Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive202

User:Meow reported by User:Inks.LWC (Result: Not blocked (for now))
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:

This is the same edit war as above. The same comments there apply here. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * for now. No revert after warning. Watching the page. Left an additional warning on the talk page of the article. Wifione  Message 04:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Banan14kab reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: Both editors warned; STATicVerseatide blocked 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: Have warned him prior of the policy and consequences on my talk page.

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

Comments: Continues to remove sourced content offering his own origional research on what should and should not be included.  STATic  message me!  23:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . Both editors have been warned. Both violated 3RR. I'm hoping a warning will suffice. Any further reverts to the article by either editor should trigger a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No I did not. He was warned prior to his last two reverts so yeah that makes total sense.  STATic  message me!  00:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As an admin, I have a responsibility to explain my actions, but based on your post-warning behavior, you're really pushing the envelope. All of your reverts took place on December 3. Here are the UTC times for your 4 reverts: 00:36, 01:07, 11:13, and 21:17.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . STATicVerseatide blocked for reversion after warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User:71.212.89.17 reported by Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) (Result:Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 01:26,  4 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Former investments */ Cited source clearly states expected expansion at wholesale and retail, domestic and international;")
 * 2) 01:29,  4 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* References */ add quote to reference")
 * 3) 02:03,  4 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 526269317 by Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk)changes not supported by reference")
 * 4) 02:21,  4 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 526270803 by Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk)revert vandalism - editor is adding incorrect information not supported by the relevant references")


 * Diff of warning:

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

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

Comments:

This anonymous user owns the page Richemont. They have persistently reversed my edits over 10 times in the last 10 days, refusing collaboration of discussion. Instead insisting on long, silly text. Their edits can be interpreted to convey factual information from the reference, but ones not necessary or appropriate in the context. The user changes IP frequently and does not reliably engage in (talk). IPs include 71.212.81.46, 71.212.81.249, 71.212.83.44, 71.212.89.226, 71.212.92.205, 97.113.119.99, 71.212.76.136, 71.212.89.17. Finally hit 3RR in 24 hours today.
 * . The IP didn't violate 3RR. Two of the edits you listed above are consecutive and therefore count only as one revert. My suggestion is that you discuss more of the content issues with the IP. They appear willing to talk. It would be better to do it on the article talk page so others can join in if anyone wants to. I'm not taking any action now; nor am I closing this. I'm about to go off-wiki, so another admin may choose to do something.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 4-1=3, but anyway, the IP is finally engaging in (talk) so I'm trying to collaborate.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been engaging in discussion since November 16th. Modern.Jewelry.Historian's statement that I'm "finally engaging in" talk is an outright lie. 71.212.89.17 (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A response from the "accussed"
I'm sorry Modern.Jewelry.Historian is upset. Over the last 18 days, I've repeatedly engaged MJH on MJH's talk page, explaining what I have been doing and why. There are now two topics on MJH's talk page with multiple entries from me. See [talk:Modern.Jewelry.Historian#Please keep citation styles consistent within existing articles.2C please do not over link] and [talk:Modern.Jewelry.Historian#Your changes must be supported by the reference]. MJH's statement that I haven't initiated and engaged in collaborative discussion is obviously incorrect.

Modern.Jewelry.Historian has done original research ("synthesis"), which I've removed and explained to her about that on her talk page. In another instance, MJH keeps stating that the company wanted "A" when the cited reference clearly states "A,B,C and D". (the cited article literally includes two direct quotes from a company executive Y listing a number of specifically enumerated goals, yet MJH keeps erasing evidence of three of them and has never explained why.) I've even added those direct quotes to the relevant reference to support my "ABCD" edit, and MJH responded by erasing the quotes from the citation!

I'm sorry MJH feels upset. I've been helpful and explanatory and she continues to make the same unsupported or inaccurate edits over and over again - I have no idea why. (She's confused about how dynamic IP's work - I don't change my IP, my ISP changes it without my input pretty much every time I boot up my computer. I don't see how that is relevant.) 71.212.89.17 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * discussions are going on.  Wifione  Message 04:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that after repeatedly undoing my edits, you have used one of your 8 (by my brief count) anonymous IP accounts to leave misleading comments regarding citation style and reference matching on my talk page. The indisputable fact is that a paid editor undid good faith edits on this page 12 times, citing "knucklehead" and "vandalism", and in this case violated 3RR. I believe that violation is the focus of an Edit Warring claim, and you are welcome to resume your spin doctoring on my talk page.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you seek to deflect your use of IP. I mention your ever shifting identity because it is obvious that you avoid having an account in order to execute commercial edits, and enable ad hominem attacks that could get you banned from WP. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User: AyYildizKibris reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to (by sock):


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Some type of sock. Does not participate in discussions and continuously reverts at both Turkey and Northern Cyprus. Both articles are hotbeds of socking and edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31h. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record: The ANI report has been retracted by the OP. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User:WLRoss reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is under 1RR per ARBPIA. WLRoss made two reverts within an hour. He has been pushing the same issue for a while now. I asked him to self-revert but he refused. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User:190.46.98.195 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 48 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 IP has made a series of edits to several articles using sometimes uncivil edit summaries. He/she seems to be experienced despite having had no edits on this account before 2 December. He/she believes that it is POV - and hence contrary to WP policy - to make any statements at all in article leads about what people are "best known" for, even when this is clearly explained in the article and essentially uncontentious. The edits have focussed particularly on Kenny Everett and his occasional co-star Cleo Rocos. He/she has not engaged in any talk page discussion on these edits, despite requests to do so, except at their own user talk page with this edit. They have contravened WP:3RR at both the Everett and Rocos articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Cblambert reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Big fat section repeatedly added on the claimed influences of Alger & Park on the induction motor. Removed by three independent editors. Some discussion at talk, but the re-adding continues despite. Warnings blanked and the content immediately re-added. Newish editor (1500 edits since 2010), seems to be based on a misunderstanding of significance and sourcing, let alone 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . I agree with your analysis, and it's a clear violation of 3RR. However, the last comment in Cblambert's last contribution (to the article talk page) stated, "So goodbye for now", which may mean that the editor has given up editing/reverting on the article, despite their disagreement with other editors. As I write this, the editor has also stated on their talk page: "Sorry. I have bowed out of the issue, through I disagree completely." Although both statements are very recent, blocks should not be punitive; therefore, at this point, I'm taking no action. If the editor resumes warring in the article, please update this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cblambert has continued to edit the article but he has not restored the contentious claim about Philip Alger being 'Mr Induction Motor'. Others had requested third-party sourcing for this claim. So the revert war is not continuing. Cblambert appears to have technical knowledge in this area.  EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the same thing. Nor has Andy updated this report. I am therefore going to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:24.0.111.149 reported by User:RL0919 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Based on the content of the edits and edit summaries, this is probably the same editor already indef blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. See Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive. --RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Smohammed2 reported by User:Maunus (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: This is just editwarring, with aggravating circumstance of no response to attempts to communicate

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since user did not communicate in editsummaries, I thought it would be easier to contact him on his usertalk page which I did twice with no response. 
 * . Re-report if there is a resumption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Zoeblackmore reported by User:Jennie--x (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Level 4 warn given but reverted here

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

Comments:

The user has attempted to add the "Soul" genre to this page before, but following a discussion on the talk-page, she agreed not to. However, the user has recently decided to start adding back, and I decided to revert her edits with a edit summary notice and a talk page discussion. However, she persisted and didn't provide any reliable sources for the change, and continued to POV-push on the issue. I decided to warn the user after she reverted my removal twice, and from there we have been involved in an edit war. —Jennie | ☎ 19:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hiya...Soul was originally included and this supported by lots of neutral and independent sources. e.g http://www.last.fm/music/Misha+B/+tags, http://www.dvdlyrics.com/lyrics-m-misha_b.htm, http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=484410, http://www.qxmagazine.com/feature/the-queen-b/ url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UlWJxY_49Y http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/sneak-peak-shots-from-misha-bs-debut-single-home-run/ http://sosogay.co.uk/2012/singles-of-the-week-16-july-2012/ http://www.dailystar.co.uk/playlist/view/263170/X-Factor-star-Misha-in-B-line-to-top/|accessdate=21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu0AYRj7mxA  http://www.last.fm/music/Misha+B

Unfortunately this artist has only released 2 singles so far, but has covered several dozen other tracks on youtube (not including xfactor).

The has been no discussion just threats by Jennie and possible misuse of her rollback rights. I do not see why her opinion is more correct than mine, least i supply verifiable evidence. The are two sides to a 'edit war' ,I would welcome a third opinion....Zoebuggie☺ whispers 20:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The full discussion went on here in which I explained why I reverted your edits, you need reliable sources to support your view; blogs, YouTube, etc. don't form part of this. Also, there was no explicit mention of the artist being of the soul genre, rather, mentions of songs sounding "soulful" etc. —Jennie | ☎ 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . Jennie, your initial comment "from there we have been involved in an edit war" is absolutely correct. So, is your request that you both be blocked because there's really no excuse for either of you. (Zoe, please remember to sign your contributions here.)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Which of the above are blogs?? (the are many many expert blogs, that i have not included, that put her in that genre. Youtube can be a crediable resource. What reliable sources have you at all presented to support your view??. The are exlicit mentions, look at the sources again please....Zoebuggie☺ whispers 20:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Bbb23: No, I'm trying to find a resolution to the issue. I tried to discuss it with Zoe and point her in the right direction of policy, but she chose to ignore it and added it anyway, that is why I reverted.


 * Zoeblackmore': Zoe, YouTube is a video sharing website and doesn't verify what genre an artist is or form part of reliable musical journalism. —Jennie | ☎ 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Jenny you engaged in no discussion, you simply said that you were correct and threatened me with tags. Youtube is used by many reputable sources as a medium, from the BBC to SB.TV. In fact my list of sources are from August 2012, the have been many supporting articles, and filmed interviews, since then which i have not included....Zoebuggie☺ whispers 20:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion (I started yesterday) is here, I only warned you today. YouTube is used a video-sharing site for both of those, not as reliable secondary source. —Jennie | ☎ 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * another unbiased source stumble upon http://www.allgigs.co.uk/view/artist/71723/Misha_B.html ...Zoebuggie☺ whispers 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * allgigs.co.uk is a website for ticket sales, not for supplying information about artists' style. It's going to be difficult to find sources to support soul as a genre, considering 1 mixtape and 2 single releases (and that is why I advised you to bring this up after the album release). If Bryan was active in this genre, there would be a wide variety of secondary sources saying so, and what I am trying to say is, at the moment, there isn't. —Jennie | ☎ 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although it's great that the two of you are now discussing the content dispute, it's really not necessary to do it here. My suggestion is you keep it all on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a quick reply to Jenny. The are indeed a wide variety sources which i have listed above. Yes Currently the are no major first division music sources that define this artist genre, just the ones we have got, so maybe we ought to remove all her genres, if Soul is removed, as the others have even less reputed sources? ...Zoebuggie☺ whispers  23:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 i wish the was an unbiased/independent etc third party who could clear this little dispute up :) sadly i dont think we are going to agree on our own :(...Zoebuggie☺ whispers 23:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Difficult-to-resolve content disputes are fairly common. All I can suggest is dispute resolution mechanisms to assist you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected&#32;for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Deltasim and User:ArealFatRabbit reported by Mephistophelian (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:03,  4 December 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 526326035 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) Nothing there, just blog links")
 * 2) 15:51,  4 December 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 526340989 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) I repeat there is nothing that can verify the game.")
 * 3) 18:42,  4 December 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 526360920 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) Disagreeable aren't you?")
 * 4) 20:44,  4 December 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 526371864 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) The fan game and vital point pair together like dreadlocks")
 * 5) 06:20,  5 December 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 526396535 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) You can't deny facts")

