the article should read - but the user, from the start, created an environment that made it impossible to engage in rational and respectful conversation. Thanks.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * These edits were made two days ago; a block now would only be punitive. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

User:124.123.100.65 reported by User:SudoGhost (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 talk page: Talk page discussion

Comments:

IP (not the same IP, but very likely the same person) has been adding this user on this article for months now, this is not a one time occurrence, but a drawn out thing, but they violated 3RR today. - SudoGhost 22:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: – Semiprotected six months. There is a long-term war by a fluctuating IP to add the name of a specific singer. Use the talk page to get consensus for this addition. Perhaps you could find news articles to demonstrate his importance. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Cali4529 reported by User:JetBlast (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:21, 19 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 471987370 by Compdude123 (talk) before your discussion about this problem, this was in collapsable list so reverting. you agreeing with 1 user does not count as agreement")
 * 2) 13:08, 19 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 472026321 by JetBlast (talk) do u realize how long it is without it. It needs it.")
 * 3) 23:50, 19 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 472132357 by JetBlast (talk) it is certainly necessary so stop undoing it. If you have an objection go to the talk page")

—JetBlast (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * – 3RR was not broken. Suggest a discussion on the talk page. If reverts continue after a talk consensus is found, blocks are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How was it not broken? Me reverted the same edit 3 times within 24 hours? --JetBlast (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:3RR, it takes four reverts to break the 3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24h)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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


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


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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is slow edit warring over a wide range of articles, he has been warned by an administrator and others regarding this already Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines has been stalking my edits for a while, reverting almost automatically, articles he hasn't otherwise been editing. He has some nerve to complain about reverts, when he has not only done the same technically but also for no discernible reason and without as much as engaging in discussion even in edit summaries, ignoring clearly stated reasons. Communist Romania is most blatant, where he insists on putting a "Soviet satellite state" designation in the infobox, which is even controversial with regard to other Communist states, but positively nonsensical in regard to Romania which is well known for the independent policy it pursued. I would ask admins to admonish the user to stop this stalking behaviour. Mewulwe (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Darkness Shines posted his dishonest "attempt to resolve dispute" just 20 minutes before posting this complaint! His behaviour is competely beyond the pale. In addition, he himself has now (unlike me) violated 3RR by reverting a 4th time in 24 hours on Communist Romania. Mewulwe (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding references is a revert now? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding "satellite state" is. Changing the reference doesn't make it less of a revert. Mewulwe (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that User:Mewulwe has been edit warring on East Germany and he deleted several warnings from his talk page regarding this.  Caden  cool  15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Caden is another troll who reverted on East Germany without discussing at all and then had the nerve to accuse me of reverting without "discussing with him." Mewulwe (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you call me a vandal and the chap above a troll? Perhaps you ought read WP:NPA? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sound advice, I'm sure, from someone who says "Do grow up" in his edit summaries. Mewulwe (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mewulwe, you need to WP:AGF and stop being so WP:BITEY. Just because you disagree with an editor does not make them a "troll" or "vandal". You repeated reverting doesn't help, either. – Connormah (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Trollish or vandalistic behaviour makes them a troll or vandal, as is the case here, not a disagreement. And if you're against repeated reverting, I wonder why you do it. Mewulwe (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to link to an article in which you reached 3rr and were warned by an administrator over it? And stop with the PA's. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, an article where Connormah reached 3rr even though he thinks now he has to admonish other users for doing the same thing. Pot, kettle. Same applies to you and PAs. Mewulwe (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you didn't reach 3R on Ansumane Mané, when you edit warred out references from academic publishing houses? Interesting. Also, I do not recall calling people trolls or vandals, do you have a link to this attack? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim either of that. I reached 3rr as much as him, but I didn't sanctimoniously accuse him of reverting. And I said you engage in personal attacks, like the completely uncalled-for "Do grow up" revert summary when it was you whose position was completely indefensible. Mewulwe (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please. I find your attitude towards others is nothing but WP:BITEY and hostile. I did not reach 3RR on the page, I backed off after two. Your constant assumption of bad faith (i.e. calling editors that disagree with you trolls and vandals) is quite troubling to me. Anyways, I'm done commenting here. – Connormah (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, technically your first edit may not have been a revert, but you added the dubious date three times, and I removed it three times, I don't see how that gives you much credibility to come here and complain about my repeated reverts. Nor am I assuming bad faith, I am observing bad faith where it is unambiguously evident, as with Darkness Shines, which anyone carefully examining his behaviour will agree with. Mewulwe (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Mewulwe. You never discussed a single thing with me on East Germany. All you've done is revert, revert, revert. In fact you reverted 3 times in one day. Never did you ever give me a reason for your reverts. Calling me a troll is a personal attack. Calling other editors vandals are personal attacks. Furthermore, running around on East Germany calling User:Heonsi a sock is flat out unacceptable behavior. Where is your evidence that Heonsi is a sock? Proove it or drop it! Your behavior on Talk:East Germany and the RFC has been negative and filled with personal attacks.  Caden  cool  11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There he goes again. No, all I've done is not revert. I've been discussing at great length on the talk page, which you hadn't touched at all at the time you first complained of me not "discussing with you" (and even now only once to cast a meaningless "me-too" !vote). What, did you expect me to come to your user talk page for some personal invitation? Calling your behaviour trollish is just the facts. Here you are, explicitly complaining about my behaviour "on Talk:East Germany," where your behaviour consisted in not participating at all! And Heonsi is a new user who immediately joined ongoing edit wars (and is not participating in discussion either), that's screaming sockpuppet. This is not a personal attack either. Mewulwe (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did participate on Talk:East Germany so lying about me is pointless. I've worked on East Germany on and off for years so please stop with the trolling accusations. Your edits were noticed and reverted by many others as you very well know. Your constant assumption of bad faith, POV pushing on East Germany, and your personal attacks is quite disturbing. I'm done commenting here. Caden  cool  13:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What you may have done years ago is hardly relevant. You have not taken part in the current discussion, as anyone can see by going to the talk page and searching "Caden" which only yields the aforementioned !vote. You are the one both lying and POV pushing. Mewulwe (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, searching the entire edit history of the talk page you have never edited the page at all other than the one time mentioned. Pants on fire, I'd say. Mewulwe (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He said he has edited the article on and off, not the talk page. Which he has BTW Would you care to retract your accusations of him being a liar? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He said "I did participate on Talk:East Germany". Which he hasn't. So, no. Mewulwe (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours to Mewulwe for personal attacks on this page: 'dishonest', 'liar' and 'troll'. An admin board is not a free-fire zone. Mewulwe was asked to withdraw the term 'liar' but he refused. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Mewulwe has been warned by me recently about edit warring - I gave him  him a chance without  blocking him, but  it appears not to  have any  effect. His next  block will be a lot  longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:FluffyRug reported by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Reverting to revision of 22:22, 13 January 2012 by FluffyRug:


 * 1) 18:15, 19 January 2012  (edit summary: "Adding Secondary Sources etc")
 * 2) 12:27, 20 January 2012  (edit summary: "Reliable Sources & Secondary Sources supplied")
 * 3) 13:24, 20 January 2012  (edit summary: "Possible Vandalism")
 * 4) 14:04, 20 January 2012  (edit summary: "Probable Vandalism with an agenda!  Links are valid published and independently verified in accord with wikipedia policy.")

— RA (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

UserFluffyRug - Discussions  Thank you for this information which I was unaware of. My only aim has been to provide factual information and have endeavoured to follow the Wikipedia policies and have tried to open discussions with those involved in deleting my edits. As a new account holder with Wikipedia I stand corrected about reverting and will certainly follow the procedures, but stand by the accuracy of my edits. You may notice from my edits that every attempt was made to correct any policy mister meaner

FluffyRug (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3RR was brought to your attention with this edit, so that bird won't fly. RashersTierney (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user has received helpful advice but they seem to have ignored it. They make constant charges of vandalism in their edit summaries. They have defended themselves above but this does not seem to be a promise that they will follow policy in the future. I suggest that editors who have been working on this topic also check Gerard McGinnity where FluffyRug has made a large addition recently. This might be the same editor as User:StPhilomena but that account stopped editing in October. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:XCentristFiasco reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 24 h.)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:29, 20 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 472275437 by Muboshgu (talk) No Hostility, Brother. Discuss First, Change Second. Nothing Controversial about my Changes.")
 * 2) 16:34, 20 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 472276481 by Muboshgu (talk) You're the One who's "Editing Waring". We can settle this in the Discussion. ;)")
 * 3) 16:48, 20 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 472277072 by DD2K (talk) Sorry, I would rather face the banishment towards me because this edit is benefitial and the Wiki Code introduced before my edit, it was absolutely ridicious.")
 * 4) 16:54, 20 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 472279997 by Muboshgu (talk) You're such an Elitist. The Moderators will know I'm justified and you're not on this case.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Please note that the article in question is on 1RR probation. —– Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: The article is under a 1rr restriction, the user has been informed and warned, but will not listen. The user also removed one of my comments from the article Talk page. Dave Dial (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Icairns reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result:Both blockeed )
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: Hockey vs Field Hockey

Comments:

Both editors discussed on my talk page. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions  21:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're both edit warring, actually. Courcelles 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:86.145.213.70 and User:Mike Rosoft reported by User:Pilif12p (Result: 24h)
Page:

Users being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: diff

By 86.145.213.70:
 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff

By Mike Rosoft:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP editor, Mike Rosoft

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, I just reverted once.

Comments:


 * The reason why I was repeatedly reverting the edit is that the user was adding complaints and other comments (even a legal threat) on the article contents within the article itself. See the unregistered user's talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the article, I probably shouldn't have performed the last revert; this edit didn't contain the problematic material. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * IP by Shirik.   Swarm   X 03:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jakew reported by User:Gsonnenf (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported: Jakew

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=472058353&oldid=471985473


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=472058770&oldid=472058353
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=472073870&oldid=472059371
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=472220782&oldid=472220092
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=472269413&oldid=472258762

All reverts are deletion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jakew&diff=472232430&oldid=472227159

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=472268096&oldid=472260304 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=472230589&oldid=472226607

Comments: I was recently referred to this article during a discussion and noticed it was a bit heavy on pro-circumcision points. I added a few sources to provide more complete data and was met with a brick wall of revisions and an enormous amount of wiki lawyering that didn't apply to the situation. I tried discussing this with him and working with another editor to make sure the info got added in a way that made everyone happy, but alas it was reverted again. He also other uses content, specifically in the last link.

I checked the discussion board and it appears that at least 3 other users have had the same thing happen to them in the past several days and there are month of edit warring posts where he and another editor declares themselves the winner and revert. Looking at the 3RR archive, jakew has a history of edit warring then reporting people for fighting his revisions. It appears that there are 2 or 3 people, including him that are really trying to dominate the article to there own POV through false pretense of fake WP violations.

This is my first 3RR report so please excuse any mistakes.

Gsonnenf (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a 3RR violation. The first revert is dated 2012-01-19 13:34:02, while the 4th is dated 2012-01-20 15:50:45. Jakew (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

" Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation."Gsonnenf (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Just outside the 24-hour slot" would mean 5 or 10 minutes, perhaps even up to half an hour, not 2 hours and 15 minutes later. And I must say, this is a very combative post you made. Also, before today, you had only made 1 edit in the past 2½ years, and no edits in the past 16 months. What "discussion" was it that "referred" you to this article? Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User has also been editing with a number of IP Special:Contributions/174.28.162.94 and User:67.0.71.114 with an invite to come edit being posted here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And as those two IPs, the user made the following four reverts (the last being a partial revert): 13:38, January 19, 2012 16:49, January 19, 2012 05:16, January 20, 2012 05:44, January 20, 2012. Jakew (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here after a philosophy discussion I was having turned to circumcision. I found the article omitted quite a bit, so I attempted to fix this. My being here has nothing to do with the Reddit group. Though, if a group on Reddit decides the article is terribly bias and wishes to fix it, they are certainly welcome to add there voice and have it given equal weight to other editors even the zealous ones. As for my IP, I identified on the talk page that it was me. I stopped reverting after my third to be compliant with the rules. The 4th was not a revert, I removed the part that was criticized in the reversion comments but apparently he had more criticism for the content after that. Gsonnenf (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a partial revert, of this edit by Jayjg. His edit summary read: '"evidence strongly suggests"? That's a Wikipedia editor's conclusion. Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Also, these are WP:PRIMARY sources, which should be avoided. See also WP:MEDRS and article talk page'.  Your claim that you addressed his criticisms is incorrect, as your revert restored the primary source citations. Jakew (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the part that "stated evidence strongly suggests" in hopes this would satisfy the editor. Though this is a report about your 3RR violation. If you feel I have violated 3RR please file a report and continue your comments there. I'm sure you are familiar with the process.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

— Both parties are urged to use the talk page to get consensus. The article has needed full protection many times in the past, and protection will be used again if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, some people have discussions in real life. If you would stop attacking my credibility with FUD I would appreciate it.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bali ultimate reported by User:WR Reader (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=prev&oldid=472280485
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=prev&oldid=472300176
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=prev&oldid=472302760
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=prev&oldid=472303225

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Bali ultimate has been blocked for edit-warring in the past and so should know better, but as the first diff shows ("couldn't help myself"), he is adding the template that is currently under a deletion discussion for disruptive joke purposes only. He has a long history of going after the Article Rescue Squadron and its members (see Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden for one of many examples.


 * - The first alleged revert is actually an addition. diff - That edit was the first addition of the template and Bali has three rescue template additions after that - I note the reverting has also stopped.    You  really  can  20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If "WR Reader" isn't a sock then I'm Peggy Flemming. Nice trip down memory lane with that year old RFC on Warden, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - User:Jack_Merridew was involved in that discussion . I would just block him as a disruptive sockpuppet and be done with it - account has only edited on four separate days since its creation six months ago - first edit today was these two 3rr reports - why should we have suffer this disruptive trolling all the time.   You  really  can  21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be very surprised if it was Jack. User:A Nobody or User:Benjiboi are far more likely. The recently active accounts to look at including this on are User:JoolsRun and User:CallawayRox. It could be some false flag troll by some other banned user. But i say leave 'em be. All great grist for the mill.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, there's something very henky about User:Northamerica1000. That one feels particularly like User:A Nobody.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that Northamerica1000 is A_Nobody. When I first saw Northamerica, I thought it was A Nobody also (who I am completely familiar with), and I compared their editing pattern. There's almost nothing similar between the two with editing sytle, editing tendersies (he would never nominate the rescue template for discussion in TFD and ignore most of it as an recent example) and even time zones, with the exception of the abuse of the rescue template and the inclusionism. I think Northamerica1000 is another banned user, but that discussion about sockpuppets belong in AN/I or SPI not here. Secret account 06:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * – Bali's first addition of the rescue template was not a revert, as someone has pointed out. Since the AfD has closed with keep, the dispute is now over. It has occurred to some people that the submitter of this complaint, User:WR Reader, might be a sock. Deliberately pointy and unhelpful comments might be evidence for that. It is hard to consider this AfD comment by WR Reader to be good faith participation. Socks should not be filing 3RR reports. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User:66.239.61.196 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:01, 20 January 2012  (edit summary: "removed emotional and biased POV text")
 * 2) 19:34, 21 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 472290495 by Mann jess (talk) removing POV to restore neutrality of article.")
 * 3) 23:24, 21 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 472481101 by Mann jess (talk) yes, stop edit warring.  do not reverse the changes or you will be blocked.")

Diff of warning:

Comments: No violation of 3rr. Ip has removed sourced content from the article now 3 times. I've directed him to WP:EW and WP:BRD, and invited him to an active discussion taking place on the talk page, but he's refused (even after warning), relying instead on edit warring. It appears to be a static ip, as behavior is identical spanning back to first edit in July 2009. He's received ample warnings on every article he's frequented. I usually restrain myself to 1rr, and I'm at 3 now, so I won't be reverting again. However, I believe he will continue to edit war to remove the sources on this and other articles unless he's blocked to prevent disruption. Thanks.

— &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — One month for long-term edit warring and POV-pushing. For this editor, MSNBC is a socialist channel. He has never left a comment on a talk page or given any hint that he is listening to others' opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Charlie150408 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24 h.)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 01:12, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Updated images") first addition of the photograph
 * 2) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472535214 by Jim1138 (talk)")
 * 3) 12:16, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472590321 by Bleakcomb (talk) change image back to updated imagine, old image was pre 'the gardens' (before 2007)")
 * 4) 12:25, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472600137 by Bidgee (talk) HATERS GONNA HATE X0X0")
 * 5) 12:34, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* City and suburbs */ added updated image, since y'all have such a problem with it x0") re-added the same photo but different section, however it is still seen as edit warring since they are adding the same content to the article
 * 6) 12:45, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472601944 by Bidgee (talk) HOW IS THAT VANDALISM? LOLOLOL, PATHETIC, HAVE ME BLOCKED, ILL JUST MAKE A NEW USERNAME X0X0X0X0X0X0X")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

User refuses to use the talk page and has also threatened to sock if blocked. Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC) —Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Should he resort to socking, then WP:RFPP is that way. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:33, 22 January 2012  (edit summary: "rem attack site")
 * 2) 19:48, 22 January 2012  (edit summary: "add comment")
 * 3) 19:58, 22 January 2012  (edit summary: "remove chat thread from attack site - no benefit at all to the article - BLP")
 * 4) 20:02, 22 January 2012  (edit summary: "Talk page guidelines - states, External links to locations that are not considered WP:RS's should not be posted on article talkpages and can be removed by other users. -")


 * Diff of warning: here

These edits involve repeated removal of content from the posts of other editors -- something that is becoming a habit with this editor. Note that WP:TPO indicates an editor should "normally stop if others object". Even if this user thinks he is interpreting policy correctly, it doesn't justify edit-warring beyond 3RR.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly an attack site against a living person and is not a not reliable source that is of no benefit to the article. That link is to a chat thread or a list of "letters" from the public with personal attacks from all and sundry. Talk page guidelines - states, External links to locations that are not considered WP:RS's should not be posted on article talkpages and can be removed by other users. - Its been replaced twice now by Heironymous_Rowe, his only two edits today are to replace this attack link. The exact same edit pattern he repeated on the 14 Jan in this thread. I will leave it there and look for some discussion and consensus to remove   You  really  can  20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the alleged merits of the reverts don't justify edit-warring, particularly when WP:TPO advises caution and stopping when others object. By the way, it's hard to see a category in WP:TPO that would cover (and thus justify) this removal.  But again that's a separate issue; the issue here is obvious edit-warring, carried on beyond a 3RR warning.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its an attack site - its being kept out of the article for BLP reasons and it has no place on the talkpage either, especially a letters to the editors chat thread.   You  really  can  20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case at hand, WP:BLP absolutely and clearly applies, as the OP has been told by others in the ppast. "Objecting" to mandatory removal of BLP violating content does not estop the removal of such content. The frothy mixture being purveyed by some does not belong on any BLP or on any article talk page subject to WP:BLP, and the use of the frothy mixture repeatedly is even less welcome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether it's a BLP violation is a matter of consensus, and if others revert the removal it's a pretty obvious sign that there is no consensus that it's a BLP violation. WP:3RR itself counsels against relying on a "BLP" exemption in view of such considerations ("What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption").  User:Youreallycan fancies himself specially authorized to make BLP judgments all on his own, but in fact this is a matter of judgment and consensus formation among interested editors.  In this context edit-warring is, shall we say, unwise.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's a BLP matter, then the material should stay out, and those wishing to include it can go to BLP/N, no? Franamax (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nomoskedasticity - Not really -If a user in good faith considers a link a violation of BLP he is in his rights to remove it - experienced users, like yourself, rather than warring the external back in, should take that good faith removal on board and not replace it and move to discussion.   You  really  can  21:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Enforcing BLP is exempted from 3-rr. And I'd also encourage all editors wishing to restore the link to stop reverting and start a BLPN thread. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link in question, acting in an administrative capacity. Further discussion should occur at a noticeboard. Franamax (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bouron and User:Tirgil34 reported by User:Bouron (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: diff


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


 * User Tirgil34
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  User talk:Bouron

Comments:

This is my first edit war report. Before this edit war all my opponents tried to solve conflicts on the talk page. So I didn't expect my opponent would revert me 3rd time. I had no hope that I can have constructive dialogue with User:Tirgil34 when I decided to report the edit war. What about reverts by me. I totally agree that 3rd revert from me violated rules of Wikipedia. But now I know that multiple reverting make nothing useful. I also promise not to participate in edit wars again. Please take into account the fact that I reverted to consensus version and my suggestions to discuss the changes on discussion page.--Bouron (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Twobells reported by User:Rjensen (Result: Declined for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Comments:

Twobells proposed to delete the article British Raj because he disliked its contents. That proposal was speedily rejected by a consensus of editors. see Articles for deletion/British Raj. Twobells now has deleted a third of the article to accomplish the goal that was rejected by consensus. Rjensen (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you provide diff's of the edit-warring, as I don't see it yet ... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1st blanking by Twobells = ;
 * Rjensen's revert =
 * 2nd blanking by Twobells =
 * Rjensen's 2nd revert =
 * 3rd blanking by Twobells =  he blanked about half the article. (and contrary to his edit summary, the blanked material covered the British Raj) Rjensen (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to make of this, I have the article on my watchlist and have made some minor edits over the past couple of years, though more to the talk page than to the article itself (I'll consider myself WP:INVOLVED for this one), but Twobells seems to be talking in the abstract about POV etc and wanting to get the article deleted and blanks it but doesn't provide any details other than the abstract statements of too much Indian Independence movement info or POV etc. I've asked him to explain what he wants to remove and why and gain consensus (on the talk page) before any further removal. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * - Twobells' last revert was at 11:50 on 22 January. Why not wait and see if he edits again before deciding on a sanction. At first sight, this *does* appear to be POV-warring by Twobells. He has already made three large reverts on 22 January, and a fourth revert would break 3RR. He has also made a pointy AfD nomination for the article that was closed as a Speedy Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * – Editor has stopped reverting for now. If this resumes, action may be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Penyulap reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I tried to warn the editor that his conduct was problematic, but he rebuffed me, apparently believing that as a "regular", he is exempt. He finally came to the article Talk page to contribute to the discussion (but only sometime after the warning), but I confess that many of his comments are hard to follow (at least for me).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the 6th revert is not indicative of a constructive editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to have resolved itself. I'm not seeing a 3RR violation, more editors editing tangetially to each other - stopping earlier for discussion would have helped. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Soapfan2013 and User:Musicfreak7676 reported by User:George Ho (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxie_Jones&diff=472642053&oldid=472550357
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxie_Jones&diff=472675597&oldid=472642053
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxie_Jones&diff=472679101&oldid=472675597
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxie_Jones&diff=472682062&oldid=472679101
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxie_Jones&diff=472682547&oldid=472682062

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: There are disputes between File:KS Maxie.png and File:KirstenStormsMaxieJones2011.jpg. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish to apologize for such edits. I was simply trying to prove a point that other user simply wasn't accepting. Was not my intention to break the editing rule. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also hope such is not used against me, as I have continually been active helping soap pages and keeping things as verifiable as possible and to be blocked over such thing compared to other editors, I feel, would be wrong. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 22:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's leave this issue to administrators. Some user removed the merger proposal tag, and I did not notice. If it weren't for removal, the 3RR could have been prevented. --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the merger marker. I don't remove such things until they are settled upon. I do not wish to be blocked, as I feel it would be unwarranted, in my honest opinion. I've been a good contributor, I feel. And I feel the other user involved was doing this to simply be right in their situation when they were wrong. Especially after you, yourself George, put the image back. It should be them who is blocked. I also don't intend on continuing, as I uploaded an all-new image in the replacement that confirms it is Ms. Storms as Maxie! Music Freak 7676 TALK! 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did revert the image only because I prefer promos to screenshots, not because of an appearance. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I only reverted because their argument was completely false and could not be proven true. It was them who did it over an appearance, claiming A) It wasn't Storms and B) She had never had longer hair on the series, which she had. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 23:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * . please note, however, that there is no 3-rr exemption for being right and that you could have been blocked.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. It was not my intention to violate. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:ChessPlayerLev and User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result:Page protected 3 days)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

For Ihardlythinkso: ChessPlayerLev's reverts are immediately after each of Ihardlythinkso's:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert (after warning):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for ChessPlayerLev; Ihardlythinkso knows very well what 3RR is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None except in edit summaries (a big no-no)

Comments:

A prime candidate for WP:LAME.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's essentially what I wrote to Jasper on my talk page; "In all honesty, I wasn't aware that I was edit warring. I thought I was just preserving important information on a page from someone who kept reverting it. (I thought reverting was the culprit here, not editing) I'm a new member and didn't understand that distinction. Also, I hadn't read your warning before I made my last edit. That being said, I accept responsibility, and thank you for the heads up. I will certainly know better next time." ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are both lucky I am declining to block at the moment - work it out on the talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You & I have had previous interaction; it wasn't pleasant. Be advised: I don't feel "lucky", I don't shudder at your Admin status, and IMO and in my experience you've been abusive in various ways with your Admin status in the past. Have a nice day. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You probably should feel lucky - I personally would have blocked both of you, seeing as you're edit-warring on multiple articles. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be "shuddering" at admins ... but Elen certainly took WP:AGF to the limit, and your snotty reply above pretty much seals where your attitude lies.  Sure glad that one of the twp people involved in the edit war is polite, and believes in the collegial nature of this project ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not edit warring on mutiple articles. (I *was* edit warring on one article.) I did not say you suggested I should shudder at Admin power, I was simply telling Elen I didn't shudder at hers. I do not have an "attitude" regarding anything outside of Elen here, and on that topic, you lack history to really understand that it might be justified. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. The "lucky" comment seems to have pulled in your involvement. For what end? Do you feel better now?


 * It's a slam to accuse that I do not somehow understand "the collegial nature of Wikipedia". The new user you hold in such high regard on that point, seems to lack a fundamental understanding of concept of consensus-building. And "politeness" cannot cure that. Please teach him and get off my case. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The new user has already accused an established editor of "blatant dishonesty" twice. Is this your idea of "politeness and collegiality"? You should do some research before making comments. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, I proposed a compromise on the content dispute (no one else did), which should show doubters that I have some idea of working toward consensus and resolution. Yet, I have to experience a false accusation from User:ChessPlayerLev, who wrote that I "repeately" called users Jasper Deng and Elen of Roads "Idiots" and "Asshats", which of course I never did and never would do. This is either a big mistake by CPL, or outright abusiveness. User:Bwilkins, since you called this user "polite" in comparison to me, and hit at my "attitude", I'd like your take on the false accusations. I did not ask for this, it's a level of incivility and slander that I'm not going to just absorb, either. There are no facts to back up such an accusation. It is quite mean and nasty. Abusive. Or, am I completely mistaken, and these totally false accusations of name-calling, "Asshats" and "Idiots" is somehow acceptable and merits no action?! I did not ask him to do this. It is very over-the-line if it is not a mistake. I've asked the user to check his facts. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the admins for the page protection. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve this (admittedly, very minor!) issue.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On the article talk page, I believe we have reached consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: A related issue has been brought up at WP:ANI. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary edit war
These two users are also engaged in an edit war on (but neither has violated 3RR there; still consider this when taking action on the main edit war): Consider this in addition.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Initial edit:
 * 1st reverts by both sides:
 * 2nd reverts by both sides:


 * While I mentioned this to you on my Talk Page, I feel the need to correct an inaccuracy. Both myself and Ihardlythinkso have (rather quickly) come to an understanding on that particular issue, and are thus not presently "engaged in an edit war".  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This was just additional info for the reviewing admins' purposes. You probably don't need to worry about it.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Astrotube reported by User:Jasper420 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Comments:

User:Astrotube has continuously and erroneously removed 311 from List of punk rock bands, 0–K despite persistent reverts of his vandalism by myself. The list has been long standing in its current state, with non-relevant bands removed long ago. He claims them to be a non punk rock band, with only the claim that he is "a long time fan(20 years) to back himself up, despite sources saying that they are a ska-punk band, among other genres, which he also claims is erroneous. I will revert his vandalism a final time and leave a warning/notification of this complaint shortly. Jasper420 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, it would be just as easy to block both of you for 24 hours, but hopefully this can be resolved without resorting to that. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 19:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Penyulap (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

This is a tough one, cause the page moves so very fast, and I'm not sure what to pop in here. Honestly I have no idea if this is warring or not, so I just thought, it never hurts to ask.


 * adding peacock term 'Expert(s)'
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472473009
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472441737
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472413517
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472348046
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472596686

Removing "The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a rights advocacy non-profit group, confirmed the protests were the biggest in Internet history, with over 115 thousand sites altering their webpages."
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472441737
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472442067
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472473009
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472600067 - duplicate
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472722779

Removing "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warns that proxy servers and websites hosting user-generated content, such as Etsy, Flickr and Vimeo, could be targeted under the bill"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472473009
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472596686
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472722779
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Online_Piracy_Act&diff=prev&oldid=472799058

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

Oh you know I hadn't done that at all. I thought it impolite to threaten a newbie, so I went with bite, and let the whole matter slide and slide, hoping he'd explain on the talkpage, where I asked him about it all, asking him about it. Anyhow he just went right ahead and did it again next day. here but then when Xenophrenic comes up a discussion with an editor I really can't work with (Had conflict at ANI with summerPhd), and she comes to my talkpage, here you can see he has an intricate knowledge of the policy, I mean real good. And I had looked at his userpage, and OMG it totally talks all about 3RR like he is so knowledgeable about it. Anyhow, I guess I should have warned him that there was 3RR to worry about.

