Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive205

User:I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman reported by Tgeairn (Result: Blocks, semi)
Page:

Users being reported:

Time reported: 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC editor 1:'
 * 1) 06:16, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")
 * 2) 06:19, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")
 * 3) 06:22, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")
 * 4) 06:30, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")
 * 5) 06:34, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")
 * 6) 06:39, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")
 * 7) 06:40, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")
 * 8) 06:42, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")
 * 9) 06:43, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")
 * 10) 06:50, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Series */")

editor 2:
 * 1) 06:21, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 532820664 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")
 * 2) 06:23, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 532820946 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")
 * 3) 06:31, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 532821612 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")
 * 4) 06:35, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 532822030 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")
 * 5) 06:42, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 532822581 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")


 * Diff of warning 1: here
 * Diff of warning 2: here

Comment: Additional IPs and SPAs (apparent socks) are also involved.

—Tgeairn (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours to the two reported editors by User:Anomie. The article has now been semiprotected for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:NikoVee reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 07:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:18, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "Restoring content removed by Matilda. Left detailed information on my own talk page. Did not know that making a large edit was some type of violation on Wikipedia.")
 * 2) 06:26, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "Glad you agree. I am sure you are aware of edit warring. There is nothing against making "too many edits" They are all sourced and from NPOV. I am sorry if you cannot take the time to compare the versions.")
 * 3) 07:00, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "Again, reverting the changes and encourage you to take the discussion to the talk page. I have requested page protection in order to take this to a more civil location.")
 * 4) 07:07, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "You have got to be kidding me. You have to be three people in the same room or a single person editing from different accounts. You reach of wanting to disrupt this page.")
 * 5) 07:13, 13 January 2013  (edit summary: "Actually, I have. I also stated such when filing the protection request. You and your other accounts have breached it much before. I knew that is why editors who have not edited for months have come on and made edits. you know what  you're doing,.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice. I made good edits to that article and they were then bombarded. I believe the edit warring was done prior to me as there is persistence from three "meatpuppets" that they will continuosly revert as I made "too large" or "too many" edits? Investigation was just filed. --NikoVee (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, please add users WWGB, Orderinchaos, and Matilda. Although not "technically" violating the 3RR rule, they have shown that they are willing to revert any edit made which can also be considered edit warring. --NikoVee (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No - I did not say I would revert any edit. I asked for edits to be made to sections or paragraphs at a time so that they could be reviewed by other editors and consensus gained.  Very large edits were made to a contentious article by a new but not inexperienced user.--Matilda talk 07:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I requested that you take the discussion to the talk page (see above and on my talk page and your talk page). You did not say you would revert any edit, but your edits along with the other two editors, who strangely never edit at the same time you are editing, have clearly shown that you are not willing to even look at the edits and revert the article back to the horrible shape it was in. If you wanted me to break it out in paragraphs, say such and I will gladly go back and do it paragraph by paragraph. The other option would be to compare the revisions of the article and point out the issues that you have ON THE TALK PAGE! Instead, we are here wasting everyone else's time because for some reason you do not like that the article was editing into a more neutral article. Sorry you hate me or hate this guy, but having a neutral article is what will continue to improve the reliability of articles on Wikipedia. --NikoVee (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

To hopefully move this along and leave admins alone to do other things, I do not believe that there is going to be another edit warring issue from any of the involved editors. I have placed a neutral point of view tag at the top of the article and also left a notice on the talk page. A request was filed with the neutral point of view noticeboard to review the proposed edits that I made and were reverted. I don't like speaking for others, but I do not believe there will be any more issues from anyone involved in regards to edit warring. Issue resolved unless WWGN, Orderinchaos, or Matilda feel otherwise. --NikoVee (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. If NikoVee makes any more controversial edits of Geoffrey Edelsten in the last seven days that don't receive a previous consensus on the talk page, he may be blocked without further discussion. the Geoffrey Edelsten article has been the subject of legal threats in the past so admins are not going to take it lightly. The idea that long-term established editors such as WWGN, Orderinchaos and Matilda are meatpuppets of each other will not win support from any regular editors and raises questions about the judgment of the person who asserts it. If we get much more of this nonsense a block for disruptive editing may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by User:LCDR IAM (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:

Note that I am not (I think) past my 3rd revert, so it is unlikely I will get blocked. However, I am now discussing with LCDR IAM on talk:transfer factor about improving the page, and he seems to have acknowledged that some of his edits were problematic and agreed to fix them. As such, perhaps the reviewing admin could WP:UCS regarding any possible WP:BOOMERANG issues and not block anyone? Assuming it remains civil and fruitful. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct that you did not violate WP:3RR. I do see the discussion on the talk page. At the same time, I also see a lot of disruption to the article by multiple editors. Is User:74.96.67.114 also LCDR IAM? If so, it would be good if they stopped using the IP address and logged in anytime they edit. I am willing to give you leeway to work out your differences, but I don't want to see any more disruption to the article because of misunderstandings as to how to implement any consensus, or frustration by the process, or whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea if the anon is the same person. If they are, they have an account now, and are using it (yay!) and if not we can resolve that later.  LCDR IAM seems to be willing to listen, and we're both online, so it looks like we may be able to resolve at least some things through discussion.  Yobol has reverted to the version before LCDR IAM's edits, I will suggest we build from there.  If further issues come up, I will drop a line (or if I'm the problem, LCDR IAM knows where the noticeboard is).
 * I hope that's acceptable, let me know if you have any objections or comments. Since we started talking, things have calmed down markedly.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation of 3RR by logged-in editors. It seems there is a discussion in progress. Since at least one IP has engaged in reverting without joining in on the talk page, I've semiprotected for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Chicago Style (without pants) reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 48h)
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:

Palestinian people is subject to 1RR per WP:ARBPIA. According to the warning at the top of Talk:Palestinian people, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." (emphasis in original) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - 48 hours, notified of WP:ARBPIA. This may not be their first Wikipedia account, and this is probably not the first time they have edited I/P articles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ворот93 reported by User:Wikiwind (Result: Blocked 48 hours by User:Bwilkins)
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 warned and reverted three times by three different users.-- В и к и  T  21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Topic starter is obviously engaged in pro-gay-norm PoV pushing. The other two "warners" are deep in GLBT theme editing and are also reverting the slightest edit that does not conform to the gay prides PoV. Ворот93 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Languages of Pakistan reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Semi)
Page:

Edit warring (& possible sock puppetry) to add extraneous detail to a summary article. — kwami (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There was indeed sockpuppetry, all socks of LanguageXpert currently blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected for three months by User:Salvio giuliano. The sock case is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive though no IPs are currently blocked under that. If LanguageXpert continues to evade his block it is possible that more Pakistan language articles may need to be semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:History2007 reported by User:207.112.105.233 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

This most simple report I can imagine (the template is very confusing and time consuming) I repot on user: History2007. Please read section : "IP WP:OR" on Talk Page of the article "Lost years of Jesus". My attempt was to introduce better information on base of present and official statements and discoveries. Finally I just proposed to remove the old over 30 decades reference or recognize how the favorable professors of History2007 counted the 15-18 year gap in 1989 and/or in 1999. I do not think his actions were OK. Please pass the report to appropriated spot for fix up. I will look for note from you in section: "IP WP:OR" Talk Page of the article "Lost years of Jesus" --207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A content issue, no edit war, does not pertain to this board. IP has talked to multiple users on article talk, has no support and no sources. I will not respond further here, will be a waste of time. Final comment from me here. History2007 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * User:207.112.105.233, User:65.95.176.24 and User:205.189.94.11 keep pushing the same point of view, despite a prolonged discussion on the Talk Page. Probably the same editor. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The issues seems to have been raised on my talk page by the IP after I rejected one of their edits. