Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive179

User:Eddaido reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Repeated addition of uncited material.

The UK Daimler car company used engines to a design by Charles Yale Knight. Eddaido has added an image, and a contentious caption. The image is generally dull and unimportant, but a reasonable addition. The caption "Logo required by Knight on cars with his engine" however is problematic:
 * This is WP:OR It's a hundred year old car with a mascot. Apart from coincidence, how do we know that knight-shaped mascot was added by the factory, not a past owner?
 * It's uncited that this was Knight's mascot.
 * Most importantly it's uncited that Knight required this mascot, rather than merely one owner choosing it of their own choice. There are many sources and illustrations showing Daimlers (which used the Knight engine for a long period) with other mascots, including Daimler's own promotional material. The US cars that used the Knight engine don't seem to have used any similar mascot.
 * They're also generally termed "mascots", not "logos", although this is unimportant. Radiator mascots would be a clearly notable topic - they're quite collectable as antique art objects.

Past involvement with this editor on car-related topics has not been promising: See Talk:Preselector_gearbox. I've also been accused of dishonesty by this editor. At Commons they've also demonstrated a tendency for repeatedly defending incorrect WP:OR against clear sourcing. Similarly at WP, to push an incorrect OR POV, against any other sourced evidence.

One comment here User_talk:Andy_Dingley, but I can't claim to understand what they mean by "Yes, you are correct." followed by immediate re-addition of the problematic caption. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined &mdash; With the diffs given, I'm not seeing either a WP:3RR violation or a clear indication of long-term edit warring&mdash; yet. If they continue or if I'm missing a clear violation, then please feel free to update/re-open a new thread. If you believe there's a user conduct problem, as a whole, I would suggest a user-conduct RFC -- slakr \ talk / 01:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It was reverted by an independent editor, then promptly re-added here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is indeed weighty and quite fascinating stuff. Eddaido (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:TopGun reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

TopGun was put under a 1R restriction for any articles which he and I edit here. I informed him he had broked this restriction and asked him to be more careful in future. As you ca nsee from the edit summary he says there are no restrictions on him. Please note, I do not want him blocked. I wish clarification on the matter. Is he or is he not on a 1R on article we both edit. If so please ensure he is fully aware of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly aimed to get me blocked. I was only told not to game DS in to an editwar (which I did not intend to before as well). And these reverts are not even against Darkness Shines. One is against an IP that copy pasted content and another against a different user. I'm not under any 1RR restriction as such. Just a tit for tat report, that's what this is. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also to add Darkness Shines is under 1RR (as indicated in his block log and on this talk page), he violated his restriction  deliberately where I reverted him only a single time for a change with a reason at Pak Watan‎. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I have investigated the assertion directly above that DS has broken 1RR. Unfortunately, the 2 diff's presented are dated Feb 12 and Feb 15, which does not meet the 1RR violation threshold. As such, I am not finding a 1RR violation by DS at this time ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Editor is AWARE that they are under 1RR restriction on articles that they both edit. It has nothing to do with reverting the other user, it's about ANY reverts to the article.  What a senseless waste.  1 week block is implemented due to escalation from previous 72 hour block ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please unblock him, I was not after a block. Just make it clear to him what the sanction is. This will only add fuel to the fire. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:173.55.65.45 reported by User:PaoloNapolitano (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

And so it goes on... Here too.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has not responded to any warnings, and I believed there was hardly any chance at all that the user would look at the talk page.

Comments:


 * I have reported the IP to AIV Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Kumioko reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 03:38, 15 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 476654842 by Markvs88 (talk)Undo vandalism by Markvs88")
 * 03:39, 15 February 2012 (edit summary: "assess as start for WPUS and Add NY and NYC")
 * 1) 12:35, 15 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 476993808 by Markvs88 (talk)revert vandalism by Markv88")
 * 2) 16:36, 15 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 477013697 by Markvs88 (talk)Undo last edits by Marvs88")
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=477027825 "Since it isn't a matter of 3RR or vandalism I went ahead andn reverted Markvs88 reversion of my edits again. I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth."

— SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut and Talk:American Cruise Lines. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify that Markvs88 is the one edit warring I am just trying to reinstate the vandalism they did to the articles I edited. IN the case of one he not only undid my edit but also removed Wikiproject bannershell and a number of other cleanup improvements. This whole situation is just being blown out of proportion by Sarek. I initiated this discussion agains Markvs88 which Sarek has so conveniently forgotten to mention in his fine and detailed writeup. I recommend before taking action that the reviewer looks at the history of the articles submitted above and sees what is being done by both editors. --Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:BRD. You were bold, he reverted you and then you discuss. You don't revert again. You are just as guilty of edit warring. And calling good faith edits vandalism is ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did try and discuss it, Mark refuses to accept any of the edits I made. Not just adding WPUS but anything else as well. If you take a look at the edit history you can see that in 2 of the articles linked above. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you take it to dispute resolution, you still don't revert again. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have half a mind to block both edit warriors here... and both editors could do with a serious reading of WP:VAND. Good-faith disputes are not vandalism.  Labeling another editor's edits as vandalism does not grant you an exemption to the edit warring policy when those edits are not actually vandalism.  --Chris (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I hadn't already been in a discussion about this matter in another location, I certainly would have blocked both so I see that as a fair move. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is complete absurdity but if you give me a block because I am trying to help the pedia through the childish actions of another user then please make mine a long one. That will send a clear message that no matter how much good you do one editor with their own agenda can get you kicked out. --Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You edit warred. You know you can't do that. So trying to turn it around on being one editor with an agenda is stupid. You didn't have to edit war, he didn't put a gun to your head. You could have gone and looked for some dispute resolution. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * [ec] Kumioko, you've presented evidence of three articles where Markvs reverted you--hardly evidence of his refusing "any" of your edits. I've undone the three since these articles, in my opinion, do not fall under the scope of those projects and their application does not further the project: a half dozen projects for those articles only obfuscates the relevant projects. As for both parties edit-warring: I note that Markvs disengaged from the back-and-forth. If Kumioko reverts again on these three, or indeed reverts any other one of those edits, I propose they be temporarily blocked and the bot shut down indefinitely, until the community a. decides on the proper scope of those projects and b. there are some hard numbers on what it does and what its error rate is. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * by . -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to dwell on it but I wanted to leave a quick message that I think that my block and the failure to leave Markvs88 so much as a warning for his actions represents a serious delinquency of the enforcement of Wikipedia policies. I also think that the conduct displayed by Sarek and several other administrators are prime examples of the serious degradation of the morale compass of the admin corps and enforcement of Wikipedia policy. If we would have both been blocked I would have been fine with it and simply taken it on the chin. Since I was the only one that got blocked, it shows me that Markvs88's conduct is not only tolerated and accepted...it is condoned. --Kumioko (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Moral compass my foot. Your right to the moral high ground evaporated with this: "...I went ahead andn reverted Markvs88 reversion of my edits again. I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth." This is an admission that you intend to engage in edit warring no matter the outcome. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a statement, that's all. You just making assumptions of bad faith. I know you don't know me from adam but the fact that I have been around for about 6 years, have 320, 000 edits, etc. etc. should have caused you to stop and go shit maybe I should see what happens instead of jumping to conclusions. But no, the administrator jumped and the block began. Mark sat in his chair laughing indignantly I am sure. In the end, it really does't mean anything other than this place is a joke. We follow policy when we feel like it and ignore it when we don't. we have policy's that tell you to ignore policys and other policy's that tell you to ignore that. We have more rules and regulations that the UCMJ and in the end its just a crock. We punish the editors who are trying to make a difference and reward the schmucks. That is why Wikipedia is dying. We are hemorraghing editors faster than we can recruit new ones. We are becoming a joke to the world and its only a matter of time before someone shuts the servers off. --Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When they turn off the servers we can all go to Conservapedia. Hmmm. I heard they're picky about to whom they give accounts. I hope I'm good enough to be an editor for them. I think I have the right stuff. – Lionel (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, I would't waste my time there either. I'll just spend my time writing another book. It pays better. --Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

EDIT warring by User:Imperator Sascha (Result: Malformed)
Hereby I report that User:Imperator Sascha reverts my additions to the Talk:List_of_fictional_Jews-page. He does so in an attempt to hide accusations of inserting false informations into the article and using false sources. He erroneously requests "oversight" of my entries for undeclared reasons. Hereby I declare that I have also submitted an investigation of "Imperator Sascha" for meat puppetry because that account is in fact a meat puppet of User:Anonymiss_Madchen. For details on this see the respective ANI. It stands to reason that the Edit warring is part of his strategy to influence the ANI for sockpuppetry. --JohnCrehan (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's more, the claim is spurious: JohnCrehan, whoever they may be, is guilty of edit-warring as well. But Sascha will soon be blocked anyway as a sock. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:KoreanSentry reported by User:Ferox Seneca (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: User:KoreanSentry; reported by User:Ferox Seneca (Result: ) ==

Previous version reverted to: January 22


 * 1st revert: February 11
 * 2nd revert: February 12
 * 3rd revert: February 15

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: February 13

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: February 12

Comments:

I'm involved in a low-level edit war with user:KoreanSentry over the content in the article Bohai. On February 3 I reverted a removal of sourced data from an IP user which I thought was vandalism. Since then, Koreansentry has removed similar sourced content several times, and has reverted my efforts to revert the omission of this content. The only explanation which he has given has been on one of his edit summaries, in which he explained that he was removing the content because it represented a "nationalist Chinese POV" (which is contrary to the guidelines of WP:UNDUE).

