Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive181

User:Starmanres reported by Dave Dial (talk) (Result: Indef)
Page: User being reported: Time reported: 16:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
 * 1) 15:33, 14 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Fake Birth Certificate Updates")
 * 2) 15:38, 14 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 481863551 by Ravensfire (talk)")
 * 3) 15:41, 14 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 481864326 by DD2K (talk)")
 * 4) 15:53, 14 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 481864844 by Ravensfire (talk)")
 * Diff of warning: 1, here —Dave Dial (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidence of disruptive intent: . --Weazie (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to keep this editor here; they're pushing a fringe theory in a particularly tendentious manner and wasting everyone else's time. I'm blocking indefinitely, which here means until he agrees not to edit anything related to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Persephone19 reported by User:IRWolfie- (Result: Block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#User:Persephone19


 * revert:
 * revert:
 * revert:
 * revert:
 * revert:

I started a previous ANI where I was directed to DRN. DRN redirecting me back to ANI as the user is still edit warring without discussion. No administrators in ANI commented on it. But the user is still edit warring. The consensus is that material is undue by Persephone19 insists on re-inserting the material against consensus, repeatedly inserting it. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The WP:SPA has not exceeded 3RR in a 24 hour period but consistently re-inserts the material (up to around 7-8 times already), when he is fully aware that it is against consensus, over several days with no sign of stopping. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The user is still edit warring:. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Blocked for edit-warring: seems a pretty clear-cut case. There is probably more to do here (COI, etc), but that's not for this board. Perhaps a block will be helpful--it will certainly cease disruption for the next 31 hours. Please re-report or bring to ANI if behavior persists. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Hopefully he stops with the re-inserting. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Nickeroo reported by User:121.209.216.75 (Result: 121.209.216.75 blocked for egregious BLP-warring, article semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Don't know what should go here]

(cur | prev) 12:36, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎. . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎. . (Undid revision 482017462 by Nickeroo (talk) Correcting the valdalisim to original work) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:35, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎. . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎. . (Undid revision 482017277 by 121.209.216.75 (talk) vandalism) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:33, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎. . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎. . (Undid revision 482016896 by Nickeroo (talk) Nothing to say?) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:30, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎. . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎. . (Undid revision 482016524 by 121.209.216.75 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:26, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎. . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎. . (Undid revision 482016241 by Nickeroo (talk) Nothing to say?) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:23, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎. . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎. . (Undid revision 482016080 by 121.209.216.75 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:22, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎. . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎. . (Undid revision 482015840 by Nickeroo (talk) Create your own work, don't destroy other's work) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:20, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎. . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎. . (Undid revision 482015630 by 121.209.216.75 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:18, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎. . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎. . (Undid revision 482015259 by Nickeroo (talk) This only makes me more resolved to keep the issue alive Maybe I should start changing the pages of the advertisers to let people know who supports) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:15, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎. . (Axe the Circle have no interest in Yumi Stynes except to be noticed. Their page is irrelevant to Yumi Stynes Wikipedia page.) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:10, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎. . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎. . (Undid revision 482014158 by Nickeroo (talk) So Yumi can dish it out, but when it blows up in her face, she and her supporters have to destroy someone else's work?) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:05, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎. . (spamming by members of "Axe the Circle" to entice hatred) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:02, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎. . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎. . (Undid revision 482013332 by Nickeroo (talk) The issue is still alive and well thank you very much - and will continue to be.) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:57, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎. . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎. . (Comments removed that entice hatred over an issue that is done and dusted) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:52, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎. . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎. . (Undid revision 482012205 by Nickeroo (talk) As soon as they apologise (properly) and give their ill-gotten gains away, we're gone.) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:48, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎. . (This is continually being added by a group who is more after notoriety and less after Yumi Stynes. It's wrong to celebrate them here.) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:33, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎. . (8,737 bytes) (+773)‎. . (Undid revision 482009813 by Nickeroo (talk) AxeTheCircle are a positive action group and are concerned with fighting passive aggressive hatred and those who mock decent guys.) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:27, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (7,964 bytes) (-773)‎. . (Deleted paragraph added by a group "axe the circle" who is only concerned with enticing passive aggressive hatred.) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] How do you do that?

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

Comments:

121.209.216.75 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can an administrator please block User:121.209.216.75 for persistent BLP violations on the Yumi Stynes article. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reporter blocked, apparently part of an organized campaign against the article's subject. Nickeroo is a new user and I'll counsel them on how they might better handle this, but they deserve credit for trying to deal with the BLP violations.   Acroterion   (talk)   13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated ~ thanks! Afterwriting (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrej N. B. reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Stale, reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:


 * . Reverting stopped ~4 hours ago, and Andrej N. B. self-reverted anyways.  Mutt Lunker, I'll also say that this is neither accurate or helpful; if you haven't already, read WP:NOTVAND. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, this was in part due to my clumsiness. I've only just noticed that I accidentally rolled back two edits, my intention only being to revert the second. (In fact I'd effectively noted on Andrej N. B.'s talk page that the first of these two edits may be supportable, whilst indicating why another user may have reverted it the first time he (Andrej) had made it.) My edit summary identification as vandalous, intended for the second edit, was based on the repetition of the edit summary "See discussion page", which I had earlier queried as being a misrepresentation of that talk page and thus it's repetition as disruptive. If, as indicated, I'm incorrect to regard this as vandalism, I apologise and will take heed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal, I've done that before myself; if that happens, make a dummy edit and say in the edit summary that you hit the wrong button. That will help eliminate confusion.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Mentious reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 09:28, March 16, 2012‎ UTC
 * 2nd revert: 14:42, March 16, 2012‎ UTC
 * 3rd revert: 14:52, March 16, 2012‎ UTC
 * 4th revert: 15:03, March 16, 2012‎ UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * . --Chris (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Phoenix79 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 05:40, March 13, 2012 (Removing lawsuit information from the lead section)
 * 2nd revert: 10:59, March 13, 2012 (Removing lawsuit information from the article body)
 * 3rd revert: 04:45, March 15, 2012 (Removing lawsuit information from the lead section)
 * 4th revert: 06:51, March 16, 2012 (Removing lawsuit information from the lead section and article body)

Diff of edit warring warning: 14:17, March 15, 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is about the continuation of long-term edit warring at Bose Corporation, with Phoenix79 constantly removing well-cited, accurate but negative information about the company. A discussion is underway at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, with reversion diffs going back six years. The most recent examples of edit warring are listed above. Note that Phoenix79's revert #4 followed 12 hours after he was warned about edit warring, and after he took part in the discussion at COIN and the article talk page. He was fully aware that this reversion would be contentious.

At COIN, removing lawsuit information was identified as one of the major edit warring focuses of Phoenix79. Here are lawsuit-removal diffs going back five years:
 * 21:58, March 28, 2007 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against Consumer Reports)
 * 02:19, March 29, 2007 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against Consumer Reports)
 * 02:21, May 4, 2007 (Removal of Bose's "reputation for litigiousness", cited to Funding Universe)
 * 21:49, July 31, 2007 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA)
 * 08:50, September 9, 2007 (Removal of the word "unsuccessfully" in describing a Bose lawsuit)
 * 09:31, October 15, 2007 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA)
 * 07:58, February 7, 2009 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against The Enquirer)
 * 05:14, October 4, 2009 (Removal of information about reviewers who have a "fear of [Bose] lawsuits")
 * 01:36, December 29, 2011 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA)
 * 06:10, December 31, 2011 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA)
 * 03:44, January 1, 2012 (Removal of the word "litigious", cited to Digital Trends. Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA and Eforcity)
 * 05:18, January 2, 2012 (Removal of the word "litigious". Removal of Bose lawsuit against Thiel, Harman, QSC, CEDIA and Eforcity)

This editor must be made to understand that lawsuit information is an important element of the article about the corporation. Phoenix79 must stop his removals and long-term edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * --Chris (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Cleaver post the edit war template and then distract me with the COI template. No I didnt even see your comment there and was unaware that you even replied to me. If I did I would have responded to it. Frankly I have been trying to start a conversion with little success on the talk page for a while and even posted this 07:13, 16 March 2012. The conversation we were having was about something different, and I have only had 3 edits btw 08:57, 16 March 2012‎ 14:17, 15 March 2012 13:09, 13 March 2012 you cant say I violated 3RR while I was editing as another user I dont even know added a template 10:37, 13 March 2012 then say I violated 3RR. That is just showing Bad faith. As for the other ones you cant bring up addition that violate WP:V and include that here! -- Phoenix (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to prove that you violated 3RR, I am trying to prove that you have been edit-warring over a long period of time, which you have. Regarding March 13, your two edits were five hours apart, so of course they are considered separately. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that the WP:COIN discussion is not going to resolve this. A better idea could be a WP:Request for comment at Talk:Bose Corporation. This would require someone to propose how the lawsuit issues ought to be mentioned in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea ( smacks forehead ), and I have implemented the first step with an RfC about one aspect of the issue. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now at Talk:Bose Corporation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Forevertrue21 reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The first of five reverts was from an IP, but it is pretty clearly the same person. This new editor (probable sock) violated 3rr and the 1rr rule as applied to articles pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . --Chris (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:70.34.171.50 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previously gave warning at last December.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See multiple warnings on user talk page.

