Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive188

User:Cotton Rogers reported by User:NatGertler (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: various


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Note: this is only partially a revert - it includes reinsertion of a source that was deleted due to poor sourcing, but also includes additional changes and intermediary changes by other users will be seen there.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Reverts have not been of just a single item, but had occurred repeatedly within the same section (one which editor boldly tried to expand and has been open to some, but not all, critique on.) There was one earlier revert within the twenty-FIFTH hour of the first three listed above. Editor seems largely of good intent if not well-versed in guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the editor inquestion I did not revert 4 times the last time I added the information but listened to the dissenters and included sources that follow their guidelines they laid out in their comments I thought the problem was with my sources so if I gave new sources it would solve the problem therefore allowing me to keep the edit I never made a controversial change without first using the talkpage. In fact I started the section to solve the problem in the firstplace. But concede I might of broken the three revert rule which I was just recently made aware of I'm sorry I did not realise the rule and that the reverts were so close to another in time while i did not read the warning in time to prevent my third revert. listen I really do not want to be blocked So I will gladly abstain from putting myself in the controversial debate in the page Conservatism in the United States I might have acted a little hasty but I had good intentions of keeping the disscussion moving I'm still new to editing wikipedia so I'll concentrate my efforts on other pages not the one in dispute letting others hash that out and in the future be extremely mindful and careful of the three revert rule so I'll never to break it again I sincerely apologize but would like to add this is my first offensive I have no prior history of disiplinary action and I'm sorry to have bothered wikipedia with this and will well verse myself with the guidelines to never bother wikipedia again    Cotton Rogers (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add in my earlier plea that that first edit in the twenty-fifth hour that NatGertler mentions did not involve the disputed issue but another issue entirely which I solved using the talkpage so It should not be considered in the decsion of whether i was edit warring or not. also edit revert 88 I left the reason I reverted the edit on User talk:Rick Norwood talkpage Cotton Rogers (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * - 2/0 (cont.) 07:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:99.156.68.118 reported by User:Djmastr11 (Result: 31 hour block)
This user is trying to game the system on Full Sail university wiki 99.156.68.118. They revert all edits and full sails wiki is now written as an advertisement which it shouldn't be because it is a pretend school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmastr11 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * has been reported to WP:AIV. --   Luke      (Talk)   23:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have warned about edit warring here. He/she has repeatedly added unsourced controversial content (personal opinions) which multiple editors have removed. Taroaldo (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DJmastr11 blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing, including this, and exhorted to use the time of their block to study WP:SOAP, WP:V, WP:AGF and WP:5P inter alia. Tonywalton Talk 00:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Tao2911 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 06:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:40, 20 June 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 498510048 by 96.246.62.95 (talk)too wordy, unnecesary detail. readers can read source for such.")
 * 2) 18:39, 20 June 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 498513376 by Abhayakara (talk)no")
 * 3) 23:52, 20 June 2012  (edit summary: "zero reason to include this - excess detail, apropos of nothing. take it to talk if needed.")
 * 4) 02:27, 21 June 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 498581643 by Abhayakara (talk)whitewashing. he's done this many times before, with same material. I'll be proposing for a block.")


 * Diff of warning: here, on 16 June
 * Talk page discussion:

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that Tao2911 has continued to edit the article (including removal of POV tag despite ongoing discussion) after being notified of this report; it would appear he has nothing to say in response here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I just had to revert his repeated removal of the POV template - the issues have been discussed and explained by the other user on the talkpage - I feel a block is insufficient with this user and this BLP - they are strongly opinionated against the subject and the POV ing of content to the article has been an ongoing and repeated situation over a lengthy time period with this user - It will likely take a topic ban to stop the pattern. You really  can  16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Update - He has now reverted my replacement of the POV template - hes removed it three times now - diff - You  really  can  16:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that a short block is likely insufficient here. I suggest a topic/article ban be considered.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Gnevin reported by User:Gibson Flying V (Result: Both 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: Plenty of edit warring in the past on both this page and Comparison of rugby league and rugby union.

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This version was created by myself and User:Haldraper editing together. You decided to throw that out and restore unfounded claims about RL in England, Australia and the rest. This has been put to a RFC and where you where asked by User:SteveBaker  to present just the facts  I've asked you at least 3 times to remove the references as they don't support the claims your making but you've continually readded them. If anything your edit warring. I've made numerous attempts to meet you half way Gnevin (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * . I don't know what you all are arguing over, but I think you're both equally culpable. The fact that you, Gnevin, violated the 3RR over a course of an hour and you, Gibson Flying V, nearly matched him is unacceptable. Hopefully the twenty-four-hour blocks are enough to get the message across that neither of your approaches is correct. --  tariq abjotu  18:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:HappyEskimo reported by User:Ergative rlt (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: various, edits consist of blanking section Women creators and characters


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, as well as prior general warnings: , ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the discussion at Deleted paragraph in the Sword and sorcery heroines section going on since April; I also added this remark saying that I now considered the blanking to be disruptive. 

I've included a revert by 207.231.32.22 as the first in the list above. That IP has made the same revert before and HappyEskimo has admitted being the editor behind that IP as well as User:76.30.126.149:

When HappyEskimo/IPs first begin blanking the section, they did have a point in that it was unreferenced. I added cites to Jessica Amanda Salmonson and Marion Zimmer Bradley, and when the section continued to be reverted added more cites, including ones showing that the critiques and contributions of those two authors/editors are seen as significant in the field. HappyEskimo has continued blanking, now with no attempt to discuss on the Talk page. All told four different editors including myself have disagreed with these blankings, while HappyEskimo has shown no support for them. Ergative rlt (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:JFKenn reported by Fat&#38;Happy (talk) (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 03:50, 21 June 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 498031287 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) ISBN number is sourced in paragraph as unpublished book. Specific references also included. Link to book ISBN")
 * 2) 15:02, 21 June 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Jeannie Out of the Bottle */")
 * 3) 19:40, 21 June 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 498712131 by Fat&Happy (talk) Link to original book/work provided w/ author. See link uder ISBN number.")
 * 4) 20:31, 21 June 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 498720130 by Fat&Happy (talk) More can be researched but author of book is there. Book was never printed, as stated.")
 * 5) 21:41, 21 June 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 498730672 by GFHandel (talk)Click link on ISBN number, see book")
 * 6) 00:09, 22 June 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 498751837 by Fat&Happy (talk) Vandalism: This is my original work with Publisher of book, date of publication, year of announcement. Specific enough for research.")
 * 7) 00:22, 22 June 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 498753604 by GFHandel (talk) Vandalism:  Not my problem. saying that a user is the problem is BS. That is harassment.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * --John (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User: reported by User:71.79.237.65 (Result: Declined, malformed)
Page:

User being reported: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_gothic_rock_bands&action=history

Blackmetalbaz, 3family6 and Drmies. Blackmetalbaz and 3family6 3RR ignoring consensus and the 3 of them have an edit gang where they ignore the rules back each other up and block editors - blackmetalbaz has basically claimed ownership of the page and refuses to work with other editors, listen to reason and depends on his gang of editors to drown out dissenting voices. If there are sources saying and band is goth and it's unreliable they dont listen, if there are reliable sources saying they aren't (mick mercer "the world's LEADING historian on gothic music) they are ignored, when conflicting sources wiki depends on consensus. there was consensus already and baz ignores, pushing his POV and not listening to other editors (the doors are a goth band? really? and thats not up for debate?). Requesting resolution from admin that isn't part of their little gang. 71.79.237.65 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  02:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. so the form wasn't filled out right so nobody enforces the rules. no wonder wikipedia is loosing editors. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.237.65 (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you request were understandable, I wouldn't care. But it's not, and I don't see how there was an edit-warring violation just by looking at the history of List of gothic rock bands. I imagine it'd be to your benefit to rewrite your request with some diffs and with clearer evidence, as the instructions request, even if you don't use the template provided (although you really should). Alternatively, if you found the request to resubmit too unwelcoming, I could just decline it for lack of violation -- as that's the appropriate outcome based the evidence presented. --  tariq abjotu  03:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Michael2127 reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:00, 21 June 2012 UTC
 * 2nd revert: 1:34, 22 June 2012 UTC
 * 3rd revert: 2:54, 22 June 2012 UTC
 * 4th revert: 3:17, 22 June 2012 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User:Michael2127 has been edit warring with three other editors to add disputed content to a BLP. Dreadstar  ☥   03:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  03:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:SummerPhD reported by User:Medeis (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: removes entire section claiming material in video is not transcribed in source
 * 2nd revert: removes entire section claiming sites with primary source videos are unreliable
 * 3rd revert: removes entire section claiming there has been no discussion although I began the discussion on the talk page upon my first edit  and before her call for talk.
 * 4th revert: Removes sources and verbatim wording from sources

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (my warning) SummerPhD's acknowledgement of the warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is a scandal in the US because an NBC reporter presented a selectively edited news clip of pres. can. Mitt Romney, making him look the fool for an incomplete statement, but got caught when a bloog publicized the full speech.

I began the talk page discussion regarding the article edits before SummerPhD reverted the new section wholesale for the second time, insisting this was justified since there was supposedly no discussion.

In good faith I changed the wording regarding the response to Mitchell from "ridicule" and "flagrantly dishonest" to "criticism" for "misrepresentation" diff: while SummerPhD reverted the section wholesale three times and then deleted the mention of misrepresentation and an invented gaffe as well as the references supporting the claim. I have remained civil and article focused the entire time.

SummerPhD's entire history has been based on an obvious POV backed up with insults and sarcasm on the talk page and reverts and deletions in the article: "foist 'scandals'", "Fox news...'they'" "OHMYGOD", "My, but you do have a creative streak" (at User:Arzel), "Great!", "Yes, it's all so clear now!", "OHMYGOD! THERE IT IS! THE SMOKING GUN! SHE @#$%ING "SHOWED" THE CLIP! Really? How, um, presenter-ish of her." "Wow! Such naked aggression! The venom! She "played" it!" You have to read between the lines here... actually, you have to get loaded up on scotch"" [complains "misrepresented" and "invented" are not in source--but see ] "Before gulping down the scotch, fire up a few bowls, i guess."

There is more, such as claiming that sources such as newsmax which provide the original videoclip from NBC are unreliable and deleting the entire section, claiming that we cannot report that others have criticized mitchell because (in the Atlantic, Wash Post, NY Mag, Fox, and Huff Post) that would violate BLP, challenging me to take this edit war to admin when I had invited her to suggest alternative wording, and so on. Diffs upon request. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that at least some of SummerPhD's edits (particularly the earlier ones, not so sure about the last one) are exempt from the three-revert rule due to the BLP policy. That you toned down the nature of the controversial material in your last revert doesn't change the fact that the article originally, and on multiple occasions, included exaggeratory wording that was difficult to neutrally substantiate. --  tariq abjotu  15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, by my "last revert" you mean my second edit of the page ever. I provided the Washington Post, The Huffington Post, Fox News, The Atlantic, and New York Magazine as sources and used verbatim language from the sources for the text . I also note that BLP was never mentioned as a justification for any edit in any edit summary, just objections to the source of the video of Mitchell's clip, and that BLP was only mentioned justifying removing verbatim source material saying Mitchell had been criticized in the fourth edit, not the three wholesale reverts done prior to my starting the discussion.  My understanding is that edit warring is based on the behavior, such as POV editting, personal attacks, and wholesale edits without discussion, not post facto rationalizations. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, the "4 reverts" shown above are #1) me removing an IP's BLP violation; #2) me removing the IP's unexplained restoration of the exact same BLP violation; #3) a duplicate of the link shown under #2; #4) Medeis adding a comment to the talk page. Also for the record, the third revision is here. Incidentally, the edit summary reads, " Removing poorly sourced contentious claim regarding a living person, per WP:BLP. Please seek consensus on the talk page and/or the BLP noticeboard BEFORE restoring." Luckily, you appeared to restore the problematic material for the third time or the IP would have had to violate 3RR to restore it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:‎Mike18xx reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucalyptus&oldid=498599243


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucalyptus&diff=498701546&oldid=498619461
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucalyptus&diff=498789736&oldid=498715485
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike18xx#Eucalyptus

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eucalyptus#Exploding_Trees

Comments:


 * This user clearly has no intention of resolving this issue. They have removed the material without asking for references to be obtained because they have, to quote, "become convinced the claim is an apocryphal". No evidence is given for this belief nor has any request for evidence for the claim been made.