—  Mephistophelian (contact)  19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . I've combined the two reports and notified both editors of this discussion. I realize the reverts here are only of Deltasim, but the article history is fairly easy to follow. I'll wait a bit to see if either editor has anything to say, but the war is rather stark.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I can vouch for the fact that the input of the fan game has been resolved thanks to Izno, but User:ArealFatRabbit is constantly reverting a vital point regarding the fan game's plagiarism, denying its placement despite the credible sources. The reverts that occur immediately after my own, makes me suspect the user has a bot doing it for him. I have been waiting for a discussion, but the lack of reply as Izno suggests is a definite conflict of interest, one of the reasons being to promote the game for advertisement sake. I will indeed make discussion when it begins properly. Deltasim (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to conflict of interest, Deltasim, are you not the user "Will" on the VGMaps.com forums? I can write claims on my blog(s) about any number of subjects but they sure shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia and are not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArealFatRabbit (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, though he may not know it ArealFatRabbit has actually acted within BLP policy here, this edit is a BLP vio in that it states that some game content was plagiarized by some fans and this is sourced to two WP:SPS Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DS, that's very helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly you didn't explain the removal of the content and secondly guessing who I may be doesn't really concern you. Of course if you wish to write irrelevant subjects on Wikipedia, that would be blatant spamming. Any threats you have to offer is not going to deter me in the least. Deltasim (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, if that is you then that would be a Conflict of interest, and blogs  Reliability are sometimes called into question. Edit summaries should be used to describe changes and dont forget an article talk pages should also be used to discuss changes.  MisterShiney  <font color="Red"> ✉    21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted, however this has already been discussed on the talk page in great lengths. Going forward I will include edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArealFatRabbit (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . There's been no activity for almost a day. The version in place does not have BLP issues. Despite threats (above), Deltasim has not edited the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Eik Corell reported by User:Odie5533 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was recently blocked for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this dispute. I am merely reporting that the edit war is occurring.

Comments: I just warned the IP about edit warring, so I don't think any actions need to be taken against him or her.


 * . Let me know if edit warring continues upon expiry and I'll consider blocking. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've laid out my argument on the article talk page, and I've made an entry on WP:DR. I've also made an entry on the WP:VG talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: You posted at WP:DRN. There is a very specific format we prefer to use at DRN, and as such, your request was declined. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:YvelinesFrance reported by User:A1candidate (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments: Prefers reverting before discussing, substantial unconstructive edits bordering on vandalism such as, 1 and 2, often makes personal attacks in the edit summary 3, and also made unsourced accusations at the US Armed Forces' article 4. Willingness to participate in talk page discussion is lacking -A1candidate (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. Most recently User:YvelinesFrance ignored/spurned opportunity to engage in consensus building on the Gangnam District talk page and reverted with POV laden edit comments. His/her own talk page is not as clean as it looks because numerous advisories and warnings have been removed. S/he does not understand how the DRN works as indicated by a statement that administrators govern the DRN. (The DRN discussion in question was closed prematurely based on ill-conceived arguments and is OBE by other resourced material.) I'd say YvelinesFrance exhibits 6 or 7 of the 14 characteristics of a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. With a relatively short and limited edit history that has engendered numerous messages and warnings, I'd say s/he is getting off to a very bad start as a contributor.--S. Rich (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a joke, I have already discussed the issue on the talk page of the article Gangnam District numerous times and the issue has even gone to the dispute resolution noticeboard as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_52#Gangnam_District. Despite the user A1candidate's content being deemed unsuitable for the article as per the DRN, he continues to put it in incessantly. His friend Srich happens to be a military man himself, according to his user page, and hence is completely biased in this matter and his opinion should not be of much value (since the issue is about irrelevant information of the military being put in the article). I have talked to this user A1candidate numerous times and he is uninterested in talk and only in promoting the military in an article that has nothing to do with it, if anyone should be blocked from editing, it's him. YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the 'numerous messages and warnings' many if not most of them come from A1candidate and his friend Srich who seem more intent on intimidation rather than collaboration. YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . A couple of notes about WP:DRN. It is not binding, and it is not "governed" by administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:David_Martin_Zeegen_Roth reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert (manual revert):
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:, checked as a minor edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here, SBHarris criticizes David Martin Zeegen Roth's use of primary sources.

Comments:

User has been reverted by multiple editors for adding WP:PRIMARY sourced and sometimes WP:FRINGE sourced material against even vegan admittance that vegetables are not the best source of B12. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that he continues to assert that a general and universal group of scientists believe that there are adequate plant sources of B12, using a study that tested only 30 subjects and was not directly about B12, (as previously noted by SBHarris). And he has yet to acknowledge that he's edit warring, assuming immunity because the "facts" are supposedly on his side.  We've got ourselves an edit warring POV-pusher here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:66.80.164.205 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (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:

IP is adding clearly promotional material about a group, Kenny Vance and the Planotones, who may be notable but not that notable, to the article on the Doo-wop genre. They have been warned, and other editors on the talk page have supported the removal of the material. IP has not engaged in any discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the IP's own Talk page, he appears to be Kenny's son or some other male relative (Ladd Vance). He's just reinserted the (unsourced) content again, and I've reverted.  Also see my note on the Doo-wop Talk page re: Vance. --Seduisant (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Walledro reported by User:A13ean (Result: 168 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: Warned initially by TRPOD and myself later

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: various including this one by TRPOD

Comments:

User's only edits are to add blp-violating material to this article, and was previously blocked for edit warring. a13ean (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * to further the above comments, was previously blocked for edit warring for attempting to insert the same BLP claims into this very article. based on comments on the talk page and their and my user pages, User:Walledro may be trying to follow Wikipedia policies, but it seems they have a personal agenda that is clouding their ability to edit in a neutral fashion on this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the user is continuing to edit war, now to include a negative review of a play, when the subject was merely the playwright and the review castigates the particular production, over which of course, the playwright cannot be held responsible for anything but the "length" of the play (an adaptation of Tom Jones is probably always going to be "lengthy") -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the user was not long ago blocked indefinitely. WP:SPA whose history has been removal of sourced content and/or addition of negative, poorly sourced, or WP:BLP content. The referenced criticisms don't appear in the linked sources, which themselves don't look very weighty to start with. There is no constructive intent. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I've requested page protection . This has been going on since October, and no BLP needs to be persistently subject to this. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:E4024 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 12:04, 6 December 2012 E4024 (Undid revision 526594596 by Dr.K. All commanders were from Greece; so I removed Greek military junta's puppet junta in Cyprus from combatants. Makes no sense.)
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 12:12, 6 December 2012 E4024 (This is the real picture. Added the only Greek Cypriot military activity, of those who massacred civilian Turks during the operations. I had to use another revert for not being given 5 minutes to complete the editing process.
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 14:16, 6 December 2012 Undid revision 526699483 by 79.160.40.10 The Turks who owned the island for centuries do not even have the right to name their villages where they were majority or lived exclusively? Trying to erase them from history
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 16:21, 6 December 2012 E4024 (Undid revision 526705715 by Athenean There is no obligation for that.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User gets frequently blocked for edit-warring. Just came out of one on 2 December: Edit-warring_block

Multiple issues involved. See below.

Comments:

User keeps reverting multiple users on multiple issues as long as their edits do not conform to his expectations. He also regularly insults his opponents calling them any combination of "nationalist", "biased" and "warriors", as in this example. What concerns me the most is the constant edit-warring of his editing style which seems not affected by his frequent edit-warring blocks. Also of concern are the constant attacks against his opponents including the use of edit-summaries to insult them. Clear WP:BATTLE mentality. Recent example: Revision as of 14:12, 6 December 2012 E4024 (→‎Combattans in Infobox: And elsewhere, those who combat to show Greeks nice and Turks not...). Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The user reverted my courtesy notice about this report. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Page protected for 48 hours. I urge someone to levy a block for incivility on E4024; the reason I'm not doing it myself is his incivil remarks to me at his talk page after I blocked him last week for edit warring at this article.  Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nyttend: Which "incivil remarks" to you, Nyttend? --E4024 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User: Michel Laurin (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:
 * 9th revert:

Comments: I have inserted comments on my editorial policy on my talk page, which MrOllie has seen, because he left a long message there. However, that did not keep him from continuing deleting my contributions. I reported above only on the page Reptiles, but I have had similar problems with him on several other pages, such as Tiktaalik, Mesosaur, Mesosaurus, Polydactyly in early tetrapods, and others. I would like to emphasize that I am a professional scientist (paleontologist and systematist), and that I thought that I was doing Wikipedia a favor by contributing discussions of recent developments in the fields in which I have an expertise. See my talk page for more details. MrOllie does not seem to realize that I can judge what is justified or not, on such pages; after all, I am Chief Editor of the Comptes Rendus Palevol, Associate Specialty Editor of Frontiers in Genetics, and I serve on several other editorial boards (Zoologica Scripta, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Contributions to Zoology, etc.). One of the papers for which I have added reference is indeed mine, but I think that its inclusion is fully justified; since its publication in Early View version on the Historical Biology web site, it has been the most downloaded paper. The other papers that I have added to various pages (whether mine or not) are similarly relevant papers. See my home page for more details. I was going to give up working for Wikipedia altogether when another user told me that I could ask you to intervene to stop this systematic destruction of my work. Note that in the example above, Skeptical Raptor also undid my work a couple of times, but since then, he seems to have given up (for good, I hope). And others have helped me restore my work, for which I thank them (Peter M. Brown and Medeis, for instance).

Finally, I am sorry for the technical errors that this report surely contains; I am relatively new at contributing to Wikipedia and my knowledge of html code is rather elementary. If need be, I hope that others can fix this. Michel Laurin (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . There has been no violation of 3RR or of edit-warring by MrOllie. He has reverted you twice; other editors have also reverted you. The problem appears to be your insistence in adding material cited by your own publications. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia as a self-claimed expert, you must follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My suggestion is you either first explain what you want to add to an article on the article talk page OR you add the material, but as soon as you are reverted, you proceed to the article talk page to discuss it per WP:BRD. Otherwise, you may have significant disputes on Wikipedia. You've made only 83 edits since first registering in April 2011. Take it slow. Ask questions. Don't insist.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dr. Laurin is an expert, and the Michel Laurin article provides adequate backing for this. More can easily be provided. He is reporting work by the top experts in his field of which, as it happens, he is one. Wikipedia is very fortunate to have an editor so familiar with current research.


 * I can understand that you do not find MrOllie guilty of edit warring. Edit warring generally takes place when editors disagree strongly about an issue, and that is not what is going on here. Rather, MrOllie seems motivated by an antipathy toward Michel Laurin that manifests itself in reversions of his contributions to at least five different articles as well as in the deletion of his name here from the list of Robert R. Reisz's students. The only justification he has offered in edit summaries is that Michel Laurin's contribution reflect a conflict of interest, but Laurin has cited only work contained in highly-regarded peer-reviewed journals; WP:COI does not prohibit such a citation "if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies."


 * If you are going to accuse him of failing to conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you owe him, at minimum, a specification of the policy or guideline he has failed to conform to! And if you are powerless to address harassment that is not technically edit warring, say so!


 * Peter Brown (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * MrOllie may be being disruptive here. We need editors of Michel Laurin's calibre, we don't need to have them driven away. If MrOllie's behaviour is not technically edit-warring, then this dispute can be addressed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress reported by User:Ackees (Result: Both warned)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Somalis in the United Kingdom Previous version reverted to:


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

Rageh Omaar Previous version reverted to:


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

Nadifa Mohamed Previous version reverted to:


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

Category:Black British writers

Middayexpress, then unable to accept in WP:GOODFAITH that Nadifa Mohamed was a British writer who identified 'as a black person' switched tactics and, in a veritable definition of defying WP:GOODFAITH tried to 'Game the system' by getting the entire, well established category 'Black British writers' deleted:


 * Discussion of 'Black British writers':

Black British

Middayexpress has also attempted to WP:GAME the system by removing historical references to Somalis identifying and identified as black people from the 'Black British' page.

Black British Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Middayexpress and I have discussed this issue ad infinitum on the talk pages of the various articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Somalis in the United Kingdom talk page: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Rageh Omaar talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Nadifa Mohamed talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Black British talk page:

Comments:

User:Middayexpress always edits from the rigid WP:NPOV position that: Somali people are not black and that Somali people are fundamentally 'Asian' or 'Arab' rather than 'black' or 'African'. And, to that effect User:Middayexpress suppresses as much reference to other black people with regard to Somalis as possible - replacing it with material emphasising difference, separation or conflict between Somalis and other black, and/or African people. This can mean, for example literally hiding the flags of other African countries who have contributed to the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia. (My edits to that effect on the Page War in Somalia (2009–present) page were themselves hidden by use of WP:REVDEL. .)

User:Middayexpress has consequently advocated the position that Somalis in the UK identify as 'Arab' - even though his/her own sources claimed that only 1% of Somali-born census respondents identified as Arab - the other 99% identifying as either 'black African' or 'other black background'. My position is not as simplistic as 'Somalis are black' - but is rather that Somalis are African (with cultural links to Arabia, like very many African countries), and, just as do many Africans self-identify as 'black', so too there is documented evidence of some Somalis identifying as both 'black' and as 'African' as can be seen from my talk page citations. Furthermore, I make no claims about 'black' identity deriving from a specific genealogy or a specific location. I do not assert, as does User:Middayexpress the existence of a 'race' called 'black' to which an individual either does or doesn't belong. I regard, black as fluid, non-exclusive social identity that some people sometimes accept, confer or reject. I do acknowledge that there is also evidence of some Somalis sometimes rejecting a black or African, or even Somali identity, and claiming an 'Arab' or 'Asian' identity. But, this is no reason to remove evidence that points the other way. However, Middayexpress's edit warring, often calculated to evade the WP:3RR rule is all about avoiding consensus and rigidly sticking to the line, at all times, and in all circumstances that 'Somalis are not black' – removing, reverting or replacing anything that seems to suggest a more nuanced, consensus based approach. Ackees (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Predictably, the situation is not at all as User:Ackees has made it out to be (for the facts on the content dispute, please see the discussion here and here). I'm also not an administrator with access to the RevDel tool, so I don't see how I could've "hidden" this user's (clearly visible ) edits on the war article alluded to above or any other page. This is precisely the kind of absurdity, opportunism and dishonesty I have to deal with. Likewise, none of the above sets of difs are three revert violations; some are even spaced days apart, as the time stamps show. On the other hand, Ackees did actually violate 3RR within just 2 hours on the Somalis in the United Kingdom article (c.f, , , ). I opted to give him the benefit of the doubt and not report him for it, as I was hoping actual discussion -- which I had to start -- would be fruitful. I just casually informed him of it in passing (c.f. ). Clearly, this was a mistake. It would appear that Ackees is also unaware that this board is not the venue to carry on content disputes, and that "when reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized", as stated at the top of this page. Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . I see no clearly sanctionable conduct in any of the articles and one category listed. I am NOT going to get into the bias dispute; that is rarely relevant in this forum. Of the pages listed, Somalis in the United Kingdom is the worst, a slow, fairly long-lasting edit-war between the two editors, the last edit occurring about 10 hours ago. Rageh is stale, no editing since November 30. Nadifa Mohamed, no editing since December 3. The category has no edit-warring; Midday nominated it for deletion. Black British is closest to the Somalis article, but not as bad. You both need to spend less time in these articles. I'll leave this open for a bit in case anyone wants to say anything constructive, or if another admin wants to comment. (As an aside, I see no rev/dels, and Midday is right - they couldn't do it if they wanted to.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems there is a long-running dispute between Middayexpress and Ackees which is most evident at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom, where the charges and countercharges have an unpleasant tone. Admins don't have a mandate to pick who is right about this dispute, but we could issue sanctions for anyone who continues to revert without following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The best way to approach this would be a centralized WP:RFC where somebody could present all the different questions about whether Somalis identify as black, or should be considered black for purposes of these articles and categories. We could close with a warning to both parties that any further reverts on the articles listed above which are not in accordance with an RFC would lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed that you read that talk page discussion (I started to and then stopped). I'll take your word for the "unpleasant tone"; given the obvious fact that these two editors don't get along, it doesn't surprise me. I have no problem with your suggestion as to how to close the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving this report open for a while to see if either party wants to comment. There is a glimmer of a negotiation at the bottom of Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom, beginning with a comment by Ackees dated 17:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC). It does appear that Middayexpress has rejected the proposal, though. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with Ackees. omalis are NOT arabs. The majority dont speak fluent arabic, and the majority have features differing from arabs. The main thing they have in common i the religion, but thats about it. I say Middayexpres should be cautioned. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method  <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  15:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a response on the article's talk page, though the issue is best explained by User:Abdirisak's post there. I should also point out that User:Pass a Method above, who did not participate in the discussion, nonetheless reverted back to the other version . I contacted him on his talk page for an explanation, a message which he later deleted . Instead, he left a short note on the article's discussion page asserting that he "explained some specific objections in [this] 3rr thread", and that he "specifically oppos[es] removal of content about Somali self-description". The irony is that his revert actually removed the only reliably sourced general description of Somali self-identification. Middayexpress (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Middayexpress and Ackees are both warned. They may be blocked if they continue reverting on the question whether Somalis should be considered black, unless an WP:RFC or other talk page consensus has first reached a conclusion on that question. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Nernst reported by User:SkepticalRaptor (Result: Closed no action pro-tem)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor keeps refactoring the Talk:Andrew Wakefield by deleting talk page comments. He's gaming the system by warning me of 3RR, even though comments in the Talk Page shouldn't be deleted, except under ver specific circumstances. This editor also continues to engage in personal attacks, dropping comments on my User talk page that aren't relevant. In addition, he apparently can read minds and thinks I'm angry. This editor is a WP:SPA that isn't contributing to the project in a civil manner.

SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a case of pot calling kettle black. Happy to put my side if someone will point me in the right direction to do so.Nernst (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . The article talk page is a ridiculous mess, and neither editor is blameless. The number of warnings Skeptical posted on Nernst's talk page is absurd. You both are treating the article talk page like your own battleground. @Skeptical, don't make inappropriate comments; you were reverted by an admin another editor and still restored your comment. Nernst, don't move comments from the article talk page to Skeptical's talk page. I don't know what to do with either of you. I'd sanction you both but I'm too tired and am not sure that's the right thing to do. So, I'm leaving this note for any other admin who reviews this report and going off-wiki for a breath of fresh air.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We probably both thought it was respectively the right thing to do. Again i'm not overly familiar with wiki processes but would suggest a farcical barnstar to both editors and a special citation on lamest edit war page as a start. Deep breaths, i hear yoga is good. Nernst (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay guys, I'm making allowances because yNernst is new enough to be allowed some rope. Your disruption of this talk page has ended? The next one to mess around gets a 24 hour break. Is that clear and reasonable? Spartaz Humbug! 10:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's reasonable but not clear. To be honest I'd prefer us both to be blocked together with a polite suggestion of how we can each edit better. More than anything i'd be grateful an explanation here or on my talk page as to what I'm being accused of. I think i'm entitled to that following the threat of a further block.

I get blocked for reverting so leave a gap and then try to do things properly while my requests for help are ignored. I'm asked to present a clear logical argument but no one else feels the need to do the same (except WLU on BLP noticeboard). I then get accused of being disruptive. I answer a question and get screamed at for making personal attacks. I move talk comments on behaviour to the user pages and but get reported for 3RR and get threatened with a block, I move them back and they get deleted (WTF!?).

I don't mind following the letter of rules or their spirit but dislike having the ground shifted under my feet or people telling me i'm "forum shopping" without saying what that is or what I should have done instead. I've learnt to telegraph my intentions far ahead but still can't seem to make anyone happy. I have made important, lasting and useful edits on medical articles before and respond well to positive feedback and am not deliberately trying to be 'thick' but would be the first to admit that my intervention on Andrew Wakefield and related pages has been nothing short of disastrous.