Comments:

This IP is continuing to add the name "Laurel Robinson"to the Blue Water Bridge article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . If this is vandalism (as your edit summary when reverting suggests) then AIV is the proper venue. If this IP is even edit warring then it's happening at a glacial pace.  I don't think a block is warranted at the moment.  --Chris (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:GSorby reported by User:George Ho (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments: I'm running out of time, and GSorby hates me. What can I do? Well, WP:EE are against adding back two images of Reg Cox, and I nominated both of them for deletion. What else can I say? --George Ho (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Right now, Raintheone removed these images as unnecessary, and I'm made the violator of 3RR. Great, I'm their worst enemy. I can't warn Raintheone and GSorby any more. What else can I do? --George Ho (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * George Ho, I have made 3 reverts, not four. You're now wasting other people's time. GSorby  –  Ping  00:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You can, perhaps, try to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and persuade the other editors that your position is the correct one. Reverting back and forth and having an "edit summary" argument is a sure way for several editors to get blocked, even without a 3RR violation  I've protected the article for the weekend to encourage a discussion.  If you come to a conclusion before then, please let me know or request an unprotect at WP:RFPP.  Kuru   (talk)  00:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what is unnecessary about removing these images. The list entry does not need these. These images were deleted a few years back - when the subject was merged to a list. You opened an unnecessary deletion review, instead of doing to REFUND. Fastily asked why you did so on your talk page. The strange thing is - upon their restoration - you nominated them for deletion. These actions do confuse me. What is more worrying, is the fact you have added these images to the list - even though you have nominated them for deletion. If you believe they should be deleted, why waste time adding them to the list? You seem stuck on adding them back to the list, reverting those who have clearly stated they hold no purpose to the project. It is quite clear that there was a consensus forming here and despite this fact, you still added them.


 * I do not even see how GSorby broke 3r either - when he was following consensus and did not surpass three reverts. Which is why you have not provided difference above - because there are only three - not four. You also seem to think this is personal - even claiming that you are the wikiproject's "worst enemy". Taking all this into account, I can only see this as an attempt by you to cause a drama. We as a group, on the wikiproject, and I think this is fair to say, sometimes we do not all agree on a subject matter from the start. However - We do discuss and work together to problem solve and find a solution best for the involved articles. Now you were not even willing to take part in that discussion - if you feel hard done to - I regret that, but please remember that Wikipedia thrives on collaboration.


 * As I write this - you have made a request that the article be fully protected - under the condition that the images are added back.


 * You have had numerous warnings about not following the rules, and as a result you were blocked from editing. When you were unblocked as part of the mentorship scheme - you said that you would take on board all advice. I'm a little disheartened that mentors have not noticed that you have become highly disruptive once again. Rain  the 1  01:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I voted keep in FFD. I nominated them for FFD because... I feel disapproval about these images. I did DRV because I felt that you may disapprove them if I do REFUND first. I don't know how you may feel when Reg Cox images would be restored, so I did DRV first. Then I did FFD because you disapprove them. --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note the content discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. Kuru   (talk)  01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Denton0826 reported by User:Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Consensus on talk page is long-established that this is false information, not reliably sourced, and violates WP:BLP. Editor keeps re-adding it and yelling WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in edit summary. --Loonymonkey ([[User
 * Open and shut case here, this is fringe material about the US president and the editor has vowed to continue after being warned about 3RR. I would leave alone rather than edit war myself but there is a BLP concern, and the content is clearly inappropriate for the encyclopedia.  In any event I'll leave any further removals to others.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Clear 3RR; concur that fringe BLP claims require extraordinary sources. Kuru   (talk)  00:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:DavisJune reported by User:Grapple X (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * This edit is where the information is first added, the next few edits from here are generally unconstructive ones pushing the "American" nature of the film, but are not the subject of the revert war.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Warning was given by another user before I was able to)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (full discussion where a number of editors have begun to form consensus (again) on the issue, outweighing DavisJune's sole position)

Comments: For what it's worth, this is a common problem faced by WP:FILM, so it would be helpful not only to this article but to others like it to stamp out this kind of problem quickly. GRAPPLE  X  03:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment from uninvolved editor - this editor also seems to have a rather combative habit of inappropriately templating other editors:, , . VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment from involved editor : User believes all disagreements are personal attacks, has used the words "abhorrent" and "tyrant" during discourse, deletes warnings while handing them out to others for "vandalism". Refuses to genuinely discuss or stop what he is doing. I'd be willing to discuss things with him/her but is just genuinely unreasonable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * --Chris (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Selecciones de la Vida reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: Both 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:

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

Comments: I have been working arduously to turn the Pisco Sour article into a GA-class article. As the diffs above show, User:Selecciones de la Vida has deleted several of my improvements and claims that I am the one that is deleting "reliable sources". However, it is obvious that I am the one who has done improvements to the article. I have warned the user both on his talk page and the article's talk page that his behavior is disruptive per WP:POINT, and asked him to follow WP:BRD to discuss changes in the article. He did not listen. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 05:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How the article looked prior to my improvements:
 * How the article looked after my improvements:
 * User:Willscrlt comments on my improvements: Wow! That was an awesome job.
 * Therefore, I request the following:
 * 1) Administrator to restore article to my last improvement:
 * 2) Administrator to temporarily block Selecciones de la Vida for edit warring.
 * 3) Administrator to not block me as I have taken the correct (and even more) steps to prevent an edit war.
 * 4) Administrator to ask Selecciones de la Vida to submit case to arbitration if he desires to make any major changes; or at least get a third opinion (or...at least discuss it in the talk page).
 * 5) Administrator to temporarily protect the page to my last version which (as demonstrated above) was a major improvement to the article.


 * To help out the administrator, I recently restored my text and included the reference to the "Pisco Sour" yatch which the other user claimed I was deleting on purpose (I had not seen it before). This is done in WP:AGF. I have also responded to the user in the Talk:Pisco Sour page and mentioned this 3RR situation in his talk page. Following procedure.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 06:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . Clear-cut 3RR violation on both sides. --Chris (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Equazcion reported by User:Encyclopedist J (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Comments:

This user has accused me of socketpuppetry and I have responded to his case, and though the investigation is still in the process he tried to justify his actions by reverting my contribution as well other contributors, who contributed before me, to a much earlier revision. This is an unfair revision and completely unjustified especially since his summary was a personal attack on me when he or she should of dealt with their problems through my talk page.

*Comment from a mostly uninvolved editor (I haven't actively edited the page for months, but keep a general eye on the talk page). This user seems to be leading the charge in a series of edit wars. His most recent revision appears to have replaced the long-standing "Ballerina" main image for OWS with some kind of Marxist banner. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 14:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One revert of a sock. Kuru   (talk)  16:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Xytfvwskdnuimi reported by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:41, 17 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 18:48, 17 March 2012  (edit summary: "rv pov pushing")
 * 3) 18:53, 17 March 2012  (edit summary: "rv pov pushing to original unaltered version")
 * 4) 19:06, 17 March 2012  (edit summary: "rv pov pushing to original unaltered version")
 * 5) one more


 * Diff of warning: here

Summary of reverts: Continued re-insertion of requested move discussion material after its archival by a closing administrator. —GotR Talk 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Some editors Talk and others are trying to delete support votes and then promptly close the talk page in order to push their modified version of the talk page vote when the majority consensus is in Support of the move. 49 Support vs 44 Oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xytfvwskdnuimi (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DO NOT continue a dispute (or lie) here. GotR Talk 19:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One more revert added.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * by Drmies for being a sock. GotR Talk 19:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the above editor was telling the truth. The vote was indeed 49 supporting the move and only 44 opposing, so in accordance with our policies, a majority consensus rules, sorry if your not happy guys. Don't Worry Be Happy! Make Love Not War! Peace! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarrettJohnathanJacobs (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This one blocked as well. I'm going to semi-protect that talk page for a week: this is getting ridiculous. If any admin feels this is more than necessary, you are welcome to revert me. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Canuckian89 (Result: Decline, for now)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * More visible in history of Manitoba

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Nikkimaria and myself (User:Canuckian89) are engaged in an edit war on Manitoba over the date format of the references. I wanted to report myself and the other user here because I thought the both of us were just going to continue with our reverts. We have discussed the subject of our edit war on the talk page. The diffs I listed above are from today, while the diffs not from today are about a week old, but I still think we could use some outside help to resolve our differences. Canuck My page89 (talk), 01:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Canuckian, this really isn't the proper forum to debate this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . As you both seem willing to discuss, I am not going to issue any blocks right now.  Please follow dispute resolution procedures and cease reverting each other.  --Chris (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikiisunbiased reported by User:Widefox (Result: A day)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR #1 3RR #2 (persistent edit warring - collating other issues e.g. WP:OWN, and persistent edit warring despite 3RR

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

Comments:

Persistent edit warring, despite multiple warnings 3RR, and others today.
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:93.96.148.42 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionist_political_violence&diff=482654141&oldid=482653051
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionist_political_violence&diff=482651974&oldid=471166363
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:93.96.148.42,User_talk:93.96.148.42.

Comments:

This article is clearly under WP:ARBPIA Its not the first time that user breaks the 1RR recently [],[].The user refuse to revert also its not a new user. He is active in the area for a long time so he should know what articles belong to the area and what are not. His disregard of policies is pretty blatant. He should recieve a warning about a sanctions too.--Shrike (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . --Chris (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:119.237.156.246, User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: IP blocked)
Page: and others

User being reported:

User being reported:

Brief narrative version: they are reverting each other across multiple pages, often with inappropriate or misleading edit summaries and sometimes undoing other users edits along the way.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (thanks)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This I think is the best venue

Comments:

-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * SchmuckyTheCat reverts whatever I edit for no reason. For this particular talk page, he keeps deleting the evidence that I submitted at 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC) because (from what I guess) it contradicts his position. I had previously reported him to WP:AN/I and to User talk:Mark Arsten. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP reported me to WP:ANI more than 24 hours ago, so this is forum shopping. It was agreed on ANI that this is a sock. Socks don't deserve 3RR and are exempt from reverting. Block the IP and give this a rest. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm blocking the IP for being an incredibly obvious sock of Instantnood, and I'll mass-rollback all the edits it's made. Since Instantnood is banned, SchmuckyTheCat has not violated 3RR because he was reverting a banned user.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * About his talk page, per WP:RBI... shouldn't we like lock it too? Big waste of time just to entertain the mental defect, don't you think so? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Fama_Clamosa reported by User:Taylornate (Result: declined both blocked)
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:


 * Also on user talk with no response:

Comments:

This is not a 3RR violation, but intervention is clearly needed because Fama Clamosa explicitly refuses discussion

About two months ago, I merged about ten articles into one. Fama Clamosa is now reverting my redirects. I initially forgot to redirect Abductor pollicis longus muscle and so I completed it recently. I think because of this he saw it as easier to attack, but he is now reverting redirects on nine articles (listed here), has even blanked the recipient article without stating a reason, and has falsely reported me for vandalism. He has not posted any discussion with his latest round of reverts.--Taylornate (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How is that supposed to work if he refuses to communicate? Don't most edit wars involve a dispute of some kind?  I'm confused.--Taylornate (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any refusal to discuss. I see two people vehemently disagreeing on the talk page (you pointing to what you claim is a consensus on another talk page, which does not appear to be strong consensus to me). Try WP:RFC first, or try WP:M if that fails; my guess is you two can come to an agreement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did dispute this with another user but Fama Clamosa explicitly refused to participate and he is the one reverting now. I thought I gave two diffs showing his refusal, but it looks like I made a mistake on one of them.  Here they are again:--Taylornate (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please open an RFC or try mediation. Your consensus is not as elusive as you might think: I see at least one other editor who has reverted you: User:Arcadian. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * RFC and mediation are not applicable if both sides aren't willing to participate. Arcadian is refusing to discuss as well, even marking his reverts as minor, and Fama Clamosa is calling me a vandal in edit summaries.  If this is not an edit war, what is?--Taylornate (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For quick context, see this. Taylornate is fighting three different editors here, and has already been instructed that he needs to review Merging, both before he started this process and after. --Arcadian (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with Merging, my merge was in-line with it, and I've referenced it multiple times in the course of discussion that you are ignoring. The only point relevant to this board is that the editors that disagree with my merge are reverting while refusing to discuss.  I won't list here the editors that agree with me because it's irrelevant.--Taylornate (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I am not comfortable your above use of the word instructed. Do you feel you are in a position to issue instructions to me rather than discuss as a peer?--Taylornate (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fama Clamosa continues to revert and continues to explicitly refuse discussion.--Taylornate (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a closer look at the history pages before re-reverting an admin. There is one user that is trying to redirect pages out of existence, and three users (including an admin) trying to stop the destruction of information by restoring the individual muscle pages. If Taylornate really wants to engage in a radical new approach to medical content, s/he would need to generate a far greater consensus before doing so. To the degree that a consensus exists, it is for the preservation of the anatomic content.--Arcadian (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the merge should have taken place, and support for or against it, is irrelevant to this board. What is relevant is that even after a block Arcadian continues to revert, to mark the reverts as minor, to refuse to discuss, and believing that as an administrator he has special status in this dispute.--Taylornate (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A few things to note here: 1) Revert warring isn't the proper answer in any case, 2) There is clearly no consensus for the merge- Taylornate is unfortunately just wrong about this - and I note he still hasn't filed an RFC or mediation case and 3) being an administrator doesn't give someone extra clout in a dispute, and using the automatic rollback tool to revert war while engaging in an absolute bare minimum of discussion is terribly unacceptable - unacceptable to the extent that if it continues, he will be on the hook for sanctions according to the last paragraph in the lede of WP:ROLLBACK (I don't say this to shame or threaten him, more as a genuine warning). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * RFC or mediation is obviously the next step, but the first step is getting the opposition to participate in discussion. If they refuse to communicate at all then RFC/mediation is pointless.  Anyway, that's my interpretation of it.  If you can point out specifically how it could be useful in this situation then I will file.--Taylornate (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just do it. Just open up the RFC and inform them of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, RFC is open.--Taylornate(talk) 04:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am reopening this case, archived here, because Fama Clamosa is now disrupting the RFC by putting strikethrough tags around it. The most recent occurrence  was after a very specific warning.--Taylornate (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Header (result: Page protected)
Slow editwar by a user wanting to unilaterally change noticeboard rules, without waiting for consensus to emerge. Not 3RR, but persistent over several days. 86.** IP (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Full protection? Have you actually checked the edits? It was last touched two days ago, the change I put in was suggested by somebody else at the noticeboard and the person coming here reverted the change without discussion and didn't leave a reason and didn't comment on the discussion on the noticeboard and still doesn't. The discussion is at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. The only comment the OP put there was in this last comment I put there and you can see my response too:
 * By the way I also get the impression that some of the people are here just to help fringe products or aid industry by ensuring Wikipedia does not have an article about them giving a fairly neutral perspective by ensuring the articles are deleted or made unreadable. Don't you ever wonder if you are being used in that way? Dmcq (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that attacking other users helps your case in the least. 86.** IP (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about actually giving a reason for your reversion? And who am I attacking that you'd like to defend? Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point at that noticeboard is that I think it is malfunctioning, the above is not the worst way but just an additional worry about it. I have been met by IDONTLIKEIT about a proposal that editors coming there consider placing a note about a discussion on the talk page of the article being discussed but that doing that is not mandatory. I can see that sometimes people want a quiet discussion for advice on a noticeboard but unfortunately I think this one goes in for mobbing in AfDs and other group activities after discussion without the interested editors knowing anything before an AfD is placed. The problem is that it is hard to change peoples minds after they have come to a decision and without editors who know something about an article an informed discussion can go badly wrong. I believe a bit of extra encouragement to openness might get the noticeboard back to working a bit better. Dmcq (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Super. This sounds like an excellent conversation to be having on the talk page of the page in question.  Once you have developed a consensus for your changes, you can request unprotection.  Kuru   (talk)  00:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I object to an accusation of edit warring being upheld against me on the basis of that evidence. Dmcq (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

76.97.19.69 reported by User:Necrat (Result: Already blocked)
Page: Cops_(TV_series)

User being reported: IP User User_talk:76.97.19.69

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


 * 1st revert: 13 March, 2012
 * 2nd revert: 15 March, 2012
 * 3rd revert: 15 March, 2012
 * 4th revert: 16 March, 2012
 * 5th revert: 19 March, 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was warned on his talk page that his continual reverting will result in his violating WP:3RR rules and may even constitute vandalisim.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:76.97.19.69 Several people have tried, however the op in question refused to cooperate.

Comments: User continues to re-add the same, unsourced, material to this page despite being blocked twice by administrators for doing so, and having his edits reverted by seven different Wikipedia editors including an administrator. The anonymous editor posted a comment on his own talk page that "some asshole kept changing back to in correct then had a crybaby tantrum and tried to censor that paragraph altogether. Grow up, admit you are wrong and leave correct information correct.", which is a seperate violation of the WP:CIVILITY policy as well. I will also note that after the first revert, I stepped back and made no more further edits on the article.

NECRAT Speak to me 02:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I started watching this article after I noticed that it is an unwatched but frequently target of disruption. The real lame war started in August 2011 when multiples IPs started to edit-war about a single word "cover's vs coverage" (who, given the numbers is the same person) and . Multiples sources (reliables or not) gave that the word "cover's" is what was screened. The edit-war stopped along with this disruptive edit (being reverted later), but the edit-warring resumed again in February. Necrat intelligently removed the text, as it is irrelevant, unsourced, and has no encyclopedic value; but 76.97 is the only person that has constantly been consantly in this, s/he has started to abuse on this triviality, taken the decision to violate multiple polices and guidelines, even when he has been told to discuss this first.  Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  03:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * by  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but there are no intentions to do so by Highlocal (he has never used a talkpage). Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Comments:

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: here

Comments:Edit warrior started reverting several days ago. He has reverted edits corrected by 3 different editors, including myself. Another user has already warned him, but warrior is obviously ignoring everything. His contribution record shows that he only returns to the article to revert and shows no sign of civil response or willing to change behavior. User also might be a sockpuppet.