 * Moreover the user has become personally insulting in the discussion, accusing me of being a Nazi. Due to my family histopry I find such slander highly offensive and I feel that I can not possibly conduct a civil discourse with a user who refers to me in such a manner.


 * I therefore have to ask the moderators and community to resolve this. Issue.


 * Thank you Mark Marathon (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider Dispute Resolution. --  tariq abjotu  15:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:163.167.171.212/User:2.27.74.10 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: blocked )
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:

The last two reverts are by a different IP with same geolocation as the IP for the first 4 reverts. Same edit and from the edit summaries and comments on the talk page it is clear that it is the same person. The person seems to have access to only 2 IPS so semi-protection or range block appears unnecessary for the moment. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had already semiprotected the article before seeing your post. But after looking at the history I would tend to agree with your conclusions, so have blocked both IP addresses for 48 hours. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to DeCausa's comment about the number of IPs used: The individual has also edited using the IPs, , , , and possibly others. There's also evidence to suggest the person uses a known Wikipedia account. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:Collect (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 8:03 22 June
 * 2nd revert: 10:25
 * 3rd revert: 13:00
 * 4th revert: 13:51

Similar reverts also at American Legislative Exchange Council as well

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

His response at

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

Comments:

The article falls under WP:BLP and clear statements of opinion are being reverted into the article, contrary to WP:BLP. Somedifferent stuff has reverted three times in 7 hours, which, I think, qualifies as "edit war". Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Those aren't all reverts. There appear to be three two reverts (multiple reverts in the same string of edits are counted as one, and, in the second string of edits, any reverts are of his previous edits), but not four, and although I agree there's has been a WP:BLP violation, it's not a clear WP:BLP violation.  (Note that I'm on Collect's side as far as content is concerned; the content he wants to add is a WP:BLP violation, inadequately credited, and probably in the wrong section of the articles.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still edit warring, and he hasn't attempted to justify his edits on the talk pages. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Where do I begin? First, consecutive edits are counted as one revert, so the 08:03 and 10:25 (UTC) reverts are considered just one. I'm not sure what you think he was reverting in the edit at 13:00, and even considering the edit at 13:15 (which you didn't mention) as a revert is nitpicking. And then, on top of that, I don't see how he's gone against WP:BLP. And, clear statements of opinion are being reverted into the article? I think that's a mischaracterization. That might describe the first revert, but that doesn't seem to describe the other edits. --  tariq abjotu  16:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's now a clear 3rd revert, and he has gone against WP:BLP, by adding opinions about living people as if they were facts. Shall we wait for the 4th before reporting again.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've stopped editing the article at this point and have posted on the article's talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:Kahastok (Result: 168h )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Edits have been identified as vandalism by some.

Editor has also recently been warned for edit warring at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (where s/he has broken 3RR in the last few days) and at Sophie, Princess of Prussia (highest recent rate was 3 reverts in 30 hours). Page links:


 * Kahastok talk 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Kahastok talk 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"identified as vandalism by some". Deliberately falsely marked as vandalism. By the same editor who warned me for edit warring because I added a source to the article. A source I added because he complained about an edit being unsourced. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This IP has a history of repeated aggressive editing, which they invariably refuse to discuss on the relevant Talk pages, often going straight to spurious RFCs or other administrative measures. Either that, or they leave offensive messages (e.g. ). A check of the IP's Talk page history shows a pattern of vandalism warnings, which they immediately delete and issue counter-warnings. So much smoke, but no fire? About time their wings were clipped. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:128.83.244.249 reported by User:Cassianto (Result: 168h)
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:

A clear breach of WP:ELNO, this user has ignored all attempts to resolve the matter on the talk page of both the article and there own. The page was protected for a few days as per a request by but the persistance in adding a fan site to Joan Crawford is continuing. The site in question The Best of Everything: A Joan Crawford Encyclopedia is an obvious fansite and it's inclusion is a breach of WP:FANSITE and might even be considred as spam. The site appears to be written by a fan. WP:ELNO is clear on it's rules that unless it's written by an authorized authority, such links should be avoided. As far as I can see, and other editors including Lobo512 and, the site is not written or maintained by an authorised authority. User:128.83.244.249 and to some extent User:Missou2 (which may or may not be the same person) have repeatedly stated that the said link is referenced by biographers thus justifying its inclusion. Every attempt has been made to invite them to discuss thier rational and to form a discussion on the articles talk page and on there own but these attempts have been ignored. -- CassiantoTalk 21:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * . T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:122.21.250.129 reported by User:Bazonka (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (on User talk page actually)

Comments:

Today's spate of edit warring follows other attempts by the IP user (mostly on 19 June) to change the map in the article. The user never leaves an edit summary and seems unwilling to participate in discussion. Bazonka (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Notified 122.21.250.129. Glrx (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

* 6th revert (after filing and notice):
 * Glrx (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I already added that as the 5th revert :) Bazonka (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * . T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Magyarcsaba reported by User:208.113.229.78 (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

T. Canens (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Crocodile2009 reported by User:Youreallycan (Result: warned/no 3RR vio)
Page:

User being reported:

The user added some content in this diff - the contents Neutrality was disputed and the content has been removed by three different editors with requests to move to discussion - the user has reverted all three users in an edit warring manner. He has been warned on his talkpage twice but then after those two warning he reverted again.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:

I have notified the user of this report and asked him to self revert and move to discussion of the disputed content - The user has refused my request to self revert. diff -  You  really  can  15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur - but I was too late. User is a "new user" who quite likely, isn;t. Collect (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Update - the User now has has a warning note from an admin - User:EdJohnston on his talkpage and I have linked him to a few WP:Policy and guidelines/WP:BRD etc - and he appears to have backed off. I am satisfied under the circumstances with this response. -  You  really  can  16:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect to 3RR, Drop me a note if he reverts again, and we can worry about a block - either for 3RR or for BLP. T. Canens (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Michael2127 reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous edit warring report is still listed further up on this very AN3 page: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring


 * Continued reverting immediately after block expired:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Immediately after his block expired, User:Michael2127 has continued reverting the exact same material he was blocked for. See the original report higher on this same page: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Dreadstar  ☥   22:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * . by User:Ched Davis 23:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)   Dreadstar  ☥   23:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:House1090 reported by User:Inhakito (Result: no vio/stale)
Page:  Voseo

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [498740101]


 * 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:


 * Neither of you have gone over WP:3RR on the page you cited, but it's always good to use the talk page (and not call other peoples' good-faith edits vandalism).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not gone over WP:3RR, I am just adding information and references that Inhakito keeps reverting. I have contacted him at his talk page but he ignores and removes it. Thank, House1090 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * , also and per Jasper. T. Canens (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring in Cardinal number (Result: no vio/malformed)
Three editions on the article Cardinal number were reverted. I'm not re-reverting these.

For example, the elimination: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardinal_number&diff=498956670&oldid=498927213 deleted a bibliographical note:


 * but Deiser affirms that Cantor did not provide a precise definition of the notion of cardinal number $$ < $$ref$$ > $$, p. 123.$$ < $$/ref$$ > $$.

Deiser is considered an international authority in this topic. He write:


 * Although Georg Cantor had built his set theory on ordinal and cardinal numbers, he did not provide a precise definition of these notions.

This omission induces the reader to believe that definition by Cantor is satisfactory, but it is not in the opinion of all the main researchers in the area.

The same elimination deletes my warning:


 * This section has some inaccuracies that must be corrected

In this way the reader is induced, without any warning, to misunderstand main concepts. The justification of the elimination is silly:


 * First sentence should only be on talk page; second change may be accurate, but may also by synth, and IS ungrammatical.

If it is ungrammatical, because my poor English, this do not justify to induce the reader to error. I believe that the grammatical correction is trivial and it can be make by any native English speaker and do not justify to yield mistakes.

The whole historical section of the article must be rewritten. But each correction by me is reverted, and it is a useless wast of time.

And the reader must be warned that the section induces to mistakes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalcg (talk • contribs)


 * Your comments were removed twice by two different editors (including me). It's possible that you may have a point; however, since you are apparently unable to write coherent English, and your source is in English, it may be that you're misunderstanding the source.  Is the part you're interested in available online?  Also, you should try to write your comments at Talk:Cardinal number, where they might get more traction than here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * , This looks like it can be sorted out by discussion at the article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply
1) Yes, I forget to sign. Sorry.

2) The inference:
 * you are apparently unable to write coherent English, and your source is in English, it may be that you're misunderstanding the source.

is incorrect.

3) I consider incorrect that the same administrators involved in a edit warring can decide on it. But this is a general policy.

4) The above statement is false: no comment by me were removed twice, because I do not reverted the edition. Three different editions were removed. Different in the sense that they have different meaning.

5) Previously, I have written in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cardinal_number#Remaking_of_the_History_section

6) In general, I consider very irresponsible to delete a relevant citation in an article.

7) Because of my bad English, generally I avoid to edit the English Wikipedia. In this case, the English article was used as a basis for the Portuguese article and the mistakes of the article were translated to Portuguese. This was the cause of my editions.

Although all these questions, the main problem is whether the section has inaccuracies or not and whether it should be rewritten or not.

Apologize the bad English

Carlos Gonzalez --Gonzalcg (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Magyarcsaba reported by User:PANONIAN (Result: 48h)
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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note that User:Magyarcsaba has been subject to a request for sockpuppet investigation here as a user expressed a concern that Magyarcsaba might be a sockpuppet of user Rokarudi. Also, Rokarudi has already been subject to a 3RR report here on this very board as well. However, In my opinion they are two different users with a somewhat similar interesting field on the grounds that Rokarudi is an established user with no blocks and hence Rokarudi has no reason for sockpuppeting.--Nmate (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Majilis reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: a 1 week hiatus )
Page:

Also seems to be an edit war on these pages:

Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: diff
 * 6th refert: diff added after report posted Jim1138 (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7th revert: diff added after report posted Jim1138 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 8th revert: diff added after report posted Jim1138 (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

He has been through this before C.Fred 3RR warning Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] User talk 1 User talk 2 Al-Farabi talk

Comments:

Previously blocked. Argues that everyone else is ignoring the facts. Started edit warring soon after block lifted. argues about talk on my page Jim1138 (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At best this editor has a complete lack of clue. Asks me to explain my reverts despite the fact I explain each revert in my edit summary. Never uses article talk pages except at Talk:Islam on something unrelated to Turkic people, just edit wars. I may ask for a ban. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Crzyclarks reported by User:Knowz (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: -


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ;also see warnings from many editors (including several administrators, it would seem) on the user's talk page: User talk:Crzyclarks

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - (See below; I haven't been involved in this)

Comments:

User:Crzyclarks is showing clear edit warrior behavior. Having been warned by many editors (including several administrators) and blocked several times for edit-warring, he returns to do the same each time, as soon as the previous block runs out, across a number of articles, countless times, edit-warring with many editors. This user has been amply warned but simply ignores each warning. In addition to edit-warring on the article given above as shown, looking at Crzyclark's contributions show that this user is edit-warring on some other articles as well simultaneously. I have encountered this user before and warned them myself a few times, yet despite this, and the warnings of others, this user continues to edit-war. This time I log in from a small wikibreak to see the multitude of edit-wars starting all over again. None of the blocks given so far (24 hours, 48 hours, 1 week) seems to have led him to rethink things and end the edit warrior behavior. Serious consideration should be given to the multiple aggravating factors as mentioned if/when an administrator takes action on this report - I make no suggestion as to what the action should be, but not even a block of 1 week seems to be enough with user. This is the most clear-cut case of an edit warrior I've ever seen. --~ Knowz  (Talk) 15:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The second revert listed there is not a revert. I just added another sourced statistic in. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* - not this again. As I've said before: You can't just game the system like that. Leaving aside any technical violations of 3RR (indeed I see that two administrators have told you to refrain from editing these articles preferably or at least keep to 1RR), there is still no doubt that your behavior is that of an edit warrior. --~ Knowz  (Talk) 15:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sticking to the 3RR is not gaming the system. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the above: nevermind whether or not you've technically violated 3RR - you are clearly still edit-warring. --~ Knowz  (Talk) 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I recommend we hold off until the results of this restriction proposal ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't break the 3RR, technically or not. I'm not out to revert, it's not my fault if one editor disagrees with a perfectly valid and sourced statistic. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring it NOT the same as 3RR - how many times do you have to be told? Edit warring is NOT permitted, even if you do not breach 3RR! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, but I'm still allowed to revert unless it is against consensus. It is only one editor I was reverting. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No you are not! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not banned from reverting. How am I supposed to edit if I can't revert? If I reverted 3 times against several editors agreeing on something then this discussion would be valid. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:EW, and if you still don't understand that, then I'm afraid I am unable to explain it any clearer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Freshfighter9 (Result: page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Parrot of Doom is aware of violating 3RR and has also demonstrated severe incivility when I initiated a discussion to try to resolve the issue. His idea of discussing the changes seems to be to simply tell me to "f**k off". Before I even suggested reporting him for anything he stated "I couldn't give a shit about being reported, so do whatever you like. I'm not in the mood", which indicates that he knew he was in the wrong but just doesn't care. He has recently come back from being blocked for precisely the same behavior. Freshfighter9talk 23:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it to talk, please - warring on both sides, no discussion on article talk. Page protected. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:2001:558:6033:1E:19A3:B8B5:A0AF:DFCA reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I notified this user on adding an eliminee whose outside of the panel is not part of call-out order in the reality TV show. ApprenticeFan work 00:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Rokarudi reported by User:Iadrian yu (Result: Warned)
Page:

And many other articles for edit warring.

User being reported:

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


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

Note that some edits are made with an IP address that according to behavioral evidence, is User:Rokarudi. Per SPI report.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

, Rokarudi ignored all this except on this talk page (on his 3rd round of edits) where he called on a consensus that states the usage of alternative names in the infobox (which has nothing to do here because we are not removing this names) and some personal attacks. Even now, this user avoids to talk about this problem and makes massive changes for the sole reason to change font size of the Hungarian names(to overemphasize them), even if that is against the rules(native_name usage ) and any other example of alternative name (Dunajská Streda, Subotica, Komárno, and many more examples).

Comments:


 * Sorry, but I do not have a computer with me for another 10 days, so I have to brief for the time being. There are two points here 1.) how to represent alternative names in the infobox 2.) who broke the consensus at the form of infoboxes at Transylvanian settlements having a large or majority Hungarian population? The issue 1.) may not be solved here, as there are different practices on this issue with respect to different countries of Europe, also depending on the type of Infobox and level of tolerance of the editors belonging to majority ethnic groups.  The 2.) issue is simpler:

It was Iadrian yu who changed the stable version of the articles of Transylvanian settlements which was a move against the consensustreached many years ago by a great number of Romanian and Hungarian editors. See the naming discussion at the talk page of Odorheiu secuiesc at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc/Archive_1. Indeed, I made 19 changes, mostly at articles that practically I had edited myself alone (especially smaller settlements) during my active editor period. Now, I had the time to simply restore some of these articles to the consensual form Which had prevailed for a long time until to the date when Iadrian yu decided that he would  change systematically the infoboxes of Transylvanian settlements. I kindly ask the revising adminisrator to pay a visit to Iadrian yu's contribution list and have a brief look at his contribution to the idea of consensus seeking on 17 DECEMBER 2011. Iadrian yu himself changed the infoboxes of not 19 but that of 150 settlements on the very same day ( in other words, the infobox of each and every settlement in the ethnically sensitive, Harghita, Covasna ans Mures, the so-called Székely or Szekler counties ). The only reason this was not reverted by anyone seems to be that there are no remaining active editors at the relevent articles. How can Iadrian yu report someone in such a hypocritical way for making 19 ediits when he himself upturned consensus by making 150 changes on the same day pushing his POV that Roumanian place names must be indicated with bigger fonts than alternative names. Kind regards (Rokarudi)Rokarudi (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don`t want to repeat anything I already said in the report already(about the consensus Rokarudi calls upon - which only states the usage of Hungarian names in the infobox where this population makes 20%+) but I want to address Rokarudi`s latest edits, moving Hungarian names from "other_name" to "native_name" for the sole reason to increase this names in font size with no support from any consensus, wiki examples or wiki rule. Even when the "native_name" is reserved for other usage than Rokarudi uses it template native name. As I called 4 times Rokarudi to discuss this 1, 2, 3, and on his talk page 4 without success except this edit warring (You had the time to make 29 edits - including edits you did as this IP user 81.182.209.133 but not to stop and talk?). Adrian (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be a standard 3RR report. Given that this page requires the reporter to provide 4 reverts that took place on a single page within a 24 hour period. However, there are 9 reverts here that took place on 4 different articles, and neither the reported party ,nor any of the articles that was subject of an edit war falls under 1RR restriction. Furthermore, the reporter also participated in edit wars, and the reported party is also willing to discuss edits.--Nmate (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you conclusion. Technically, I did participated in an edit war since I reverted his edits, but if you analyze it, from the beginning I was ready to talk (and prevent any edit warring) which can be noticed by the time stamps of my comment while the other party simply engaged in continuant edit warring. Also you can notice that I was acting based on wiki rule and other examples while the reported party acted based on what? I don`t believe that is the same edit warring on my behalf. After all, this is why I have written this report, because the other party engages in edit wars without a hint of discussion. I also disagree with your conclusion that the reported party is willing to talk. Why did`t he so far? As I called 4 times Rokarudi to discuss this 1, 2, 3, and on his talk page 4 without success. He had the time to make 29 edits - including edits he did as this IP user 81.182.209.133 but not to stop and talk? I can imagine that Rokarudi followed the WP:BRD, but where is the most important part? Discussion? Adrian (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He also continued his edits despite this report and calls for discussion . Adrian (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this does not seem to be a standard 3RR report that requires more than 3 reverts on a single article within a 24 hour period and hence I suggest to the reviewer administrator closing it with a summary of "no violation". The maximum that can be achieved with this report is that that Rokarudi be reminded of being more active in talk- page discussions to resolve the problem with Iadrian yu.--Nmate (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don`t think this is a good idea what you are suggesting (and if in 10 days this continues). There was more than a few opportunity to discuss all this. Let`s see if the administrators agree with your reasoning. Adrian (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, it is still nebulous what "willful misinterpretation" you intend to mean, Biruitorul.--Nmate (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For one, Rokarudi does appear to have edit-warred on Târgu Mureș, at least in slow-moving fashion. For another, what is troubling here is not so much the technical details of what he did, but the pattern of mass reverts (BRD, I suppose) coupled with refusal to engage in discussion or see the other side. I truly hope for his own sake that he adopts a more conciliatory attitude when he comes back.
 * As to the substantive matter at hand. "Native name" is for localities that have one name in English, and one in the country's national language: Bucharest, Belgrade, Rome, Vienna, etc. It is not for localities that have one name in the official language and one in a recognized minority language, which is what we are discussing here. Even if, hypothetically, Hungarian speakers are native to, say, Vlăhița and Romanian is in practice a second language there, we are dealing with a situation where Vlăhița is the official, internationally recognized name, and Szentegyháza a locally official name in a minority language, an "other name" if you prefer. Yes, the font is smaller in this case, but I trust we're all mature individuals with bigger concerns than font size.
 * I urge that at the very least, the closing administrator admonish Rokarudi for willful misinterpretation and disinclination to dialogue. - Biruitorul Talk 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If an admin is thinking of closing this, it's worth looking at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rokarudi as well, to see if there could be a larger pattern. One of the other people named in the SPI, Magyarcsaba, has recently been blocked 48 hours by another admin for edit warring. If there was some deal made in the past about these geographic names, it may be worth trying to confirm that fact and then persuade everyone involved to seek consensus if they intend to deviate from the deal. My guess is that getting the IPs to respond may not be easy. I am notifying but that is probably Rokarudi himself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except this consensus where the usage of Hungarian names in infobox was regulated (where to be included and where not) other consensus about infobox usage doesn`t exist. At least I personally don`t know about it, but I believe user Nmate or Biruitorul whould mention if there would be anything similar. Adrian (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Iadrian yu, thanks for your response. The link you provide goes to a closed discussion in a large green box, with about 5000 words in it. Can you summarize the end result of that discussion for us in a few sentences? You know that the present dispute here at AN3 is about place names in Transylvania, in an area formerly using the Hungarian language (now part of Romania) that seems to be known as the Székely Land. Can you tell us who closed the move discussion in the green box? It seems that the result of the discussion was that the article was not moved to the Hungarian name. If the revert war that was reported here is only how to tag the former names in the infobox, whoever is conducting the war has a lot of explaining to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not the best person to talk about this since I did`t participated but I will try to explain. In this discussion was agreed that in places where Hungarian (or any other population) is 20% or more of the population that language name should be included in the info box as "other_name". There was a voting of 14 users and 7 of them voted for the "20%+ rule". And from the articles I have seen that this was applied. User:Biruitorul participated in this consensus. I believe User:Stemonitis closed this discussion - I am not sure (Maybe Biruitorul knows this better, I will contact him about this). Maybe he knows to explain this better. Adrian (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a summary of what was decided and what has generally been followed for the past five years:
 * All place names in Romania will be titled with their Romanian name.
 * Where a minority group encompasses at least 20% of the place's population, the place's name in that language (almost always Hungarian) will appear in the infobox.
 * Where a minority group encompasses at least 50% of the place's population, the place's name in that language will additionally be bolded in the lead section of the article.
 * At present, the consensus is not being challenged: what is at issue is whether the infobox should give the Hungarian name under the "native name" or "other name" parameter. As Adrian and I explained above, "other name" is the correct one. - Biruitorul Talk 19:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Rokarudi is warned to seek consensus before reverting any of these names again. Thanks for the links which some people have provided. This whole dispute is about whether the Romanian and Hungarian names should appear in the same font size in the infobox, as opposed to the Romanian name being in a larger font. The 2007 discussion is not 100% clear, but it seems that the actual practice followed since 2007 in the infoboxes of the Szekely towns has been to include both names but make the Hungarian name smaller. Rokarudi and some IPs have been warring to force the upgrading of the font size of the Hungarian name in the infobox to equal the Romanian. Rokarudi should not resume this unless he can find a consensus in favor of the change. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There are not any regular editors in Szèkely settlements apart from the generally reasonable Biruitorul who mainly restrict his activity to maintenance here and Iadrain who ipn his part never seeks consensus but make voluntarily mass changes as I proved before. How can I seek consensus when I am warned for 19 reverts out of the 150 made by Iadrian on 17th December 2011. Is this consensus seeking I am supposed to do? Your double standards are rclose to ridicule. Regards RokarudiRokarudi (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Tasketz Kayo reported by User:Chubbles (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Loathe as I am to have to resort to seeking administrator attention for anything, and as petty and minimally important as the subject matter really is, I'm at my wit's end with User:Tasketz Kayo. We are currently bickering over the status of discography sections of may Anticon musical artists. I am not reporting a 3RR violation, but rather a persistent matter of edit warring, tendentious editing, and lackluster attempt to seek consensus.