On February 12 I began a discussion on Balhae's talk page in order to try to resolve the disagreement: Koreansentry has not responded there, but continued to revert my efforts to restore sourced content to the article with the rationale in his edit summary that the restoration of this content "wasn't agreed at the Talk". Another editor left a warning about edit warring on Koreansentry's talk page on February 13, and I left a note on Koreansentry's talk page on February 15, requesting that he discuss the issue on Balhae's talk page. This user has been uncivil with other editors in the last month, and has already been banned for edit warring, so I don't expect the issue to be resolved without arbitration.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:68.63.184.64 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A number of editors have been removing the material the IP has added. Discussion has been ongoing about the lack of WP:MEDRS sources for the material for a couple of weeks now. The IP has not addressed the issue on talk. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverts at 00:00, 01:32, 01:15, 01:03; reverted again after warning. Kuru   (talk)  03:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hanlon1755 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:  as 96.33.171.225
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I asked him to self-revert, then he acknowledged ( on his talk page, and  at SPI) that "it's no secret" he is 96.33.171.225, although the revert is the only edit for Special:Contributions/96.33.171.225, and doesn't hear the part about self-reverting his fourth revert… expands edit war  to Material conditional.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: & —Machine Elf 1735   02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Second 3RR block; clear violation. Kuru   (talk)  03:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51 reported by User:Roscelese (Result: strongly warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (All of these edits are removals of the same content added by other users.)


 * 1st revert: (15:44, 7 February)
 * 2nd revert: (06:31, 12 February)
 * 3rd revert: (16:07, 15 February)
 * 4th revert: (02:36, 16 February)

(Note that these are only the reverts in the past ~week; user has been trying to remove the content for months.)

There's no bright-line 3RR violation here, but it's pretty obvious edit-warring, especially in light of the clear and enduring consensus to keep this material in the article (see links below to discussions).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Current discussion here. User began discussion after trying to remove the content several times and being reverted, and his proposal to remove it has been pretty clearly shot down, but he continues to remove it. An earlier RFC, after this very same user tried to remove the same content in December, also demonstrated a consensus to preserve the material.

Comments: User recently had a week-long block for edit warring on the same subject (viz. Rick Santorum's feelings about gay people - report here), was also recently reported again for the same article leading to page protection, and is topic-banned for his edit-warring and other misbehavior in the topic area of abortion. A topic ban may be appropriate here as well based on the user's clear and repeated failure to behave within the bounds of WP policy when this politician is concerned, but as I'm not sure that's within ANEW's power let's just see what we can do here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that the user does not feel constrained by consensus established against him. He reverts to his favorite version no matter what. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This editor ia also engaged in a similar low grade edit war on another LGBT-related article, Freedom to Marry.


 * Massive POV changes under the guise of correcting POV and clean-up on Jan. 27:
 * 1st revert: [] on Feb. 12.
 * 2nd revert: [] on Feb 13.
 * 3rd revert: [] on Feb 14.
 * Second round of massive POV changes on Feb. 16.

These changes were reverted by four different editors, including myself. This editor has a long and undisguised history of aggressive and disruptive POV editing on articles related to conservative politics and related social issues, and recently received a topic ban for abortion-related topics and a recent one-week block for edit-warring on Rick Santorum's position on LGBT-related issues, his fourth block for edit-warring in the past year. He routinely ignores consensus and policy. Request, if possible, that the editor's topic ban be extended to all topics related to conservative politics and social issues including all LGTB-related articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except in this case he has consensus on the talkpage . A discussion he himself started. We cannot block an editor editing in good faith with consensus to back them. Block is not indicated, much less topic ban. – Lionel (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that multiple editors are reverting this particular change shows pretty clearly that the edit is not supported by consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not 3RR. NYY did not cross the bright line. He did not game the system by making a 4th revert just outside of 24 hrs. Any block in the case of "generic edit warring" must be based on incontrovertible evidence. And this case is not clear cut. Ros' report covers 9 days! A lot has happened in those 9 days. And currently there appears to be a new consensus. If NYY broke 3RR and there was no discussion, then yes, a block is indicated. But to take an 9 day span with good faith efforts on the talk page... I'm sorry. That's not enough to block. – Lionel (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it's a good thing that ANEW isn't just for 3RR violations, isn't it? Two months ago, NYY tries to remove the material and is reverted. The subsequent RFC determines that he does not have consensus to remove the material. Undeterred, he continues to try to remove the material. The current discussion likewise does not demonstrate a consensus to remove the material - rather, the opposite. Undeterred, he continues to try to remove the material. The fact of having begun a discussion is not a magical shield that protects a user from all sanction for edit-warring - a necessary component of the discussion is hewing to the consensus it produces, which here, again, is to keep the material. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My reading of the discussion is that consensus favored NYY's edit. If you are saying that I misinterpreted the discussion, then it is reasonable to assume NYY did likewise. Since this is not a 3RR violation, and since we all agree that there could be a misunderstanding, a block would not be proper.– Lionel (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's ample evidence of gaming the system in the second report, where he makes one reversion a day. Also, the editor is clearly aware what he is doing as, at one point, he reverts himself "to avoid edit-warring". []. His long history of blocks for edit-warring demonstrate that he should be now familiar with the policies involved. Unfortunately, he has chosen to use that knowledge to cheat the system, rather than to improve his behavior. It should be pointed out that the time span in the second report is because he was blocked for a week for edit-warring on another article. Furthermore, the editor has never discussed his changes on the Freedom to Marry talk page, even though he repeated demanded that the editors reverting him should justify their reverts on the talk page, going so far as to issue "warnings" on the user talk pages of two of the editors involved. The editor clearly exhibits a pattern of disruptive low grade edit-warring that cannot be defended by appeal to the 3rr rule. Sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing any good faith here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Important Note: the above "report" re: Freedom to Marry is two days old. Blocking is preventative: it is not punitive. A block cannot be based on this report because it is stale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)
 * That report re: Freedom to Marry is stale. Blocking is preventative---not punitive. – Lionel (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not stale. The report was filed an hour and a half after the editor made his last round of edits only seven hours ago. The block requested is to prevent the editor from continuing his edit-warring, as he has every intention to do. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem that lasts for months. He don't use talk page very often. His practice is to delete a large portion of the article (in some cases he deletes up to 80% of the text with edit summary "cleanup", removes sourced content citing WP:BURDEN (!!!), or removes whole section just because "it should be expanded"). He is blocked four times for edit warring, but he continues to do that. More False edit summaries for the purpose of edit warring. His favourite edit summary is apparently "cleanup". Regardless of the outcome of this report, he should be topic banned from LGBT related articles. I know that this is not the right place to ask for topic ban, but if someone decide to propose topic ban at WP:AN, I'm willing to provide additional evidence.-- В и к и  T   12:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fruitless complaint. 4 edits in 10 days != 3RR violation by a few miles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it's a good thing that this is EWN and not just 3RRN, isn't it? Do try to read a bit harder. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Repetitive tendentious POV edits and reverts with dishonest edit summries against clear consensus sure sounds like edit-warring to me. Edit-warring is not defined by 3rr. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I challenge Roscelese's claim of consensus against my edits at Rick Santorum; there is no consensus there, and the article is constantly changing. As for Freedom to Marry, the article was a total and complete disaster before I found it. I don't understand how removing POV constitutes POV editing. WP:BURDEN states that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." Before I started editing the article there were barely any third-party sources, so I removed unsourced statements and did a massive cleanup to remove POV such as "so-called Defense of Marriage Act", "calling on President Obama to do the right thing and join the majority of Americans who support the freedom to marry", "Gay and lesbian couples want to get married to make a lifetime commitment to the person they love and to protect their families", etc. I realize that Roscelese and Dominus think anyone who removes material positively portrarying LGBT rights is a POV warrior, but it is the opposite. I have summarized point by point in the edit summaries what I did at the article. I suppose I should have taken it to talk, but the fact is that the other editors are the problem at the article, not me. In reality, Dominus is edit warring, not me. He has made three reverts and removed a legitimately placed tag on the article. How about instead of blocking people unfairly, we lock down the article so that the revert warriors will discuss the article? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one can make you edit war. Blaming others for your own misbehavior is not going to get you anywhere. As for Rick Santorum, if you believe there is no consensus, then why are you repeatedly attempting to implement your own proposed version rather than reaching a consensus version on the talk page and implementing that one? How is admitting that you were edit warring supposed to get you off this report? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're twisting his words. He never "admitted" he was edit warring. And your behavior is a violation of policy. He said that "the article is constantly changing." What that means is that one minute the content justifies a certain section title, the next minute it doesn't. At a certain point there is consensus that supports his change, then the consensus changes. His editing has been completely consistent with the ebb and flow, the dynamic change which accompanies an article undergoing extreme RECENTISM. – Lionel (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a good reason why there's so much chatter here from unrelated parties? Other than the parties involved, and admins looking into it, this is not a board that requires other parties to comment ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Exactly why is Binksternet here? Who invited him? Good call Bwilkins. – Lionel (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow you missed yourself in the Bwilkins assessment, Lionelt. However, Bwilkins was out of order in attempting to shut down discussion. There is no limitation of this noticeboard to admins, edit warring reporters and accused parties; there is no rule against outside observer comments. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Update
The editing mode that motivated this report has a new incarnation: (today at 17:59); exactly the same edit was performed on multiple occasions over the last month, e.g., ,  (and there are others). All reverted by a number of different editors -- but instead of gaining consensus for it on the talk page he simply repeats it in edit-war mode, albeit slow motion. It's pretty obvious that without a sanction this behavior will continue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The wiki needs to be protected from such slow motion edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The page was protected because of those specific sections, during which no one besides me made an effort to resolve the dispute. As such, I removed it again. I don't understand why Nomoskedasticity is targeting me as I am the only one who has properly followed policy, namely WP:BRD. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NYyankees51 is hardly the only participant: . It only shows that there is no consensus for the edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * NYY, next time you repeat a reversion on one of these, or any related articles, broadly construed, without really obvious consensus, I will block you for 1 month, as as escalation from your last 1 week block. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  20:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Platinum_Star reported by User:206.248.123.79 (Result: warned)
Page: El Talismán

User being reported:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Talism%C3%A1n&action=history

The most recents reverts are from the user.