Anyhow just thought I'd ask as I'm curious about this, after I got a notification on my tp saying that some query here had become stale. (sorry about that, I didn't know about this page, if I had I would have come and had a chat!!) I didn't even know there was a help page for this kind of thing. Penyulap  talk 17:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Is this a duplicate of the report just 4 entries before this one, at: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring? The above diffs, covering a time frame far greater than 24 hours, do not show a violation of 3RR -- but they definitely support your assertion that "the page moves so very fast".  One of the busiest pages on Wikipedia these past few days, by some statistics.  The consensus discussion you have since opened on the talk page is an excellent start, and I've already commented there.  I am not familiar with the issue surrounding the other links you've provided from that other editor (User:SummerPhD), his "intricate knowledge of policy" and your ANI stuff, etc. -- I don't think I should be commenting on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I got a genuine laugh out of that Xenophrenic, I think you're all right. It's not about you, it's about the other Xenophrenic, I was "asking him about it". :) Anyhow I don't actually want to see you punished, I'm just after opinions and a description from other editors as to what you're up to, that sort of thing. Slow reverts or something, I don't know what it's called. Anyhow that other Xenophrenic and his "intricate knowledge of policy" would he on his userpage, not yours of course. Penyulap   talk 22:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you've lost me, and I genuinely don't know what you are on about. If you have posted on this noticeboard, I believe most Admins would take that to mean you are seeking administrative action of some sort -- not just opinions and discussion.  Thanks, though, for the "you're all right" and the "I don't actually want to see you punished" comments.  :-)  Right back at ya; which is why I went to your talk page instead of here.  I'll resume our discussions there.  Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * — If you don't know whether it's a violation, we're not in a position to check that for you. Protection might be considered. It is probably not worth it to protect such a fast-moving article. Some restraint from both parties would be appreciated. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:71.174.135.204 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result:Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported: 71.174.135.204 currently on 6th revert in 4 hours.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy talkpage archives, alas

Comments:

was a long-term edit warrior on Gold standard. Recently got a 1 month block. 71.174.135.204 appeared shortly afterwards to continue the same mission. bobrayner (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I don't see a block in the log. Is there some technical glitch here? Meanwhile the editor has reverted again. bobrayner (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Must be a tech glitch... :) I jumped the gun. Ed's already blocked any which way :)  Wifione  Message 05:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Tarc reported by User:WR Reader (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=471888866&oldid=471886205
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=471970303&oldid=471959806
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=471983827&oldid=471982833
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=472140140&oldid=472100647

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Tarc has been blocked for edit-warring in the past and so should know better, but as the examples show, in addition to edit warring, he is also using incivil edit summaries and attacking those who disagree with him on the article's talk page. He is also edit warring on the talk page:.


 * Comment Most of these reverts appear to be maintenance reverts type to prevent incorrect facts to be inserted. The 4th revert seems to be outside 24 hours, even with the 24 block BLACKOUT we just experienced.-- JOJ Hutton  20:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * - Yes, these edits are over multiple days. I also note that Tarc was totally correct, the wikipedia review is not inactive at all. http://ilovewikipedia.com -   You  really  can  20:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The site you referenced, http://ilovewikipedia.com/ is not the official Wikipedia Review site  linked to in the article since at least July 1, 2008 and up to January 20, 2012 at 16:55, when it was changed to IP address  http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/, apparently a new creation at http://184.172.174.94, some commercial site selling "custom sofas and upholstered furniture."  Anyone in the world could create such a new site and post a mirror of Wikipedia Review archives, perhaps even with a new post or two, and claim it is the "real site" for some defunct web operation. I have changed the infobox back to the website of long standing. It is not a reliable source to counterbalance the fact that the domain registration for WR was allowed to lapse. One hopes that someone, in the future, will be able to contact the individual (allegedly "Selina") who previously registered the domain name and put it back on the internet. The assertions that WR is alive and well are comical, like a Monty Python skit asserting that the parrot is just resting, not dead at all.  Where is any reliable secondary source verifying that "http://ilovewikipedia.com" = "wikipediareview.com?" Also an IP site 184.172.174.94 has claimed to be the "real Wikipedia Review." Claims by such upstart websites or assertions by folks on Facebook do not satisfy verifiability. They do not even come close. A statement, referenced to the actual 	www.wikipediareview.com, that says "NOTICE: This domain name expired on 01/16/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion" is reliably sourced and NPOV. Edison (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no breach of WP:3RR - three edits in the period 17th-18th January, then a fourth (which was self-reverted) more than 24 hours later. And, at any rate, the user hasn't edited the article in question for almost 24 hours, so what pressing need is there for administrator intervention in the first place?  Super Mario  Man  21:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "WR Reader", an obviously not-new user editor despite the limited # of edits on this particular account, also failed to note that I reverted myself at the end anyways. And as noted, #4 was 2 days later anyways.  This is quite a vexatious filing by any standard; doubly so when paired with the frivolous one against Bali Ultimate below. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see here, folks. Courcelles 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The slow speed edit war denying that the Wikipedia Review domain name has expired should cease, and future reverts should lead to blocks. Reliable secondary sources are needed to establish that any new website someone might establish is the "real" Wikipedia Review, since there appear to be at least two claimants so far. (Meanwhile, someone should check on "Selina," the domain registrant of Wikipedia Review, and remind her to renew the registration, or to give the password, email, etc to some replacement registrant. But please stop the pretending. The website's history is very complex, if website http://encyc.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review is to be believed, with the ownership and website changing several times from establishment 5 Nov 2005, to the New site 16 Feb 2006, with a competing site established 9 Feb 2009. It is plausible that some new website might emerge for WR, but the self-serving assertions of any new website are not the reliable secondary source needed to establish that it has re-emerged phoenix-like from the ashes of it domain expiration (current sale price of a 1 year registration : under $5 (US)). Edison (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the domain name expired, but the problem is that you believe that a domain name expiring is the same as the website expiring. The domain expired, but the hosting hasn't expired. You're denying that the website still exists at the IP address, and you're using that denial and wikilaywering in order to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia's Wikipedia Review article:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_Review&diff=prev&oldid=472199636
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_Review&diff=472252409&oldid=472235264
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWikipedia_Review_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=472254436&oldid=472237402
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=472372711&oldid=472372555
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=472372909&oldid=472372711
 * The IP address isn't a "new" WR replacing last week's WR; it's the same WR. Don't accuse us of "pretending". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I supported keeping the Wikipedia article about WR in the recent AFD. But how is a new website the "same" website? What is meant by "the hosting hasn't expired?" Someone mirrored the site? Please! Help us out here. Have the persons who are the heads of the organization (the WR equivalents of Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales) stated that the new website is the official one now, as opposed to a rump website representing some faction of participants? Or are there reliable secondary sources stating that the new website is the official one? That is not "wikilawyering," it is policy WP:V and guideline WP:RS in black and white, without any interpretation needed. Are there at least Wikipedia editors who are also somehow self-identified administrators, stewards, or whatever of WR who can assert that the new website is the successor to the old website?  Edison (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the two new WR sites have exactly the same content,(both appear to have some new posts by some of the same contributors as before) and are the physical servers (in the basement of a furniture store?) the same as before domain name expiration? Edison (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Wikipedia_Review. Also, ilovewikipedia.com isn't the WR's new domain name: http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36276&st=20&p=294223&mode=linear#entry294223. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked Alison and Silver_seren to confirm that http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/ is the same Wikipedia Review from last week and not a replacement. They won't lie. The Wikipedia Review can exist independently from its domain name. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe WR has hired Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf as their new spokesman? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the same WR, I can still log in and everything. Having a new URL doesn't change anything, Edison, and your argument is really, really weak. I don't even know why you are arguing this, it's rather self-evident. The WR domain name expired and, while they are recovering it, they are hosting the site at a separate URL. Sites change their URLs all the time. Silver  seren C 18:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go along (WP:IAR) with the Wikipedia editors who say they are also Wikipedia Review editors and that there is continuity in the website (aside from the changed internet address). The article could accurately say WR is now doing business at a new website, though it would be helpful to mention what happened, since anyone doing a Google search is still directed to the old wikipediareview.com site, currently without DNS registration and finds a dead end there . Edison (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36357 – Selina and the domain name are back. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hurrah. It's odd that the WR posters can't tell a Keep !=vote in an AFD from a Delete, when they rage at perceived enemies. Edison (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 72 h.)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Mongolian People's Republic
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He just got off a bloc kfor edit warring on this and other articles, no warning given.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Since January 10th Mewulwe has 7 8 times edit warred two reliable sources from this article. He does on on the presumption that the authors plagiarized from wiki, an obvious BLP violation as well. The sources are both academic publishing houses and fully meet RS requirements. Would someone tell him to stop doing this please. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated as he has again reverted for the third time today. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated as he is now removing more academically sourced content. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Mewulwe (Result: 72 h.)
Page:

User being reported: Since January 12th Darkness Shines has 4 times edit warred two dubious sources into this article. He does on on the presumption that the sources are academic publishing houses even though there is strong evidence that they copied the info from Wikipedia. Would someone tell him to stop doing this please.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Furthermore, Darkness Shines has actually violated 3RR by reverting 5 times within 24 hours here:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