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:67.168.135.45 reported by User:Widefox (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: (207.237.208.153 not 67.168.135.45)
 * 2nd revert: (to film)
 * 3rd revert: (")
 * 4th revert: (")
 * 5th revert: (film to top, blanked entries, against MOSDAB)
 * 6th revert: (")
 * 7th revert: (")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (other warnings given by me and 1 other editor)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  User talk:67.168.135.45 User talk:207.237.208.153

Comments:


 * Note: Me and another editor's initial roles here were to revert vandalism (I had engaged with editor to persuade away from editing course by the time 2nd anti-vandal editor arrived)


 * multiple warnings (2x 3RR, several vandalism)
 * advice given but ignored = 1. create account, 2. change film title (to match redir)
 * NPOV violation (promotion of film = changing redir, film to top of DAB, removing other entries)
 * Edit warring for these ends
 * not creating account or doing other things as suggested (both on user talk page, and talk page)
 * WP:DE aggressive allegation not collaboration, Personal attack/WP:AGF Widefox (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * . Additionally, reporting editor's rollback right temporarily removed pending clarification.  Wifione  Message 13:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:71.86.45.130 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (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:
 * 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Continuous replacing a finalist (Elise Testone) on "Saved" to "Bottom 3 (F)" as was saved by judge Jennifer Lopez in March 8 results of that show. ApprenticeFan work 17:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . I've read the discussion where consensus was supposedly reached, and neither side of this dispute is meeting WP:V.  Whether one or another thing happened, this should be provable with sourcing, and right now there is only opinion.  The IP is not engaging in discussion, and that's certainly not good.  Hopefully protection will push the involved editors toward the talk page.  --Chris (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Historylover4 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 10:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 13:50, 20 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* As Muhammad */ Important info with the main Greek spelling of Mohammed, Mocament ???????? important to show with the "gematria" numerology of this spelling as well")
 * 2) 13:56, 20 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* As Muhammad */")
 * 3) 14:07, 20 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* As Muhammad */ Well sourced info Greek spelling of Muhammad is ???????? and is not supposed "original research" and the Greek numerical adding can be easily verified not "original research"")
 * 4) 15:06, 20 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* As Muhammad */ Info with link not too lengthy and is accurate")
 * 5) 20:51, 20 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* As Muhammad */ David Thom showing what Euthymius, Cedernus, and Zonaras actually wrote and none of them wrote maometis important scholarly source responding to walmesley")
 * 6) 02:40, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* As Muhammad */ A thorough analysis refuting the claim of maometis this clealry fits in the topic and comes from scholar David Thom")
 * 7) 04:42, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* As Muhammad */")


 * Diff of warning: here

Editor is also edit-warring at Mauritania over several days but has not exceeded 3RR on any one day. The links above are the earliest in each series of edits. Saving this much later than I wrote it as I hadn't noticed it hadn't saved! —Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The edits at 02:51, 02:40, 14:37, and 13:56 at least are clear reverts to previously added material. Was made aware of 3RR the day before. Kuru   (talk)  11:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Fat&Happy reported by User:Shrike (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Arabism&diff=482941085&oldid=482935851
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Arabism&diff=482934015&oldid=482931659
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Arabism&diff=482912416&oldid=482884976
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] user_talk:Fat%26Happy,User_talk:Fat%26Happy

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Anti-Arabism

Comments:

The reverted part is falls under 1RR rule because it have direct connection to the WP:ARBPIA.It was explained to user that he should self revert but he refused.To the very least notification of sanctions are required.--Shrike (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * since the editor has been engaging in discussion since the reverts; a block at this time would be counter-productive. --Chris (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result:2 editors edit-warring, page protected (again) for one week )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:32, 21 March 2012
 * 2nd revert: 17:56, 21 March 2012
 * 3rd revert: 18:03, 21 March 2012 (Reverting (completely undiscussed) radical changes made by "Little Jerry")
 * 4th revert: 20:13, 21 March 2012
 * 5th revert: 22:58, 21 March 2012
 * 6th revert: 23:10, 21 March 2012
 * 7th revert: 23:50, 21 March 2012 (Undid revision 483266042 by LittleJerry (talk))
 * 8th revert: 23:52, 21 March 2012 (Undid revision 483266825 by LittleJerry (talk))
 * 9th revert: 23:58, 21 March 2012
 * 10th revert: 00:02, 22 March 2012
 * 11th revert: 00:08, 22 March 2012

Comments:

ERIDU_DREAMING has been blocked twice lately for edit-warring on this article. The most recent report may be found here. The 23:50 edit is by a dynamic IP, but appears to be the same editor. TFD (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

My old friend THE FOUR DEUCES has curiously omitted a few facts.

The article in question has been under dispute for some time. The Four Deuces believes that to be "Right-Wing" is to be an extremist. Indeed he believes that to be Right-Wing is to be a Fascist. He made a determined attempt to eliminate my contributions to the talkpage when I pointed out that Right-Wing is not reducible to Fascism. Eventually it had to go to an independent adjudication. THE FOUR DEUCES was ruled against by the independent editor. As far as I am aware he has not changed his mind. His latest comment on the talkpage is "Other than extremists, few people self-identify as right-wing since the end of the Second World War. Most right-parties went out of existence at that time." Draw your own conclusions.

LITTLE JERRY believes that it is wrong to claim that people who believe in a free society can be Right-Wing. He got into disputes with various editors because he kept deleting any inclusion of Classical Liberalism on the Right. He was reported (not by me) for constantly reverting the Right-Wing page.

An extensive discussion took place between several editors. The Right-Wing page went through many versions. At last it settled on a consensus. No sign of LITTLE JERRY. Then he turns up tonight and reverts every single one of the carefully arrived at compromises. Yes, you guessed it, he deleted references Classical Liberalism. Most of these were not made by me I should add, but by another editor. He did this with no discussion.

I reverted his vandalism twice. I then left it.

To my surprise my old friend THE FOUR DEUCES then reverted LITTLE JERRY's vandalism. To no avail. LITTLE JERRY was determined to delete all the bits of the Wikipedia entry he did not agree with, this time on the grounds that the lead was "too long". He was obsessed with deleting anything which linked the Right with Classical Liberalism. I reduced to the lead to half of its size, but he continued to revert. He then pursued a new strategy. He claimed that my reversions had not been discussed, forgetting that none of his reversions had been discussed, and the reversions I made were back to the text which was the product of long discussions amongst several editors on the talkpage.

At this point THE FOUR DEUCES jumps in and reports me for disruption. Not LITTLE JERRY you notice, but me for reverting the reversions by LITTLE JERRY.

How many reversions did LITTLE JERRY make? I count 13 within the space of a few hours. Have a look for yourself. Yet no mention of this by THE FOUR DEUCES. No mention that I was reverting the text back back to a consensus, no mention that in accordance with the claim (by LITTLE JERRY) that the lead was too long, I had reduced the lead in my edits by approximately 50%.

In order to explain a point in the talkpage I quoted the conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza. He was explaining why he is a Classical Liberal. As it happens, here is what he says later in the same book:

"Classical Liberals believe in free speech because they are confident that, in a clash between truth and error, truth will prevail. The left does not believe in free speech. Of course the leftists are happy to invoke the principle of free speech when one of their own guys is being threatened. Once they are in power, however, leftists are perfectly comfortable with suppressing the views of those they abhor. The leftist principle was stated by Herbert Marcuse in the 1960's: No free speech for "fascists"!'

No free speech for fascists. It is evident that THE FOUR DEUCES believes that Right Wing = Fascist and therefore he has made every effort to disrupt this article. To no avail. I have no idea if LITTLE JERRY thinks that Right-Wing = Fascist, but it is clear that he strongly objects to the notion that Right-Wing has anything to do with free societies. He therefore decided to revert the Right-Wing entry 13 times in the space of a few hours!

By responding to this vandalism THE FOUR DEUCES eagerly brings, me, here, again, for edit warring. Was it me that reverted the consensus? No. Was it me that did the 13 reverts. No. Has THE FOUR DEUCES even mentioned LITTLE JERRY? No. I wonder why?

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * TFD should have reported both editors. Both have been warned in the past. Blocking won't resolve the issue but if this resumes after the page is unprotected then it will be appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

User:173.14.216.62 reported by User:Sir Tanx (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has repeatedly inserted the honorary consulate general of Denmark to the page although only diplomatic missions can be included. I've notified him/her on several occasions but the user continues reverting. The insertion of the Danish honorary consulate general and reversion has also been done repeatedly to Sir Tanx (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * User:173.14.216.62 continues warring and has apparently decided to not engage in any discussion although there is clear evidence against his repeated inclusion of the Danish consulate general in Yaoundé.


 * Please respond, administrators.
 * Sir Tanx (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

User:84.10.208.85 reported by User:Widefox (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1) 11:29, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 11:31, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 11:37, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 11:43, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 11:43, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 11:48, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 11:50, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 11:54, 21 March 2012  (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. Please see User_talk:84.10.208.85 for (almost correct vandalism warnings, crucially including final warning given -> they continued edit warring afterwards - giving defiant comment on talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. In editor's favour, they did give this explanation - which initially I dealt with as vandalism, but then undid as I realised it was a good edit (despite its issues).

Comments:


 * This is a borderline VAND (rejected at WP:AIV) and edit warring/3RR, so WP:AIV relisted here
 * From editors pattern of editing, edits have been considered as vandalism by other editors, and by automated tools. I do not (they are sometimes vandalism/sometime edit warring). My warning to them "...but do think you are engaged in an edit war, and as such will be reported and blocked. Your comments indicate you do not wish to engage with other editors, or heed your last warning (even though IMHO given for the wrong reasons)"
 * Considering the borderline nature, please consider a longer block duration / or handle as vandalism and block (as it is borderline) Widefox (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Editor continues disruptive editing despite warnings given above - more warnings given Widefox (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Kiaxar reported by User:Abhijay (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Lots of personal attacks on edit summaries when Kiaxar was reverting back to his own reversion.
 * It is the second time he is engaged in a edit war. But in my opinion it is not right to protect the page as it is not repeated edit-warred. And to maintain our civility policies we should cool him down and discuss the matter with him first. It is not right to slam him down with a hard-block so fast.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 08:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried this on his talk page, it got no response. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yet another revert . Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — One week for long-term nationalist edit warring, complete with anti-Persian commentary in edit summary. A very specific block warning did not dissuade him from reverting again. He was given a 31-hour timeout earlier in March for the same issue. The guy's talk page consists of nothing but warnings. Next step could be an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrewedwardjudd reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Topic banned 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: (marked as revert)
 * 2nd revert: (ditto)
 * 3rd revert: (not plain revert, but restores much of it, in particular ref to http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm)
 * 4th revert: (ditto)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Andrewedwardjudd. See-also the request from NW for him to take a break: User_talk:Andrewedwardjudd, which he has refused to do.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Greenhouse_effect, etc.