User already received warnings but removed them from his/her talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APlatinum_Star&action=historysubmit&diff=477185751&oldid=477185638

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

Comments:

Fist sorry if I did not used the recommended formatting with the links, I am new at HTML. I am reporting the user that has done more than 4 reverts on the mentioned article. Also on other articles that appear on his history page. The user removes information from other editors (most often properly sourced) and accuses them on vandalism. Also the the reported user is using his/her edit summaries to call the lack of knowledge of other editors in what seems like personal attacks. The user removed the warnings from his/her talk page once. I restored them and he posted asking for help.206.248.123.79 (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * At no point did you ever post a 3rr warning, just incorrectly applied vandalism warnings. Please read WP:NOTVAND. Also, while "Restored correct and accurate info" is not the most useful summary, it is in no way personal attack. Please read WP:AGF as well. He did call another editor's edits pointless, but that alone is no reason for you to be offended by his edit summaries.
 * You also never tried to discuss the issue, and the version you reverted to was unsourced and opinion based.
 * I've posted a uw-3rr on Platinum Star's talk page. As far as I can tell, that's really all that needs to be done for now.  Both of you stop.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks206.248.123.79 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking as -- slakr  \ talk / 02:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Dominus Vobisdu reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (Removed a legitimately placed POV tag)
 * 4th revert: (Removed the tag again)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The most problematic of the four edits are today's two reverts of a legitimately placed tag. The tag specifically says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." He removed the tag because he didn't think the reason given on the talk page by the tagging user (User:Lionel) was good enough. After I restored the tag, he removed it again, claiming the matter had been resolved. Far from it. Dominus has made no attempt to discuss anything on the talk page, and instead reported me for edit warring above. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The link in "diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" is in fact nothing of the sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly retributive report, based on filer's own comments. No need for action. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a tendentious, frivolous and disruptive report by NYyankees51. The first edit was on 27 January, the second was on 12 February and the last two were on 16 February. It looks like NYyankees51 is disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. NYyankees51 on the other hand blanked half the article in a series of consecutive edits. Mathsci (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * --Chris (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why this rationale is not being applied to the report filed on me above? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:129.252.69.40 reported by User:LesPhilky (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Cannot resolve issue on talk page because the issue is on the talk page. User is deleting any attempts made to discuss article bias.

Comments:Unfortunately, in this case, there can't be a discussion on the article's talk page because this anonymous user is deleting anyone's attempt to discuss possible bias in the article. Valid points were brought up by the user User:Clmsntgr and they do not violate policy. I would also like to have a discussion regarding points on the article. However, this anonymous user is simply deleting the conversation altogether with no explanation because he doesn't agree with the issue. If you look at User:129.252.69.40 talk page here, you will see that multiple cases of vandalism, edit warring, and other nuisances have arisen from this IP address regardless of warnings or blocks. It is impossible to discuss proactive changes to the article on the Talk page when this anonymous IP user deletes them ASAP. I request a permanent block on this IP address as past temporary blocks have not made a difference.

--LesPhilky (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:71.80.173.5 reported by User:Mabdul (Result: blocked)
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:

Comments:

Spam user/IP

mabdul 23:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * by someone else; blocked the sock IP for evasion, however. In the future, feel free to report obvious block evasions to WP:AIV for quicker blockification. -- slakr \ talk / 02:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Astronomyinertia reported by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 06:46, 11 February 2012‎
 * 2nd revert: 14:35, 11 February 2012‎
 * 3rd revert: 10:00, 12 February 2012‎
 * 4th revert: 17:23, 13 February 2012
 * 5th revert: 14:01, 14 February 2012‎
 * 6th revert: 08:23, 15 February 2012 ‎
 * 7th revert: 09:50, 15 February 2012
 * 8th revert: 16:33, 16 February 2012

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

Level Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Note the user himself warned another user about 3RR for this page

Comments: The User is making the reverts avoiding 3RR by making the edits outside the 24 hour frame and further  talk and revert. The dispute is not even over the article but only whether after the article in the Also See Section whether  Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War is to be included or not.Note had to request protection for another page due to a content dispute due to disputes between this editor and another editor. There is no content dispute in this article and there is nothing to justify protection and this edit warring between him and other editors will continue  and daily reverts will continue if let unchecked. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * indef by for personal attacks and sockpuppetry.  --Chris (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DeFacto reported by User:Martinvl (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:DeFacto (Entire section is relevant)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Introduction to the metric system (Entire talk page is relevant)

Comments:

This is not the first time that I crossed with this editor - during the last month he showed his true self on this talk page. Martinvl (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There isn't much editing happening on this article today, so I don't think a block or protection are currently necessary. There was no 3RR violation from what I can tell.  And Martinvl, the 5th revert diff is invalid.  It looks like "99" got tacked on the end of the URL, but I'm not going to correct that since I don't know if the URL without the "99" is what you meant to link to or not.  --Chris (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Redslider (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported: et. al.

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


 * 1st revert:  (original as I came on it; and my first set of revisions)
 * 2nd revert:  (my second edit attempt; First complete reversion of my edits
 * 3rd revert:  (several editors restore material; I attempt to revise again.
 * 4th revert:  (I attempt to correct again; BLP is reverted again;

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (again, don't know if 3RR Warning applies since different individuals are acting together (this is not an open consensus process, but a group attack.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: extensive discussion at [ (esp. items 8-11), too complex for diff.

Comments:

[note: the reverts and edits to my original edits are by different individuals that appear to be acting in concert to maintain defamatory material (sourced,inadequately sourced or unsourced) on the BLP.)

Don't know how or where to handle this, but since the editors warring with me have threatened to accuse me of an edit war on my user page I thought this a good place to start. The difficult part is that there are many editors acting in concert to prevent me from making edits to prevent defamation in the BLP. Believe (but cannot prove) some of these are members of group that created/hijacked page, and now act as single individual to prevent anyone from setting the record straight. Whether this constitutes an 'edit-war' proper I cannot say. But they have now threatened me with an 'edit war' charge if I persist in trying to remove the defamatory material. It puts me in a peculiar position with respect to continuing to try to prevent a malicious attack on a living person, and to avoid being falsely beset by Wiki policy and technical sourcing arguments, charges of "vandalism" and such that would try to intimidate into backing off. There's been plenty of discussion on the talk pages (esp. items 8-11) and on the BLP noticeboard (discussion seems to have been deleted). Mediation does not seem to be an option in this case. I am relatively new to all this, so forgive me if I overstepped some unknown line on this board. Perhaps one of you can sort things out and advise? Thank you. Redslider (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition to misconstruing what edit-warring is, this report is WP:FORUMSHOPPING -- the discussion is still at BLPN, and there is also one at WP:RSN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to be complaining that a group of editors is "edit warring" against you; you seem to be misreading the policy. Kuru   (talk)  03:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sogamespo reported by User:Chicocvenancio (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been blocked in ptwiki for insulting me in connection to the same dispute. He refuses to discuss the matter. Chico Venancio (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record: Sogamespo is using open proxies (diff, proxy info) to evade his block on pt.wiki and also evade being caught on 3RR here.” TeLeS ( T @ L C S) 23:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No edit warring since warning, save perhaps with a proxy now blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Neolloa999 reported by User:CambridgeBayWeather (Result: Three days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, although not by me that was the first comment on their talk page. They have been warned once or twice more by other editors about edit warring.

In the original difference they change the numbers based on a supposed reference to the CIA. At the time I used the standard template on their talk page, here and noticed that they had several other complaints about edit warring and had already been blocked for the same thing.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: was after the first revert I also issued a templated warning but with a short description of what the problem was. After the second revert I went with this and tried to explain the problem.

Comments:

There is no problem with having the CIA figures in the article but the column they are adding to is for the PEW reports. The CIA report should be in the other column and the reference should be provided. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:Badams5115 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Reverts of warnings:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Posted on my talk page:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Isn't he deliberately being a nuisance?

Revert three - claimed - is actually a self revert - diff - You  really  can  01:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . By the way, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages per WP:BLANKING. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you considered blocking him for vandalism and harassment of other users???-- В и к и  T   01:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, yes. I considered it. And I almost blocked Youreallycan for violating WP:POINT; however, he seems to have cooled down and, when I checked the article's history, I saw that the edit war extended beyond him. That's why I thought that page protection was the best solution. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a single diff presented, is WP:vandalism or WP:harassment - I had two reverts to the article and not a single one after I was given a warning. - This report was in-actionable and was never a violation. -   You  really  can  02:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds a lot like wiki-lawyering and gaming the system to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats right - a rubbish un-actionable report - You  really  can  02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal
Moved to WP:AN.-- В и к и  T   00:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Walter55000 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Previous version reverted to: versions are different each time but this is typical.