This began at Bracken (band), where Kayo added some information to the prose of the article and removed some info from the discography. I followed this by simply restoring the removed info to the discography. Kayo reverted me, stating that it wasn't necessary to do what I did. He cited a guideline in doing so, which states the information in question is optional to include. I responded by restoring the edit and noting that it is neither prohibited nor discouraged, citing another discographical guideline (which I had advocated for last year) which states that the information may be included when germane. Kayo reverted again, saying the pages should look like other Anticon artist discographies.

As it turns out, many Anticon artists have minimally informational discographies, and so I left a note on the Bracken talk page that I did not wish to continue with an edit war and that I didn't see any good reason to exclude this information, and good reasons to include it. I stated that I would be happy to fix up other Anticon discographies, and then did so for about a dozen pages, including artists who had released material on several different labels (e.g., .) Kayo reverted them all the next time he logged in, stating again that it wasn't necessary. He responded on the Bracken talk page, and I waited four days while we discussed the matter on Bracken's talk page before taking further action. That discussion proved minimally useful. Kayo said since it wasn't required, there was no need to include it, and he seemed to think it was aesthetically somewhat unpleasing; I offered to add tables to clean up the presentation. I also went to the talk page of the guideline he cited and asked for input on wording; it hasn't attracted any notice yet.

During the discussion on the Bracken page, I tried to be even-handed and helpful, though perhaps I got a little WP:BITEy at times (at the time this started, his account was only a week old), and he may not even understand the whole discussion/consensus idea, or edit-warring. I'll own up to being a little peevish at points in this discussion. Still, I felt my hackles raise a little bit when he ordered me around, saying things like "I want you to create more articles for the albums" and "You had better not be persistent to add label and release date." In the end, I told him I would be persistent, as I had consistently been making improvements to the articles and he was blocking me from doing so. As I said I would, I made tables for several artist discographies, which I think vastly improved presentation of the information, and included new material at times, such as dates of release. Kayo again reverted them all.

He spoke once again on the Bracken talk page, saying the information was better included in prose than in a discography. I couldn't agree less, and was incensed that my good-faith improvements to the article have been so casually dismissed; I responded, restored my edits, and came here.

I don't believe I'm being trolled here; Kayo may be new (or he may be not), but he is doing at least some good work, creating album articles and linking them between artists. I have done nothing to prevent him from that work, and I hope he continues it. But he has persistently, over the past week, unilaterally prevented me from improving the articles as well, and I would like this to stop. So, here I am. This is a pathetically trivial thing to have a lame edit war over, and I understand if this ends up seeming de minimis to most others, but it's become so frustrating that I can't see any other way to resolve it. Chubbles (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: immediately after I posted this, Kayo has gone through and summarily reverted everything I've just done, again. For example,, and in this case the claim he makes in the edit summary is false, as the discographical info is not available in the article's prose summary or anywhere else on the page. Chubbles (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See also previous discussion on Template talk:Anticon - I kinda find that Kayo's edits start immediately upon the semi-protection of the template a little suspicious, and he's resumed doing the same thing that the anon revolving IP editor was doing to that navbox - adding artists with only the most ephemeral connection to Anticon against consensus. Kaini (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a long revert war on the Clouddead page between a series of IPs, pretty clearly one person (and a very angry one at that), and several editors who'd come to a consensus on the use of the Anticon template. Soon after it "ended", Kayo picked up the baton exactly where the IPs left off; see this series of edits:, , . I'm not the only one Kayo's "My way or the highway" style has irritated, I guess. Also, if he is the same as the anon IPs who went on a revert spree on the Anticon pages last/earlier-this month, he's already been blocked for it after a previous complaint here. Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Genghis Tron for more of the same, too. Kaini (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I hoped that getting the Genghis Tron article and Template:Anticon semi-protected would encourage the anonymous IP to register an account, from which they might edit in a more collaborative way. Unfortunately, Tasketz Kayo's wholesale reverting on three occasions of a dozen or so of User:Chubbles article edits shows that their conduct towards other users has not improved one bit. memphisto 17:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue is sitting in the inbox for four days now. I don't mean to be hassling in tone, or to come across as applying pressure (I can appreciate it's a little more complex than the regular 3RRvios that are posted here), but it'd be great if an admin could have a look at it. Kaini (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

user:Niemti and Wing Commander (franchise)
had broken WP:3RR, please do something (Idot (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

User:‎Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Frotz (Result: Blocked for 48 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:

Comments:

Altetendekrabbe is editwarring again on an Islam-related article. This time it's Dhimmitude. Despite the clear meaning of dhimmitude being a form of discrimination, he reverted a tag demanding secondary sources. When such sources were provided, he refused to accept them and reverted again, and left a taunting challenge that I report his behavior. It appears that no secondary source is good enough for him. I have repeatedly shown others at Talk:Dhimmitude that dhimmutude is discrimination and I got vacuous protests about historical dhimmi not being discriminatory. The status of historical dhimmis is irrelevant to this article. -- Frotz(talk) 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe just made his third revert:  -- Frotz(talk) 22:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe just made his fourth revert:. He is now in violation of WP:3RR and is using abusive language against me and another editor. -- Frotz(talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

user frotz is a disruptive editor with an anti-islamic pov. he is using unreliable "sources" like loonwatch, dhimmi.com, catholic.com, robert spencer and others to push his anti-islamic pov. he has edit warred the discrimination-sidebar into the article. first he edit warred with User:Vice regent and now with me again.--  altetendekrabbe   22:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:68.96.136.158 reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is repeatedly adding an unsourced wall of text to a WP:BLP, and has not responded to edit summaries, warnings, or talk pages. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User:92.4.184.70 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit Warring Warning, 1RR Warning

Comments:

IP user deleting sourced content from the article and doing that repeatedly even after being warned twice. -- S M S  Talk 12:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarmv reported by User:Vsmith (Result: 72 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: [see below]

Comments:

Editor has also been edit warring on diatom although hasn't reached 3rr there (I don't think). Considerable discussion by various editors regarding the user's edits has occurred on talk:Diatom and user talk:Bhaskarmv. Vsmith (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor has significant WP:COI as he's attempting to insert mention of his company's products in articles. -- Neil N   talk to me  02:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The COI matter needs to be dealt with, IMO, and I hope you will be able to do something there. The edit warring on an article or two is clear, and I'll block accordingly, for 72 hours. 03:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

User:Historylover4 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
 * The article is part of WP:ARBPIA area and is under 1RR.

How were the sources I provided that related to the general topic in the section not acceptable sources? One was done by a Ph. D. and I also provided a source that is actually a staunchly pro-Zionist website that acknowledged the existence of the New York Times, Le Monde, etc. Iraqi government advertisements (back on December 11, 1975) and gave a response to them. If the sources I provided (particularly one by someone with a Ph. D.) is not considered a neutral source, how exactly is the JCPA considered a neutral source (when it is known to be connected to the Israeli government and in particular via its current leadership the Likud party).Historylover4 (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be continuing the argument here. You've already broken the WP:1RR rule, so the question is whether you will accept a voluntary restriction to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

— One week. Violation of the WP:1RR restriction which was clearly posted on the article talk. Editor did not respond to the offer of a voluntary restriction from I/P articles instead of a block. He was already blocked three days earlier this month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Mark Renier reported by User:Saedon (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User apparently doesn't understand that the word promulgated has both a normal English usage and a specific legal usage. S Æ don talk 09:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, Mark Renier is at 3RR but has not violated it: the first diff you provide is his edit, but not a revert. Other users are also at fault in this content dispute, even if you are right that promulgate is an acceptable word to use. A discussion was started at 7:30am, after Mark Reiner had made the change and someone reverted it once; no further reversions should have happened and discussion should have taken place. I would encourage users to discuss the issue at the talk page; if edit warring continues, I will block users or protect the page if it becomes necessary; I would like to avoid that and see discussion take place. I suggest using dispute resolution is necessary. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Each of the edit examples provided here is not a reversion. There are no reversions at all in this list. Subsequent edits of the same sentence were made with different outcomes while searching for consensus. These are no grounds for claiming an "edit war" when each of the edits is consistent and well commented. To whit: "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors." Each of the provided examples shows consistent attempts to resolve the situation. I agree with ItsZippy that there is evidence of edit warring by other editors who reverted my edits. // Mark Renier (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mark, I have declined the case and not taken action; I advise you now drop this. Although I have not blocked you, you are not completely in the right and arguing technicalities will not help. Please ignore this (I do not expect you to respond to this) and continue editing constructively. If any further edit war problems occur, you are welcome to file a new report. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Frotz reported by User:Vice regent (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

In each of these reverts, Frotz restores the. This is a reversion of my earlier attempt to remove the sidebar. In some of the edits, Frotz modifies other content too.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I didn't warn him. But, Frotz was edit-warring with Altetendekrabbe, and Frotz warned Altetendekrabbe of making more than 3 reverts. Frotz then reported Altetendekrabbe for a 3RR violation.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Starting June 22 I tried to resolve this issue. I also tried to discuss this a few hours before Frotz's 4 reverts.

Comments:

I am very surprised that Altetendekrabbe was blocked, but Frotz wasn't, even though both were edit-warring on the same article and both violated 3RR.VR talk  15:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are completely right - I missed that and I apologise. The edit war has now stopped, so I don't think blocking Frotz would serve any non-punitive purpose. I realise that this is not ideal and I acknowledge that it is my fault - I apologise for that. If another administrator sees it differently and wants to block the user, I won't complain. I will add that, if edit warring continues on that page, I am happy to monitor it and take any necessary action. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit war has not stopped. Frotz reverted a different edit of mine, but on the same article, just 2 hours ago.VR talk  16:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the above revert, made just 2 hours ago, is the *5th* revert Frotz has made in less than 24 hours.VR talk  16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edits in which I revert you, you'll see that I am adding citations to back up the notion that dhimmitude is discrimination. None of them seem to satisfy you.  Since I am apparently unable to produce a source that will satisfy you, please state what will satisfy you.  -- Frotz(talk) 20:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the content dispute. This is about you making 5 reverts in less than 24 hours.VR talk  20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question. Further, are you telling me that a revert made in response to your own request for cites is a warring revert?  -- Frotz(talk) 21:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to ItsZippy and anyone else reading: This complaint is entirely about two editors, Vice regent and Altetendekrabbe, for whom no secondary source or citation is good enough to couple two terms: "dhimmitude" and "discrimination". I tried pointing to the fact the word "dhimmitude" is in common use describing acts of discrimination and worse and pointed to news reports on the subject. These were reverted. I have repeatedly added more and more cites from well-known scholars and periodicals. These were also reverted. On the talk pages and in edit summaries they use a combination of abusive language and simple contradiction without offering any meaningful proof of their own assertions, calling "dhimmitude" imaginary and phobic. Three other editors have also reverted Vice regent's and Altetendekrabbe edits as well. -- Frotz(talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to any admin passing by: Frotz and Altetendekrabbe edit-warred on Dhimmitude. Both made 4 reverts in a few hours, violating 3RR. Frotz then reported Altetendekrabbe for a 3RR violation, and ItsZippy blocked Altetendekrabbe. Neither ItsZippy, nor anyone else, blocked or even warned Frotz for violating 3RR. I reported Frotz for his 3RR violation. ItsZippy said he would't block Frotz because the edit-war "has now stopped", not realizing that Frotz made his 5th revert (in a 24 hour period) just 2 hours before ItsZippy made that comment. So we have a situation where 2 users edit-warred, both violated 3RR, but only one was blocked.VR talk  12:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User: BluejacketT reported by User:Mosmof (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

User is also engaged in an edit war in Los Angeles Clippers, with essentially the same edit:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User:Chrishmt0423 left two messages on the user's talk page explaining Wikipedia's policy on rumors and news:

Comments:

In just the last few minutes, I discovered yet another revert:. This user has been amply warned to no avail. Clearly he/she needs a cooling-off period. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  06:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit warring on two articles + not even pretending to discuss = 48 hour block. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Tasketz Kayo reported by User:Chubbles (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Loathe as I am to have to resort to seeking administrator attention for anything, and as petty and minimally important as the subject matter really is, I'm at my wit's end with User:Tasketz Kayo. We are currently bickering over the status of discography sections of may Anticon musical artists. I am not reporting a 3RR violation, but rather a persistent matter of edit warring, tendentious editing, and lackluster attempt to seek consensus.

This began at Bracken (band), where Kayo added some information to the prose of the article and removed some info from the discography. I followed this by simply restoring the removed info to the discography. Kayo reverted me, stating that it wasn't necessary to do what I did. He cited a guideline in doing so, which states the information in question is optional to include. I responded by restoring the edit and noting that it is neither prohibited nor discouraged, citing another discographical guideline (which I had advocated for last year) which states that the information may be included when germane. Kayo reverted again, saying the pages should look like other Anticon artist discographies.

As it turns out, many Anticon artists have minimally informational discographies, and so I left a note on the Bracken talk page that I did not wish to continue with an edit war and that I didn't see any good reason to exclude this information, and good reasons to include it. I stated that I would be happy to fix up other Anticon discographies, and then did so for about a dozen pages, including artists who had released material on several different labels (e.g., .) Kayo reverted them all the next time he logged in, stating again that it wasn't necessary. He responded on the Bracken talk page, and I waited four days while we discussed the matter on Bracken's talk page before taking further action. That discussion proved minimally useful. Kayo said since it wasn't required, there was no need to include it, and he seemed to think it was aesthetically somewhat unpleasing; I offered to add tables to clean up the presentation. I also went to the talk page of the guideline he cited and asked for input on wording; it hasn't attracted any notice yet.

During the discussion on the Bracken page, I tried to be even-handed and helpful, though perhaps I got a little WP:BITEy at times (at the time this started, his account was only a week old), and he may not even understand the whole discussion/consensus idea, or edit-warring. I'll own up to being a little peevish at points in this discussion. Still, I felt my hackles raise a little bit when he ordered me around, saying things like "I want you to create more articles for the albums" and "You had better not be persistent to add label and release date." In the end, I told him I would be persistent, as I had consistently been making improvements to the articles and he was blocking me from doing so. As I said I would, I made tables for several artist discographies, which I think vastly improved presentation of the information, and included new material at times, such as dates of release. Kayo again reverted them all.

He spoke once again on the Bracken talk page, saying the information was better included in prose than in a discography. I couldn't agree less, and was incensed that my good-faith improvements to the article have been so casually dismissed; I responded, restored my edits, and came here.

I don't believe I'm being trolled here; Kayo may be new (or he may be not), but he is doing at least some good work, creating album articles and linking them between artists. I have done nothing to prevent him from that work, and I hope he continues it. But he has persistently, over the past week, unilaterally prevented me from improving the articles as well, and I would like this to stop. So, here I am. This is a pathetically trivial thing to have a lame edit war over, and I understand if this ends up seeming de minimis to most others, but it's become so frustrating that I can't see any other way to resolve it. Chubbles (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: immediately after I posted this, Kayo has gone through and summarily reverted everything I've just done, again. For example,, and in this case the claim he makes in the edit summary is false, as the discographical info is not available in the article's prose summary or anywhere else on the page. Chubbles (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See also previous discussion on Template talk:Anticon - I kinda find that Kayo's edits start immediately upon the semi-protection of the template a little suspicious, and he's resumed doing the same thing that the anon revolving IP editor was doing to that navbox - adding artists with only the most ephemeral connection to Anticon against consensus. Kaini (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a long revert war on the Clouddead page between a series of IPs, pretty clearly one person (and a very angry one at that), and several editors who'd come to a consensus on the use of the Anticon template. Soon after it "ended", Kayo picked up the baton exactly where the IPs left off; see this series of edits:, , . I'm not the only one Kayo's "My way or the highway" style has irritated, I guess. Also, if he is the same as the anon IPs who went on a revert spree on the Anticon pages last/earlier-this month, he's already been blocked for it after a previous complaint here. Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Genghis Tron for more of the same, too. Kaini (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I hoped that getting the Genghis Tron article and Template:Anticon semi-protected would encourage the anonymous IP to register an account, from which they might edit in a more collaborative way. Unfortunately, Tasketz Kayo's wholesale reverting on three four occasions of a dozen or so of User:Chubbles article edits shows that their conduct towards other users has not improved one bit. memphisto 17:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue is sitting in the inbox for four days now. I don't mean to be hassling in tone, or to come across as applying pressure (I can appreciate it's a little more complex than the regular 3RRvios that are posted here), but it'd be great if an admin could have a look at it. Kaini (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This case was automatically archived and so I have restored it here. Please can an admin take a look at this users conduct, because uncollaborative editors like this are a burden to the rest of the community. memphisto 08:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This combination of edit warring, apparent socking, deceptive edit summaries, and forms of IDHT is indeed disruptive, and another stern warning is unlikely to make a difference. I would block them myself, but since I added a third opinion at Talk:Bracken (band), I am an "involved admin" now. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

After hearing three voices speaking out against Kayo's edits and none defending him (here or elsewhere), I waited until this thread was auto-archived (a week) and then restored my edits. Kayo reverted them all yet again, saying in his edit summary "Don't make me laugh". E.g.. I think the operative guideline here is WP:HEAR. Can I get some indication I'm not yelling at a brick wall, here? Chubbles (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Binksternet (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:11, June 22, 2012. Removing "Mondale... wrote" and "Nichols... wrote"
 * 2nd revert: 15:32, June 22, 2012. Changed "Mondale... wrote" and "Nichols... wrote" to "Mondale... claimed" and "Nichols... claimed"
 * 3rd revert: 16:43, June 22, 2012. Changed "Mondale... wrote" to "Mondale... claimed" and restored "Nichols... claimed"
 * 4th revert: 17:19, June 22, 2012. Changed "Mondale... saying" and "Nichols... wrote" to "Mondale... claimed" and "Nichols... claimed"
 * 5th revert: 18:19, June 22, 2012. Changed "Nichols... wrote" to "Nichols... opined"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Arthur Rubin is using the WP:BLP guideline incorrectly to shield himself from violations of 3RR. He has not indicated which living persons might be harmed by Wikipedia quoting two already-published op-ed pieces in The Nation and the Star Tribune, ones connecting the prominent Koch family to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). I have told Arthur Rubin that prominent persons are covered by the BLP section linked at WP:WELLKNOWN, allowing negative comment even though it may not be to the liking of the prominent persons. Rubin's most recent reversion was directly after being warned about 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits do not remove any sources - they simply comply with the WP:BLP absolute requirements about opinions in article.  That is, we must state clearly that they are opinions. In one case, the claim in the opinion piece avers that the Koch's live in Florida - the clear inference we can draw is that zero fact-checking was done on the opinion piece. Where a source is clearly "factually inaccurate" it can not be used to establish any fact (the false claim is in the same sentence used for the claim for the article), and the sentence before Arthur's revision clearly made it a claim of "fact." In such a case, WP:BLP is a strong argument for the actual excision of the claim and source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The first diff shows a clear removal of sources. And you stated, "Where a source is clearly "factually inaccurate" - this is utter nonsense. -- The Forbes material notes their "residence". Where they "live" (i.e. spend most of their time) could be Florida, we don't know, and it's irrelevant to the content of the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple - Charles lives in Kansas, (tons of sourcing) and David in New York (ditto). AFAICT, neither Kansas not New York are actually in Florida. Collect (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That fact makes it clear that Mondale and/or Carlson have no idea what they are talking about. The ramblings of an...well I will leave it at that.  Arzel (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, just provide the sources for what you claim and I'll have a look. They appear to have a home in Palm Beach, Florida. I'll try to get a source for you. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * William Koch lives in Florida. Charles lives in Kansas, David lives in NY.  Mondale and Carlson are confused.  Arzel (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No source, no source, no source. And their place of "residence" doesn't necessarily equate to where they "live". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * David Charles William  I will assume that you are not being pedantic about the definition of residence for this patently stupid opinion war?  Arzel (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already discussed Forbes above. Have another try. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are being pedantic. Here is an option.  Why not find an actual factual reliable source that makes the claim you are trying to make.  Rather than using the political scare tactic by Mondale and Carlson.  Arzel (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've changed the subject. Hmmm. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, can you point to the spot in BLP where there is an absolute requirement about opinion pieces? I cannot find it; I don't think it exists. Prominently published opinion pieces are not against any part of BLP. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.[4] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below. (WP:V
 * Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, ...WP:NOR
 * Op-eds, by their nature, are opinion pieces, and if they are not fact-checked, they can quite likely make misstatements of fact which means that even if publishes in a newspaper, their errancy rate is high. In the case in point, the error is found in the exact sentence being used to make a claim, making the use quite problematic.   Where they make a contentious claim, their use is clearly barred by WP:BLP ab initio.  Also note the long history at WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N of finding that opinion pieces should only be used for citing opinions as being held by those writing the piece, and not for claims of "fact." Cheers - I think this is reasonably dispositive. Collect (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good effort, but you have proven my point, that BLP does not say anything about opinion pieces. The ab initio assertion is groundless: anything not directly stated in the BLP guideline is not part of it. Arthur Rubin was mistaken in claiming BLP as a shield for his edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed pieces are opinion pieces...I have never understood by the opinion pieces should ever be misused to add (especially negative) conjecture to any article which discusses a living person. Rubin is merely enforcing BLP...no action is needed here.MONGO 19:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are not mentioned at WP:BLP—the guideline says nothing about them. Are you proposing that BLP should be modified to fit your preference? Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No...proposing our articles not be misused to attack any living person, especially using sources that are opinion pieces. He didn't even removed the sources, just made it clear these sources are opinions...MONGO 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to the BLP considerations, #2 is not a revert, and #4 was modified; I reverted "wrote" to "claimed" and then immediately changed it to "opined".
 * As for "opinion pieces", WP:NOR says opinion pieces are primary sources, and WP:BLPPRIMARY says that primary sources may rarely be used, unless discussed by secondary sources. There has been no evidence yet that it is "discussed" in secondary sources, it has been noted that another source has copied the quote.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, just FYI I mentioned this discussion in Talk:Political activities of the Koch family. Arthur Rubin, I would agree with you except it isn't this cut and dried. I would agree that WP:NOR could be read in the way you state but I don't think that it says so. Can you please quote the passage? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR note 3 quoted above. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Fair enough. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This edit summary from Rubin seems to say it all: "Since I can't revert further, I'll tag. However, there is no evidence in what you wrote that Nichols was not writing an article, so that change DOES require reversion, per WP:BLP. I've made the minimum change." Either Rubin recognized he was in a legitimate content dispute and was already at the three-revert limit or he was exempt from going past 3RR because he was undoing BLP violations. He can't have it both ways.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The ALEC article has strayed rather far from WP:NPOV, as the proportion of material attacking ALEC greatly exceeds the proportion of straightforward, nonpartisan information about ALEC. Arthur Rubin's actions need to be viewed in the context of trying to tone down what has turned into an attack page, reporting several thinly sourced allegations against ALEC, without mentioning prominent rebuttals by conservative allies of ALEC.  However, I'm going to AGF and assume that the people attacking Rubin here simply did not notice that the controversies section had been expanded to cover more than 50% of the article, or that the numerous citations to groups like Color of Change, Common Cause, Democracy Now, ALEC exposed, and so forth were not balanced by even one single citation to prominent conservative rebuttals from Michelle Malkin, Andrew Breitbart, or the Washington Free Beacon. William Jockusch (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Closed by agreement with the submitter at User talk:Binksternet. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Buttress reported by User:Xanzzibar (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Page:


 * 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:

An update to an external link yesterday caught my attention. I checked out the new link, and it was a clear linkspam link. I removed it on both the Stone Harbor and Avalon pages. I explained the reasons for it in my edit summaries and replied to the talk page message he left for me. He continued to revert, and was against reverted by Alansohn who explained in detail why the links were not acceptable, and informed him of the 3RR/edit warring policies. --Xanzzibar (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I second this posting here, and had independently posted the issue to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. A 3RR block may only lead to more edit warring after the block ends, and an appropriate message should be sent regarding not just the spamming, but the aggressive response to rather clear and calm explanations of the Wikipedia policy issues that are relevant here. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * — Indef by User:Beetstra as a spam-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Zabadinho reported by User:Robsinden (Result: Report withdrawn)
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]

Comments:

User refuses to enter into discussion, instead reverts with edit summaries such as "so what" and "you are nuts". --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to being warned, and being reverted by other users than myself, user still refuses to talk and is still reverting page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw complaint. I would like to withdraw this complaint.  The situation seems to have resolved itself, despite the user not wanting to communicate on the talk page.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

User:2001:558:6026:97:44AF:E2BF:9B1E:3DD9 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user in question has also placed personal attacks and insults on  and   as well as attacks in his/her edit summaries. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * by User:Drmies for edit warring and personal attacks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Chris Capoccia reported by User:OldManPants (Result: no violation)
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:

Note the speed and destructiveness of edits without explanation offered.


 * is this for real? or just some automated reporting? because it looks to me like any normal person should be able to see a different story in the history for this article. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 23:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * additionally, It looks like OldManPants is a sock puppet for User:Timkolke. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 23:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a case of socking, in spite of the unusual report. Timkolke has requested a change of username to OldManPants at WP:CHU/S. The request hasn't gone through yet. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The last edits to that article were weeks ago; I can't really even see one revert. Kuru   (talk)  00:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:96.63.15.43 reported by User:Jeffwang (Result: 24 hours )
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

...and about 7 more.
 * 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:

Comments:

I was using WP:GLOO and reverted 3 times there. I could not see the page history on GLOO so now I will wait, as I cannot edit there any longer. I did not realize that the 3RR was already surpassed. Several users have stuck up with me and helped me revert to "weapons", instead of "instruments". -- J (t)  00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User seems to have calmed down for now... Hopefully he found some logic on his Talk page :P yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear 3RR, was warned. Kuru   (talk)  00:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:2.136.45.251 reported by User:Akerbeltz (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Juan_Sebastián_Elcano&diff=499671597&oldid=499646412]


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I would also like to request a long-term-ish edit protect of that page to prevent the eternal edit war around the "Basque" bit. There are plentiful sources which state he was Basque, indeed many sources only refer to his Basque ethnicity, not the Spanish bit but some folk insist on edit warring over this. I note this particular user has now also started pushing the same POV on Lope de Aguirre. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear reported by User:Nasir Ghobar (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: Other than his 3 revert violation within hours, please look at his version of introduction of the article and notice how unencylopedic it is written. The Ghaznavids were a powerful dynasty whos rulers were all born in what is now Afghanistan, they lived there and their capital was Ghazni, Afghanistan. Most of them are buried there and have their own mausoleums that are being renovated today by the Government of Afghanistan. The Ghaznavids are remembered in history for firmly establishing Islam in Afghanistan and from there they invaded the south and east to conquer Hindustan. My version is from a neutral point of view in which I highlighted some of these facts in the intro but Kansas Bear who I suspect is an Iranian keeps removing this by calling it my opinion. Every other encyclopedia and book mentions exactly what my version of Wikipedia explains. Everyone in Afghanistan are complaining that Iranians are on a crusade to steal Afghanistan's history and Wikipedia should not allow this.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Zachariel reported by User:Yobol (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Comment Please also note the rest of the editor's talk page, which shows consistent edit warring and consistent notices; there are current 8 warnings visible spanning back a year, all on this article. This should be addressed as a longer-term problem, and if the warring can be stopped, it might be possible to avoid further sanctions. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * . There may be a longer-term problem here, but that would require wider community discussion. Take to ANI, or open an RFCU if you believe there are deeper problems that need resolving. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit warring hadn't continued past that point. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Zenithfel reported by User:Clarificationgiven (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_civil_war&action=history]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This person has been edit warring, he has never made any discussion in talks, but he tries to put lies by putting up sources which are highly opposite to his personal likeness and he is pretending that they are supporting his likeness, first he edits with his accounts, then he goes to edit without logging out, he has been engaged in vandalizing more pages such as Mercenary, List of modern dictators, and it's obvious that he is going to continue the edit war on such pages as usual, Kindly take some action into this regard.


 * He doesn't edit while logged out. I am Zenithfel's brother, I can go on wikipedia sometimes too . Why could only he edit wikipedia and not me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe, and wonder if anyone else would, after all you and your so called brothers have made reverts/vandalism regarding same information and same pages.Clarificationgiven (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hes only a staircase away from me most time. I see what does, and i know what he edits cause i know his account. Besides I would have my own acc but i don't edit wiki often . It wouldn't be alowed any way cause of sock puppet issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can get him to tell you so, he'l be back in 2 and a half hours .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Read my reply again, i think you haven't, just like you didn't when you put links or you are just trying to mislead wiki pages.Clarificationgiven (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. We just agree that you provide alot of fake propgandas to push the articles into a gaddafi media stance, so I too began checking on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You story is as lame as your hate towards a particular subject, i have been contributing in various subjects but mostly disagreements are made by you whether through accounts or by simple ip address, same dialogues/reverts/vandalisms, i think we can clearly tell. Clarificationgiven (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick look at your edits show that most users are annoyed by your disagreements. The problem is you are your constant gaddafi editing. We clearly see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So far only you and your account has been caught carrying such disagreements, you have rapidly broken the rules by vadalising and falsely editing particular pages where i or others had made established changes. Again, read then reply, Your childish debate is really lame. Clarificationgiven (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I keep telling you I am not Zenithfel. We simply have same ips cause we live in the same house. I just came back a month ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edits doesn't even have 18 days gap, whether you made it without logging in or by logging in, and you are telling you came back after 1 month? I guess another lie caught. Clarificationgiven (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I came back home 1 month ago . From college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Meat is still a form of vandalism Sopher99 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it, and I didn't vandalise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Users must put a shared ip-adress template if they are aware of two people using the same ip Sopher99 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Stone (unit) (2012 Olympic Marathon Route)


 * 1st revert (Marathin route):
 * 2nd revert (Marathon route):
 * 3rd revert (Marathon route):


 * 1st revert (Stone):
 * 2nd revert (Stone):
 * 3rd revert (Stone):

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

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

The comments that he made when making his changes indicated that he was not interested in discussion, in particular the comments made in the reversions to the article "Stone (unit)". Moreover his actions when making changes in the article "Stone (unit)" appeared to be pure malice.

Comments:

May I draw to attention that until today, Shufflee had not made any contributrions to the article "Stone (unit)". I was working on that article earlier today, so I must assume that he was stalking me. On the Stone (unit) article he warned me about undoing his changes under the 3RR rule. He did not read what I wrote - in particular in the article Stone (unit) he restored a sentence that was grammatically incorrect after I had corrected it. I consider his actions in this article to be pure malice and worthy of attention under the 1RR rule rather than the 3RR rule.

Given his approach, I request a waiver from the 3RR rule to restore the situation to what it was before he started his edits today. Martinvl (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:WikiGaGa reported by User:AdventurousSquirrel (Result: )
Pages: ; ;

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ; ;

Come On Be Good page
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Gone Too Far (Dragonette song) page
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Fixin to Thrill page
 * 1st revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Come on be good talk page; Gone too far talk page; User's talk page

Comments:

This seems silly having to report for what seems like such a minor issue. I know they haven't violated the 3RR yet but they are most definitely edit warring. I've explained that the songs don't pass the notability guideline in the edit summaries, on the talk pages, and on the user's talk page. I've asked the user repeatedly to use the talk page to explain why they think the songs are notable to see if they meet any of the notability requirements, which they don't seem to at this point. The user has not made any effort to communicate and has only hit the undo button over and over. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

To add to this, the user has received copious amounts of warnings and messages on their talk page for a variety of issues, and the user has failed to correct any of their behavior and has not made one comment their talk page, or any talk page for that matter. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Robertmossing reported by User:LauraHale (Result: all warned, 0RR in place)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Edit war on my user talk page: before
 * 1st revert: introduced
 * 2nd revert: reintroduced
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Comments: This has been going on for a while. I believe he has a 3RR warning related to this article dating back two weeks ago. --LauraHale (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Checking Robertmossing's talk page, they have been previously warned about edit warring by Theopolisme (June 5), slakr (June 5), Nick-D (June 11), LauraHale (June 11 and 29), Wee Curry Monster (June 11), and Binksternet (June 20). Edward321 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see sub-optimal behaviour from several editors here. Tag-team edit-warring is still edit-warring. Please discuss civilly in talk towards a consensus. Further reversions will lead to blocks, for any of the previous participants. --John (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Me, I see sub-par neutrality displayed across many articles by one editor: Robertmossing. I see in him an activist editor who reads poorly written, unreliable and angry webpages such as http://www.endusmilitarism.org/, The Future of Freedom Foundation, Dark-Stories.com, and Doug-Long.com, the latter written by a computer programmer with a BA in Liberal Arts, but expounding on the atom bombs. This editor then comes here to put a dose of perhaps righteous anger into the article, but we do not allow that per WP:NPOV, of course. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also a bit boggled by this and how it will be implemented. If some one puts the quote back into the article, without consensus, is that considered a breach of 0RR?  Beyond that, with several warnings for the user regarding editing, the edit war on my talk page (I didn't revert his initial comment.  Rather, I archived it and another comment.) and the operating against consensus to include the quote while there was an ongoing discussion on how to or if it should be included...  Can we get clarity though about putting the quote back in: Would that be a breach of 0RR? --LauraHale (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:MNdoll reported by User:Animeshkulkarni (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: old


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR Warning issued

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempt done on article talk page but a better clear note than the plenty warnings already issued was left on User's talk page.

Comments: The User keeps inserting spam links in the article. They also remove maintenance tags like "citation needed" on BLP issues. They also fail to understand that not everything the subject does should go in encyclopedia and hence they keep adding all itsy-bitsy appearances the actress makes here and there. The user also seems to be a promotional account mainly editing main actors from Geet (TV series). §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 15:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Sethjohnson95 reported by User:Till I Go Home (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User reverted edits on Heidi Montag three times in less than 24 hours despite telling him to discuss on the talk page. The material was violating WP:WWIN and WP:BLP, per WP:3RRNO, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" (what I did) is an exemption. Till I Go Home talk 02:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of blocking all three edit warriors in a 2-on-one EW.  There are substantial changes and it's not clear what (if anything) is the "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Toddst1 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the reporter was biased and neglected to include his/her edit war opponent's attempt to resolve the dispute. Toddst1 (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ? This matter is about the violation of the three-revert rule which the editor broke. Till I Go Home talk 02:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The poorly sourced material from blogs and such. Till I Go Home talk 02:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All partisans to this tag-team edit war have been warned. Further reversion should result in block(s}. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tag team?  Statυs  (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Toddst, I really think you are unaware of what's going on, because I reverted information that violated WP:BLP. This is an exemption from WP:3RR. And Status only reverted once. The real issue here is that User:Sethjohnson95 broke the three-revert-rule and nothing has been done about it. First you protected the page, then unprotected, then issued warnings – all of which fail to address the issue that the user broke the 3RR rule. Till I Go Home talk 02:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment is a third-party administrator who is uninvolved with the issue allowed to take a look at this? Till I Go Home talk 02:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No fourth revert evident in the article history, nor provided in the report. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reporter not happy with result and forum shopped it over to ANI.  Toddst1 (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Tasketz Kayo reported by User:Chubbles (Result: Blocked for 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Loathe as I am to have to resort to seeking administrator attention for anything, and as petty and minimally important as the subject matter really is, I'm at my wit's end with User:Tasketz Kayo. We are currently bickering over the status of discography sections of may Anticon musical artists. I am not reporting a 3RR violation, but rather a persistent matter of edit warring, tendentious editing, and lackluster attempt to seek consensus.

This began at Bracken (band), where Kayo added some information to the prose of the article and removed some info from the discography. I followed this by simply restoring the removed info to the discography. Kayo reverted me, stating that it wasn't necessary to do what I did. He cited a guideline in doing so, which states the information in question is optional to include. I responded by restoring the edit and noting that it is neither prohibited nor discouraged, citing another discographical guideline (which I had advocated for last year) which states that the information may be included when germane. Kayo reverted again, saying the pages should look like other Anticon artist discographies.

As it turns out, many Anticon artists have minimally informational discographies, and so I left a note on the Bracken talk page that I did not wish to continue with an edit war and that I didn't see any good reason to exclude this information, and good reasons to include it. I stated that I would be happy to fix up other Anticon discographies, and then did so for about a dozen pages, including artists who had released material on several different labels (e.g., .) Kayo reverted them all the next time he logged in, stating again that it wasn't necessary. He responded on the Bracken talk page, and I waited four days while we discussed the matter on Bracken's talk page before taking further action. That discussion proved minimally useful. Kayo said since it wasn't required, there was no need to include it, and he seemed to think it was aesthetically somewhat unpleasing; I offered to add tables to clean up the presentation. I also went to the talk page of the guideline he cited and asked for input on wording; it hasn't attracted any notice yet.

During the discussion on the Bracken page, I tried to be even-handed and helpful, though perhaps I got a little WP:BITEy at times (at the time this started, his account was only a week old), and he may not even understand the whole discussion/consensus idea, or edit-warring. I'll own up to being a little peevish at points in this discussion. Still, I felt my hackles raise a little bit when he ordered me around, saying things like "I want you to create more articles for the albums" and "You had better not be persistent to add label and release date." In the end, I told him I would be persistent, as I had consistently been making improvements to the articles and he was blocking me from doing so. As I said I would, I made tables for several artist discographies, which I think vastly improved presentation of the information, and included new material at times, such as dates of release. Kayo again reverted them all.

He spoke once again on the Bracken talk page, saying the information was better included in prose than in a discography. I couldn't agree less, and was incensed that my good-faith improvements to the article have been so casually dismissed; I responded, restored my edits, and came here.

I don't believe I'm being trolled here; Kayo may be new (or he may be not), but he is doing at least some good work, creating album articles and linking them between artists. I have done nothing to prevent him from that work, and I hope he continues it. But he has persistently, over the past week, unilaterally prevented me from improving the articles as well, and I would like this to stop. So, here I am. This is a pathetically trivial thing to have a lame edit war over, and I understand if this ends up seeming de minimis to most others, but it's become so frustrating that I can't see any other way to resolve it. Chubbles (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: immediately after I posted this, Kayo has gone through and summarily reverted everything I've just done, again. For example,, and in this case the claim he makes in the edit summary is false, as the discographical info is not available in the article's prose summary or anywhere else on the page. Chubbles (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See also previous discussion on Template talk:Anticon - I kinda find that Kayo's edits start immediately upon the semi-protection of the template a little suspicious, and he's resumed doing the same thing that the anon revolving IP editor was doing to that navbox - adding artists with only the most ephemeral connection to Anticon against consensus. Kaini (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a long revert war on the Clouddead page between a series of IPs, pretty clearly one person (and a very angry one at that), and several editors who'd come to a consensus on the use of the Anticon template. Soon after it "ended", Kayo picked up the baton exactly where the IPs left off; see this series of edits:, , . I'm not the only one Kayo's "My way or the highway" style has irritated, I guess. Also, if he is the same as the anon IPs who went on a revert spree on the Anticon pages last/earlier-this month, he's already been blocked for it after a previous complaint here. Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Genghis Tron for more of the same, too. Kaini (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I hoped that getting the Genghis Tron article and Template:Anticon semi-protected would encourage the anonymous IP to register an account, from which they might edit in a more collaborative way. Unfortunately, Tasketz Kayo's wholesale reverting on three four occasions of a dozen or so of User:Chubbles article edits shows that their conduct towards other users has not improved one bit. memphisto 17:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue is sitting in the inbox for four days now. I don't mean to be hassling in tone, or to come across as applying pressure (I can appreciate it's a little more complex than the regular 3RRvios that are posted here), but it'd be great if an admin could have a look at it. Kaini (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This case was automatically archived and so I have restored it here. Please can an admin take a look at this users conduct, because uncollaborative editors like this are a burden to the rest of the community. memphisto 08:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This combination of edit warring, apparent socking, deceptive edit summaries, and forms of IDHT is indeed disruptive, and another stern warning is unlikely to make a difference. I would block them myself, but since I added a third opinion at Talk:Bracken (band), I am an "involved admin" now. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

After hearing three voices speaking out against Kayo's edits and none defending him (here or elsewhere), I waited until this thread was auto-archived (a week) and then restored my edits. Kayo reverted them all yet again, saying in his edit summary "Don't make me laugh". E.g.. I think the operative guideline here is WP:HEAR. Can I get some indication I'm not yelling at a brick wall, here? Chubbles (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * . The essential problem here is persistent refusal to consider anyone else's view, with contemptuous dismissal of the consensus here. As Kaini mentions, this account was created immediately after an article had been semiprotected. Having looked at geolocation evidence and edit summaries I have no doubt at all that Tasketz Kayo is the same person as had been causing disruption via various IP addresses, so the disruption and refusal to accept consensus by that IP-hopping editor has to be taken into consideration, as well as that by the account. The block length takes into considerataion the fact that, as Chubbles points out, the editor has already been blocked as an IP. I hope that the message will get across, so that it is not necessary to move to a substantially longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [For reverts 1,2,3, Reverted to this in 4 & 5]


 * 1st revert: 00:14, 28 June 2012‎
 * 2nd revert: 14:53, 28 June 2012‎
 * 3rd revert: 20:38, 28 June 2012‎
 * 4th revert: 05:56, 29 June 2012‎
 * 5th revert: 09:20, 29 June 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1

Comments: While this is not a 3rr breach, Altetendekrabbe continues to edit in a disruptive manner and game the system, repeatedly reverting various editors within a short time period. His recent contributions to this page (and other articles in general) entirely consist of reverts and not a single talk page comment. He has recently been cautioned and blocked twice for edit-warring.

' Ankh '. Morpork  11:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Knock his block off. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear reverts at 9:20, 20:38, 14:53, and the "edit" at 05:56 removes material which was just added. This is the third recent edit warring block, and he just came off the last block.  I don't see much chance of the behavior changing.  Kuru   (talk)  11:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is becoming frustrating. User:Frotz is reverting too on the same page, without leaving a single comment behind on the talk page. Why isn't he blocked?
 * Frotz also previously violated 3rr (by making 5 reverts in 24 hours). When I reported him, no one took any action, yet Altetendekrabbe was blocked for reverting on the same article.
 * I feel that admins are being biased here.VR talk  15:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a report on the Dhimmi article. I'm not the admin who closed this, but observe that User:Frotz has made only a single revert of Dhimmi, and that was on 29 June. At present there is a reasonable discussion taking place at Talk:Dhimmi. It looks like it may take time for the sources to be checked. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to all. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Frotz appears to have only reverted once, after the 3RR violation by Altetendekrabbe. The other incident appears to have long since passed; I cannot block someone punitively for an action that took place days ago and seems to have been apologized for by the other administrator who did not block him.  As Ed notes, it may be a good idea to utilize dispute resolution steps instead of calling for administrative actions.  If you feel there is some sort of bias at work, please feel free to report my actions at WP:AN.  Kuru   (talk)  16:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mike18xx reported by User:Fifelfoo (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: see their commentary on the text.

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

Comments:

They're clearly unaware of a variety of content policy, and are attempting to battleground their preferred version. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear reverts at 00:59, 02:03, 03:55, 04:30, and 05:08. I've ignored the five year old block history and set this for 24 hours.  Kuru   (talk)  17:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Fifelfoo reported by User:Mike18xx (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

User is blatantly attempting to delete referenced material which has been judged suitable for inclusion in other Wikipedia articles, and employing all manner of specious means to keep it out (including breathlessly dashing in here). POV, bad-faith, the usual.--Mike18xx (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike18xx appears to be unable to count, nor to format diffs. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's not change the subject now.--06:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tried to fix the formatting a bit. However, maybe I'm miscounting this or something, but you're reporting Fifelfoo for 3 reverts when you've made 5 reverts in the past 6 hours? - SudoGhost 06:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, looks like a case of WP:BOOMERANG, and just seems to be a disruptive WP:POINTY response to the above section for the opposite reporting : "What's good for the goose is good for the gander.". IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Total BOOMERANG. Binksternet (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't see a 3RR, but it would be a good idea not to run it up to the brink in a heated discussion like that. A block for edit warring is certainly possible at less than three reverts.  Kuru   (talk)  17:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:MonkeyKingBar reported by User:99.224.54.167 (Result: indef as sock)
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: See also:

Comments:

Undoubtedly, MonkeyKingBar is a sockpuppet of the frequently banned user GoldDragon. His long history of edit wars and the pages he chooses to edit (see ) would confirm that.

99.224.54.167 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit warring, across several articles, is a little worrisome, but after reviewing the intersects with the primary account and the socks, that is definitely . I've blocked him accordingly. Kuru   (talk)  17:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:L1A1 FAL reported by User:Intensity254 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risk_(Megadeth_album)&diff=493864284&oldid=487864017


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risk_(Megadeth_album)&diff=500258482&oldid=500131116
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risk_(Megadeth_album)&diff=499811318&oldid=499668207
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risk_(Megadeth_album)&diff=498699691&oldid=498690745
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risk_(Megadeth_album)&diff=498063904&oldid=498058461

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L1A1_FAL#Risk_genre.

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

Comments: Afterwards, the user attempted to insult me on my talk page by criticizing an article I worked on.


 * To speak in my defense, I believe that my editing on Risk speaks for itself, and certainly does not violate 3RR, as it has been over the last week reverting arbitrary genre changes. However, the reporting editor is correct that I perhaps came across a little more crudely than I actually intended in regards to [Dialectic Chaos|the article]] which he just created. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It might also be worth noting that User:Intensity254, in spite of claiming on my talk page that he wanted to discuss the matter, he instead reported me here before I got around to making a response on the Risk talk page in this edit. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bharat42 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: The Encyclopaedic Version


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've tried to work with another editor to sort this page out here. There is a suspicion of Sockpuppets. Discussion on user talk page here, where he refuses to engage.

Comments:

There is s suspicion that these suspect this user is in effect this and this user who are trying to block evade. They seem to be readding the same info again. I have worked with this user to clean up Sant Nirankari Mission S H 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The link doesnt show an atempt to resolve the conflict, it just says you are reporting him 6 minutes before posting here. Thats not helpful. Alhough the link on MatthewVanitas' page of an admission for sockpuppetry is interesting indeed. But you need to more actively engage him, or show that youve tried.Lihaas (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This does not seem to be a case of sockpuppetry because Bharat42 has only confirmed that this IP address belongs to him. He might have edited without logging in first and later on he just confirmed the same. Thanks --TruthDivine (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See the talkpage now, but a valid point made. ThanksS H 13:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The page was protected by another administrator; I will note that both parties appear to have crossed the 3RR boundary. Kuru   (talk)  16:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Eddie Blake reported by User:Freikorp (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: I have removed a large section of data on the grounds it is unreferenced and incredibly overdetailed and I have explained my actions. Eddie Blake has reverted my edit 3 times in just under 25 hours. His first two reversion did not give any reason. After his 2nd revert I asked him on his talk page to explain why he was reverting my edits on the articles talk page. He deleted my message and reverted my edit for the third time, solely on the grounds that he put a lot of time into adding the data I deleted. Freikorp (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Freikorp did not discuss this large scale removal of material on the article talk page. I think Freikorp should considered doing this before his/her initial deletion on Revision as of 13:13, 17 May 2012.