Comments:

The article is under ARBCC. Aej has been reminded of this William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this editor realise that the skeptical Science citation i added, that he says is some kind of a technical infringement is supportive of the greenhouse effect?????? How can i be penalised for adding a citation?????? Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * Yes, this editor does indeed know what is in that citation. Its a good citation. But edit-warring it back in again wrapped around poor text isn't good William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User topic banned for 48 hours under WP:ARBCC. NW ( Talk ) 15:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Diskotech reported by User:VQuakr (Result: See below )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

Good faith editor, a last warning from an admin might be enough to stop the disruption on the article. VQuakr (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Diskotech reported by User:2001:db8 (Result: Both blocked 24hrs)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=483483955&oldid=483475555 (First instance I noted of this user adding this in)

(Additional related changes/reverts in page history.)
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=483497014&oldid=483496859
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=483498145&oldid=483497916
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=483498634&oldid=483498503
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=483499029&oldid=483498762
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=483499368&oldid=483499211
 * 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=483499884&oldid=483499617
 * 7th change/semi-revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=483500569&oldid=483500429

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User warned in page history, user clearly notice by replying with additional page history comments

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Why_is_this_person_called_a_.22multiracial_Hispanic.22_.3F.3F.3F.3F

Comments:

I semi-violated 3RR myself by citing WP:BLP, but have refrained from further reverting past that BLP citation. There seems to be some weird pro- or anti-Jewish bias here (I can't even tell which, from just reading the talk page comments!) Edit: Not sure there is actually any bias here, just the user disagreeing with other editors past reason. The edits were in good faith as the previous complainant seems to have noted, but the reversion was abusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:db8 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Semi-violated"? Full-out violated, and a third editor also could have been blocked.  WP:CONSENSUS/WP:BRD, people. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User:174.98.138.223 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:55, March 22, 2012. First removal of maintenance tags without fixing indicated problems.
 * 2nd revert: 16:30, March 22, 2012. Reversion of my restoration of a direct quote.
 * 3rd revert: 16:32, March 22, 2012. Reversion: maintenance tag removed again.
 * 4th revert: 18:10, March 22, 2012. Reversion: maintenance tag removed again, and direct quote modified.
 * 5th revert: 18:10, March 22, 2012. Reversion: maintenance tags removed again.
 * 6th revert: 04:58, March 23, 2012. Reversion: new maintenance tag removed.
 * 7th revert: 04:59, March 23, 2012. Reversion: maintenance tags removed again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:51, March 22, 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:28, March 22, 2012 03:56, March 23, 2012

Comments:

This IP editor is removing maintenance templates and changing the wording and meaning of a direct quote. I warned him here and here not to remove maintenance templates but he kept doing so. In addition to the article talk page discussion and with regard to this IP editor's changes, I started further discussion at NORN, and a bit more at User_talk:Dr_clave. These discussions have not stopped the IP editor from reverting. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Thecatholicguy reported by Me-123567-Me (talk) (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:23, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 10:09, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "Degrees are honorary, not earned and no Universal Life Church has a Department of Education or is registered as an accredited school.  Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)")
 * 3) 10:40, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 10:42, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 10:51, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* References */")
 * 6) 10:53, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 11:19, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "Clarified separations")
 * 8) 11:37, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 9) 20:01, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "Removed "Free of Charge" in first paragraph, such is a solicitationMe-123567-Me (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)")
 * 10) 20:05, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "Removed another free reference as such is a solicitation or form of promotion Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)")
 * 11) 20:11, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Beliefs */  Removed - Comparisons to the Humanst Society, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Religious Society of Friends, quakers are not  proper as no affiliation exist and it is infringement of another belief and/or trademark. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)")
 * 12) 20:13, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Beliefs */ Ordinations are not within any respective faith, this paragraph is deceiving and gives the impression ordinations are accepted within a respective faith "For example, ministers of the Church may follow a traditional Christian belief sys")
 * 13) 20:28, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Ordination and ULC clergy */ It is stated herein the ULC of Modesto has NO traditional doctrine, wherefore the ULC cannot grant ministers authority to serve within any faith within their belief. Baptisms and Funerals do not require ordination. Me-123567-Me (talk)")
 * 14) 20:30, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Ordination and ULC clergy */  grammar correction")
 * 15) 21:03, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* References */ Adding citation")
 * 16) 21:03, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* References */")
 * 17) 21:06, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* References */")
 * 18) 21:54, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "Added intext reference and verification")
 * 19) 21:56, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "Removed reference of Universal Life Church Monastery, no verification conflicts with ULC Monastery of Tucson")
 * 20) 22:17, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "Citation to avoid confusion or misunderstanding with respect to the Universal Life Church, Inc. and the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc. This is fair to both organizations.")
 * 21) 22:20, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "corrected symbols")
 * 22) 22:24, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "symbol correction")
 * 23) 00:11, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "spelling correction")
 * 24) 01:47, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "It is not encyclopedic, if you feel it is inappropriate at the top you discuss moving it, not deleting it. Undid revision 483454172 by Me-123567-Me (talk)")
 * 25) 01:49, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "per last edit moved it from the top paragraph to appease. This content is not encyclopedic and it is cited Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)")
 * 26) 01:53, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 483447448 by Me-123567-Me (talk) The ULC Seminary is not an authorized or official website for any Universal Life Church. The ULC Seminary is a fictitious name")
 * 27) 02:37, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 483464184 by C.Fred (talk) As stated it is not a disclaimer, it is necessary to avoid confusion and doesn't hinge on whether one has an article page or not. There is nothing wrong w")
 * 28) 03:09, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 483470010 by C.Fred (talk) I agree to put it in the Overview, but at the top. The idea is to allow readers the opportunity before reading the article, not half way through")
 * 29) 03:32, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 483472472 by Me-123567-Me (talk)")
 * 30) 03:48, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 483475204 by C.Fred (talk) The article is about Universal Life Church, it is not about doctrine or the belief system as the overview discusses")
 * 31) 09:02, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "Removal of Christian ordination link in intro paragraph, ordinations are not faith based because there is no doctrine within any respective faith")
 * 32) 09:21, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "A private email cannot be used as a reference unless the actual email is cited and made public")
 * 33) 09:39, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Honorary degrees and titles */ The previous with prices and descriptions was a solicitation and provided the impression they were earned or accredited. To cite a webstore does not validate a degree")
 * 34) 09:40, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Beliefs */ Just fixed paragraph")
 * 35) 09:41, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Honorary degrees and titles */ spelling")
 * 36) 09:50, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Ordination and ULC clergy */ Reference to charter churches, and fees for such items sold on eBay with a link is a solicitation")
 * 37) 09:54, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Overview */ grammar")
 * 38) 18:17, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 483540068 by Me-123567-Me (talk) You keep changing this with no explanation, it appears you are impartial with a hidden agenda, you are being warned")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * by Bwilkins. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User:DavisJune reported by User:VQuakr (Result: 1 week; as per subsequent report)
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:

Linked section of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises (and following section)

Comments:

Same user, same page, and same topic as the disruptive editing that resulted in a block a week ago. Pattern of personal attacks as well. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User:DavisJune reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 1 week)
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: [Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Proposed_Vote_for_Nationality_of_Film]

Comments: DavisJune returned from a prior block for edit-warring on The Dark Knight Rises and attacking others who disagreed with him and immediately resumed a similar pattern, both on the article and in attacking other editors (see and ). MikeWazowski (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Clear reverts at 01:15, 00:46, 23:31, 23:28 (continued from the previous edit war). Obviously previously warned and blocked for the same problem.  Kuru   (talk)  01:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick reported by User:NULL (Result: Warned)
User being reported:

Time reported: 07:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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


 * 1) 07:22, 20 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Move request */") (original edit)
 * 2) 14:37, 20 March 2012  (edit summary: "clarify my reply")
 * 3) 15:03, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 482916880.")
 * 4) 14:49, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "fix sequence")
 * 5) 22:58, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "Revert simple vandalism. Please stop deleting my comments.")
 * 6) 06:59, 24 March 2012  (edit summary: "Null I'm sure you know very well that you shouldn't delete someone else's comments. If you don't like the unsigned tags, remove them. I'm fine with either way. They aren't a must, yet they do no harm.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

User has edit warred (5 reverts in the last three days, 3 in the last 24 hours) to insert unnecessary unsigned text to edits made by User:SchmuckyTheCat that added inline tags to comments made by a blocked sockpuppet. He was asked not to do this by two different editors (myself and Schmucky) but has persisted. On some occasions he has mixed in token additions to try to prevent his edits from being outright reverted. I took this into account when removing the template text the first time but he has continued to restore it, again adding token text to prevent a direct revert.

Page:

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


 * 1) 08:29, 20 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 482259227 by Shrigley (talk) - Looks like half of the materials was removed, including discussions outside the controversial NC-TW straw poll.")
 * 2) 15:39, 22 March 2012  (edit summary: "That means there was a vandalism edit right before the bot archived it.")
 * 3) 14:57, 23 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 483419977 - Anyhow, even materials outside the controversial straw poll were deleted. There certainly were some vandalism edits before it was archived.")

Comments:

The dates involved in this item do not violate 3RR but are edit warring. This archive was created by a vandal IP address, who moved discussion topics from the main page and then subsequently altered them. Of note, a number of comments of blocked sockpuppets had been removed from the original conversation by various editors but were inappropriately restored by the IP when he moved content to the archive. This was corrected by User:Shrigley, but Jeffrey has repeatedly tried to restore the page to the vandalised state left by the IP editor. He was asked not to do this by two different editors (myself and Shrigley) but has persisted.

This user has been blocked previously for disruptively altering talk pages while under an IP address (talk page, block log), and later registered an account when the 202.189.98.* range was blocked for repeated disruptive behaviour.

— – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  07:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I no longer have any opinion regarding the unsigned tags in Talk:Demographics of Greater China. The problem was that Null and SchmuckyTheCat insist to delete my comment at 15:03, 22 March 2012,  07:22, 20 March 2012 and 15:03, 22 March 2012, and to restore the misplaced notification near the bottom of the page. (Please treat this as a counter-report if it's procedurally appropriate to do so. And if not please advise if I should submit a separate report.) As for Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 13, It's dishonest that NULL only submitted part of the story, the part that is in his benefits. From what I read in the edit history, from 23:40 20 January 2012 onwards some editors insisted to delete 15 kilobytes of comments from Naming conventions (Chinese), including comments that were irrelevant to the controversial straw poll on NC-TW. Wasn't that vandalism? Vandalism isn't defined by whether or not the editor has a Wikipedia account. It's determined by the actual content of the edit.  Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of involving myself in a dispute on this page, however there is evidence to counter Jeffrey's response. The tags were first removed by me here and his comments restored in full in the very next diff here. Jeffrey then made this edit, restoring the removed material again. Regarding the archive, the IP editor removed 123,779 bytes of discussion from the talk page in this diff, then added 139,339 bytes to the archive over the course of 9 edits, 8 of which are in this collective diff. The difference between 139,339 and 123,779 is 15 kilobytes. That's text that was not on the talk page when it was removed but was added to the archive by the IP editor after the fact. Shrigley removed this vandalism in his edit and Jeffrey has edit-warred to restore it. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  08:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop being dishonest, and please take a look at what happened from 23:40, 20 January onwards. I think the IP was right. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned JF. Reformatting of an article talk page needs consensus of the participants, per WP:REFACTOR: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Not blocking at this time since it is more than 24 hours since Jeffrey Fitzpatrick's last edit. If Jeffrey resumes this behavior (without getting agreement of the other editors) he may be blocked. Jeffrey's signature (claiming to be an IP address) is not accurate and he is encouraged to change it. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Baboon43 reported by User:AmandaParker (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=483812720
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=483812720
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=483813656
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=483814202

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Ahbash

Comments:

This user has previously used  and. He is indulging into edit-warring and brawling with the fellow editors and not assuming good faith. He wants other old editors to seek his permission before editing. I even helped him to fix the info-box.

Please, check here that keeps on adding stuff to the  page without getting the consensus of other editors. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours for edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. See also a report below about AmandaParker. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:AmandaParker reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Please, check here that keeps on adding stuff to the  page without getting the consensus of other editors. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. You broke 3RR, but in some cases you were removing copyright violations and sock edits. You are not blocked this time, but be careful in the future. You should bring reports to admins *before* you yourself have violated WP:EW. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Armbrust reported by User:Plastikspork (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (reverted ) and on Template talk:Snooker world rankings

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

Comments: The crux of the dispute is the use of the span tags to indent each line. The other edits in between are not disputed (as far as I can tell). Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * , and Plastikspork is reminded that 3RR is not a license to revert three times. --Chris (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Request – Is there any chance we can reduce this block to a 12 hour ban? This is the first time I've seen Armbrust violate 3RR like this, so 48 hours seems a bit excessive for an editor where this is out of character. The main reason I ask is that we have a major snooker tournament starting tomorrow (2012 China Open (snooker)) and Armbrust is to all intents and purposes the project co-ordinator so we could really do with him in action. The template dispute got out of hand, and BOTH editors should have brought it to the project page before it got out of hand like that.  Everyone gets hot-headed from time to time and does something they shouldn't, but 12 hours would give everyone time to cool down. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor had a previous 24-hour block for edit warring just last month. If another admin wants to shorten the block, I won't wheel war over it.  --Chris (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:EagleEye reported by User:Saedon (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: this was after another user reverted his edits and reexplained what I explained — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saedon (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have asked that the user take the issue to talk but they have refused to do so. User has started a dialogue on talk but doesn't seem to understand what I'm telling him and he is making some odd statements (e.g. I violated policy by reverting him because I didn't add anything to the article).

Comments:

This user is attempting to add information sourced to a blog spot blog and is attempting to add blogs to the EL section in violation of WP:ELNO. I have explained the relevant policies to the user but he either doesn't believe me or doesn't care (for instance, he argues that the link is ok because other articles have links to blogs). I realized when going over the diffs that I have crossed 3rr as well unintentionally and I'll take a block if an admin deems it necessary, though I will not revert the editor again unless he gets blocked. Thanks. Saedon (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Already blocked by TParis. Kuru   (talk)  11:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Adisonsrinet reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Editor continuously adding an unsourced, dubious name to the article. - SudoGhost 06:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly the same editor as the IP; was warned. Kuru   (talk)  11:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Syamsu reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Free_will, but its all a bit confused.

Comments:

It seems very likely that Syamsu is also 80.57.25.110, in which case and  are also reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(blocked for 31h by User: Ckatz William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC))

User:LiamNolan15212 reported by User:QuasyBoy (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

et al.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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

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

Comments:

I have had a dispute with this user over the past month over a unnecessary subsection on the Milan Cheylov article. Not only that but the user is using a TV show Wiki as a source, which is user-submitted. I left messages on his talk page, he deletes them, I have reported him to the noticeboards, I have been ignored. Just look at his edit summaries for the article, his reasons for keeping the sub-section are little... out there:. has left a message on his talk page but he will probably deleted that too once he is back on line.  Quasy Boy  17:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * — The user undid his own link to the fan wiki here so he must have listened to the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Mhong2011 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

According to his userpage, Mhong2011 self-identifies as an executive at one of the companies run by Christopher P. Lynch, and his edit contributions have been pretty much as a single purpose account for the promotion of Lynch. This editor also has some serious ownership issues with the article, and keeps reverting to his preferred promotional version. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Luck5664 reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Indef)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

The editor is also edit warring at Palestine. Both articles are covered by WP:1RR and discretionary sanctions. The editor is also adding personal commentary, see

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. They need to be blocked, probably indefinitely.

Comments:


 * Result: Blocked indef by User:Fluffernutter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Scuttlest reported by User:Pmt7ar (Result: Warned)
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:

This is a recurrent issue in the article, and has been debated before among editors and reached consensus. This user insisted through reverts to impose his acts without giving time to discuss it at the talk page. I warned the 3RR through edit summary and then on his talkpage, which he replied with this not civil but "kindly" 'fuck off' and posting the same warning template to me with the same undertext, which I see as a kind of provocation (given that I warned him of 3RR, I know the rules and don't need to be warned that way). With that attitude and noting that he reverted a 4th time with a challenging edit summary, I don't think this user is open to go the BRD cycle in a civil manner. pmt7ar (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see this as a case of long-term warring. The user has made six reverts over the last few days against a variety of editors, and has stated "I will continue to revert the article until you explain to me why that is an unacceptable compromise outcome." (He wants to make a possibly-shocking image less prominent in the article). It does not appear that anyone agrees with him. Scuttlest might have thought he was enforcing some community norm, but I could not find a relevant policy page that would excuse his reverts. Hentai is a sexually-explicit form. The picture in dispute was actually nominated in 2011 as a featured picture candidate, but it did not succeed, and there was sentiment that it ought not to appear on the main page of Wikipedia. Nobody in that debate said that the image should not exist on Wikipedia, and in fact it appears in the German, French, Italian and other Wikipedias.  I could not find any discussions about the Hentai page itself on admin boards. Unless an actual norm can be cited that would prevail over the edit warring policy, it seems to me that the consensus on the talk page should decide the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not removing any content from the article, and it is inaccurate for you to characterize me as advocating such. The article in question has a Japanese title that does not mean anything to an English speaker who is not already familiar with the subject, so there is a high probability that an unwary searcher will be unwillingly exposed to the pornographic image. Since the Wikimedia Foundation has voted to implement a way to hide such images from those who do not opt-in to view them, it is obviously the position of Wikipedia that such images are a legitimate cause for offense among wiki users and should not be exposed to individuals without their consent. I am only the latest in a very, very long line of people who have objected to the image in the past (shown on the talk history) and the fact that more people who like the image where it is are paying attention to the article at this moment in time does not mean that consensus rests with the unwilling-porn-forcers. Rather, if you look at the sum posts on the talk page, you'll find that more people would like the image to not be on the wiki at all, but their being spaced out chronologically has prevented them from forming a consensus at any one point in time.
 * My compromise solution does not reduce the informational value of the article in any way, and it fulfills the wikipolicy against GRATUITOUS OFFENSIVENESS and SHOCK VALUE. Pmt is a troublesome zealot with no ability to compromise, and his reporting me here is symptomatic of his narrow-minded obstinacy. Wikipedia is not run for the benefit of Japanese pornography enthusiasts, it is a public resource which should have the greatest possible utility to the general public; I don't think that keeping hardcore pornography out of immediate view, but still a scroll's distance away for the interested, is too much a concession to ask for those adverse to adverse porn viewing. The article as it stands is the wiki equivalent of a Rickroll or Goatse. Scuttlest (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And, incidentally, I have been perfectly civil on the talk page. If Pmt doesn't feel like engaging me in a rational discussion, it's because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Scuttlest (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you aren't going to propose some way of finding a consensus you will accept, you'll most likely be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you've actually read the discussion, but I've already proposed a compromise, while Pmt hasn't budged an inch from his position. I guess in my state of noobish ignorance, I don't know how much more ground wikipolicy says I have to give to porn enthusiasts before I'm playing within your rules. Could you please clarify? Scuttlest (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So you come with a position and I must (quote) "*do* in fact have to reach a compromise" with you? I should compromise with you? Why don't you with me? Other quote: "(...) is exactly *why* you do have to work with me to reach a conclusion". With "you"? This is not how consensus is made and we have to wait for other editors, we won't solve this just two. There are regular editors who have contributed greatly to the article and other watchers that can contribute too. And I remind you that please be civil, "selfish", "hypocritical", "inane and specious", "adverse to adverse porn viewing", "fuck off" and the challenging warnings/edit summaries. Assume good faith, we are to improve articles, no to manifest our personal or moral beliefs. pmt7ar (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You do, in fact, have to reach a consensus that includes me, per BRD. It's just a fact. I have been making an active effort to compromise with you; for the benefit of whose opinion did I introduce a compromise at all? Yours, of course! "Adverse to porn viewing" is by no means impolite; you are being entirely too sensitive - the image is PORNOGRAPHY and there are many people who are adverse to viewing it. The point I referred to as "inane and specious" was in fact inane and specious, and I am sorry to hear that you are unable to distinguish between what I think of your arguments and what I think of you as an individual.

As for telling you to fuck off, I admit that that was rude and I apologize. Scuttlest (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Scuttlest, if you will state here that you will wait for a consensus to support you before reverting again, this complaint can be closed with no action. Simply believing you are right is not enough to justify continued war. See WP:Dispute resolution for other options you might pursue. Until you can find others to agree with you, the article will probably have to stay the way the majority prefers it to be. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny thing is, if you look at the page history, Niabot and Pmt have been defending this image and its position in the article for months against a variety of people who have had the bad luck to not all be logged in at the same time. So, I guess consensus is more about how persistent an individual editor is in maintaining his position than the actual beliefs of the Wiki-using community. The lesson I've learned today is that it's more important to know how to game this system than to actually provide a useful resource to the public, so I'll play your game. Scuttlest (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In case that wasn't clear enough: I will wait for additional wiki users to comment before forcing the same revert, though I will continue to propose alternatives. Scuttlest (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. I'm still not satisfied with this user's answer (he wouldn't reply yes or no as to whether he would wait for consensus before reverting again). Nonetheless this is closed with a warning that any further change for which consensus was not obtained may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How can I take your apology for your reply on my warning when you later title it calling me an "porn enthusiast" (and I don't know if I should take nationality mention as something relevant)? . May we take this to a RfC WP:RFCC too and gain you a block for incivility? pmt7ar (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:85.198.183.248 reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Note: IP is dynamic static and last revert was made after switching their IP.TMCk (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC) -->
 * Result: Article is already semiprotected by another admin.  I have semiprotected Ray-Ban Aviator. When a fluctuating IP conducts a revert war it violates WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NDS Group (Result: Malformed)
I have made no edits to this article or to the talk page. I do not understand the baffling instructions in this stupid box.

--178.103.166.100 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No. I do not particularly care about wikipedia and I'm not jumping through your bizarre hoops.  Here's an article about NDS that is being heavily edited by people with NDS IP addresses and other people after NDS (and associated companies) have recently made international news.  You care and you do something, or you don't care and you do nothing.  I don't care, and this is my final edit to this notice board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NDS_Group&action=history

--31.109.93.59 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider filing a report at WP:COIN. Please name the editor(s) involved and supply diffs. If you are too busy to explain your concerns, you may not be understood. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Eleventh1 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 of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eleventh1&diff=484512667&oldid=484512651

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eleventh1#2012_Midi-Pyr.C3.A9n.C3.A9es_shootings,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Midi-Pyr%C3%A9n%C3%A9es_shootings#Description_of_shooter

Comments: .The user clearly broke 3RR.He calls other users edits vandalism while there are not.--Shrike (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As explained on the talk page of the article and as I have tried to explain to you, these edits I was reverting were inappropriate because they misrepresented the text of the sources or were false informations or were not notable. And I also deleted a ref that didn't work. So, these were perfectly legitimate reverts. Eleventh1 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no exceptions to 3RR here; this is a simple content dispute that should be resolved on the talk page - not by accusing other editors of vandalism. The 3RR warning was removed from his talk page, so I assume he was aware of the rule.  Kuru   (talk)  12:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Eleventh1 reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: as above)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Eleventh1 has consistently removed sourced material and sources throughout the article without any previous discussion on the Talk page, or none at all. After being warned twice by two different users for edit warring, Eleventh1 threatens this Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  09:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Cyrrk reported by User:AV3000 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Cyrrk refused to give any reason for the removals until after the 3rd edit and 3RR warning, also mischaracterizing one of his reverts "undoing vandalism". AV3000 (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Four revets; warned clearly prior to last revert. Kuru   (talk)  12:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Syamsu reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No specific warning offered this time, as the user is returning to a previous edit war. I did give them a post-4R note.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the end of the article talk page. It goes nowhere. S justs insists that everyone is happy with S's version except for a few "minor" problems. Everyone else says S's version is OR.

Comments:

S was blocked by User:Ckatz on 26th March for the same problem: William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The person in question is known to me from usenet, more specifically from talk.origins and Free Will is his favorite subject for long rants in which us argues (amongst other things) that stones fall because they choose to fall. He does so quite tenaciously and hence i do not expect his editwarring to abate anytime soon. Full disclosure:I post there as "Kleuskes & Moos". Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . The individual has been warned that if this behaviour continues, their editing privileges will be suspended indefinitely. Ckatz chat spy  19:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:118.151.208.146 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:118.151.208.146

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. The issue of images has also been discussed at Talk:Bunt_(community) and Talk:Bunt_(community).

Comments:


 * Result: Semiprotected four months. IPs warring on the selection of images with no discussion on the talk page. Article has been semiprotected frequently in the past. The article is under WP:GS due to its status as a caste article, per its talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. I had also blocked the IP for 24 hours at the same time; probably not necessary with the semi-protection, but not really hurting anything since he's not contributing anywhere else.  Kuru   (talk)  01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Hearfourmewesique reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Note: Hearfourmewesique has been blocked five times in the past for 3RR and 1RR restrictions and should be familiar with the rule by now.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nation of Islam
 * Note: After making three reversions, Hearfourmewesique started a discussion on the article's Talk page.

Comments:


 * I advised Hearfourmewesique to self-revert after the fourth revert. In so doing, however, Hearfourmewesique undid another editor's change to the article, resulting in a fifth revert. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The attempt to discuss was initiated by me and is yet to have been met with a reply. I was asked to self-revert and so I did by using the Twinkle option. The rest of the editors have been refusing to cooperate. Yet... somehow I'm the one who's in the wrong here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Side note: I have just reverted an obvious troll, hope this won't be held against me as well... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: No action due to self-revert. I am semiprotecting the article anyway since some IP editors seem to be trying to slant the article and remove information critical of the movement with no discussion on talk. In one case an IP removed a word from the middle of a direct quote, while leaving the quote marks in place. Obviously the material being reverted by Hearfour is up for normal discussion, and its presence in the article should be decided by consensus. The problems listed on the talk page at Talk:Nation of Islam will hopefully be addressed in a positive spirit. If it's hard to get many neutral editors to join in, consider posting at some place like WP:NPOVN. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:WIKI-1-PIDEA reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: Too many to list, just look at the article history

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

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

Comments:


 * I'm reporting only one editor, 'cos I think they are actually wrong, but you'll see the situation from the article history etc etc.
 * And see-also ANI: William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He hasn't reverted since being notified of the edit warring policy. I gently read him the riot act, and would prefer to see how he reacts to that, rather than blocking for an edit war that appears to be over. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:MuZemike has blocked both sides for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jbfwildcat reported by User:Dirtlawyer1 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: – three warnings given in a matter of minutes. Jbfwildcat references the warnings in his edit summaries reverting the consensus change.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Request for Comments: NCAA Sweet Sixteen phantom appearances] – 13–1 WikiProject College basketball consensus in which Jbfwildcat participated extensively.

Comments:

FYI, the Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team is being treated in an identical fashion to the articles for the other 50+ college basketball teams that appeared in the NCAA Tournament between 1939 and 1950. For some reason, this editor believes that these articles should list NCAA Sweet 16 appearances when the tournament was an eight-team draw in those years. This has been debated by WP:CBBALL at length, and the overwhelming consensus of project editors was that this is a misleading practice. That's the substance; the procedure is that Jbfwildcats appears unable to comply with either consensus or the 3RR rule. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Four clear reverts, second block for 3RR. Kuru   (talk)  02:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Contributors of "Nick Adams (theatre actor)" reported by User:George Ho (Result: No action)
Page:

Comments: This is a content dispute actually. It is already discussed in WP:BLPN. I could not list users who are participating editing wars, but at least link to history log is provided. --George Ho (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: No action yet. Consider resubmitting if a true edit war develops. Some discussion is now going on. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:JHerbertMunster and socks reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocks)
Page:

Users being reported: The master and the socks are engaging in continuous edit-warring without discussion adding uncited information to the article against consensus.
 * Sockmaster:
 * Sock 1
 * Sock 2


 * 1st revert: JHerbertMunster
 * 2nd revert: IP sock 141.151.241.128
 * 3rd revert: sock 141.151.241.128
 * 4th revert: OllyOctagon
 * 5th revert: OllyOctagon
 * 6th revert: OllyOctagon Edit summary: "Editing Dispute Has Been Resolved" (Comment: OllyOctagon never engaged in any discussion whatsoever)
 * 7th revert: OllyOctagon

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * User talk:OllyOctagon
 * Another user left this message on OllyOctagon's talk: diff urging him to engage in discussion but no response.
 * 3RR Warning on the IP 141.151.241.128 talk

Comments:


 * The three are sockpuppets of JHerbertMunster. Here the Octagon blanks JHerbertMunster's talkpage. And here he blanks User talk:141.151.241.128. Please see also Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster. Octagon also vandalised my talk page twice: diff1, diff2. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: All blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed but we still have, a new sock, and the IP keeps adding a copyvio logo from Commons. A new IP: has also appeared. Δρ.Κ. λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  05:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:WarriorsPride6565 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: A week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:This user has been blocked for edit warring previously, so should know better. As well I think the IP 94.175.118.39 may be the same user. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've raised an SPI on this editor, he's obviously using not only the IP but . Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ANKMALI reported by User:Shshshsh (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

A similar dispute was on another article, Screen Award for Best Female Playback - where the user changed the name of the actual winner to the name of Alka Yagnik. In spite of having found reliable sources from newspapers to prove otherwise, I was still reverted. I started a talk page discussion, on which two more editors agreed who the winner was in accordance with sources. In the meanwhile, I left the line of the winner blank until the discussion was over. As the user continued edit warring on several pages, I started an ANI discussion, on which several users tried to make the user understand the process of Wikipedia editing and the importance of policy, without much success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for edit warring. This editor has been struggling with others on a variety of articles over the past few days. They appear to have made seven reverts at Alka Yagnik since 25 March. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:B6606099 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:09, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 15:20, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 15:25, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 15:51, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "/* Production process */")
 * 5)  -- this one performed by a brand new username so close to the other that it's entirely obvious what's going on


 * Diff of warning: here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * . Was tempted to indef as a POV-pushing spa, but decided to be lenient instead. Let's call it WP:ROPE... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * After running a checkuser, I found a sockfarm; all socks and sockpuppeteer indeffed. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Thecatholicguy reported by Me-123567-Me (talk) (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1)
 * 2) 18:36, 30 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "The ULC does not have a department of education. There degrees and titles are honorary. The previous editor keeps attempting to glorify such degrees as a clear solicitation thereof. This is not an advertising medium.")
 * 3) 18:47, 30 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "The ULC does not have a department of education. There degrees and titles are honorary. The previous editor keeps attempting to glorify such degrees as a clear solicitation thereof. This is not an advertising medium.")
 * 4) Forth revert


 * Diff of warning: here

He's been blocked previously for edit warring on this article. —Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Vice regent reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Removed content regarding traveling abroad to be indoctrinated in terror
 * 2nd revert: Amended  reliably sourced undisputed content
 * 3rd revert: Removed reliably sourced content on facebook tribute
 * 4th revert: Removed The Independent as a source because of typo within article
 * 5th revert: Removed sourced graveyard vandalism content
 * 6th revert: Removed sourced content relating to rallies
 * 7th revert: Removed sourced content relating to rallies and graveyard vandalism
 * 8th revert: Amended sourced content
 * 9th revert: Removed Koran content
 * 10th revert: Removed "Allahu Akbar" content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:I must stress I have no 3rr complaints. My concern is the disruptive style of editing of this user. The user has frequently removed sourced content from the article and sources themselves. The user rarely discusses his changes on the talk page, and when they do, it is after several requests and a fait acompli amendment. There has been no WP:BRD as user has not discussed many of the above edits on the Talk page. For example the content removal regarding travelling abroad and today's removal of all references to the Koran and Allahu Akbar remain unexplained. I have asked whether third party assistance or arbitration will be of help but have been ignored.

Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone reading this, I would like to say several things. First, AnkhMorpork seems to have violated 3RR (and I reported it), but I asked the user to self-revert, and once he did so I withdrew my report.
 * The above quote "reverts" are not characteristic of edit-warring. When looked at along with the discussion, they resemble the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. My edits reflect the updated consensus I have formed with users on the talk page.
 * The following sections show that I do discuss: Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings.
 * "I have asked whether third party assistance or arbitration will be of help but have been ignored". I suggested third party assistance, and have welcomed it. Yes, I have ignored requests for arbitration - its far too early for that.
 * (A report was filed against AnkhMorpork for making personal attacks against me, and it was resolved.)
 * VR talk  15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Stale. The last revert shown above is from 30 March. Edits of the article by Vice regent and AnkhMorpork appear to be swamped by a large number of edits from others. Without great patience an admin would have trouble seeing if an actual revert war is taking place, in any direction. If you can focus on a specific issue, consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for other options you might consider. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.255.245.137 reported by AzureCitizen (talk) (Result: Article semied)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Diff of warning: here

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


 * 1) 06:29, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "Given Manning's female gender identity, only female pronouns are correct. Included in this article is a quote implying she would rather be executed than misgendered.")
 * 2) 06:39, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 484657538 by Meco (talk) due to uncorrect pronoun usage")
 * 3) 06:57, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 484659173 by SatenikTamar (talk)")
 * 4) 17:40, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 484660805 by 180.254.97.177 (talk) It is incorrect to refer to a female-identified person by male pronouns.")
 * 5) 22:30, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 484760635 by Srich32977 (talk) Manning clearly identifies as female; reffering to her with masculine pronouns is both incorrect and disrespectful.")
 * 6) 22:47, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 484767749 by AzureCitizen (talk) See talk comment.")
 * 7) 22:54, 30 March 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 484768170 by AzureCitizen (talk) If anyone had evidence for Manning identifying as male it might be appropriate to default to masculine pronouns; this is not the case.")

It appears this IP editor feels strongly that they are "right" and they do not understand the consensus process. The warning diff provided above happened between the IP user's 2nd and 3rd revert, so either they don't understand WP:3RR in this respect or they are simply ignoring it. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * by  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers reported by User:cloudz679 (Result: Stale, but warned about NPA)
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: some discussion here: User talk:Cyrus35334

Comments:

Banana Fingers is being very disruptive at a number of other articles including Rob Gier, usually making a high number of reverts without leaving comments anywhere, e.g. absent edit summaries, and making it difficult to establish reasons for change. After placing an edit warring notice on his user page this morning, he continued reverting in disregard of the matter. His manner and conduct should not be allowed to continue. Cloudz 679 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * last revert was several hours ago. Rereport if it starts up again.  Given that Banana Fingers has been blocked twice for personal attacks, I will also issue an NPA warning. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/69.210.244.202 Reported by User:Musicfreak7676 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Comments:

This IP keeps undoing edits to Nicole Scherzinger and is acting a very "stan" way, and is very disruptive to the editing of Wikipedia. Their edits are not constructive or sourced. I warned them that YouTube is not a source, and they continue to add it and laugh in my face. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 19:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:216.227.26.56 reported by User:Tampabay721 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hasn't responded to others' comments in edit summaries, discussion on the talk page, or 3RR warning. Just puts all the material back without explanation or acknowledgement of disagreement with other editors. I have never reported anyone for 3RR before but this is all I know I can do without violating 3RR myself. <b style="color:#003D7C">Tampabay721</b> (<b style="color:#0047AB">talk</b>) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesrand reported by User:Edcolins (Result: A day)
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: see Talk:Brian Camelio (search for instance for "I agree with Nowa that "we should avoid burdening the article with the ongoing play by play of the lawsuit"." and "Neither I nor Nowa (I presume) are willing to remove the complete paragraph. In other words, I agree with this edit by Nowa")

Comments:

Very similar edit warring on the page Kickstarter (which includes almost the same section...). --Edcolins (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Kermansh reported by User:Fram (Result: A day)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User has also acted vindictive by reverting completely unrelated edits made by the first user who reverted him on this page, including a removal of an AfD message and a few others. Fram (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hounding is obvious and editor could be blocked for that alone. I'd block for the 3RR but I've reverted this editor before this was brought. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * . I have no objections if another admin wants to increase the block due to hounding. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet, see Sockpuppet investigations/Kiaxar/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Nikosgreencookie reported by User:SentientContrarian (Result: Both 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:



And on my talk page, I have been repeatedly harassed by this user who immediately accused me of vandalism.



Comments:

I ran into this article on Mr. Takis Fotopoulos, saw that the majority of the sources were either primary sources or sources affiliated with him or owned by him (as in the article on Jamie Zawinski and the user I am reporting started immediately putting up "vandalism" warnings on my Talk page and accusing me - without the slightest piece of evidence - of being here only to attack Mr. Takis Fotopoulos, the subject of the article. And now he even claims that I am... threatening the supporters of Inclusive Democracy (the political movement founded by Mr. Takis Fotopoulos). SentientContrarian (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * - 24 hours. One did not break 3RR, but this is clearly edit warring. Neither party seems to have a WP:BLP immunity for any of their reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)