19:32, 17 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477367664 by Wnnse (talk)") 20:00, 17 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 476756060 by AussieLegend (talk)") 20:02, 17 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 476756060 by AussieLegend (talk)") 02:58, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477470178 by Thomasfan5034 (talk)") 02:59, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477455705 by Alec2011 (talk)")
 * 1st revert (includes 3 notable edits in the series that constitutes one revert):
 * 2nd revert: 21:01, 17 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477422294 by Morten Haan (talk)")
 * 3rd revert: 22:32, 17 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477433161 by Kevinbrogers (talk)")
 * 4th revert: 22:54, 17 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477443880 by Kevinbrogers (talk)")
 * 5th revert (includes 2 notable edits in the series that constitutes one revert):
 * 6th revert: 03:30, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477476509 by AussieLegend (talk)")
 * 7th revert: 13:42, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477477585 by AussieLegend (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve issues on editor's talk page:


 * Initial warning about inaccurate edit summaries - made after I discovered two sequential edit summaries that cliamed to undo the same edit. The second did not.
 * Clarification and expansion of the above
 * Warning after editor had restored the same content sourced to a non-RS site
 * Advised that editor should discuss his edits on the article's talk page and initial concerns about potentially breaching 3RR
 * Formal 3RR warning
 * Final warning for again adding unsourced content

Comments:

Walter55000 has been a troublesome editor at List of iCarly episodes. Almost all of his edits since 16 February have been reverted by 6 different editors on 9 different occasions. (the last edit was only partially reverted) Attempts to engage him on his talk page have been fruitless. He has been blocked in the past week, with that block later being extended. His actions at List of iCarly episodes make me believe this sort of attitude will continue. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I should probably point out that he's also been edit-warring at ICarly (season 5), and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/phineas and ferb (season 4). --AussieLegend (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tremendous number of reverts to pick from; history of disruptive editing. Kuru  (talk)  17:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:TBrandley reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: A day)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: or


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has yet to respond to warnings on his talk page, I don't expect him to respond on talk page, either.

Comments:

Editor has made at least 4 reverts in 3 hours to Fox's Animation Domination. Three times he reverted to restore unsourced material to page, and once against a revert for MOS guidelines. Last revert was after 3RR warning. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:68.100.84.46 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The IP has also made threats ; ).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the IP is correct that this is an improper edit, according to the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. If they will agree to stop edit warring and let other people handle the dispute, I don't think any admin action is necessary. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean the comparison to Marie-Antoinette, it's obviously a negative comment about al-Assad, but it's well-sourced, so how does it violate BLP? Even so, this IP is incredibly disruptive, not only with the persistent reversions, but with the threats and a major attitude problem. That gets my back up. We have to all play by the rules, including IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * for now. If user starts up again, definitely report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Agricolae reported by User:Bearpatch (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: User:Agricolae

Previous version reverted to: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprota&diff=477496574&oldid=477496280‎]

In addition is reverting me on other pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_de_Warenne,_2nd_Earl_of_Surrey&diff=477489481&oldid=477188983 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_de_Warenne,_2nd_Earl_of_Surrey&diff=477545456&oldid=477491384 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_de_Warenne,_2nd_Earl_of_Surrey&diff=477594879&oldid=477593281
 * 1st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprota&diff=477574832&oldid=477546063
 * 2nd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprota&diff=477592804&oldid=477587446
 * 3rd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprota&diff=477593037&oldid=477592804
 * 4th revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprota&diff=477605510&oldid=477604151

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

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

Comments:

<Editor has been following my edits and making small changes for a couple of weeks, basically harmless. But on William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey he reverted an entire pedigree table, then after I put it back edited about half of it out. On the Sprota page, created yesterday, he's edit warring over her descendants, whether pedigree charts show she's a progenitrix of notable descendants, etc. I seem to have another editor sticking up for me but that only complicates the issue slightly. I've tried discussing the changes on both talk pages but it seems he wants to argue each point. I'd much rather be improving pages elsewhere than getting into this with Agricolae but he's seemingly bent deleting text, sources, pedigree tables, etc. Sorry if anything is out of place above, my first time here. Thanks for looking into this>


 * Please note that of the four supposed reverts listed, one of them (number 3) was not a revert at all but an addition of other material to my own previous edit. No, I have not been "following" this editor - this new editor has started editing in an area I have long followed.  And yes, I do want to discuss each point on the Talk page (the SYNTH, the POV, the UNDUE, the IINFO that I am 'bent on deleting') - that is the whole idea of taking a dispute to a Talk page, to Talk about it.  I don't doubt that this editor would rather just have their own way instead of discussing it until a consensus/compromise is reached.  Wouldn't we all?  I have been Talking about it, and I haven't reverted more than 3 times on either page.  This editor is just trying to use procedural grounds to bypass discussion of two distinct legitimate content disputes. Agricolae (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Zazscholar reported by User:Sitush (Result: A day and a revert restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[User talk:Zazscholar] - the entire page comprises warnings and explanations regarding this issue

Comments:

As I say at the User talk:Zazscholar, it is possible that they were contributing at anon User:115.242.235.158 immediately prior to the above edits, in which case the warring has gone on for longer. I did leave a note at User talk:115.242.235.158. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that this article is under community imposed discretionary sanctions, which the user was warned of (see the first edit to xyr talk page). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . Furthermore, I have imposed an indefinite WP:1RR on the editor. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:99.90.197.87 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: A month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP user has been editing a number of pages disruptively for months, violating 3RR, among other policies. His/her misuse of English is one of the many problems. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC).
 * . Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:GageSkidmore reported by User:Magog the Ogre (Result: warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries:
 * Original change (by me):
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012:
 * Original change (by me):
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

This is not a 3RR violation, rather a slow moving edit war against multiple users and not discussing. This user has a history of edit warring, and has received many comments and warnings on his talk page asking him to stop (just scroll across User talk:GageSkidmore). There is also consensus on the talk page that the map version he is using is a bad version: see link and link. Also perhaps factoring into your decision: he edit warred at Commons as well:. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

He's gone and done it again  (note the ingenuous edit summary stating that the map is incorrect because he only bothered to update the one map on Commons). Is anyone going to take a look at this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see above explanation (i.e., look at user's talk page)

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

Comments:


 * . The next time this happens, they will be taking a 24 hour break. T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:76.4.248.139 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 24 hrs)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

This appears to be a misunderstanding of a NASA website to the extent that the IP editor has created a WP:NEOlogism of "human pressure" (humans can't effectively independently regulate their internal pressure - they track ambient pressure) and also such strange phrasing as "(Internal psi equals Earth gravity)". This is nonsense.

Reverted by two independent editors, but repeatedly re-added. Given the attacks in their edit summaries and on their talk page, further discussion appears unlikely to achieve anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * They were warned (although perhaps it could have been escalated better), and additional reverts happened after warning ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Saint Jimmy reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result: 24 hrs)
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:

Comments:


 * I see appropriate warnings, and I see additional reverts even after they asked the question on the article talkpage. No real choice here  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Arabwords‎ reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article is subject to 1RR per WP:ARBPIA.The user made 3 reverts and was reverted by 3 different users. Probably should be notified of WP:ARBPIA sanctions too--Shrike (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . I will also issue an ARBPIA notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Benutzer reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: blocked 31 hrs)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 16:14, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
 * 16:30, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
 * 17:07, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
 * 18:48, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
 * 19:15, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
 * 19:35, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477581935 by Harizotoh9 (talk) I have not removed any existing content, only added a new section referenced with sources. The only reason for removal is censorship of facts.")
 * 06:48, 20 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477585602 by GimliDotNet (talk)")
 * 09:30, 20 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477842244 by Squiddy (talk)")

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

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

Comments:

Note this page is under a 1RR rule at the moment. User has not entered into any discussions and seems to be a 1 POV push based on his/her edits all revolving along the same lines.
 * Actually, I don't think it was under an 1RR rule -- that was imposed under the General sanctions/Climate change probation, which was superseded by the WP:ARBCC case. This is still a clear case of edit warring, though.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * , as Benutzer returned to edit warring as soon as they started editing today. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:Fsol (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is not a content dispute, the user just deletes tags and requests for citations dated since December 2011. -- Fsol (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically, Somedifferentstuff is removing tags on lots of specific sentences in favor of a single tag at the top of the article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this mean the above edits are not considered reverts? -- Fsol (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. So yes, they are reverts. - SudoGhost 07:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Various IPs reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm writing about an article that is currently up for AfD. There's been an edit war concerning several anonymous IPs that have been insisting upon the band's notability and have been adding sources that are considered to not show notability for the band and some of which are not about the band at all. Other things that have been reverted are OR claims about the band's notability. The discussion on the AfD page is starting to get a little nasty, so I'm reporting that to the admin board as well.

The issue here is that on the AfD page we've listed reasons as to why the various sources in the article cannot be used and what would be considered a reliable source showing notability. I've left a comment on the article's talk page warning about reverting the article too many times and when I came back on Wikipedia today I discovered that there's been multiple revisions where other editors have had to undo the bits done by the random IP addresses, which is why I'm bringing it here. At best I'd like to have the article protected in some format to avoid the revert warring. There have been no comments on the talk page as far as the revert war warning goes, although there's been some mention of it on the AfD page.