I realise that the Wakefield article arouses strong feeling. It would be nice to have someone reassure or confirm whether I'm being treated like this because my edits really were shockingly bad or because I'm supporting an unpopular point of view.Nernst (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User: ‎216.221.37.56 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 2 days for vandalism)
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 has been blocked for vandalism, feel free to close this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Iorijapan reported by User:Moonriddengirl (Result: 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See also explanation how to proceed at user talk page:

Comments:

This user is edit-warring to remove files that are hosted on Commons from an article on Wikipedia under dubious claim of copyright. I would block, but having restored the content am tangentially involved. Based on this user's 3rd and 4th edit, it seems quite likely that the user is involved with the attempted assertion of competing external links to classical works in articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . De728631 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User:98.116.29.60 reported by User:Vcohen (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

His edits continue the edits by several other IP's. Vcohen (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . The easiest solution, of course, is to semi-protect the article given that there are multiple IPs changing the article and then being reverted by different editors (this report really probably should have been made at WP:RFPP). However, it would be reassuring if you could point to a source that supports the material (keeping the F in the infobox and the body). I've poked around a little but I can't find anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The external link is the source. Just click on the December 4, 2012 Modified Hurricane Sandy Service and you can see that they have been on the F for pretty much years now. Both type of R160s are on the F and he just seems to be a recurring IP that does vandalism on the F and R160 pages, as you have noticed, it has been going around for awhile now and the pages have been semi protected before which during that time were fine.--<font face="Calibri"><font color="#2A7ECF">iGeM <font color="CC6633">iN <font color="#CC14CC">ix  01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not a reliable source but I guess it'll have to do, along with the clear opinions of multiple editors that the material should remain. I've semi-protected the page for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Jetstreamer reported by User:Flightmemory (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * . Flightmemory is a brand new account. For that reason, I've fixed the report, although not completed the diffs, notified Jetstreamer, and asked them to comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure for me to comment here. It all started when the editor added content to Istanbul Atatürk Airport. As per WP:AIRPORT, firm dates are required. Actually, the user added firm dates, but they were not supported by the sources s(he) provided. (It's a detail, but the sources added were in Spanish, which by the way is my native language). I reverted their first two edits and placed a level-one warning regarding the addition of unsourced or improperly cited material at their talk page, pointing out that the references provided did not support the added stuff, followed by a second- and third-level warning, as s(he) reverted my reversions twice. There was no communication from the user at all, neither at their talk page nor at mine. I was expecting a third reversion from the user, but it did not occur. Maybe s(he) is aware of WP:3RR. In that case, I'd stop reverting, as I'm also aware of it. That's all for now.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . I don't see the necessary fourth revert for a WP:3RR; editor has explicitly stated that they will stop reverting at any rate. Please be careful about using the rollback tool in borderline cases like this.  Kuru   (talk)  15:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you that I shouldn't have used the rollback tool, as it is intended for cases of obvious vandalism. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Niemti reported by User:Odie5533 (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: see below


 * 1st revert: [ user removed the programmer], [ Niemti added it back]
 * 2nd revert: [ user removed categories], [ Niemti added it back]
 * 3rd revert: [ user removed categories], [ Niemti added them back]
 * 4th revert: [ user added a template to a quote], [ Niemti removed the template]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this dispute; I am merely reporting its occurrence.

Comments:


 * This report is premature as there is no discussion attempted on the talk page by either the reporter or by the reverted editor about any of the contentious content. Additionally, if does not fit the concept of an 'edit' war, as all of the changes are more-or-less separate changes. --Izno (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is not discussion is part of why this is an edit war (see WP:EDITWAR). I am not sure I understand what you mean that the changes are separate and therefore this is not an edit war. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The changes are fairly unrelated, to be more precise. Also, see the comment on this very page which basically requires talk page discussion in an attempt to fix the issue by either of the parties. I would not call this a case of edit warring, due to both of those reasons. --Izno (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . Yes, "unrelated edits" count to 3RR, and there is no requirement to have a discussion. I see multiple editors that have technical 3RR violations on 12/7, so I would normally protect the article to encourage discussion, but that seems pointless after a day has passed with no further rapid editing of the article. Niemti, please be more careful when editing in the future.  Kuru   (talk)  15:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh. You learn something. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:TippyGoomba reported by s t a r c a r (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported: Time reported: 00:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff This deletion was done by another user who gave me a tome of policy to look over on my talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff warning left in summary

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff on my talk page. Conversations with the two users, the first who never responded, and the second who threatened to block me.

Comments:


 * Revert diffs: [ 1], [ 2], [ 3]. Starcartographer, you forgot to notify the user of this discussion. I have done so, but in the future please remember to. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . TippyGoomba did not breach 3RR. I am not going to sanction them for edit-warring as you were equally "guilty" and with less cause. You should be discussing the content dispute on the article talk page (not on yours) and not battling in the article. Also, please learn how to file reports here. Use diffs, not links for the reverts. Sign your comments. Notify the other party.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your decision to decline. Without supplying any reason for deletion, they three times removed cited content, leaving the article with hanging refs and an obsolete infobox template. I engaged them on their talk page to give a reason for deletion as I assume it is not common for a user to give a reason for adding cited content. They ignored all of my requests. He undid my additions three times, to which I added it back twice, and then I came here to file a report. - s t a r c a r (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to get the necessary consensus on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:66.7.114.226 reported by User:Schrodinger's cat is alive (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In edit summary: ; on talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on editors talk page:. Subsequent addition of new thread onto the article talk page:

Comments:


 * How is the edit at 22:47 a revert? Has that material been added and removed in the past?  Kuru   (talk)  15:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I missed that edit - thanks! Kuru   (talk)  16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Kuru  (talk)  16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones reported by User:2.221.217.56 (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is continually reverting the removal of a table, the inclusion of which has no consensus. He refuses to enter discussion, and thinks that consensus is required to remove the table, not include it. As per BRD, the bold inclusion of the table was reverted, with valid reason (not by me, although I have used a similar IP) and thus inclusion of the table now requires discussion. Not its removal. 131.251.254.19 and 2.221.217.56 are me. Whilst I have reverted 3 times, I have also attempted to discuss, something this other user has failed to do. He is also reverting the same thing on 2013 Six Nations Championship, again without discussion. As far as I can see, my removal of the table is supported by BRD, which suggests that after the first removal of a bold addition, then its inclusion must be discussed (but admit I should not have repeatedly reverted). Instead, this user seems intent on ignoring discussion and just reverting the removal of the table with no consensus for its inclusion. 2.221.217.56 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . No 3RR by either side, but clearly the pattern is unconstructive. I've protected the page to let the discussion you started come to a completion. Kuru   (talk)  15:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:DemirBajraktarevic reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Both blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:


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


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

User Demir removed my refs claiming other users had already agreed upon his version of the article, but the problem is there were no other users. He then continured to remove refs from both articles with his interpretation of the lead as an explanation. Then he added some links of google books and used them as a source, even though links don't mention Humo as being Bosniak. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 17:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, even though I informed him he is reported, he made reverts on the Hasan Brkić article, explaining those refs are "lies" (see Talk:Avdo Humo)

,

--<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 18:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And again, he is edit warring at the Bosnia and Herzegovina article leaving an explanation for me "Stick to Croatia and Serbia. leave Bosnia alone. provided sources before you revert edits", even though I returned the source (CIA Worldfactbook) which was removed previously. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 18:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Wustenfuchs has a long history of Serb-ifying and Croat-ifying Bosniak people. He's changed Mesa Selimovic (a Bosniak) to 'Serb'. Avdo Humo and Osman Karabegovic (both Bosnian Muslims, born in Bosnia]] to Serb as well. I would suggest looking through his history -- he's been in a few edit wars -- I, however, have only been in edit wars with him. He gives 1 or 2 refs (books written by Serbs) which say the Bosniak person is a Serb. Also, he ignores the fact that the references I provided do state that Avdo Humo was a Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim); like this one http://books.google.com/books?id=NB_TCBY-jooC&pg=PA204&dq=avdo+humo+bosniak&hl=en&sa=X&ei=InbDUI3SOcqpqgHq9YC4Cg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=avdo%20humo%20bosniak&f=false and this one http://books.google.com/books?id=IX5pAAAAMAAJ&q=avdo+humo+bosniak&dq=avdo+humo+bosniak&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3HbDUJPxKYH7qAHznYCwBw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBzge --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Isaković isn't a Serb, and neither book I provided was writen by a Serb. It's about how those people declared themselves. In Bosnia and Herzegovina there are far more nationalities, there aren't only Bosniaks you know. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 18:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm from Bosnia, I know that. Half of Bosnia's population is Muslim. The Muslims are all called Bosniaks. the end. --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not half, only 40-45%. The end, really? --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 18:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:David Martin Zeegen Roth reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (not quite the same as the ones below, but the ones below are all marked as restored / reverted so you shouldn't really need that. Anyway, they all re-add the Watanabe stuff)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:David_Martin_Zeegen_Roth - previous block, same subject, I've only just noticed that.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Vitamin B12 deficiency (that's not me, but others have tried)

Comments:

This is, BTW, part of a campaign of pseudoscience POV-pushing by the same editor William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Questionentity reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * This seems more like edit warring than a WP:3RR violation to me.
 * ,, ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: most recent:, Too many attempts to discuss the POV and WP:OUTRAGE issue on Talk:White privilege to link.

Comments:

This seems to me like disruptive editing, given the unwillingness to discuss concerns on the talk page or engage with previous discussions about this issue before making additional edits, all of which are intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the idea the article describes. lots of WP:SOAP as well.

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This the third attempt today of UseTheCommandLine to win a dispute by posting accusations on admin pages-two previous ones have failed, failed attempt to claim that I am sock of Apostle who also doesn't agree with him. Unfortunately this is a extremely bad faith attempt to win a content dispute, especially in view of false claims that I am unwilling to discuss anything on talk page:I have made several attempts of discussion that have been rejected/ignored by UseTheCommandLine,. When I posted a observation that a controversial claim is unsourced and false-he accused me of edit warring although I have done so on talk page, without edits to main page for now. and assured that for now I will not edit the main page. I would prefer if the user would finally try to discuss issues on talk page instead of constantly trying to silence people he disagrees with by creating admin requests against them(this is the third one today), for my part as an gesture of good faith I can stop editing the main page for 48 hours, although I have already moved to talk page only hours ago.--Questionentity (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The SPI is here. At least one administrator/CheckUser stated that, given the circumstances, the investigation was warranted. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * UseTheCommandLine, now that the page is protected we have 3 days to discuss changes in order to make the article more neutral and sourced. I invite you to join discussion and debate issues raised.I believe it would be helpful if I would draft a more acceptable lead, that is supported by sources and doesn't push any view as true or wrong.I will of course open it up to debate. Kind regards,

--Questionentity (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to post here anymore, but for the record, the SPI report was closed with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Robertogay12 reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: Semi-protected for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * What the page looked like before:
 * My stubbed version:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is basically it from a revert/diff perspective - I stubbed the page because it contains BLP information, which is almost totally unsourced, or the sources are not even valid. Along with spammy external links and a contributing editor with obvious COI. The content keeps getting added back in:. § FreeRangeFrog 00:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Diffs: [ original unsourced version being changed to stub], [ revert 1], and [ revert 2]. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment I warned the user about adding unsourced content and about edit warring. He only reverted it twice. I think this is more a case for WP:SPI than ANEW. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the page for one week and reverted the last edit by Roberto. I've also blocked User:Manhuntfrance because of the violation of our user name policy, but it's a soft block. I dunno if there's enough evidence for a SPI report. I note that the IPs geolocate to Saudi Arabia, not to France, and that Roberto is not a French name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try to see if I can properly source it, without the disruption :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Ronz (Result: William warned on his talk page, Ronz warned here)
Talk page of:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 21:37, 7 December 2012
 * 2nd revert: 22:11, 7 December 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:18, 7 December 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page: 21:52, 7 December 2012

Comments:

Given the Arbcom sanctions for similar, past behavior. Perhaps those sanctions should be expanded to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That discussion has been going on - or actually, going nowhere - for days. Ronz against several other editors, arguing over an issue (notability of the article) that after 7 AfDs, has probably been entirely hashed out (even though it still remains unresolved). Hatting a pointless discussion like that is good page management, and it has been used quite successfully to manage long pointless arguments on climate change pages...Ronz's insistence on keeping the discussion going isn't doing anyone any good, and tempers seem to be getting frayed. (I have been watching the discussion for several days and saw no reason to get involved, since I still can't, after all this time, decide which side of the perennial deletion discussion I actually find more convincing.) Ronz's decision to unhat part of the argument seemed like a bad idea, and WMC's undo of the unhat struck me as a good decision. In short, WMC's decision to undo the revert of his undo...strikes me as good page management. (Note that WMC is also uninvolved in the discussion.) Guettarda (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . Neither editor's conduct on the talk page is positive. I've warned William to stop collapsing, uncollapsing, and making snide comments. I'm warning Ronz to be more collaborative and responsive to other editors' concerns and not to file reports like this one. Requesting an extension of the ban for what William did is clearly disproportionate to his conduct. In addition, I note that Ronz did his own version of refactoring by adding section headers in front of other editors' comments, thereby injecting his opinion as to what the editor intended.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ronz fails to give the complete context. There is a larger context here (see here, here, and here); regarding the current event the complete chronology is thus:


 * 1: 6 Dec. 21:38, WMC collapses.
 * 2: 7 Dec. 18:46, Ronz reverts WMC.
 * 3: 7 Dec. 21:03, I revert Ronz (restore the collapse).
 * 4: 7 Dec. 21:33, Ronz adds cob/cot to uncollapse one section ("In what context this notable?").
 * 5: 7 Dec. 21:37, WMC reverts Ronz.
 * 6: 7 Dec. 21:47, Ronz reverts WMC.
 * 7: 7 Dec. 22:11, WMC reverts Ronz.