He also had the nerve to then accuse me of edit warring on that very article, even though I hadn't violated 3RR. The user has been stalking my edits for a while and has just been blocked for 48 hours for stalking another user, so would someone send him a message to stop this behaviour please. Mewulwe (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Communist Romania is a little stale don't you know, given that last revert was 17 January. I have not broken 3rr on Ansumane Mané either, I have reverted your continuing removal of academic sources. This is an obvious bad faith report in revenge for my filing above. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have broken 3RR. I haven't. On Mané neither of us has broken 3RR, so my report is as valid as yours. Mewulwe (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Darkness Shines has now broken 3RR on Mongolian People's Republic: Mewulwe (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Keysanger reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, and he has been warned before in another article (which may be beside the point, but it shows that the user knows what he is doing and purposely tries to game the system).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Keysanger's behavior and his usage of the warning boxes has received negative comments from a series of editors over the past few months. These include User:Donald RichardSands (who stated his opposition to the boxes), and User:Alex Harvey (Who wrote: "Are you trying to build consensus - or make a point about how terrible the article is?" in reference to Keysanger's actions). Keysanger recently mass-bombarded the talk page with a series of "issues",, which is an attempt from his part in justifying the boxes (a matter which falls under WP:GAMING). This behavior of his was also reprimanded by Alex Harvey, the mediator at the time, because listing so many "issues" at the same time prevents a good discussion/resolution of each topic. Based on the evidence, I believe this user has for long used disruptive tactics to abuse the system and bully other users to follow his POV. I hope whoever decides this case finds an appropiate solution to the problem (which, as you can notice goes beyond the 3RR).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * . Marshal, Apart from the fact that 3RR has not technically occurred yet (come back in case there's a fourth revert within 24 hours), I find that the editor's opening up of multiple sections on the talk page is an attempt to discuss than edit war. Plus, I'm sorry but if you're going to address his reversions as childish, there might be an increase of animosity from the other side too. Also try not to remove tags questioning neutrality till the tagging editor has been requested to list out the points with respect to neutrality that he/she feels is not being represented appropriately. I suspect that consensus is being seen as a majority view on the talk page. While a majority view may represent a sizable perspective, it need not necessarily represent consensus. So perhaps allowing the neutrality tag till those new sections on the talk page are dealt with is the correct way to go than removing the neutrality tag mentioning that you have majority. I hope this doesn't sound bad on you as that's not the intention here.  Wifione  Message 03:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem Wifion is than among the issues than Keysanger has just been added there are some already discused and closed, like the issue 33 "Bolivian Declaration of War", already discussed and closed by consenssus (which was not favorable to Keysanger's POV) in the Issue 2: Part II: Draft RfC section which is already archived (archive 9[] and archive 10[]), and the Keysanger's intention of adding a large amount of issues in ther article is clear (keep the NPOV banner) because many of it can be resolved by him, with a simple edition. He is going to keep this form of pressure over the rest of the editors involved in the article upkeep until we just give up and he can impose his POV (which is the official Chilean POV about the war). Greetings -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  03:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I voice my disagreement as well. The tags on the article were left there, without discussion, for a long time until editor Dentren removed them. Given that no discussion was taking place at the time, the removal was perfectly justified. Keysanger's re-insertions and then mass-postings at the article's talk page clearly shows that he has no intention of discussing matters one-by-one (which, as I stated in the opening of this report, was suggested as disruptive behavior by the mediator at the time, Alex Harvey), and that these posts are mean to simply justify the tags on the page. Given these points, I do believe that actions should be taken to prevent any further of such behavior from this user. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 08:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1) 03:39, 20 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid rv by Epeefleche pls. read WP:BURDEN; you could try RSN to gain consensus to insert this material. stacking reflist with unreliable sources to make the subject look more notable than it is is bad form")
 * 2) 22:51, 22 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 472396650 by Epeefleche (talk) you don't need a lack of consensus that it's *not* reliable, you need consensus that it *is* reliable")
 * 22:51, 22 January 2012 (edit summary: "rv misleading, the mention is trivial")
 * 1) 00:24, 23 January 2012  (edit summary: "rmv unreliable sources; appealing to nonexistent talkpage consensus just makes you look like you're intentionally trying to deceive people")
 * 2) 14:48, 23 January 2012  (edit summary: "for Wikipedia purposes, "missing reliable source" = "missing source"; please gain consensus that source is reliable, as RSN discussion has not judged it to be so")
 * 3) 07:37, 24 January 2012  (edit summary: "rmv unreliable source, pls gain consensus for use of source before repeatedly reinserting it. when you go to RSN, there's always risk that people won't support you, & you just have to deal w/that. re Ye'or, questionable claims require attribution")


 * Diffs of warnings:


 * 1) here, 11:06, January 23, 2012, by Tigerboy1966, and
 * 2) here, 15:12, January 23, 2012, by Armbrust

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor here is reverting 3 different editors. Deleting 1 sentence and changing a 2nd sentence, against the consensus of the 4 other editors involved in the matter (Jeff Song, Tigerboy1966, Dream Focus, and me) – who are editing that page and/or addressing the editor on the talkpage. Despite 2 warnings for edit warring, in regard to these deletions (by Tigerboy1966 and Armbrust). Note – 2 & 3 above should be seen as one revert (not 2); combined they match the reversions by the editor, as to the indicated language, in the other reverts.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Indented #3 for clarity -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no 3RR violation here and the consensus Epeefleche refers to is wholly imaginary. Has Jeff Song commented on this in any way, shape, or form? Not at all, so why is Epeefleche claiming Jeff Song supports him? And what about the users who commented at RSN? Why didn't Epeefleche see fit to mention that he brought the source to RSN and that it was soundly rejected? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no 3RR violation, but there's clear edit warring. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You could say the same of Epeefleche and Tigerboy, and they don't even have the benefit of consensus to add their material. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed you could make that case for Epeefleche. Not sure about Tigerboy. --18:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time of her most recent revert of 2 sentences, 4 editors had disagreed with Ros (Epee, Tigerboy, Dream, and Livit). Dalby was still considering the matter relating to the 2nd sentence -- he had reservations, and needed more information which he had been given.  Zero editors had agreed with Ros.  Ros had been warned twice for edit warring over the same language (by both Armbrust and Tigerboy). With that as background, she again deleted the sentences.


 * I had opened discussion at RSN. As to whether the source in the 2nd sentence is an RS. There, yet another editor (Livit) wrote "I don't see why not. Ith has an editorial board and contributing authors, articles are not written by the editors, and it publishes on a regular schedule. I don't see anything in the couple articles that I browsed that make me nervous. I'd say go for it."  That marked a 4th editor disagreeing with Ros.


 * The only other comment was by Andrew Dalby, who simply wrote: "I'm not so sure. Its editorial people don't appear notable, they do write quite a lot of the articles, and the list of major past contributors includes (the first one I checked) a "reprint by permission" of an article that Noam Chomsky had actually published elsewhere. I'd gladly be persuaded that Arts & Opinion is independent and reliable, but I'm not persuaded at first glance. Tell us what Wikipedia article this is about, and which book review." I had provided the input Dalby requested.  Yet – with all 4 editors who responded to her with a firm view disagreeing with Ros, and 1 saying "I'm not so sure I'm persuaded at first glance; tell me more", Ros continued to edit war.


 * Correction – Ros edit warred in reverting 2 different editors (Epee and Tigerboy), as to the 2 initial sentences in question. Tigerboy had disagreed with her both by his edit and in his edit summary.  Ros had also been engaged on the talkpage by a 3rd editor who disagreed with her  – Dream (and by Epee).  She had been warned twice on her talkpage for edit warring over these 2 sentences (by both Tigerboy and Armbrust).  But she edit warred over a different sentence with Jeff Song (though it was bundled in with a deletion of the same 2 initial sentences).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It must be nice to be able to ignore all users, all content, and all policy that you disagree with. The only users who looked past the front page of the source pointed out a number of very real problems with it, including but not limited to the fact that the people it claims as its authors are in fact just people it reprints articles by and not people who write for it (Livit's "contributing authors"), the fact that a great deal of its content is in fact written by its editorial board (Livit's "articles are not written by the editors"), the fact that it solicits reviews from whoever feels like submitting them, the fact that it doesn't compensate writers, and the fact that the author of the specific piece is a fringe nut with no credentials who evidently couldn't get his writing published anywhere else. Yet you persist in reinserting the material with no argument stronger than "majority rule wins every time." Consensus is not head-counting, and you should know that by now. Drive-by comments and reverts with no basis in policy don't trump discussion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Every single editor who had a firm opinion on the sentences you deleted disagreed with you. All 4 of them  -- that's not just consensus opposition, that's unanimous.  Two editors -- including one who did not opine on the sentences -- warned you for edit warring in your deletions.  And yet, you did it again. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't it funny how when someone agrees with you their opinion is "firm" but when they don't it's wishy-washy? That takes talent. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Res ipsa loquitur. The positions of the 4 editors who took positions contrary to yours are all presented in the diffs on this page.  I've quote the 5th editor (who solicited more information) above, in full.  --Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly there has been edit-warring and both User:Epeefleche and User:Roscelese are at fault here. Epeefleche shouldn't have restored material whose addition was challenged as per WP:BRD, and should have got the sources checked over at RSN. Roscelese had every right to remove questionable sources, but let it go too far and should have sought administrative assistance one it became clear Epeefleche wasn't going to back down.  I don't think Roscelese should be sanctioned for attempting to keep dubious material out of Wikipedia, and Epeefleche is now following the appropriate action by submitting his sources for review. I recommend closing this case, and suggest both editors stand by the decision at RSN in regards to the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Betty, Epeefleche's edit-warring to restore the material postdates the discussion at RSN which determined that it was not a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that. There clearly isn't a consensus at RSN supporting the source's reliability, so the fact you are acting on the findings at RSN rather than undertaking unilateral action should definitely be taken into account here.  You probably should have taken it to ANI rather than continuing with the reverts, but I can understand why you did what you did. Betty Logan (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This complaint relates to Ros's edit warring through the time of the most recent of her reverts, indicated above. As can be seen through that point in time, 4 editors had weighed in with firm opinions at the article/the article's talk page/and-or RSN.  All 4 disagreed with Ros's position.  One of those editors, and an additional editor (Armbrust), had warned Ros for edit warring.  One additional editor, commenting not at all as to the first sentence at issue, but only as to the source for the 2nd sentence, had taken the position of: "I'm not so sure I'm persuaded at first glance; tell me more".  See here -- despite Ros's assertion, as you can see in this diff at the time of her most recent revert the RSN discussion was precisely as I describe it.  She was editing against the consensus of the 4 editors who had weighed in with firm opinions, all of whom had disagreed with her; while a 5th editor had simply opined "I'm not so sure I'm persuaded at first glance; tell me more".  How she can maintain, with those as the facts, that at the time of her last-indicated revert "the discussion at RSN [had] determined that it was not a reliable source" escapes me, and she was well aware of the views expressed by editors at the article and on the article talkpage as well (those count, btw).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion at RSN is the proper place to determine whether a source is reliable or not, not revert edit summaries. You need a consensus to add the source, not a consensus to remove the source; as yet there is none.  If these other editors firmly believe it is reliable then perhaps you should inform them of the discussion at RSN where they can explain their rationales. Do you disagree that RSN is the appropriate place for determining whether the source is reliable or not? Do you disagree that there should be a consensus to include it? I think the answer to both of those should be no, which raises the question of why you keep adding the source until there is consensus at RSN that it is reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again Betty. I restored (as had another editor) language that was supported by all 4 editors who expressed a firm view on the sentences.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, reverts are just actions, and cannot be construed as an understanding of the issues underlying the dispute. Secondly, sometimes you can get a 'cabal' of editors that outnumber the editor that is undertaking the correct action, which is why we a have a review board like RSN, to offer objective review.  Looking at the discussion at RSN, of the four impartial editors involved only one supports the use of the source, and the other three editors have all questioned its legitimacy. Given this discussion, and the lack of support the source has received I find it highly suspect that you persist in restoring the source. The source has been reviewed in the appropriate place and the outcome of the discussion is pretty far from a consensus to use the source.  If these other editors you claim to support your stance know something the editors at RSN don't then they should join the discussion; reverts are essentially just votes, and votes don't decide consensus. This looks very much like a group of editors trying to 'outgun' another editor and circumventing the normal practises for determining a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As Ros would say "funny how when they support your position, it is a consensus, but when they don't, it is a cabal". Betty -- I'm not sure there is an imperative for you to tarnish the reputations of those editors, by suggesting that they are a cabal.  AGF.  Plus -- if you are going to ignore good faith completely, cabals of course can appear at noticeboards just as well as they can appear elsewhere (for example, what you in contrast call "impartial" editors consists primarily of those who only appeared after this matter was noticed on Ros's talkpage).  As you will note -- I was the one who raised the issue: 1) at the article, 2) at the article talkpage, and 3) at the noticeboard.  The situation at the time of Ros's last revert was that all 4 editors who had addressed the issue firmly had disagreed with her.  A fifth had taken an "I'm not so sure I'm persuaded at first glance; tell me more" position, and had been provided with that additional information.  Two warnings had been issued, with yet another editor expressing concern as to edit warring by Ros.  And yet, she made the last-indicated revert.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this discussion still going? There was clear edit warring on both parties' sides, and neither of them is backing down from their position that they were right, so either block them both or protect the page.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Both sides seem to be exercising some restraint. It is almost 24 hours since either Epeefleche or Roscelese have touched the article, though they are continuing the argument here at the board. This report could be closed with no action. I am sure that everyone here knows how to use the talk page. Admins could keep full protection (or blocks) as a future option if things don't settle down. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: No action, per my above comment. Should edit warring resume before the AfD finishes it is possible there could be more admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:8digits reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result: Stale)
Page:

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

I don't see anything on the talk page posted by 8digits. I'm not involved in editing that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleswatcher (talk • contribs) 15:45 24 January, 2011 (UTC)

I do not see what Waleswatcher is on about, note there is stuff on the talk page which discusses my edits and I do not see anyone saying there is anything wrong with it. 8digits (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sweden during World War II


 * Last revert was about 24 hours ago; rereport if edit warring resumes. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Suenahrme reported by User:Xareen (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Twelver_Shi%27ism&action=historysubmit&diff=472688351&oldid=472653931
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Twelver_Shi%27ism&action=historysubmit&diff=472898495&oldid=472891339
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Twelver_Shi%27ism&action=historysubmit&diff=473075534&oldid=473073961
 * 4th revert: [diff] -- see the page history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASuenahrme&action=historysubmit&diff=473079923&oldid=400141026

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASuenahrme&action=historysubmit&diff=473079923&oldid=400141026 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_Twelver_Shi%27ism&action=historysubmit&diff=473084583&oldid=473084268 Comments:

Please help me. I need the above mention blocked for making further edit because he is vandalizing the page. At least 3 users have reverted his/her edits.

In addition, I also need a help from an administrator to restore the page back to the original. Please help me. Xareen (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Scientryst reported by User:GroupT (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Garrett_Lisi&oldid=472507860


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Garrett_Lisi&action=historysubmit&diff=473009689&oldid=472671082
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Garrett_Lisi&action=historysubmit&diff=473036300&oldid=473031515
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Garrett_Lisi&action=historysubmit&diff=473057412&oldid=473049621
 * 4th revert: reporting only edit warring for now (but 3 more reverts on the same sentence are listed below, from around three weeks ago)

Previous edits about it. The current version was introduce by admin User:Salix_alba to calm a previous edit warring, in which I was involved too (because I didn't know I couldn't stop a wrong BLP exception). The other user also involved in that old edit war was User:SherryNugil that has since then abandoned wikipedia for a long break (and also exactly since user Scientryst was accused to use SherryNugil as a sock puppet). Immediately after SherryNugil left Scientryst started editing the page and making the same sort of edits. Anyhow, as I said, admin Salix alba chose this way of solving the matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Garrett_Lisi&action=historysubmit&diff=467787888&oldid=467737788 Scientryst really didn't want that sentence:
 * Scientryst's 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Garrett_Lisi&action=historysubmit&diff=469109637&oldid=468373839 (Jan 2nd)
 * User:Qwyrxian reverts and explains: No Scientryst, it hasn't been widely accepted in any way


 * Scientryst's 2nd change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Garrett_Lisi&action=historysubmit&diff=469444665&oldid=469427126 (Jan 4th)
 * Qwyrxian reverts again but Scientryst tries one more time to change that sentence:


 * Scientryst's 3rd attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Garrett_Lisi&action=historysubmit&diff=469920214&oldid=469475662 (Jan 6th)

With SherryNugil's previous attempts (if the sock puppetry accusation goes any further) and these 6 reverts on this specific sentence by Scientryst, I don't know how to proceed any more. Many ways have been attempted (even bringing those pages on other noticeboards), but the only result is that after few weeks/months that the situation gets calm, the two SPA users SherryNugil before and Scientryst now (in this page and also in the correspondent page for Lisi's theory) go back and start making the page softer towards Lisi's approach.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scientryst

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAntony_Garrett_Lisi&action=historysubmit&diff=472736962&oldid=470050624 - many other attempts are made in the previous weeks with both users SherryNugil and Scientryst (which, if they were controlled by the same user, was also a waste of time since I was explaining the same things to two users that were actually the same).

Comments:

I tried to discuss with this specific user many many times also in the page An exceptionally simple theory of everything, but each time Scientryst uses this method of reverting several several times, invoking BLP exceptions not properly. Admin User:Qwyrxian has followed the matter for quite some time and might be helpful here. The user ultimately also knows that what is written is correct, but tries to use every wikipedia rule with a borderline spam/POV behavior to change the meaning in favor of Lisi's point of view. I've started in the past some notification for sock puppetry (with User:SherryNugil) and POV for this user.

Also, the diffs should clearly show that the changes attempted by Scientryst are to play with words so that Lisi's theory, that is currently considered wrong, would look more like a matter of opinions between physicists. There is many sources backing up that the theory isn't accepted by the scientific community, but the attempt made here is to use some original research restriction (in a wrong way) to avoid stating that the theory is incomplete and at its current state doesn't work (or worse, cannot work). ~GT~ (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected – Two weeks. This should allow time for a consensus to form on the talk page about the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:MoogleONE (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:

There is a blatantly biased wikipedia article, miracle mineral supplement, that is being guarded by several anti users. Many pro users who come to the talk page, have their text hidden or deleted. I have tried to make very constructive posts and Andythegrump has been deleting my posts. Because I am new to wikipedia, I started reverting his posts in retaliation, and almost got blocked because I almost did so a third time. I just recently registered, and I am IP address 69.143.187.109 near the end of the talk page. Andythegrump makes personal attacks on pro members of the miracle mineral, and the inventor of the miracle mineral Jim Humble has been pushed away from the website, because he thinks it is a bunch of people sitting there 24/7 removing peoples messages. (DataBishop) is jim humble i think. I ultimately want more pro information added to the wikipedia article miracle mineral supplement, it is currently like 1 pro statement to 20 anti statements in the article, then a bunch of see also derogatory names such as psuedoscience, quackery, and snake oil. The article needs to become a lot more unbiased, and I want to invite the inventor of the miracle mineral, jim humble, to recreate the wikipedia article. The article as it stands quite simply does not do it justice. If you have time, please read the entire talk page. There are two books written by jim humble, surely these can be considered good sources? MoogleONE (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * surely not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Both parties here are in the wrong. AndyTheGrump has added a blatant BLP violation here, which I've reverted, as has MoogleONE here, which suggests that he's simply trolling. As an experienced editor Andy should know better. I've warned both editors and if there's any repetition they should both be blocked. I suggest closing this malformed complaint in the meantime. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As a side note, this was really, really inappropriate. Andy, you should know better. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Suenahrme reported by User:Xareen (Result: Article 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:  

Comments:

Please block this user. He has been warned not to start edit warring yesterday but he started one today. He has removed editors changes. He has been told by admin to discuss and come to an agreement with other editors. He is disrupting other editors and destroying our works. Please.. please help us. Xareen (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Asiaworldcity (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff]Add HTTP information-evidence
 * 2nd revert: [diff]removed
 * 3rd revert: [diff]Add object
 * 4th revert: [diff]removed-identified as vandalism

24/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICloud&oldid=473047273

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICloud&oldid=473162497

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICloud&oldid=473206141

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CharlesDayton&action=edit&redlink=1

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICloud&oldid=473255302

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICloud&oldid=473255489

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

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

Comments:


 * The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is precisely what the user did, replacing for instance " "  by  " ".  --Lambiam 10:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Soapfan2013 and User:Musicfreak7676 reported by User:George Ho (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments: Do I need to provide reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cole_Thornhart&action=history. Soapfan2013 was already warned, and there were no further edits afterwards... Still, it was reported before... what do you think? --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

IP 88.112.89.63 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs:, , , , , (6 reverts/12 hours)

User talk:88.112.89.63 is full of warnings.

Comments: The candidate actually is gay, so I wasn't sure if it is also vandalism, or just plain edit warring. --RJFF (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * . It was vandalism, by the way.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski Reported By User:109:153:242:10 (Result: No need to block)
Edit waring in continually restoring material that is totally unsourced - and has been so tagged for several months. No attempt to cite the content has been made in that time Also violation of 3-revert.