I'm not sure if any or all of the IPs are from the same person or are several people who know each other. What I can see is that the IPs all seem to be doing the same thing, so part of me wonders if they're campaigning elsewhere or if they're part of the same group. In any case, the reverting is all done by IPs. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Result: No action required, since the disputed page has been deleted at AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cancel. An admin closed the AfD as delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

User:GimliDotNet reported by User:Benutzer (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 10:29, 20 February 2012‎ Vsmith (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Reverted to revision 477842244 by Squiddy: WP:SYN ..... (TW)) (undo)
 * 07:02, 20 February 2012‎ Squiddy (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477840885 by Benutzer (talk)) (undo)
 * 19:37, 18 February 2012‎ GimliDotNet (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Reverted edits by Benutzer (talk) to last version by Harizotoh9) (undo)
 * 19:16, 18 February 2012‎ Harizotoh9 (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477581751 by Benutzer (talk) This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation.) (undo)
 * 18:56, 18 February 2012‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477577563 by Benutzer (talk) After being reverted the FIRST time, you should open a TALK page discussion, see process at WP:BRD) (undo)
 * 17:21, 18 February 2012‎ William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Reverted edits by Benutzer (talk) to last version by NewsAndEventsGuy) (undo)
 * 16:51, 18 February 2012‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477556715 by Benutzer (talk) uh.................. no) (undo)
 * 16:24, 18 February 2012‎ Squiddy (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477554170 by Benutzer (talk) - crap) (undo)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Reverts of my added content have been made by all of above users without any attempt to talk on the talk page.

Comments:


 * Censorship by promoters of AGW

On Saturday February 18th, I added a new, perfectly legitimate section to this page together with reputable references (one from the FOIA Climategate site and the other from the IPCC itself). This is in order to bring balance to this page, which, like many others on the Internet is censored to only show the AGW side of the picture. I did not delete or modify any of the existing text.

However, within minutes my change got reverted. Then I reverted the undo, and it got undone again. It is true that I reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, but that was because I am new to Wiki editing and unaware of the 3-revert rule. So I got legitimately warned by another editor.

Then this morning, I undid the deletion of what I added on Saturday. It got reverted. I undid again. I aimed to stick within the 3-revert rule per 24h. Yet another editor reported me (despite myself not breaking the 3 revert rule today).

Obviously the intent here is to censor any alternate view to the page.

Unless I am advised otherwise, I intend to continue adding my section to the page, but if reverted, I will make sure I will not undo the deletion of my content by other editors determined to censor, more than 3 times in a 24 hour period.

Consensus is obviously hard to achieve on a subject where one side is determined to present their view as the absolute truth. I have, nonetheless, added a section to the Article's Talk page for any suggestions of an appropriate compromise.

Below is the addition I posted only. I am open to moving this content to another part of the page, but I am not ok with censoring what the Climategate emails reveal, simply because the pro-AGW lobby intends to paint only one side of the debate.


 * Climategate Revealations

However, the climategate emails show clearly that the IPCC has not been honest about the claim that 97% of climate scientists have proven anthropogenic global warming. In fact these emails show that climate scientists were incensed at the IPCC portraying their work as proof and suppressing the many caveats that they had documented: [1]

"Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced "greenhouse effect" of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the "signal" of human influence.

Many researchers most intimately involved in the search are still far from sure how the probabilities balance. And some of the sharpest concerns are coming from the places where the original early warnings of global warming emerged in the mid-1980s. Places such as Briffa's base at the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California.

Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that "the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world". If they are they "might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case."

Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated "the detection of climate change and attribution of causes". It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. "We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter," says Barnett. "We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in." Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline "Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming.

The statement from the IPCC that 97% of climatologists have proven anthropogenic global warming is, therefore, clearly untrue.

In addition, a read of the IPCC Third Assessment report clearly shows that many of the predictions in the early 2000s, simply have not come true. An example is the prediction on the predominance of ice storms replacing snow: [2]

"Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. The ice storm of January 1998 (see Section 15.3.2.6) left 45 people dead and nearly 5 million people without heat or electricity in Ontario, Quebec, and New York (CDC, 1998; Francis and Hengeveld, 1998; Kerry et al., 1999). The storm had a huge impact on medical services and human health. Doctors' offices were forced to close, and a large number of surgeries were cancelled (Blair, 1998; Hamilton, 1998). One urban emergency department reported 327 injuries resulting from falls in a group of 257 patients (Smith et al., 1998b)."

Thank you, Benutzer


 * A quick glance at the article's history reveals that you're the one edit warring. The one who does the constant reverting is the edit warrior, not one of the many people who restore an article to a previous state.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:108.206.222.228 reported by User:Davejohnsan (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None; the editor has ignored my requests to open a discussion on the article's talk page.

Comments:

This is also happening on The Big Bang Theory, but I have not reverted anything there. Davejohnsan (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:HWWilson reported by User:Meco (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (05:38, February 19, 2012‎)
 * 2nd revert: (17:55, February 20, 2012)
 * 3rd revert: (03:22, February 21, 2012‎)
 * 4th revert: (06:09, February 21, 2012)
 * 5th revert: (17:34, February 21, 2012)
 * 6th revert: (19:23, February 21, 2012)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I'm not involved in the current edit war, just reporting the party with what I see as the most troublesome behavior since there's a BLP issue involved. __meco (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

User:98.247.37.38 reported by User:Sergecross73 (Result: semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I explained myself in some of my edit summaries to him as well: ,


 * Well, I'm not sure how I managed to do a good enough job that I didn't get chastized for going about things wrong, but not do good enough job to garner any sort of help or response to this, but I've taken other measures to get results. (The page has been protected for 10 days.) So that probably takes care of things for now. Sergecross73   msg me   15:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not by me. 98.235.166.47 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: from me, also warned here by another editor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Andrzejbanas appears to have gone from a simple content dispute on 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) to a full-on WP:POINT attack on another article, based on a narrow definition applied by him to the epic genre - he apparently refuses to listen to a growing consensus against him, as seen in this discussion. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Andrzejbanas. Too late to block, since his last revert was on 20 February. He made five reverts altogether. Andrzejbanas is arguing for his own specific definition of 'epic' films. (Unfortunately this is reminiscent of music genre wars). Reverting the article is not the way to go. If he is determined that the article should reflect his definition of epic then a WP:RFC is one option to bring in other opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that I have talked about it on the talk page, it's clearly visible and doesn't require a link. Reverting me adding cited material is not vandalism and I continued to clean my version of the page after users have reverted my edits, even after attempting to discuss with them on their talk page and on the articles talk page here and here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your attempts to start a dialog are a good idea but nothing you've said entitles you to break the WP:3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Bakersdozen77 reported by User:Athenean (Result: Warned under WP:ARBMAC)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Several different versions, see below


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: partial rv of my reverts my removal of ("Thessaloniki became the birthplace...Slavic dialects spoken in the city")
 * 3rd revert: partial rv, undoes my removal of "Macedonian Sklavinia"
 * 4th revert: reverts the following change in wording by Alexikoua
 * 5th revert:, same as above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: 3 full reverts and 2 partial reverts in 24 hours and 10 minutes. The user participates in the talkpage but is highly incivil     (putting words in my mouth that I never said)   and mostly uses the talkpage to try and get under his opponents' skin rather than attempting in good faith to resolve the dispute. I warned him about both his incivility and edit-warring, to no effect. I have the distinct impression that this user will not stop reverting (I knew this was bad when I saw "Racist edits???" appear on Talk:Thessaloniki). In addition to a block, I believe a warning of ARBMAC sanctions is in high order. Athenean (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Each edit that I performed was different as I was trying to find a compromise with users and was in no way a "revert" as defined by Wikipedia. I have reason to suspect that the User:Athenean was participating in racially-hate motivated edits as I explained here in the Talk:Thessaloniki page here: . I also tried to reach an agreement with this user in the talk page as seen here but the user did not respond and was not constructive at all and instead was keep changing the subject, being provocative, and also what I view was being a troll. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * user: Athenean also made a threatening statement against me here where he says: "Do you really think you can brusquely edit a page mostly watched by Greek editors..." which I found was racist because he implied that non-Greek users were not allowed to edit Greece-related articles. The user was also racially intimidating me for using the word "Macedonian" as you can see here is what he said: "So what if some Byzantine authors referred to the region around Thessaloniki as "Macedonian Sklavinia"? Why is that important? Because it contains the word "Macedonian"?  Bakersdozen77 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I've tried to calm things down by presenting additional material, well cited and quoted, Bakersdozen77, continued nearly trolling comments in order to promote his pov. A typical example of battleground mentality: he reverts a version although it it supported by a newly brought reference (obviously a blind rv) [], when the sourced pat is restored he performs some minor rewording with a partial rv, again contrary to the reference []. I though that things have somewhat settled, but all of the sudden, his comments at the talkpage are far from considered civilized [].Alexikoua (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is now clear that Alexikoua is a sock puppet of Athenean. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems unlikely given they have both been editing here for years, perhaps you should withdraw your personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: Bakersdozen77 warned under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Vamsisv reported by Ramcrk (talk) (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 06:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:03, 21 February 2012  (edit summary: "There is no reason provided by author for inclusion of same. While discussion is ON and no with no consensus, it cannot be mentioned.")
 * 2) 05:07, 21 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478020625 by Ramcrk (talk). Please read the definition of vandalism.")
 * 3) 05:16, 21 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478021419 by Ramcrk (talk). I don't understand your definition of Childish. Looks like it is to fight vandalism and propoganda.")
 * 4) 05:41, 21 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478023591 by Ramcrk (talk). The discussion to justify your inclusion of the same. Hence, without that coming to a conclusion it is premature to add it here")

—Ramcrk (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * for three days. I'm sorely tempted to just block both of you for participating in an impressively lame edit war, but I'll protect it instead.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Request you to extend the protection for the article till the discussion comes to a conclusion since the reporting user has even after several requests made the edits and caused my reverts. Vamsisv (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:24.246.24.194 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Also told of 3RR by user Madman2001 in this edit summary

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Now on 7 reverts, any chance of a block to get his attention? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected. This is a BLP article under WP:ARBCC, and this IP has made seven reverts there over four days. This is not the only IP editor reverting the article lead. It is relevant that this is a BLP article and there are reports that at least one of the Heartland documents is a forgery. If warring continues among registered editors, admins can impose a WP:1RR restriction on the article under WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Slight problem here, the IP is now continuing the edit warring under an account user:Dster Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You would need some evidence that Dster is the same as the IP user cited in this complaint. Meanwhile I have notified Dster of WP:ARBCC and warned him that he might be indefinitely blocked for adding contentious and unconfirmed negative material to a BLP article related to Climate Change. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Garycompugeek reported by Jakew (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:27, 21 February 2012  (edit summary: "no consensus for this change, please do not move or modify, ongoing rfc - see talk")
 * 2) 19:46, 21 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478120398 by Avraham (talk)you are mistaken, please check the history, why do you thinks this is version one and not two?")
 * 3) 20:03, 21 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478123961 by Avraham (talk)incorrect, I added to the top of the medical associtaion summary on 2/3 and Jake removed it from the lead on 2/9")
 * 4) 14:23, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478252143 by 74.78.81.111 (talk)revert terms to wp:NPOV")
 * 5) 16:47, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478266285 by Jayjg (talk)your're right there is no consensus for this change per rfc - stop ignoring the history - this addition has never had consensus")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Gary has received several warnings in the past, and has indicated awareness of 3RR (eg., here). —Jakew (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also asked him to revert himself on his talk page, but with no response so far. Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

. --Chris (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He did apparently self-revert (which I missed prior to placing the block) but even not counting that he was up to four reverts. --Chris (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:59.180.165.67 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:59.180.165.67 - the entire page.

Comments:


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

This is quite lengthy and complex. The disruptive behaviour by User:Kitchen Knife started at Merseyside, with a dispute with User:Owain over whether the article infobox should show a flag claimed to be of the former county of Merseyside - history here and discussion here. Kitchen Knife was warned here. The focus of the pointy edits then moved on to Flag Institute, which KK seems to see as some sort of front organisation for the Association of British Counties - see long list of edit warring diffs above, covering several closely related points. (Incidentally, it's no secret that User:Owain is a supporter of the ABC, but so far as I can see has behaved with notable restraint on this matter, even when I (wrongly) templated him early in this saga.) The focus for the edit warring has now moved on again to Historic counties of England - I warned Kitchen Knife here and he reciprocated here. There have been copious other points raised in discussions with Kitchen Knife at User talk:Owain, User talk:Ghmyrtle, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England (on a separate but related matter to do with the status of "historic counties") and no doubt elsewhere.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  for Merseyside  for Historic counties of England

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, , , by User:Martinevans123 at Talk:Flag Institute , by User:Ghmyrtle at Talk:Historic counties of England

Comments:

This unwillingness by User:Kitchen Knife to address the comments of other editors, pointy edits, and blatant edit warring on several articles has gone on long enough. Several other editors and I have tried but failed in all attempts to find a way forward by consensus. I suggest a temporary but quite substantial block for this editor, with a close eye being kept thereafter on his edits in this topic area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was pulled into this from WP:FT/N, when I referred it on; I have not edited any of these articles. That said, there is enough sinning on Flag Institute for half a dozen blocks. User:Oswain in particular has methodically reverted every attempt by KitchenKnife to remove a statement to the effect that the Institute enjoys some sort of official status when the references he provides to that end do not support the statement. KK's alternative edit fails NPOV in the opposite direction, but it would in inaccurate to say that he is the only offender in this incident. Mangoe (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . There are several people currently warring on that article (Martinevans123 is also at, but not over, 3RR), but Kitchen Knife has done far more than anyone else.  Hopefully this will prevent someone having to lock the page down for a week; we'll see what happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:71.235.90.74 reported by el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


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

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

—el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:John Denlop reported by SmartSE (talk) (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Time reported: 00:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 20:10, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478303484 by AndyTheGrump (talk) What hype - Check sources")
 * 2) 20:27, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478305245 by Smartse (talk) check sources - both neg and pos. -no original content deleted")
 * 3) 21:07, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478311593 by Smartse (talk)looking at neutrality your POV is overtly negative")
 * 4) 23:12, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478317282 by Smoothg0 (talk)What advertising?")
 * 5) 23:38, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478336917 by Smoothg0 (talk)Edits were not neutral")
 * Diff of warning (4 days ago for edit warring on the same article): here SmartSE (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 reported by User:Alarbus (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

two more a couple of days ago:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I also to visit the article talk.

Comments:

This began about an hour ago at User talk:Frietjes, where User:Fry1989 had been edit waring with User:Frietjes with whom I've worked a bit re navigation templates. A week and a half ago much the same occurred at Template talk:Governors of Massachusetts with Fry1989 aggressively editwarring over flags in templates. Plastikspork  Fry1989 then. Alarbus (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to leave his seal there until Amakuru has a chance to comment. Alarbus (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Naruto82 reported by Chikazuku (talk) (Result: blocked 72 hours)
Page: Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

T-ara:

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


 * 1) 17:20, 19 February 2012  (edit summary: "/* Current */")
 * 2) 03:44, 20 February 2012  (edit summary: "/* Current */")
 * 3) 15:37, 20 February 2012  (edit summary: "/* Current */")
 * 4) 19:31, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "/* Current */")
 * 5) 01:32, 23 February 2012  (edit summary: "/* Current */")

Park So Yeon:

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


 * 1) 18:40, 21 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478062832 by Chikazuku (talk)")
 * 2) 03:23, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478138483 by Chikazuku (talk)")
 * 3) 13:26, 22 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478243340 by Chikazuku (talk)")
 * 4) 01:30, 23 February 2012  (edit summary: "/* Biography */")

—Chikazuku (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for Leader timeline  for Park So Yeon on their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: for Member positions by an uninvolved contributor. for Leader timeline on their talk page. for Leader timeline at the Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Comments: They are a long time edit warrior, but I have resolved an issue with them before. It seems that they are determined to keep the member positions and timeline ordering as it "originally" was. I have tried to resolve the table ordering dispute at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but they've refused to respond even after two messages were sent. On the issue at Park So Yeon, they keep copy and pasting text from allkpop.com and removing the Template:Copypaste I've added. Chikazuku (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . FYI, edit warring rules do not apply to plagiarism; you can blank it as often as you want and not suffer repercussion. Because it isn't an edit warring issue, it's better to report it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Eschoir reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user reported for edit warring on very same article here. Additionally his talk page is littered with EW warnings from various editors.

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

Comments:

Editor is very active at the article edit warring against multiple editors and ignoring consensus. Many more reverts can be seen in the article history--although the editor is careful to watch the 24 hour limit (WP:GAME). His behavior on the talk page is not much better... He is posting this text over and over (7 posts last count) demanding editors to respond:Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal). Editors at the article are exascerbated and he is wearing them down. Here an editor expresses his frustration::History2007 has referred above to a past problem with the article Origin of the Eucharist. The problem is again as acute as ever. Only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims I say nothing. I would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than I have about Wikipedia rules would give advice. One solution with which I am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein, so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously. Esoglou I am an uninvolved editor. Thanks, – Lionel (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO, there's so many reasons why he should be indeffed. So, I've asked him on his talkpage to give me one good reason why he shouldn't be ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

One good reason would be that it would be wrong, on procedural due process and substantive due process grounds. Make that two good reasons. Lionelt has reported 5 "reverts," none of which hold up to scrutiny. First revert is actually changing a paraphrase of the source into a direct quote of the source, while eliminating references to primary sources (eg, I Corinthians) bolstering POV arguments of the editor, not relying on secondary sources. 2nd & 3rd "reverts" are actually an accommedation to the removal of the citation of the primary source by moving the table displaying the primary sources including the Corinthians source in context in parallel columns [originally produced by me four years ago] higher in the article to allow readers to decide for themselves what the primary source said]. "revert" 4 eliminate a redundancy in another New testament reference covered by the table as well as an unsourced claim and is not a reversion. "revert" 5 is simply not a reversion, is an attempt to flesh out a paraphrase of a source, from the source, a point which I actually don't agree and it's not my point of view, nor I think the point of view of that person making the complaint.

In addition, the complainant is required to document his attempt to work it out on the talkpage which he has not done. '''You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]'''

My repeated attempts to get other editors to discuss content, talkpages have the perverse result of being used against me. I used the term, editors, when there's really only one other editor, Esoglou, who is currently under sanction, and who used to be sanctioned under the handle LimA. Lionelt's involvememnt stems from a cry for allies at the Christiannity noticeboard: Foor these reasonns thiis action should be dismissed with prejudice.Eschoir (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Bwilkins' proposal for an indef block of Eschoir. I've noticed the attitude expressed by him at Talk:Eucharist. After others had patiently explained that his proposed lead change was unsourced, he comes back with "Silence, under the law, bespeaks assent, therefore no specific area of inaccuracy haaving being adduced, I will add the edit". Looks to be an issue of not just WP:EW and WP:V but of WP:Competence is required. Note the bizarre sequence of arguments which he offers in that thread. When others tried to reason with him and pointed out problems, he literally repeated the same sentence ('Eucharist, at least in part..') in three separate responses. It sounds like he feels justified in his own mind so it's unnecessary for him to listen to others' opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So do you think it proper to go to a special interest noticeboard and call for establishment of a "9-1-1 call system or a Mayday button (perhaps built into the WikiProject Christianity banner) as Lionel suggested so editors can be called for help" ginning up a lynch mob? And do you think it proper that Lionelt responded to this latter day Henry II's complaint "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?" within 18 hours with a oomplaint - while claiming to be a disinterested editor? Is that WP:PROPER now? CHEERS! Eschoir (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Silar reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Indef )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The user inserted text copied word for word from several sources   without attribution - not just a copyvio but straight up plagiarism. I tagged the sentences with 'citation needed' because they seemed strange and out of place. S/he put the sources in, I checked them and it was obvious that these were copied verbatim, hence copyright violations. I think my edit summaries were abundantly clear, as was my comment on the user's page. But Silar has continued to edit war and reinsert the copyvios into the article, calling the edit warring "button sport". Note that removing copyright violations is exempt from 3RR, especially when the copyvios are this blatant. I also notified User:Moonriddengirl about this . Volunteer Marek 11:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Add: The user has now shown up at an article I wrote recently but not have had time to finish and is adding "retaliatory" tags which don't make sense, with edit summaries which are false and appear to be designed to be mocking. He also filed "a counter report" below. So now we have plagiarism + copyvio + harassment + stalking + battleground. Volunteer Marek 11:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

More stalking and reverting of my edits,  on other articles, which Silar has never edited. Note also he changed the appearance of his sig to look like mine. Trolling on my user page,. Maybe this is more of a matter for AN/I. Volunteer Marek 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that this is a user who previously edited as anon IP but got blocked for pretty much the same thing he is doing now. Note the users history and all the "edit summary removed" - guess why that had to be done? He then went to Commons, started the same kind of trouble and got blocked there too. I think there was also another IP address (same geo location) which he used which also got blocked for more of the same but I can't find it now.

Can someone indef block this guy once and for all? Volunteer Marek 11:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments:


 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Silar (Result: No vio )

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

Comments:


 * Reverting the addition of copyright violations is a requirement ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:FavorLaw reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: No violation)
Page User being reported: Revision history of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Syrian_uprising&action=history

Diffs: 1 -  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Syrian_uprising&diff=478587282&oldid=478563568

2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Syrian_uprising&diff=478601637&oldid=478597165

3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Syrian_uprising&diff=478602311&oldid=478601969

You fail at understanding the rule as I was the one who originally made the work asked on talk page by another editor in reducing the size of the lead. Then I reverted two unexplained reverts made by you and one other editor. You, on contrary seems to WP:WIKIHOUNDING me.--FavorLaw (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * the talk page was not finished. You did not get any feedback about your ideas form other users. You went strait to pov pushing the lead. Sopher99 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is just plain wrong. I left out details that belonged in the page itself and kept all main points. The lead is twice the size it should be so of course some information is going to be moved. What you are doing is following me via my edit lists. You tried to abusevely move, merge, and speedy delete a page where I was editing and it is not the first time you are revertings my edits without any good reasons --FavorLaw (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The speedy deletion of that page was because that page was unnecessary, and has nothing to do with the conflict here now. The lead will be reduced, but not through POV pushed slashes. Sopher99 (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The speedy deletion was completely unwarranted and it failed under the most elementary logic. It has to do with the current conflict here, as you seem motivated to personnally undo edits that I make. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The page was never deleted, and we had an intense talk on the talk page. Regardless, that instance has nothing to do with the one now. It just so happens that most of the edits you make is POV pushing. Additionally you are as a sockaccount of User:ChronicalUsual, and thus do not deserve to make edits. Ill be out for the next hour, so don't expect replies until then. Sopher99 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are the one to POV pushing and openly supporting the opposition side, which is not bad in itself if you were not showing it so much. And how convenient that you accuse me of being a socjaccount when I made the accusation of you being a sockaccount before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Alawite_Sentiment_in_the_2011-2012_Syrian_Uprising#Lord_Roem_and_Sopher_99_the_same_editor.3F . This is childish behavior.--FavorLaw (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Use the talk page to resolve this dispute please. FavorLaw, please follow the bold, revert, discuss process.  You are one revert away from a 3RR breach.  --Chris (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:0ProoN0 reported by User:Backtable (Result: Warned, for the moment)
Page:

User being reported:

Version before edit war: 15:34, 1 December 2011


 * Inital edit: 03:21, 23 February 2012
 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: diff
 * 6th revert: diff
 * 7th revert: diff
 * 8th revert: diff and diff

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

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

Comments:

This user has posted questioably formatted information on the Idiot Flesh page, and is overly possessive of said article. I have tried communicating with this individual, but the only way (s)he has communicated back is by making condescending remarks in the edit summaries, deeming other people's edits as "unnecessary" and claiming that other users "don't actually know anything about" the band of the article, without basis for such statements. The person's edits have been reverted by five different users, including myself and a bot. This needs urgent attention before it escalates further.

Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 10:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: This is my first time posting on this page, so if I did anything incorrect, sorry about that; feel free to fix.
 * . I checked 's talk page and have seen that he was never informed of WP:3RR, so for the moment I'd be inclined to just warn him about Wikipedia's rules on edit warring and see if he stops. Should he persevere instead, feel free to reopen this report or to leave a message on my talk page. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

reported by User:Acps110 (Result: declined)
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: diff

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

Comments: I have attempted to explain to this user why his edit is un-constructive in both my edit summaries and with the warning on his talk page. He doesn't seem to understand that he is edit warring, and has reverted yet again.


 * – there appears to be a content dispute on the page, and two parties both guilty of edit warring and both equally at fault. Consider dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Woknam66 reported by User:Patriots49ers (Result: Missing diffs)
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:

Woknam66 keeps chaninging the band's line up timeline, marking the band as inactive. The band was never inactive, and there is no official sources saying that they were.


 * . Please provide diffs, as requested in the report template. --Chris (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:MadGeographer reported by User:Hashem sfarim (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)
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

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

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

Comments:

For some weird reason editor MadGeographer does not like the idea of Switzerland being said to be situated in both "central" and "western Europe", even though the very other article (Geography of Switzerland) that he had me check says that very thing about Switzerland. Regardless though, he is in CLEAR violation of 3RR now, and refuses to go to Talk, like I asked him to more than once. That fact can be seen in this edit history page here. It says in the "Geography of Switzerland" article these very words: "Switzerland can be either part of Western or Central Europe, both concepts being context-dependent and carrying cultural, economical and political connotations." There's no real indication that "western Europe" for Switzerland is necessarily more accurate. But this is the thing. I did a fair compromise that his MG editor (who does not understand that he does not own any article, yet he is acting as if he does, because he has some affinity for Switzerland apparently (check his page), and therefore has certain biases or preferences of how something should or should not be) did not see as an "improvement" in rude arrogance. I put it as "situated in central and western Europe" to make it clear that it's considered both. Why? BECAUSE SWITZERLAND IS CONSIDERED AS IN BOTH. So what's the problem? Just because he "does not like" is not a valid WP reason to blatantly undo an edit that is 1) accurate 2) sourced 3) supported by other WP articles and 4) good-faith. NO BUSINESS UNDOING THAT, simply because of his own personal tastes or whims.

Both are applicable the other article says, so there's nothing wrong (but just more clear) to state both. There's no valid WP reason to rudely revert just because an editor does not personally "like" it.

But even if that's the case, MG is in violation as he broke 3RR BIG TIME here. And he never went to Talk like I asked him to more than once. He never discussed it out in this discussion page. MG is in clear violation on a number of levels. Breaking 3RR, and refusing to discuss, and undoing valid accurate edits or modifications or elaboration, simply because he personally does not like it. But again, the other article says there's no real one better than the other. And that BOTH are applicable. So there's nothing wrong in stating both. It's accurate to do so, and even more clear. So you're wrong in saying that it should be ONLY one or the other. Because it's a fact that it's both. But regardless, MadGeographer is in clear violation, and now he's reported. Regards Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . --Chris (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:SadSwanSong reported by User:Zenithfel (Result: Page protected)
Page: User being reported:

The three revert rule has not been broken yet, but it is very close to happening.

User:SadSwanSong in the last 12 hours went on a major editing spree to insert the POV of the pro-gaddadfi side. I would suggest multiple editors, preferably ones more knowledgable in project Libya, come and sort out his edits. He has included many unreliable sources, irrelevant statements and POV pushing claims to try to skew the article in one way or another. Zenithfel (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Now User:SadSwanSong just broke the 3 revert rule At 11:41 25 February. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478760541&oldid=478760210 1:25 26 February. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478872024&oldid=478871931 1:31 26 February. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478872797&oldid=478872595 1:44 26 February. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478874604&oldid=478874003

Zenithfel (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did write a warning on User talk:SadSwanSong, but the editor seems to be persisting in his disruptive editing behavior and declining to discuss these controversial changes on Talk:Libyan civil war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User:SadSwanSong just posted on the appropriate Talk page. Hopefully this will develop into a more constructive dialogue. If it does not, and the editor persists in acting disruptively, I second User:Zenithfel's call for administrator action. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To my dismay, it appears the editor has resumed edit-warring: -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The users above are engaged in edit-warring, characterized by massive removal of sourced content on spurious grounds. The user Zenithfel reverted my edits, such as here, based on his own personal opinions about who did what in Libya. They seem to be motivated by a political agenda, as the user Kudzu1 came on to my talk page and without any sign of good faith accused me of being engaged in an "effort to slant the page toward the perspective of the late Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi and his followers." Zenithfel and Kudzu1 in a possible sign of tag-teaming seem to be coordinating their efforts to counter my edits on the article.
 * I am simply warning the other users of an ongoing edit war, perpetrated by the obvious skewing of the article. Zenithfel (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Zenithfel edit-warring below, involving the systematic deletion of my additions, which I decided to revert. 01:05, 26 February 2012‎ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478869461&oldid=478869207 01:21, 26 February 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478871475&oldid=478871174 01:26, 26 February 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478872138&oldid=478872024 01:40, 26 February 2012‎ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478874003&oldid=478873035 02:12, 26 February 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478878113&oldid=478877204 02:31, 26 February 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&diff=478880113&oldid=478879816

SadSwanSong (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your are being somewhat comedic now, as I never reverted you edits more than 3 times on any Particular subject.

Yes i reverted your edits on different subjects. But you never assigned the name International propaganda, and there is no conflict about me changing it to international media. The lead I reworded. No edit conflict. Ect

Just because I edit the page does not mean i am engaging in an edit conflict. If I persistently revert your edits 4 or more time I am engaging in an edit conflict. But i did not revert your edits 4 or more times. I have however, changed the page many times, but only some addressing your edits.Zenithfel (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . All three parties here are warring.  Use the talk page please, that's why it's there.  --Chris (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:72.13.142.184 reported by User:Armbrust (Result: Article semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:42, 22 February 2012
 * 2) 00:10, 23 February 2012
 * 3) 07:54, 23 February 2012
 * 4) 20:13, 23 February 2012
 * 5) 04:27, 24 February 2012
 * 6) 07:19, 24 February 2012
 * 7) 03:40, 25 February 2012
 * 8) 08:44, 25 February 2012
 * 9) 19:40, 25 February 2012
 * 10) 01:36, 26 February 2012
 * 11) 05:28, 26 February 2012
 * 12) 06:08, 26 February 2012
 * 13) 09:27, 26 February 2012


 * Diff of warning: here

—Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 11:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:24.119.76.45 reported by User:Armbrust (Result: Article semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:41, 23 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478341855 by 72.13.142.184 (talk)")
 * 2) 19:03, 23 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478390491 by 72.13.142.184 (talk)")
 * 3) 04:18, 24 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478481368 by 72.13.142.184 (talk)")
 * 4) 05:35, 24 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478551799 by 72.13.142.184 (talk)")
 * 5) 03:34, 25 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478567658 by 72.13.142.184 (talk)")
 * 6) 05:28, 25 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478719799 by 72.13.142.184 (talk)")
 * 7) 18:31, 25 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478744779 by 72.13.142.184 (talk)")
 * 8) 05:36, 26 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478897643 by 72.13.142.184 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 11:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Arsenalkid700 reported by User:94.2.68.193 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * (not by me, though). Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:FavorLaw reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: Deferred to SPI)
Page User being reported: Revision history of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Syrian_uprising&action=history

Diff 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Syrian_uprising&diff=479125649&oldid=479088677

Diff 2 -http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Syrian_uprising&diff=479132867&oldid=479132643

Diff 3 -http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Syrian_uprising&diff=479133467&oldid=479133270

Diff 4 -http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Syrian_uprising&diff=479134141&oldid=479133905

This is the second time I have reported him for 3rv rule in the past 72 hours. Sopher99 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There was already a talk established on the talk page, and still he continued edit warring. Sopher99 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) The first time you reported me, the admin proved you by a+b that there were no violation. Same here. You are the one reverting my work and you alone on the talk page does not equal consensus.--FavorLaw (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You wait until the talk finishes. There were 6 other users beside you on the talk section. Also the admin declined violation because you reverted it 3 times, But this time you edited it 4 times within the past 15 minutes. Sopher99 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted 3 times your 3 previous reverts. If anything you are the one breaking the rule. I made a sourced addition of a very important event and you start reverting it.--FavorLaw (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not break the rule, 4 times in 24 hours in the rule, and you broke that. Additionally there is already a talk page, and so you are violating consensus rules as well. Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are edit warring just as much as FavorLaw is as 3-rr is not an entitlement. Is there any reason why I should not block you both? FavorLaw, would you be willing to self-revert and to start one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods?  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a reason why I should not be blocked. A talk section on the talk page for the exact area he was editing was alreayd in progress between me and him and I did not revert his edits more than 3 timesSopher99 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk on the talk page was open for 4 days already, and still he chose to ignore the ongoing talk and strait out edit the polemical section of the page at hand Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that it takes two to edit war. I realise that you are discussing the issue with FavorLaw on the talk page and have not breached 3-rr, but you are both edit warring. Now, I'd really prefer not to have to block either of you, that's why I'm asking FavorLaw to self-revert and continue discussing. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting I very strongly suspect User:FavorLaw is a sock of User:ChronicalUsual, who was blocked multiple times for edit-warring on this same content. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of that; I think it would be appropriate to file a sockpuppet investigation, then. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I have just watched the page. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:IkamusumeFan reported by User:Mraandthebigbrother (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: User:IkamusumeFan's edit is more dead link and may found misunderstandable to some people, and my edit is more easier-to-read for English mother-tongues. Plus in my edit, paging style for Bilibili is bit look like Nico Nico Douga. -- Mr a (talk) (contrib) 05:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DonnaK97 reported by User:Aspects (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: between the 4th set of reverts and the 5th revert

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

Comments: Since February 23, almost every single edit made to the article has been reverted by DonnaK97 with them hitting the "Undo" button without an edit summary basically calling all of these edits vandalism. While there might be some vandalism, it is hard to tell with all of these reversions and it is possible that the article needs to be protected. Aspects (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mraandthebigbrother reported by User:IkamusumeFan (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments: To:Mraandthebigbrother, Your words in the article are not formal enough, and your article remains introductory. Translation is allowed in Wikipedia. I think you had better offer a better edition.


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Buhaina reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been warned multiple times about adding unsourced text to a BLP as well as a possible conflict of interest by repetive adding of promotional text

Another user warned about using multiple accounts with the similarly named.
 * There seems to be a clear COI in the edits. The external link http://www.publishersmarketplace.com/members/buhaina/ is part of the additions, which has the username "buhaina" in the URL.—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This user seems not to understand that Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. I'm blocking indefinitely, which here means until he understands WP:V and WP:ADVERT.  I'll also block Buhaina123 as an obvious sockpuppet and tell him to stick to one account. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Amindformurder reported by User:Cusop Dingle (Result: one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard:, , ,

Comments:

User:Amindformurder seems to be persistently adding this unsourced attack to a BLP and refuses to engage in discussion, even after repeated requests. His edit summaries seem to be nonsensical.

Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * NPOV
 * 1) 03:36, 29 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478980692 by Ben Tillman (talk)it is needed. see discussion page if you disagree")
 * 2) 03:36, 29 February 2012  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Zenkai251 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Yogesh Khandke. (TW)")
 * 3) 03:39, 29 February 2012  (edit summary: "/* Religion */ fixed")
 * 4) 03:51, 29 February 2012  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Mann jess (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Zenkai251. (TW)")


 * NPOV/FAQ
 * 1) 20:37, 28 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478981033 by Ben Tillman (talk)this is better and clearer")
 * 2) 20:57, 28 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 479356670 by IRWolfie- (talk)Your removal has no consensus; get some.")


 * Flood myth
 * 1) 20:49, 28 February 2012  (edit summary: "Noah's Ark is not written as a "symbolic narrative", therefore it does not belong in this article")
 * 2) 03:41, 29 February 2012  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Theroadislong (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Zenkai251. (TW)")


 * Genesis creation narrative
 * 1) 01:56, 23 February 2012  (edit summary: "more accurate")
 * 2) 01:59, 23 February 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 478355113 by SudoGhost (talk) How can he "note" it as if it was a fact? Was he there? I think not.")

Comment: Editor just broke 3rr on WP:NPOV, but the problem goes deeper than that. Please check his contrib history. User has consistently been warned about edit warring and 3rr, and his response has always been to remove the warning and continue the behavior. Between his multiple blocks, multiple ANI cases, and repeated problematic behavior (including edit warring), I believe the first step to a resolution is a preventative block to stop further disruption. A few recent diffs of previous EW warnings removed by Zenkai are below: &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aug 6 from Dougweller
 * Dec 21 from Dougweller
 * Jan 29 from Mann_jess
 * Feb 1 from Noformation
 * Feb 22 from SudoGhost
 * Feb 28 from IRWolfie


 * Just as a side note, there was no 3RR breach. This revert was a self-revert.  --Chris (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Struck for the archive. Thanks for the correction.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . I've been following all of these edit wars and was just about to issue a block anyway.  --Chris (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:RJFF reported by User:Tymek
Page:

On Feb 6, user RJFF removed sourced information from the Civic Platform article. I left him/her a message, for which I never got an answer. After some time, user RJFF again removed the information, stating: "why should anyone trust Czempiński's words?" (General Gromoslaw Czempinski is a well-known officer of Polish special forces). After I had left another message at his/her talk page:, user RJFF returned to deleting the information:. I do not want to start an edit war, so I need somebody to solve this issue. Tymek (talk) 05:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Monitor321 reported by User:AV3000 (Result: A day)
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 user talk page: User talk:Monitor321

Comments:

New editor is not following supplied introductory and WP:RS material (and ignoring WP:NOTNEWSPAPER); added material reverted by two editors. AV3000 (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)