Ronz presumably complains that event #5 was followed by event #7, but the complete story is that Ronz has been tendentiously resisting every attempt to close a stale, moribund discussion, where his stonewalling is the principal reason it has not gone anywhere. William is perhaps a bit exasperated, but so are the rest of us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the detail, but I actually did see all of it in the history. I've warned Ronz. If you later believe he's violated my warning, then feel free to bring it to my (or another admin's) attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was concerned that if the record here is not complete a misleading impression would be created. Also, it might be noted Ronz did not come with exactly clean hands. But your warnings seem to have checked the immediate problem, so this incident appears to be settled. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Mmlov reported by User:DVdm (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: -- "I Insist"
 * 4th revert: -- "I Insist"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 
 * 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User is not responsive. All they say in edit summaries, is "I Insist".DVdm (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . Mmlov is a new user with 39 edits thus far. DVdm is at the other end of the spectrum, having been on Wikipedia for over 7 years with over 49,000 edits. This appears to be a genre dispute. There is no breach of 3RR by Mmlov. They've made only two reverts in December and they were days apart (DVdm has reverted twice as well). The edit-warring warning wasn't put on Mmlov's talk page until after the last revert. There has been no discussion of the issue, either on the article talk page or on either of the editors' talk pages (edit summaries don't count). It's possible that Mmlov won't discuss the issue, but you (DVdm) have to try.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I do agree that —assuming in good faith that Mmlov is indeed a new user— discussion might be needed. On the other hand it is not in my nature to insist on have a discussion with people who seem not the be interested in discussions and whose only response is "I insist", after an edit summary like here (followed by this) and 3 weeks later here, and after explicitly having invited them on their talk page to engage in dicussion. I think I tried. - DVdm (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your points, but in this kind of report I would not sanction the user without more.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your comments. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:66.7.114.226 reported by User:Schrodinger's cat is alive (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:

This editor has been blocked for warring on the same piece of information on the same article:
 * Kuru's block from IP talk page
 * link to action on this page

Very shortly after the user was unblocked, they have reverted again.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * . It wasn't necessary to warn them of edit-warring again given the past recent block, but you should have notified them of this discussion; I have done so for you. My recommendation (I'll be off-wiki shortly) is a (longer) block if they don't respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great - many thanks. Sorry for missing the notification: I was doing too much, too quickly and missed it out. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted again,, despite the warning on his talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never edited this and I don't even know how. I'm not sure why this guy keeps sending me messages that I am going to get blocked. User 66.7.114.226 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.114.226 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User:190.45.215.88 reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (November 6)
 * 2nd revert: (November 28)
 * 3rd revert: (November 28)
 * 4th revert: (December 4)
 * 5th revert: (December 4)
 * 6th revert: (December 4)
 * 7th revert: (December 4)
 * 8th revert: (December 8)
 * 9th revert: (December 9)
 * 10th revert: (December 10)

Diff of edit warring: (November 28) 2nd warning: (December 4) 3rd warning: (December 10)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP user did not break 3RR. Nonetheless, the user for weeks has repeatedly added unsourced information concerning upcoming SNL episodes, ignoring my 3 user talk page messages to stop, hidden text note that I left in the article ("Please do NOT add new episodes until dates or guests are confirmed in reliable sources."), and my edit summaries. The user has repeatedly deleted my hidden text note and left no edit summaries. It has become a small burden to remove this unsourced content, and I don't know how else to get through to this user. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Kabirat reported by User:Rushyo (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: Edit war warning After 4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There are some WP:BLP violations going on as well, with almost all the editing there performed by WP:SPAs. Some resolution attempts were outside the article talk page:  - Rushyo   Talk  16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . I blocked this user for edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruptive editing before seeing this report.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

User:220.255.2.119 and User:88.114.154.216 reported by User:Eldamorie (Result: Semi-protected for 1 week)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

Comments: There is an ongoing edit war between these two IPs, to the point where I'm not even really sure what the dispute is. It seems like these two editors have very different ideas about the article scope, but neither one appears to be willing to engage very much on the talk page. It looks like some sort of page protection is in order but I'm not sure what level/how to deal with the situation, so I'm bringing it here for more experienced eyes.


 * . Semi-protected for a week by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User:90.35.141.125 reported by Armbrust The Homunculus (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:11,  7 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 526774578 by IronGargoyle (talk)")
 * 2) 20:47,  7 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 526874791 by Frietjes (talk)")
 * 3) 11:49, 10 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 526927042 by Frietjes (talk)")
 * 4) 20:15, 10 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 527370554 by Frietjes (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Armbrust The Homunculus 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Favonian (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Alohamesamis reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:58, 10 December 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 17:34, 10 December 2012  (edit summary: "Irish writer and director, Irish lead actors. Irish film. Restored cited content.")
 * 3) 23:20, 10 December 2012  (edit summary: "You need to take two minutes to actually read the reference")
 * 4) 23:57, 10 December 2012  (edit summary: "rv unexplined removal of cited content")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Per user is disrupting the article with edit warring and refusing to use the talk page.  User was repeatedly warned about edit warring with the last warning occuring at 21:52, 10 December 2012.  However, user returned at 23:24 to delete the warnings and then returned to the article at 23:57 to make another revert. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User:184.49.184.133 and User:8.22.56.48 reported by User:Francophonie&Androphilie (Result:8.22.56.48 and 171.64.233.179 blocked for 1 month; article semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


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

(amount of material removed in each revert varied slightly)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned upon 2nd and 3rd reverts

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Having no past history with this page whatsoever, but failing to find any truth in the IP's edit-summary claims, I asked them to bring up the matter on the talk page instead of reverting me, both in an edit summary and on their talk page. Asked them to respond to my messages in my third-revert edit summary and told them once again to take it to the talk page in my already-linked-to final warning.

Comments:

What this otherwise clear-cut case comes down to is IP addresses: The first three edits are from one IP ("184.49"), and the fourth is from another ("8.22"). However, taking into consideration the almost identical revisions and the highly similar edit summaries (compare the third revert from 184.49 with 8.22's sole revert), and considering that the first IP geolocates to Philadelphia International Airport and the second geolocates to Stanford, CA, and that this is a time of year when many college students travel home, coupled with the fact that a long plane ride would explain why an otherwise hot-blooded editor would disappear for 11 hours, it does not seem to me at all unreasonable to assume that this is the same user - not even intentionally sockpuppeting, but simply continuing to edit-war from a new location. Because unless I'm seriously missing something, there's nothing in that section that could lead two independent editors to remove it as "contentious material." — <u style="color:#000000;">Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (<u style="color:#000000;">Je vous invite à me parler ) 12:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * More conclusively, when leaving noticeboard notifications just now, it came to my attention that 8.22 was previously blocked for disruptive editing on this article, of a similar nature to these edits. Here, the IP claims to be Hoxby. And oh, would you look at that, Hoxby works at Stanford. Must've been at a conference in Phillie or something. — <u style="color:#000000;">Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (<u style="color:#000000;">Je vous invite à me parler ) 12:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. On Monday, Hoxby released a paper in collaboration with a professor at Harvard . — <u style="color:#000000;">Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (<u style="color:#000000;">Je vous invite à me parler ) 12:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -- if there are doubts as to whether this constitutes >3rr, there is still a case for a block on IP8.22, on the basis of continued edit-warring subsequent to the expiry of a block relating to edit-warring on the same article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional revert: (same deletion embedded in an edit containing a large addition).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've blocked User:8.22.56.48 because of continued active edit warring and related disruption (notably a pattern of false edit summaries). The other IP has not been active quite so recently. --Orlady (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Now we've got 171.64.233.179 in play, which geolocates to Stanford University... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That new IP has been blocked by another admin, for sockpuppetry. The other admin extended the block on 8.22.56.48 for the same reason. The 184.49.184.133 IP is at a public site and edited for only a brief period. Additionally, I semi-protected Caroline Hoxby. --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User: 70.178.129.65 reported by User:Fanthrillers (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not done. Unnecessary: see comments below.

Comments:

The anonymous editor's edit is meritless. His final edit includes a link to a fansite that shows that the "Danny Craig" who has diabetes is in fact a fictional character in a video game called Dead Island who just happens to have a similar name to actor Daniel Craig. There is no need to discuss this on the article's talk page. Further, several experienced senior editors have reverted the anonymous editor's edits.

- Fanthrillers (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP's edits lacked merit, but no one took the time to tell this person why their edits were being repeatedly reverted (not even in edit summaries). That kind of communication is important. I've added an explanatory message on the user's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for warning the user. However I disagree with your claim that "no one took the time to tell this person why their edits were being repeatedly reverted (not even in edit summaries)." Here is a partial list of edit summaries reverting the anonymous editor's work:


 * 18:45, 9 December 2012‎ Spanglej (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,480 bytes) (-124)‎ . . (pls source)
 * 14:44, 10 December 2012‎ Spanglej (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,411 bytes) (-124)‎ . . (still unsourced)
 * 23:56, 10 December 2012‎ Blethering Scot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,411 bytes) (-124)‎ . . Reverted good faith edits by 70.178.129.65 (talk): A reliable source is required for statements of a BLP nature.


 * As you can see two editors did explain in their edit summaries that the claim required sourcing. Blethering Scot even informed the user that it had to be a "reliable source". It was only on the anonymous editor's fifth try did he bother to include a citation. This citation, of course, disproved his own edit. - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is that a Wikipedia newbie (which I need to assume this user to be) cannot be expected to understand the meaning of an edit summary that says "pls source" (the verb "source" is not widely used outside Wikipedia) or refers to "statements of a BLP nature" -- it's not even obvious that they will have seen the edit summaries. In this instance, the revert-warring seems to have ceased, at least for now. No intervention is needed unless the user decides to resume the war... --Orlady (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Charles35 reported by User:Biosthmors (Result: Conditions to avoid unblock imposed on Charles35)
Page:

User being reported:

All 4 diffs removed the same sentence.