 * 2. Freikorp then repeated his deletion on 11:11, 30 June 2012 and 13:26, 30 June 2012, again without any discussion on the article talk page.


 * 3. Then Freikorp made a complaint here.


 * Freikorp's edit summaries state that the information he/she is deleting is redundant, and demanding that the other editor justify its inclusion on the talk page. Why was Freikorp not initiating that discussion on the talk page? Once Freikorp understood that the edit he/she was making was controversial, he/she should have used the article talk page to discuss the edit, so that a consensus could be built up.


 * As for the claim that the information he/she deleted was unreferenced, this is not true. The article states the name, issue number and date of the magazine for all the information in question.


 * Suggest Freikorp is the one who deserves a block.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As noted by Toddy1, edit summaries are not a substitute for the article's talk page or dispute resolution. I've protected the page for a week; the protection can be removed as soon at there is a discussion and a consensus on the material.  Kuru   (talk)  17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why was I not initiating that discussion on the talk page? I asked on the edit summary if anyone wanted to debate it on the talk page twice, and I asked the other editor on his talk page to state on the articles talk page why he wanted to keep the data. I was ignored all three times, and this led me to believe that asking again on the articles talk page would have only resulted in me being ignored again. That's why. I apologise for not being aware that asking someone on both the edit summary of the article and their personal talk page to discuss the issue was not a substitute for writing the exact same word for word information on the articles talk page. Freikorp (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

User:JournalScholar reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: NA, the reverts are deletions.


 * 1st revert:, 30 June 2012, 3:04
 * 2nd revert:, 30 June 2012, 6:43
 * 3rd revert:, 30 June 2012, 6:47
 * 4th revert:, 30 June 2012, 23:06


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reason for removal was valid. Nomoskedasticity has falsely claimed no reason for removal was given. Valid reasons were given at each time of removal. This is a biography of a person not a journal. The line removed was discussing a journal not the person. The line removed was also incorrectly attributed and completely out of context. Nomoskedasticity argument for inclusion in talk had nothing to do with how the line was worded and failed to suggest a rewording. After reading the source to see if his argument in talk applied, the line was reworded to this context. Nomoskedasticity has unfortunately chosen to pursue this method instead of making a valid argument by revert comment or wording the line to fit the context of his argument. I find this disappointing.--JournalScholar (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also this reporting was done after talk was initiated. The original line said,


 * "Real Climate, a prominent blog run by climate scientists, asserted in 2011 that her journal once published a paper that claimed that the sun is made of iron."


 * His argument, "It does not merely mention her -- it discusses her direct involvement in the decision to publish that paper (against the recommendations of the reviewer, even)." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rewording to correct context of the source and his argument in talk, "Gavin Schmidt alleged that Boehmer-Christiansen published a paper against the recommendations of a reviewer." - This can be verified via the original source, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat


 * I find his reporting of myself here frivolous as I take correctly citing sources in context very seriously. This can be verified by all my recent changes to this article as an additional 16 sources were added. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What this response amounts to: "I'm exempt from the requirement to adhere to 3RR, because my edits are right." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And why are you exempt from this requirement? This appears to be more about politics then the accurate representation of information on Wikipedia.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not exempt, and so I did not violate 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The way you are trying to use the rule, no inaccurate information could ever be removed from Wikipedia. The rules are not there so you can ignore someone's valid argument to bully your position.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It would seem a bit punitive to block a beneficial contributor twenty hours after a report - You  really  can  18:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An edit-warring editor is not a "beneficial contributor". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit war as you well know Nomo, you are here at this noticeboard often enough.  You  really  can  19:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, reporting people who violate the rules, like our friend JournalScholar. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rules are made to be broken WP:IAR - You  really  can  19:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear in my opinion that since he reported this after talk was initiated his use of the reporting feature is to bully those he disagrees with. His revert comments said nonsense like "restore after unexplained deletion" - when my removal of the line explicitly said, "Removed RC line and cite, was discussing a journal not the person" - this is explicit with a valid reason given. I am not the only person who has made a similar argument in Talk relating to this line. I can see how this sort of behavior will discourage valuable contributors who have not studied these "rules" in detail from participating here. I am only seeking the accurate representation of information that is cited and in proper context.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You were advised of the rule and subsequently violated it anyway. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not an administrator and were not addressing my argument but instead trying to bully your point using Wikipedia bureaucracy. Administrative review of my explicit comments and arguments will confirm this.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any signs of enhanced understanding here, nor an intention to avoid this sort of problem in the future; rather the opposite, really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: the reverting is continuing, and the result (if it is allowed to stand) will be a change to the long-standing version of the article accomplished via edit-warring. The core of the issue involves removal of content source to the Guardian; JournalScholar is confident that he is "right" — WP:V and WP:RS be damned.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No such revert has been done, this is a completely different argument. Nomoskedasticity continues to apply The Guardian's editorializing to Gavin Schmidt when Schmidt is directly quoted on the source and does not make any such claim in quotes. I have asked repeatedly in talk for him to provide me with the quote and he has failed to do so. In seeking a resolution I have substituted a primary source - the actual title of the paper for The Guardian's editorializing which was falsely attributed to Schmidt for a NPOV.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No such revert? Here's one: (despite verification of content here).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional violation
JournalScholar has now exceeded 3 reverts again today:


 * 1st revert:, 05:10 (removes "claiming that the sun was made of iron" and the RealClimate affiliation of Gavin Schmidt)
 * 2nd revert:, 05:30 (again removes "claiming that the sun was made of iron", while adding other stuff)
 * 3rd revert:, 14:46 (removes citation to article by Oliver Manuel)
 * 4th revert:, 21:15 (undoing edit by Stephan Schulz)


 * Diff of warning:, at 15:22
 * Please note that JournalScholar is now reverting at least two different editors. — Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The subject did not claim the Sun was made of Iron - the source is being manipulated to avoid attribution that is the reason its being removed - any removal of that misrepresented and undue claim is a good edit - especially in a BLP - its important not to misrepresent the subject as is being done here- JournalScholar deserves a barnstar for their contributions developing and attempting to create a neutral and policy compliant article. As per Nomo's comment, "JournalScholar is now reverting at least two different editors" - More editors will be coming  to add the Sun is made of Iron claim - since, Nomo posted IMO a not very neutral request for assistance on the WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force for assistance  - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force ...   You  really  can  05:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we going to discuss the merits of the edit here? I didn't realize that's what this board was for.  If you want to discuss the content: at least do so with a minimum of reading comprehension.  The edit in question does not claim that the article subject said the sun was made of iron.  It says (on the basis of this source) that a member of RealClimate asserted she published a paper [written by someone else] asserting that the sun was made of iron.  So there's no difficulty at all with attribution, and your claim is false.  If you're going to meddle, at least try to do so effectively.  Back to the topic at hand: two episodes of >3rr in less than 48 hours.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Two editors, yes you and Stephen Shultz , a regular user at the climate change project page, responding to your far from neutral request for assistance - The focus of this board is like the rest of the project - NPOV policy compliant  and quality content - especially in relation to living people - people that oppose the belief that climate change is connected to human activity have been attacked before here with opinionated attacking additions as you and Stephen Shultz are well aware -  You  really  can  07:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are talking about me (I'm not "Stephen Shultz"), I am not aware of any "request for assistance", neutral or not. I don't exactly know what you mean by "climate change project page", but I have never contributed at WikiProject Climate and the last (and first, and only) time I did so at WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force or its talk page was in January 2010. I don't think that makes me a "regular user". I strongly request that you withdraw your wrong claims, and in the future are more careful when making claims about others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your name there on the talkpage and assumed (through your histroic involvement in the topic area) you were a regular there and had come from there to comment - I will happily withdraw that claim that you are a regular contributor there and how you came to the article to contribute is up to you to know/declare - You are historically involved in the climate change disputed topic area here and are well aware of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change as per this Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision  - as per that position I don't think I overplayed your historic involvement. This article is also a BLP and as per JournalScholar we should be very careful not to missrepresent  partisan comments as facts - as per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - and WP:V also - Regards -  You  really  can  04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment from Nomo is how he attacks and belittles experienced and new contributors all the time "at least do so with a minimum of reading comprehension" and "If you're going to meddle, at least try to do so effectively" - are typical of his calling cards in his constant disputes.  You  really  can  07:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also note that the summary of the Sun is made of Iron of the paper the subject published is also a ridiculous opinionated summary made by a partisan - presenting the detail as is being attempted to be edit warred into the BLP is imo totally undue - and the reason this edit war exists is because the disputed content is being edit warred back in, by Nomo and anyone else he can muster the troops with his not neutral climate change task force requests for assistance. You really  can  07:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Schmidt is not quoted at the source as saying "a paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron." It is very important to carefully read your sources so you do not misquote or apply claims to someone that cannot be verified. What is directly quoted and what is editorialized by the author are two different things. The attribution of this claim to Schmidt violates WP:V. Outside of this it is not a NPOV representation of the paper. He continues to want to promote real climate instead of just saying Gavin Schmidt (the actual source of the claim) which is very odd.--JournalScholar (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1st "claiming that the sun was made of iron" was removed because it was incorrectly attributed to Schmidt WP:V and is not a NPOV regarding the paper being discussed. Schmidt's blog affiliation is as irrelevant as stating that Fred Pearce is an author, this information can be found by following their Wikilink to their page.
 * 2nd The "other stuff" was the actual title of the paper not the disparaging editorialization made by the Guardian for a NPOV.
 * 3rd That was MY source I added in my previous edit to support that Dr. Manuel has had his theory published in the peer-reviewed literature. When my previous line was reverted that this supported this source was not removed. Since my previous line is no longer there this is absolutely irrelevant to the current content, which is why I removed it. This is absolutely amazing you are attempting to try to use this against me.
 * 4th This was valid. Schultz mischaracterized my source and use of this source, the author is a scientist and only the appendix was cited since it was a table of contents of the journal issue in question and not a political position. This has since been further clarified. My edits are crucial for a NPOV as The Guardian source mischaracterizes the content of the paper and implies that it was published as peer-reviewed against the will of a reviewer. Knowing that it was not but published only as an opinion piece for debate which are not sent to reviewers completely changes the context of the claim and important for a NPOV. In my opinion there is no question that those seeking to keep these mischaracterizations in this BLP are doing so to disaparage her.--JournalScholar (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm very interested to see how this is going to go. It's quite clear that JournalScholar fervently believes that 3RR does not apply as long as he is confident that his edits are "right".  On this basis we can surely expect to see further edit-warring.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. I don't see any 3RR violations. If you have disagreements about the quality of a source, consider WP:RS/N. This article falls under WP:ARBCC, so please use caution. Admins could impose a 1RR restriction on the article if it turns out to be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused. The 3RR violation seems to be very obvious (just check the 4 edits at the top of the report). There may be an argument about BLP (although I think that would be spurious), but it seems to be clear that there are more than 3 reverts by one editor in 24 hours here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible there were four reverts in 24 hours on June 30, but there are BLP concerns as well, which might exempt some of them from being counted. We need to ensure the correctness of any negative information about a living person that is included in our articles. Since no admin looked into the June 30 edits within 24 hours of their being made, I am not planning to pursue the matter now. But if the reverting by all sides doesn't stop, full protection should be considered. If anyone thinks that some admin action still ought to be taken about the June 30 edits, feel free to ask for review at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)