1st revert of unsourced: []

2nd revert of unsourced: []

3rd revert of unsourced: []

4th revert of unsourced: []

As the first revert was 19:40 yesterday that means that they were within 24 hours. A discussion has been made on user's talk page but he seems to believe that the unsourced material is entitled to be there. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BOOMERANG. See section below. 109.153.242.10 is currently at 5RR: 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 4RR, 5RR. Especially troubling is his claim in the edit summaries that the 3RR rule doesn't apply to him. ---Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No need to block. See below. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:109.153.242.10 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No need to block)
Page:

User being reported:

Obsessive section blanking by the anon IP, on the grounds that an old and non-contentious section has been tagged as unref'ed for some months. Whilst correct per strict policy, their hair-trigger re-deletion is making it impossible for anyone (i.e. me) to add the trivially available references to it, without getting trampled in edit conflicts. This is just disruption for disruption's sake, not any sense of collaborative editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if anyone would like to print it out and frame it, this is me agreeing with . Again. Twice in a week. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Anon IP is at 5RR by my count (1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 4RR, 5RR). BTW, I agree with Wtshymanski too! The world has gone mad!! (smile)  Seriously, though, despite good-natured joking about never agreeing, I have on several occasions left notes on Wtshymanski's talk page complementing him when he makes an especially good edit. He dismisses the sincere compliments as sarcasm, but I know that deep in his heart he loves me... (GROUP HUG) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As was discussed between myself and another editor on an article talk page; the Admin noticeboard and the offending users page. ALL material on Wikipedia must be supported by verifiable citations WP:VERIFY.  As notified ANY EDITOR is entitled to remove unsourced material.  In that altercation, I was trying to revert the patently obvious, but the other user kept deleting it as unsourced, claiming that a citation was required that something existed, when it was clearly visible to almost any computer user.  Wikipedia admin supported the other editor reafirming his right to delete anything that is unsourced and also notified him that the 3-revert rule did not apply when removing unsourced material (as it is Wikipedia policy).  The material in question has been tagged for months and no attempt has been made by anyone to provide references that the material is even factual (which it isn't) 109.153.242.10 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While it's true that, in general, all material on Wikipedia should be cited to reliable sources though there are exceptions, of course: WP:BLUE, when Andy told you that he was going to provide sources it would have been courteous of you to stop edit warring, allowing him to do just that. In this instance, your behaviour was rather disruptive, honestly. Assuming the edit war has now stopped, however, I've closed this report as no need to block. By the way, removing unsourced material is not a 3-rr exemption.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's more to this than first appears. The first edit of this series wasn't a puritanical removal of unsourced material for being unsourced, it was actually an addition] of more unsourced material, pushing an incorrect explanation of the system covered n the article. When Wtshymanski reverted this as incorrect, they responded by blanking the entire section, then clinging blindly to policy to defend this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which would make the IP's actions incredibly WP:POINTY. However, blocks are preventative and not punitive; so, if we can stop the ongoing disruption using a simple warning instead of a block, then I'd say all the better. If the IP editor undertakes not to revert any longer, then there's no need for anything else. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are also now two specific refs added, from an extremely reliable source, which both support the point of the article as it was, and directly refute the content added by the IP. Not that I shouldn't be installing a catflap right now instead of this pointless argument. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:83.193.200.43 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24 h.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has not made any attempt to seek consensus for his/her view that "East Wales" is more appropriate terminology than "South Wales", to describe the location of the city. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Crashwheelx reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: made while I was preparing this report.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning 2:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] There is an entire section labelled as "Most successful Spanish club" on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor does explain edits in summary and has outlined an accusation against one other editor but doesn't discuss on talk page where a consensus has been achieved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * . Walter, I know situations like this can be frustrating, but I'll also caution you that using Twinkle to revert someone as a vandal during a content dispute is not acceptable either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood. Should have self-reverted as it was a slip (Vandal is immediately under undo) but I was pressed for time and immediately recognized that I would have to file this report which would take even more time. I will be more careful in the future. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Amadscientist reported by User:Becritical (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

removes "Crime" heading
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:removes more...
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He's been blocked for 3RR before

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  DR/N

Comments:

This is on top of another round of disruption a few days ago, in which he did exactly the same kind of thing. See section Occupy Wall Street discussion I've explained to him many times, but he just doesn't get it. I should note that he seems genuinely to believe that when he makes a change it's up to other people to try to gain consensus for not having the change. He was changing a longstanding section of the article. Be— —Critical 06:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Funny, but that fourth revert was after you reverted against the consensus of editors, and the others were due to another editor refusing to stick to that consensus. I also dispute your action in making that revert while a dispute is ongoing at DR. You make the statement "another round" like this is an ongoing issue with me, but it appears it is you who are edit warring and not using the talk page OR respecting the consensus process. You also seem to be attempting to find fault at my every turn since your last DR was kicked back to the talk page as deadlocked. Sir, you purposely reverted that page knowing I would revert back as consensus has not determined it to be included and then came to report me here. That goes against the very spirit of the 3RR and Wikipedia in general.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

With this editor, he misunderstands just about everything he's saying... there was no consensus for change on the article. (Also, the DR/N he mentions was supportive of my position). I didn't want changes to be edit warred in if people objected, so reverted pending discussion, whereupon instead of taking the time to gain consensus on the talk page, Amadscientist reverted back. He claims there was consensus: the "silent consensus" for his edits was broken the first time Racingstripes reverted him. He doesn't understand BRD in spite of my having referred him to it any number of times. Be— —Critical 06:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Uhm...there are only two DR's. The one you made is now closed [] and most certainly was not supportive of your position. Deadlocked means deadlocked and the comment left by the mediator was that they were kicking it back to the talk page with two goals, one, that we find actual guidelines that support either position, instead of the essays we were both using and you are still using here, and second if there is no guideline (which is what they suspected) that we take the proper route to generate a discussion. While this is indeed what I stated in the DR you brought and was declined or kicked back, I am not taking that language as being supportive of my position....just that we have other options than taking this immediatly to DR...which you did, not me. I think you misunderstand policy and guidelines and right now you seem a bit obsessed--Amadscientist (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on the advice of another administrator (User talk:Amadscientist) this user appears to have ceased the edit war and is engaging in dispute resolution. Therefore, a block is not necessary at this time.  Amadscientist is advised that no matter how right one may be, edit warring is always considered disruption.  --Chris (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: A week)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Ansumane Mané
 * 1st revert: People's Republic of Bulgaria

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

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

Comments:

This user just came off a 72 hour block for editwarring across multiple articles. He has now picked up were he left off. On Ansumane Mané he has now reverted nine times three other editors additions of academic sources based on his presumption that they must have copied wikipedia, however he has no actual evidence of this. On People's Republic of Bulgaria he is inserting WP:OR, the sources used do not support his addition. This is a highly disruptive user and it is high time he was stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:InformaticsMD reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (IP)
 * 2nd revert: (IP)
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I only reverted once - per WP:BRD, they should have gone to the talk page to get consensus for their edits at that point.

Comments:


 * . --Chris (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51 reported by AV3000 (talk) (Result: One week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Original removal:
 * 1) 15:14, 25 January 2012  (edit summary: "unrelated; off topic")
 * 2) 15:17, 25 January 2012  (edit summary: "also unrelated, off topic")

Reverts:
 * 1) 20:12, 25 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 473188967 by L3lackEyedAngels (talk) see talk")
 * 2) 04:01, 27 January 2012  (edit summary: "per WP:COATRACK, this article cannot be a forum for criticizing all of Santorum's comments on homosexuality; this article is specifically about the 2003 issue. Off-topic, coatrack. See talk.")
 * 3) 14:18, 27 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 473477123 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) per WP:COATRACK, discuss on talk before restoring")
 * 4) 15:26, 27 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 473519584 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) No, it's not pertinent. This is not a dumping ground for criticisms of his views. Discuss on talk.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has a long history of edit warring, warnings, and blocks, including a current topic ban, demonstrating unwillingness to obtain consensus.

Per WP:3RR, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached." In this instance, the editor has removed material five times in two days, which suggests that a block or additional topic ban is warranted.

—AV3000 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * for edit warring. This is not the user's first EW block; they should know better by now.  --Chris (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pity... they were good-faith BLP reverts, if misguided... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, good-faith edit warring is still edit warring. I don't judge the editor's intentions as malicious, but there is a repeating behavior problem.  --Chris (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Neilwoodcock reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: A day)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:IIIraute, self-admitted as IP 89.204.152.55, reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: No blocks given )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Note: User:IIIraute conceded he was IP 89.204.152.55 here


 * 1st revert: at 11:48, 26 January 2012
 * 2nd revert: as 89.204.152.55 at 15:40, 26 January 2012
 * 3rd revert: at 15:46, 26 January 2012
 * 4th revert: 10:32, 27 January 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Long string of back-and-forth as shown in history

Comments:

After I made an RfC request at here at 03:40, 27 January 2012, and informed him of the RfC at 03:38, 27 January 2012 here, he continued editing Kat Von D regardless, and he sarcastically copy-pasted the bulk of my 3RR/RfC post on his page &mdash; and even though copypasting "Please do not edit the article in question while the RfC is in progress," he then did so himself, resulting in his 4th revert. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

HHe is conflating two separate issues &mdash; the name of Von D's father and the name of Von D &mdash; despite my repeated attempts to have these separated. Though he began another RfC below mine, about Von D's name, his posted the exact same research findings under both RfCs, despite the former being a separate issue from the latter.

He has exhibited much "I'm not listening" behavior and such uncivil remarks as "...are you able to read?" &mdash; which is ironic since not one but two editors believe he is misreading quotes: SEE here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not that good in all these technical & bureaucratic issues; the only thing I see is that the user Tenebrae did at least as many reverts and is trying to bully me out of this matter, just because he was proven wrong (as I introduced new US goverment documents as sources). I have no bad intentions - I want to improve the article; Tenebrae is just a bad loser. Looking at all the edits this user made over the last months, Tenebrae seems to think he owns that article, basically reverting every edit done by any other user.--IIIraute (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The user Tenebrae has now changed the article again, speculating that she might have "changed" her name during adulthood?? There are tree official US government documents and countless secondary sources, interviews, etc. that state her name as "Katherine von Drachenberg", but Tenebrae is ignoring all of this, always referring to her websites bio that was written by a friend where she gives her father's name as "Rene Drachenberg". Please have a look at the following documents: http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85049892# & http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85049892/APP20100531102050/Application/4/27-May-2010/sn/false#p=1 (page 1, 3 & 4).--IIIraute (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Admins do not adjudicate content dispute, so I cannot tell who's right. I can, however, tell that you're both warring after all, any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation . We now have three choices: you can both be blocked, the article can be protected or a more civilised manner to solve this dispute can be tried. My advice to you both would be to follow WP:DR... But I'm ready to dish out blocks, if this does not work.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am wholeheartedly all for dispute resolution, and I will investigate options and ask him in good faith. He has, however, been uncivil, nasty and sarcastic, so I'm hesitant to engage with him to ask, and open myself up to further abuse. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. I have place a polite request with him at his talk page (Diff here).


 * maybe that helps to prove her real name: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6ToGLIx6PHUYTE0ZDcwODgtMjY1OC00MGIzLWJjYmEtYjUyZDM4NWY4MmFl&hl=en_US (note: an official name change due to marriage, divorce or court order needs to be documented in the passport).--IIIraute (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is simply not true, and I don't appreciate your trying to bluff about legal matters you know nothing about. You do not need a court order or anything else to have a different name on your passport than you were born with. Both my wife and I have have different names on our own passports, so the fact you would go so far as to make a false claim about passports and the law shows how little you're committed to truth and accuracy. That is amazing to me that someone would be so overemotionally caught up in this that they would spew a falsehood this way. No one is disputing her adult name. But her father's name, according to Kat herself, has no "von," and unless you're the E-Trade baby, perhaps, a newborn cannot go to court and petition for a name change.


 * In any event, I took the admin's advice about dispute resolution. Why don't we let everyone see the kind of calm, rational you are? This is from IIIraute's talk page, here:

"Would you be open to following the admin's advice on our 3RR page and pursuing with me dispute resolution at the Dispute resolution noticeboard? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)"

"As you are not really interested in improving the article, do whatever you think you have to do - although to prevent further damage, maybe it would be better if both our accounts got blocked, as IMHO your edits are ignorant, manipulative, contraproductive and only serve the support of your dogmatic, self-opinionated POV.--IIIraute (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)"


 * The admin put the same advice on you! You seem to forget that.--IIIraute (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I politely asked if you be willing to enter dispute resolution. You verbally abused with insults and name-calling me in your response. Let us make one thing clear: You do not have the right to verbally abuse and insult other people. Period. You need to stop. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You did everything possible to manipulate the given fact that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg", persisting that her name was "Drachenberg" only. You discredited all secondary sources, interviews, the articles of major newspapersa such as the NYpost, the LaTimes, Spiegel, The DailyMail, broadcasters like ABC,  CBS, etc. ,published literature, etc.etc.I had to first bring official US government documents as well as a copy of her passport until you would accept that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg".


 * Now, you are trying to do the same about her name of birth, speculating that she must have changed her name during adulthood, putting all your emphasis into the bio on her website that says that her father is "Rene Drachenberg" and - although it does not once - in the whole bio - directly say that her name is "Drachenberg" only, you persist on that one source, that isn't really one. You are the one making that speculative connection, just because it says that her father is called "Rene Drachenberg", so it also must be her name of birth. Again, you discredit all other sources - especially her published autobiography with a circulation of many thousand copies in which she gives both of her grandparents - as well as her own name as "von Drachenberg". In a second book written by her both, her brothers and her sisters name are given as "von Drachenberg". Redarding to your claim, her brother and sister also must have changed their names during adulthood. Again, for all those claims, you do not have a sigle source. Also, you discredit again several sources, such as from major newspapers and magazines  that say that she was "born" von Drachenberg. So what's the point?--IIIraute (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * IIIraute, I would like to remind you that it is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. Comments like "you are not really interested in improving the article" will not help to resolve this dispute.  Please take a more civil tone.  --Chris (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish to make a point of clarification to IIIraute. I have not, in fact, discredited any of the published sources. None of them say her birth name was "von Drachenberg". They only say that is her adult name. The one thing we know unequivocally is that she herself says her father's name is simply "Drachenberg," a fact you seem unwilling to accept. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And about that "passport image": That image is in a Google doc, so it's not from a public source on the Internet. Aside from being disallowed under the policy of no original research, you — whom I've already caught in a falsehood about passport laws — are suggesting that you, personally, in this age of identity theft, somehow got Kat Von D to open up her passport for you to splash on the web. Really.


 * I think any objective observer would say that this is highly unlikely. So that leaves, I think, three options: You Photoshopped a fake passport; you surreptitiously shot her open passport at an airport and have posted her private information for all to see; or you're a publicist or someone else with a WP:COI interest in polishing a mythology, even though Kat herself, from the lack of "von Drachenberg" in her own bio, on her own website, seems more interested in respecting her father's choice. Which is it? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't catch me in anything; what a nonsense. Lots of the newspaper & broadcasting sources say literally "born" von Drachenberg! You say her fathers name was "Drachenberg"; I say both of her grandparents and all of her siblings are named "von Drachenberg" - that' what she writes in her published autobiography; and don't bring your "that's how it is done" in the USA, because you are speculating about the status of her family; apart from that she was NOT born in the USA but in Mexico, she was not an american citizen to the age of 5.


 * I did show you several official US goverment sources that prove her name. Her books have several parts with the name "von Drachenberg" and everyone is free to have a look for themselves. Kat von D has published the passport herself on her facebook page (where she also calls herself "von Drachenberg"). Here is another source for her passport: http://data.whicdn.com/images/18758706/1320433715094_f_thumb.jpg --IIIraute (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2010-10-28-katvond28_ST_N.htm


 * LosAngelesTimes:http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/08/entertainment/et-laink8 --IIIraute (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that a discussion is taking place that SHOULD be done on the article talkpage, plus the reliable source noticeboard, I am going to assume that neither party will continue edit-warring, whatsoever. There is NO licence to go beyond WP:BRD.  Should the discussions be non-fruitful, the page should be protected, and an WP:RFC used ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:68.174.108.113 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, and User_talk:Sitush.

Comments:

Also warring at Nasim Yousaf, where the AfD tag has been pulled down twice. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am tending to the opinion that the IP may be connected in some way to Nasim Yousaf, who is the focus of their concerns at Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours by User:Wifione - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * . AGF on the connection suspicion unless you have concrete evidence. Be careful of outing issues. Do not reveal information here, even if you (and I) believe it is public. Wifione  Message 09:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:OtiliaC reported by User:JFHJr (Result: Article semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: ;
 * Note: This user owned the IP here

Previous version reverted to: here


 * 1st revert: 16:52, 27 January 2012
 * 2nd revert: 19:43, 27 January 2012
 * 3rd revert: 20:06, 27 January 2012
 * 4th revert: 10:09, 28 January 2012
 * 5th revert: 10:49, 28 January 2012 (edit summary contains what comes close to a legal threat).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Another user pointing to policy here and here Please watch or act as appropriate.

Comments:


 * And warning issued with regard to the legal threat. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesp815 reported by User:DoriSmith (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A; several editors have reverted this user.

Comments:


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:Breadbasket (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=473695850 (28 January) 1 revert.
 * 2nd revert: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=473696936 (28 January) 1 revert.
 * 3rd revert: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=473698361 (28 January) 3 reverts.
 * 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:

What makes this case worse than ordinary 3RR cases, is that this is a BLP article. The rules state explicitly that challenged (poorly sourced, biassed, context-lacking, etc.) content shall be ‘immediately removed’.

&mdash;&#32; Breadbasket 18:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure HOW MANY TIMES I have to point you in the direction of dispute resolution, but your hands are not clean in this edit-war either. I have full protected the page for 2 weeks.  Follow the processes and advice you have been provided ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 19:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:Breadbasket (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_titles_of_nobility&oldid=473698067 (28 January)
 * 2nd revert: [diff]
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yopie&oldid=471872070

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:False titles of nobility

Comments:


 * - that said, the editor is EW on a bunch of pages ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:ATWA WOLF reported by Sparthorse (talk) (Result: blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:39, 26 January 2012  (edit summary: "There are a few things regarding Charles Manson's involvment in the Tate/Labianca murders which can be deemed as debatable and I felt it necessary to reflect an alternate point of view.")
 * 2) 18:14, 28 January 2012  (edit summary: "I made necessary edits to reflect a more factual view of the Manson case.")
 * 3) 18:16, 28 January 2012  (edit summary: "/* Background */  I made necessary edits to reflect a more factual view of the Manson case.")
 * 4) 18:25, 28 January 2012  (edit summary: "This page was in need of necessary changes!")
 * 5) 18:34, 28 January 2012  (edit summary: "I made necessary edits to this page to reflect facts not mentioned previously.")
 * 6) 19:16, 28 January 2012  (edit summary: "I made necessary changes to reflect facts not mentioned here previously.")
 * 7) 19:26, 28 January 2012  (edit summary: "Necessary edits were made to reflect facts not previously mentioned.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Sparthorse (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

, especially since the user went on to add the controversial text again, this time flagging it as a minor edit. That showed enough intent to me that a block was clearly warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:MarcEdelmanFan reported by User:JFHJr (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: as edited by Drmies at 21:19, 28 January 2012


 * 1st revert: 21:21, 28 January 2012
 * 2nd revert: 21:44, 28 January 2012
 * 3rd revert: 21:49, 28 January 2012
 * 4th revert: 21:51, 28 January 2012
 * 5th revert: 22:02, 28 January 2012‎
 * 6th revert: 22:19, 28 January 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here, here

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

Comments:


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 reported by Metallurgist (talk) (Result: One month)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:48, 21 January 2012  (edit summary: "/* Time table of primaries and caucuses */")
 * 2) 04:39, 28 January 2012  (edit summary: "/* Primary schedule */ see talk page")
 * 3) 06:26, 28 January 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 473640794 by Metallurgist (talk) - please contribute your rationale for your editing behavior on the talk page")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Dispute on talk page

User has been ignoring Wikipedia conventions concerning consensus even after informed about it and has been removing large portions of the article unilaterally, despite repeated complaints and disagreements. There are 4 5 users in favor of the content in question remaining in the article, while 2 are opposed. User has not even allowed time for discussion, the first time only waiting nine minutes before removing content. User as repeatedly been involved in edit wars, has complete disregard for the concept of consensus, has issued personal attacks, been curt/rude and dismissive of/condescending towards other opinions, and has been blocked repeatedly:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)

User may be sockpuppeting as 68.39.100.32. User is part of Meetup NYC and anon is located in Middletown, New Jersey. —Metallurgist (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may have input, I am located 'near' Middletown NJ, but I am NOT that user. Can't you identify his IP address? (I am assuming I am that user that you pointed out).68.39.100.32 (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am saying this in order for you to find evidence that I am not that user. Metals logic is simply because the reported user and I agree on an issue. When has that become a means to suspect everyone of fraud or whatever? The actions that the reported user has taken is evidence enough to take action against him/her. I am by no means defending their actions; rather just questioning the motive to now suspect me of having multiple accounts to edit the article. Besides me not having an account, I can't see anyway to prove this then to check the reported users ip address and report that process here so I and others can see how you recieved it.68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * by . --Chris (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)