 * 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 was warned previously on their talk page (but not reported) about breaking 3RR:. And I'm confident one could find more than 4 diffs. I suspect this "jerk" comment (Charles35's undoing of the last diff, I think) is directed to me. Biosthmors (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay Biosthmors... This debate has been going on for weeks, even months. Every day for the past 6 or 7 weeks, all of us have gone over 3 reverts, probably exceeding 10 or 15. None of my reverts are edit warring. I am simply engaging in bold revert discuss. Since our debate is so ongoing, and it isn't like we are talking about one sentence in the article, but instead the article as a whole (with 10,000+) words, we have been going through a lot of material and thusly doing a lot of reverts. I always give justifications for my edits on the talk page and usually give an edit summary. If I don't, it was an accident and/or I extensively wrote about it on the talk page.


 * I'm sorry for this. I thought we all had the understanding that since we have been working on this page 1-5 hours a day and and working with SO much material, that we were all allowed to go over 3 reverts. None of us are edit warring. We are being bold, reverting, and discussing. In fact, many of them have encouraged me to be bold.


 * I went and reverted my last revert. My bad. I didn't realize I was at 3. I'd appreciate it if you just told me I was at 3, Biosthmors. I don't think this was necessary. Charles35 (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of new to wikipedia, and I've seen the rules change now more than a few times. I've been trying to keep up and adapt, but there's only so much I can do... Charles35 (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the last diff Biosthmors provided, in the previous edit, Biosthmors reverted a good edit, and asked me to edit the change my edit and edit the article to "preserve" a sentence that I rightly removed. I didn't think it was my responsibility to do so, and I didn't think that I would be able to do so in accordance to the rules of that page, so I reverted it. Honestly I feel like I've been lured into this. I will see if I can preserve it as Biosthmors asked. I didn't think there were any requirements for wikipedia editors, but I don't want to be blocked, so I will go take a look at that.


 * (ec) I don't think Charles35 will revert again. I think a block would be punitive and not preventative. Please only warn him that everyone is subject to 3RR at all times. (And perhaps to avoid editing the article for 24 hours to encourage discussion on talk?) Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Charles, first, you were clearly edit-warring. Second, you only self-reverted part of the material. Thus, your last series of edits constituted a revert even after the self-revert. Third, you weren't at 3; you were at 5 before your last series of consecutive edits. Fourth, your edit summary was uncivil when you self-reverted. Your allegations about others do not help you. I am not going to go back weeks or months. I am generally interested in recent history, and there's certainly no evidence that Biosthmors was edit-warring recently. Here's the deal. If you want to avoid a block - and that's only because you're a relatively new user and you at least discuss things on the article talk page - then you must agree not to touch the article for seven days. You're more than welcome to continue discussing the article, but you can't edit it. Then, after the 7 days are up, be very careful how you edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I really do not understand. I would gladly self revert more, I didn't realize I didn't do enough. I'm sorry. I don't see how I was edit warring. I was reverting their reverts? I will happily not touch the article for seven days, but that means that they will bring it back to the state that it was in before this all started. Could you please ensure that that does not happen? All of the changes that we have worked very hard to make and that all of them have agreed to will go to waste. Charles35 (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The promise not to edit must be unconditional. I am not going to become involved in the content disputes; that's not my role. I see you made two more edits to the article after I warned you. One was another self-revert, which was good, but the other, although not a revert, you should not have made. Nonetheless, just signal your agreement, and we're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Please tell what about my edits was "war" like? They were no different than the ones by everyone else (although, I didn't, and am not, saying that Biosthmors was edit warring, I am saying that none of us were), except for the fact that mine numbered 4. The edits that I made just now were an attempt to preserve the material like Biosthmors had asked that I do!? The first was a deletion, but then as you can see I added that material right back to a different section! I didn't see what you had written here. If I had, I wouldn't have made those edits! I don't want them to change the article back to the state it was in 2 months ago. That's all that I want. I'm happy not to touch as long as they don't revert it back to an October edition. Charles35 (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't get to dictate content. You have a very poor understanding of how WP:EW and WP:3RR work. I have no problem discussing that with you after you agree to the terms. (I accept your explanation of the the last edits you made, thanks.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, whatever, do what you gotta do I guess. But don't do anything because I'm new. Taking a glance at the other sections here, I find it disappointing that you don't take the approximately 1000 edits that I have made in the last month and a half into account, the endless amount of time I've spent on that article, and the fact that we have all been reverting in that fashion for a very long time. The other users here are either IPs or blatant edit warring 39 post newbies. Nothing I did was warlike. I gave good summaries in each and every one of those edits, and I've made extremely thorough and meticulous comments on the talk page detailing every single edit I've ever made. Charles35 (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Optimistically, I'm going to interpret "Sure, whatever, do what you gotta do I guess" as an agreement to the terms, as begrudging and unclear as it is. Thus, any edit to the article within 7 days of your last edit will result in a block. I'm disappointed that you're not interested in gaining a better understanding of policy, but perhaps that's just a function of your possible annoyance with me. You could always approach another admin with whom you might feel more comfortable - just a thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent - I don't know the actual command for it)

I don't think there's much I don't understand, and I don't want the fact that I'm "new" to be taken into account. I'm not one to play cards like those.

I'm annoyed by the fact that you don't even look into their behavior. Notice how my first 2 reversions were of WhatamIdoing's edits, and the second 2 were Biosthmors'. Notice also that Biosthmors reverted my edits, and asked me to "preserve" the text. I said no, I don't care to do so. It's not my responsibility to incorporate poorly sourced text into the article. And for that, (s)he reported me. Thanks a lot, Biosthmors! You were asking me to do something for you. I said no. So you report me? Biosthmors reverted my GOOD edit for no good reason. Biosthmors could have preserved it him/herself too... Why did it depend on me?

I'm also annoyed by the fact that you didn't even bother to look into the reasons for my reversions. The first 2 were of WhatamIdoing's edits. If it even matters, WhatamIdoing made 6 reversions in 17 hours:


 * reversion #1 @ 00:17 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=527303260&oldid=527303126
 * reversion #2 @ 00:18 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=527303363&oldid=527303260
 * reversion #3 @ 16:33 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=527416446&oldid=527416316
 * reversion #4 @ 16:55 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=527420038&oldid=527419648
 * reversion #5 @ 17:15 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=527422957&oldid=527422655
 * reversion #6 @ 17:17 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=527423130&oldid=527422957

Biosthmors' original comment said: " All 4 diffs removed the same sentence." - Well, they were reversions of reversions split evenly between Biosthmors/WhatamIdoing that were also adding the same sentence, which, for the record, is not supported by the source (I was removing original research). If you want to go check the page now, the original research has since been removed! My edits were protecting wikipedia!

2 of my reversions were reverting her edits. And then when she reaches the limit, Biosthmors steps in. Biothmors' first reversion had the edit summary "rv, seems like good text" (the second was "preserve"). What? How is " seems like good text" a reason for anything? So I reverted his/her edits as well, which had the nothing-points "seems like good text" and "please preserve it". This is nothing new:

On December 4th, when Biosthmors warned me the first time (mentioned above) I broke 3RR then. This also happened to be the last time Biosthmors was involved at the page (which is pretty rare):

My reversions (4 in 3hrs, 14mins):


 * reversion #4 @ 18:38 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=526426726&oldid=526426657
 * reversion #3 @ 18:32 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=526425765&oldid=526422802
 * reversion #2 @ 12:46 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=526363049&oldid=526332457
 * reversion #1 @ 21:52 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=526275893&oldid=526265666

Biosthmors' reversions:


 * reversion 2 @ 18:10 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=526422802&oldid=526422580
 * reversion 1 @ 18:09 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=526422580&oldid=526415098

WhatamIdoing's reversions (3 in 3 mins):


 * reversion 3 @ 20:23 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=526265666&oldid=526265458
 * reversion 2 @ 20:21 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=526265458&oldid=526265271
 * reversion 1 @ 20:20 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=526265271&oldid=526214248

WhatamIdoing makes 3 rvs in 3 minutes, and then less than 24 hours later, Biosthmors shows up. So from December 5-9, Biosthmors doesn't participate, and is only there the days when I reach 3 reversions. And don't forget that every time Biosthmors is involved, it's for the purpose of reverting my edits. Biosthmors didn't make a single edit that was unrelated to my reversions. On the 4th, the same as on the 10th, my first 2 were WhatamIdoing, and the second 2 were Biosthmors. The ones on the 4th were frivolous reverts as well. The material that I was trying to delete was BLATANTLY not in the source, which had been shown many times over. Yet Biosthmors gave odd reasons for the reversions, which were (1) "isn't obesity an accepted risk factor?" which is obviously original research, a rule that (s)he is well aware of, and (2) "accurately reflects the quote's intended meaning, in my opinion" when the quote means NOTHING of the sort. The DRN section I linked you to on your talk page, Bbb23, was for 2 sub-issues. One was this alcohol problem, which fell through as soon as I made the section with no contest. Nobody even commented. After making the dispute, I went ahead and fixed the sourced content in the article without a single question.

Biosthmors hadn't edited the page since November 30th, which was, quite coincidentally, the last time I had reached 3 reverts. And in accordance with the pattern, every single one of Biosthmors' edits was related to my reverts. (S)he didn't make a single edit that was on a different issue. And again, between Nov 30 and Dec 4, Biosthmors didn't make any edits. On each of those days, there was a lot of conversation. But Biosthmors was not involved. So on the 30th, (s)he made another frivolous edit with no summary but "ce" (not sure what that means). Do you expect me to not revert it? Especially since we have gone over, multiple times, the alcohol thing and how the material Biosthmors/WhatamIdoing were trying to push was NOT in the source.

Biosthmors' edit @ 21:36 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525797762&oldid=525796829

My reverts:


 * reversion 3 @ 14:26 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525744871&oldid=525689426
 * reversion 2 @ 1:41 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525663766&oldid=525663626
 * reversion 1 @ 1:39 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525663626&oldid=525632054

To sum it up, on Nov 30, Dec 4, and Dec 10, I reached 3 reversions. Biosthmors made a total of 8 edits during this 11 day period. 6 of those edits involved my reversions. Biosthmors only made edits on those days - the days when I reached 3 reversions. On 2 of those days, WhatamIdoing, the main editor "against" me in the dispute, also reached 3 reversions. Her and I have been reverting each other on the same sentences. On both of those days, after WhatamIdoing reached 3 reversions in one case and 6 in the other, Biosthmors' reversions concerned the same sentences that WhatamIdoing was editing. And Biosthmors' participation on the talk pages during that period was limited. (S)he made 15 total comments from nov 26-dec 10 (2 weeks). In that same 2 week period, I made 119 comments. And again, 75% of Biosthmors edits were involving my reverts. Charles35 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to address your wall of text above, and then I'm going to close this discussion permanently; the only person who can reopen it is another admin. First - and I can't stress this enough - with the exception of exemptions to 3RR, the content issues are irrelevant. Second, reverting another editor's revert (which you think is improper, not sourced, whatever) constitutes a revert for you. Third, Biosthmors didn't edit-war, so anything on that is a non-issue.


 * Fourth, the only point that has some validity is WhatamIdoing's behavior. She was edit-warring. I noticed that when I first reviewed the report. To be honest, I was on the fence as to what to do about it. Most admins always scrutinize the editor who is reported and the editor who is reporting, in this instance, you and Biosthmors. I'm sure many admins, including me, also look at other editor conduct. There were two reasons I chose not to do anything about WhatamIdoing. The first is she was never warned. Although a very experienced editor, many editors can forget how many times they've reverted, which is why a warning is, if not required, strongly favored. The second is my plan was not to block anyone, including you, so if I was going to let you off the hook, so to speak, I didn't see how I could sanction WhatamIdoing. In hindsight, it might have at least merited a warning, but not necessarily the conditions I asked you to agree to. Charles, you need to move on and spend your time more constructively than continued and persistent protests. As I said on my talk page, I'm willing later to reconsider the length of the time you are not permitted to edit the article, but you're really making it very hard for me to be sympathetic. BTW, "ce" means copy edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Sorenaaryamanesh reported by User:Rushyo (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring by various parties however only User:Sorenaaryamanesh had received clear previous admonishments for edit warring specifically. Investigating parties may wish to have a look at User:Kabirat (recently blocked for disruptive editing, but is at least now looking at alternative methods of settling the dispute/demonstrating good faith) and User:Siavash777 for edit warring on same article. I have not proposed these users due to lack of explicit edit war warnings for this exact case but an admin may wish to apply discretion. - Rushyo  Talk  13:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * by  Elockid  ( Talk ) 20:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by Aminul802 (talk) (Result:no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 527542068 by Darkness Shines: BLP + copyvio. (TW)")
 * 2) 05:48, 12 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Jesus, how many times? BLP + linkvio + unreliable sources + NPOV")
 * 3) 06:28, 12 December 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Read WP:LINKVIO FFS")


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: in every edit summary I called for discussion on talk page before reverts,, and here where I added comments below the notice

Comments:

This user has been constantly reverting my edits--I give the three most recent examples--without meaningful discussion or explanation. He asserts that I'm violating wiki policy, and I feel that I am not. I have asked him to clarify and specify, but to no avail--he does not elaborate. He has done similar things earlier this year, but I didn't know wiki well enough to seek arbitration. He has also been uncivil about his disagreement with me at times--something I have tried my utmost not to reciprocate. If I've committed any mistakes, I wish for those to be pointed out too. Many thanks!Aminul802 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Animul802, you are both edit warring. You need to take this to the article talk page. DarknessShines has explained why he believes that your additions are copyright violations and why your sourcing is not good. I suggest you respond there and get consensus before adding anything. --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Closing as no action because, as regentspark says, neither editor here can be considered to have clean hands. Not sure three reverts would really rise to the level of blocking, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Onsaphi reported by User:Favonian (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:

Favonian (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:


 * . As a side note, Onsaphi's warnings were not appropriate.  Elockid  ( Talk ) 20:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:David Martin Zeegen Roth (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

William M. Connelley has not broken the 3RR rule, but has repeatedly reverted content with the sole reason being that he is reverting to "pre-DMZR" content. "DMZR" is me, so does this reason not seem overtly personal? There is nothing in Talk Discussions about William's M. Connelley's reverts before or after the reverts. Hopefully this kind of personal behavior, which disrupts and undermines the quality of the encyclopedia, is made to end.

Further, this is an exact repeat of William M. Connolley's behavior from last week. In the related article, Vitamin B12 deficiency, William M. Connolley repeatedly reverted content even though discussion between users was in progress. Note, William M. Connelley chose not to take any substantial part in the discussion. Lol, I was blocked for those events. But look culpability of William M. Connolley in connection with the same events:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Previous version reverted:

Here are the talks surrounding and on that day from Vitamin B12 Deficiency:

Talk: Talk:

Please help! New users also want to contribute to Wikipedia without being subjected to personal aggression from long-time users.

David Martin Zeegen Roth (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is nothing but a bad-faith report by a tendentious editor who refuses to listen to the several editors who have reverted him before explaining how his policies went against site policy. Even after being blocked twice for edit warring, he still refuses to acknowledge that his edits are not supported by consensus at all.  Admins, please close this.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) As you yourself state, User:William M. Connolley has not broken the 3RR rule.  Please pay attention to the replies and comments that you have gotten about your edits and about your behavior here.  It has been made clear to you that your edits are contrary to consensus and they have been reverted by multiple individuals, not just William M. Connolley.  It appears as if this report was made in bad faith.   -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, bad faith? Thanks for the careful consideration. And I've read all the replies and comments I've gotten. That's part of what led me to fill out his report, lol. Just trying to stop the reverting not over content.

19:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Martin Zeegen Roth (talk • contribs)

Lol, is this not your logic Edgar? Other users (consensus) disagree with some of your content. Therefore other users are allowed to removing ANY of your content without any discussion, or without REPLYING or DISCUSSING the content removed. Sure seems like it, for if you have a bit more of a discerning eye with the diff's I provided, you will see that NO USER replied or commented about the content that William M. Connolley is repeatedly reverting without discussion.

David Martin Zeegen Roth (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was plenty of discussion, across a variety of pages, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Pointing to William M. Connelley's absence means nothing when your edits were correctly contested by other editors.  Will would have nothing to add to the discussion, and did not have add anything to it because your arguments were already countered.  Arguing that he should be blocked because he didn't participate in the discussions is not only rules-lawyering, it is a bad job of rules-lawyering.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, actually I'm not trying to get William Connolley blocked. I'm just tryingto put a stop to the personal warring against my contrabutions. Further, will I be punished further if I dare to put in a request to check if Wlliam Connolley and Ian.Thomson are the same user using a sockpuppet? Their identical use of the term "tendentious editing" in the course of a few days is suspicious. See the talk page of admin BB223 regarding users William M. Connolley and Ronz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Martin Zeegen Roth (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you honestly have any real evidence of sockpuppetry (and not just bad-faith accussations) and want to file a sockpuppet investigation report, go to WP:SPI and follow the directions there. Also, we have a page on WP:Tendentious editing, that describes your behavior rather aptly, which is why Will and I have both used the phrase.  He was just following site policies, which is not personal.  Your accusations of him being personal about it goes against WP:Assume good faith, a cornerstone of this website.  Your focus on him is personal.  Quit projecting your grudge onto him, quit projecting your sockpuppetry onto other people, quit projecting your general WP:Tendentious editing onto others.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * They aren't the same person. I suggest you drop that line of argument. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, l'm not so sure about that. Activity always at diametrically opposite times of the day, similar turns of speech, identical bias. Not only that, a strikingly similar desire to use unreliable source to support a fringe view opposite to mainstream scientific evidence. I think I could put together quite a strong case. Whether it is acted upon is a different question.

David Martin Zeegen Roth (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * They aren't the same person. I strongly suggest that you drop that  line of  argument.   Acroterion   (talk)   23:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WMC's into rather mathematical and scientific topics, while I watch over more occult, spiritual, and pseudoscientific topic (and foods I like). He also presents a link to his facebook page, which, with that and the information on my profile, there's enough to verify that we're completely different individuals.  The reason we're on at different times is that we live on opposite sides of the planet.  You've presented no actual similar speech patterns either, beyond proper English.  You've provided no actual examples of similar language (beyond the obvious proper English), or bias (other being one of the several editors to undo your edits).  He (according to the Facebook page he links to himself) is a Green party atheist, while I'm a left-wing neo-orthodox protestant.
 * Occam's razor, nay, even basic sanity, would favor the possibility that we're different people over the idea that we're socks. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy it. But I this atmosphere a bit threatening, so it's time to seek arbitration. Goodbye.

David Martin Zeegen Roth (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Which won't happen soon. The context of the accusations seems to be Ian.Thomson's initiation of an SPI which concluded with Roth's sockpuppet being blocked. Roth wasn't blocked for sock puppetry. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, won't happen soon as Roth blocked for a week for editwarring. Oh the irony.Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Cnmk reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:49, 12 December 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 20:02, 12 December 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 20:06, 12 December 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 20:14, 12 December 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) Revision as of 20:18, December 12, 2012 (edit summary: "")
 * 6) Revision as of 20:24, December 12, 2012 (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

Note: These are identical edits and vandalism as was conducted by 92.26.82.86 (talk)

—CZmarlin (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Already blocked by - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just adding this for formality. Although this is the account's first block, it's quite blatant looking at the edit history that of G. K. Vasan that 92.26.82.86 who has already been blocked previously for edit warring and Cnmk are the same person. Since their last block was for a month, I have blocked both the account and IP for 3 months.  Elockid  ( Talk ) 20:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Justice007 (Result:no vio)
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: [link]

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

Comments:

The article is being edited every time by several IPs and not proper registered editors.


 * Only two actual reverts listed; other diffs are either duplicated or non-reverts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:JonnyBonesJones reported by User:Mtking (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 10:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:51, 13 December 2012  (edit summary: "This isnt a results table, readded flag.")
 * 00:59, 13 December 2012 (edit summary: "Flags are allowed to be in results tables because the UFC has always been a competition between countries, and that is why they have always shown flags in the tale of the tape, or country name in the very early UFC days.")
 * 1) 01:06, 13 December 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 527789242 by Hasteur (talk) I am not willfully ignoring anything. I have explained in my last edit summary why the UFC is a competition between countries, which makes them an exception")
 * 01:07, 13 December 2012 (edit summary: "")
 * 1) 07:33, 13 December 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 527808061 by Nouniquenames (talk) Reverting removal of flags per MOS. The UFC is a competition of countries, as indicated by the flags used in the tale of the tape.")
 * 2) 09:18, 13 December 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 527832549 by Mtking (talk) MtKing please stop edit warring. It's a competition between countries. In this case. England vs. the rest of the world. Please read the RFC more carefully.")

Following a RfC on the use of flags at WT:MMA and despite being told by three editors, and  that his view of the close was wrong and a warning of WP:3RR  and a more textual one  JonnyBonesJones made his fourth revert in little over 8 hours. Mt king (edits) 10:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Mt king (edits) 10:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However, I was not wrong. I was following the consensus and RfC. It states that flags cant be used UNLESS the competition is between countries. Well the UFC is a competition between countries. Therefore I feel I have not violated the 3RR rule because I was editing in favor of the RFC. "Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country." JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So I am claiming a 3RR exemption "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." I was following the RfC to the letter. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not obvious vandalism. Being "right" doesn't exempt you from 3rr.  Also, given the number of editors you have reverted, you should have gone to Talk, and possibly even requested a third opinion, instead of trying to enforce your style by yourself.  -- No  unique  names  11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was going against the RfC, so it was actually. I did go to talk, with MtKing and others and tryed to explain the RfC to them. Also "Third opinions must be neutral." So I would have to find someone who isnt a deletionist or an MMA editor. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My edits were in good faith to protect the RfC, which states that flags are allowed in the case of fighters who represent countries. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Being right is no excuse for edit warring, and the other side's edits do not constitute vandalism under Wikipedia policy. As such, this is a 3RR violation, and I have blocked for 24 hours accordingly. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Medvegja reported by User:DeCausa (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Turnopoems reported by User:Taivo (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: (after warning and initiating this action)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Three different editors have reverted Turnopoems' edits, yet he/she persists without initiating a discussion on the Talk page. --Taivo (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the warning was issued after the most recent revert. Under those circumstances, I'd prefer to see if the warning has any effect rather than blocking right away. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The guy has made seven reverts of the same point since December 1 (whether the Coptic language should be described as 'extinct'). He reverted again since the last warning. A block may be the only way to get him to seek consensus. No opinion on the underlying issue, which could be a matter of semantics. Is Latin extinct?  He does seem to be ignoring our rules. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He has responded to your warning with an apology and an explanation. He has left in place the last revert by Taivo and is discussing the issue on the talk page. Obviously, if he resumes, he should be blocked based on his past behavior, but in the hope that he's learned his lesson, I am closing this.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Taivo (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Nedim Ardoğa and User:E4024 reported by User:CeeGee (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:


 * I changed the birth date of Esin Afşar from 1936 to September 14, 1942 according to the information given by the reliable sources and . This info has been reverted multiple times by Nedim Ardoğa and E4024. A discussion went on my talk page in addition to the article's talk page. I recently agreed with a proposal of Kansas Bear to name both birth dates with proper explaination. Please take action. CeeGee 14:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . At this point, no one has breached 3RR. This is a slow edit-war over the subject's birth date. No one was notified of this report by the reporter. No one was formally warned of edit-warring by anyone, including the reporter. The article has not been edited in about 6 hours. I'm going to notify the two editors of the discussion with a comment. Any further edits to the article about the birth date will result in a lock. I'm hoping you can confine your discussion to the talk page without the necessity of a lock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Pionalmusic reported by User:Irn (Result: Warned; subsequently blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place to handle this situation, considering the average time of most blocks and the pace of this dispute. However, I'm not really sure how to proceed with this. I've tried raising my concerns in edit summaries and I've explained my edits on the user talk page as well as on the article talk page but have gotten absolutely no response from User:Pionalmusic - not even so much as an edit summary. After placing the edit-warring warning on the user talk page and commenting on the article talk page, I waited over 24 hours but received no response from User:Pionalmusic. At that point, I then reverted it one more time with an edit summary directing attention to the talk page. User:Pionalmusic reverted that but did not engage on the talk page nor even include an edit summary.

Also, one of the edits is from an IP that I'm pretty sure is the same account, based on edit history. Because it's a new account and I have no reason to think otherwise, I'm assuming good faith and not accusing User:Pionalmusic of sock puppetry but rather simply not logging in. Of course, obviously from the username, it appears as though User:Pionalmusic also has a conflict of interest. -- Irn (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . I've taken the following steps:
 * 1) I've reverted the last edit by Pionalmusic and restored the sourced material. I don't usually do that, but given the unusual circumstances, I decided it was reasonable.
 * 2) I've posted a warning to Pionalmusic's talk page that he must not edit the article directly because of his conflict and his disruptive editing. If he wishes to make changes, he must propose them on the article talk page. I've asked him to comment here that he agrees to this condition, but, regardless, if he makes another controversial edit to the article, I will block him.
 * 3) I've deleted Pionalmusic's user page as promotional (it's a copy of the article).
 * I have no comment on the possible sock puppetry. Although the IP geolocates to Madrid, I don't see their edits and Pionalmusic's edits being similar; perhaps I'm missing something. Feel free to add to this report if Pionalmusic edits the article again, or leave a message on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . Ignored warning and reverted again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

GhostOfLippe reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Warned, notified under WP:ARBPS)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (rm by GOL: )

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

Comments:

I have intitiated the resolve dispute and I have not reverted any edits after being warned, so I am not sure what is the point of this "reporting". I have an impression that a general activity towards balancing a heavily biased article on Homeopathy might be the reason. Anyway, I am trying minor edits there and see how they hold, explaining each and every step profusely for the sake of almighty editors. GhostOfLippe (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

EdJohnston, above, I have explained how it happened. I have created my account just today and I was not aware of this rule, until I have broken it. After receiving the warning, I have not made any reverts. I do not agree to your proposal for "2-week ban" for homeopathy related article, however, I can promise to be much more careful when editing articles. GhostOfLippe (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I'd argue for leniency here. GOL did indeed stop reverting after the first warning (sorry, I hadn't realised the sequence). I think a brief break from the article would be helpful, but rather less than two weeks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: GhostOfLippe appears to have made six reverts on December 14, which breaks the WP:3RR rule. (This may actually have been *seven* reverts if he is also editing as an IP). He is warned that if he makes any edits on the topic of homeopathy over the next seven days that are not supported by a talk page consensus he may be blocked. He is also notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS. If the future editing of the article raises any sock concerns the page may be semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Willdawg111 reported by User:JonnyBonesJones (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1)   (If you don't like the format, discuss it in the talk page. Until then, please leave it as is. Thanks!! Undid revision 528084352 by JonnyBonesJones (talk))
 * (Undid revision 528083766 by JonnyBonesJones (talk))
 * 1)   (Undid revision 528083083 by JonnyBonesJones (talk))

This guy is engaging in an edit war and has broke the 3 revert rule to remove content from this page. I wanred him about the 3RR rule, and he removed the warning template then accused me falsely of vandalism on his page.


 * 1)   (cleaning up vandalism from a chronic vandal on my page!! Undid revision 528084216 by JonnyBonesJones (talk))

It also appears this isnt the first time he has been warned for this, and he has removed warning templates from others as well. I am trying to be mature and do the right thing here, but he just seems to want to edit war and accuse me of vandalism, which is a false accusation. So I am reporting him and hoping cooler heads to prevail here. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

JonnyBonesJones keeps going behind me and changing up my work. I put in most of the MMA events and am writing the MMA articles that are needed. I'm not really sure why he likes harassing me, but for the good of Wikipedia, somebody really needs to do something about this editor. Thanks. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

May I also point out, that it is JonnyBonesJones that keeps reverting work and he is the one who is in violation of trying to create an edit war.Willdawg111 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not harassing this person. Here is another example of him removing a warning for personal attacks on his page. #  (Undid revision 527140450 by Mtking (talk)) Btw I understand he is an MMA editor as well. Me and MtKing have had history, but I am trying to put that behind us and work with him. I am not for anyone, deletionist or MMA editor making personal attacks on anyone. I think personal attacks are wrong. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is another example of his removing warning templates. #  (→‎November 2012) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . I blocked Jonny for 48 hours because he has been very recently blocked for edit-warring. I blocked Willdawg for 48 hours for a combination of the edit-warring and falsely calling Jonny a vandal.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Alertboatbanking reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This article is covered by ARBPIA and has a 1RR notice. There's been an ongoing discussion about the first sentence of the lead for a while now. Apparently Alertboatbanking thinks this is some kind of game.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because I think an edit is appropriate doesn't mean I can't discuss it in a humorous way, I was honestly trying my best to achieve an acceptable resolution to your dispute with other authors, incidentally I believe taking things too seriously is one of the causes behind your eternal editorial dispute with passersby.Alertboatbanking (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

However I do apologize if I have broken the rule, I thought a revert means to undo something someone did not adding something new. I saw a proposal another author had discussed on the talk page and included it in the article, someone else came in and improved my edit which I appreciated and I was fiddling around with the wording when nomoremrniceguy came in and deleted the combined edit of the two authors. I reverted his delete, at which point I had done my one revert per 24 hours. In any case unlike many of the other authors I'm not very interested in the issue and will probably not edit it again for many weeks if ever. Thank youAlertboatbanking (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . I have formally notified Alertboatbanking of the Arab-Isaeli sanctions. Based on the newness of the account and the above response, I'm hoping that is sufficient. Please read WP:1RR more carefully to understand what "revert" means in the context of edit-warring policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Petomaatti reported by User:Rudd-O (Result: Article locked)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highest-valued_currency_unit&action=history look at all those reverts to remove well-sourced verifiable facts from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudd-O (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, "You must notify any user you report.". I have not received a report. Second, I'd like to draw your attention to this dare, in which bitcoin subreddit is rallied towards modifying the article just because. Third, more people are rallied when his edit isn't sticking. Fourth, reporter has a vested interest, being an Bitcoin activist. Five, we've had decently active discussion in the talk page re: whether Bitcoin should be included or not, and this was mentioned to him (on an edit comment) but that has led to more editing and no discussion from his part. Until Bitcoin is decided to be included, trying to add some Bitcoin exchange rates as "cited facts" is disingenuous and as relevant to the article as "sun is hot".

I don't think this is more than aggressive astroturfing/POV push from Rudd-O, throwing negative labels on other in hopes of getting to push his own agenda. Petomaatti (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:86.151.108.204 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:)
Please note: This is not a typical 3RR report since the 3RR rule has not been breached in any given article. It is however an edit-warring report across multiple Byzantine Empire-related articles.

is reported for edit-warring across multiple Byzantine Empire related articles changing the name of the Empire from "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" or simply "Roman" against established consensus. In addition they also vandalised Tayyip Erdogan's article twice.

Despite multiple warnings on their talkpage the IP is not stopping. Some sample edits across multiple articles:

And finally some vandalism:
 * changing Byzantine to Roman
 * changing Byzantine to Eastern Roman
 * changing Byzantine to Roman
 * changing Byzantine to Roman
 * changing Byzantine to Roman
 * changing Byzantine to Roman twice.
 * Vandalism on Tayyip Erdogan calling him a Roman Emperor.
 * Vandalism on Tayyip Erdogan changing Istanbul to Constantinople (Roman Empire). Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 03:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you tried talking to the IP?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. But it is buried between the templates. Please see this. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 03:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Komputerzrkool reported by User:Lyonscc (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:  (Note - on previous revert diff, I requested user to take it to the talk page if he had justification for revision.

Comments:

The basic structure of the arguments section has not changed for over a year, but user Komputerzrkool appears to be POV-pushing by rearranging the sections away from logical flow without engaging anyone in the talk page. After my second revert today, which included a request to take the desire for this change to the talk page, Komputerzrkool made his third revert of the day and fourth of the last two days.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that there is a set format within wikipedia for setting the "for" argument before the "against" argument.

Example, #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform

Notice how in the "Campaign Finance Law" article, there is section titled "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." In this section, the opposing viewpoint is listed immediately after the summary of the ruling and BEFORE the section listing Senator McCain and Mitch McConnell's pro viewpoints.

Example #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

Notice how in the "Brady Bill" article, there is section titled "Movements towards humane execution," followed by a section titled "Abolitionism." Both of these viewpoints sections are opposing viewpoints and are listed BEFORE any pro viewpoint.

Example #3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Notice how in the "Euthanasia" article, there is a section titled "Euthanasia Debate." The very first sentence in this section is the viewpoint of euthanasia OPPONENT Ezekiel Emanuel. THEN, the viewpoint of Pro-euthanasia activists is listed.

Clearly, there is not a set format within wikipedia for setting the "for" argument before the "against" argument as I have clearly proven.

There is, however, is a pattern of listing opposing viewpoints first and then the pro viewpoint as a counterargument. THAT is the logical flow for an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komputerzrkool (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)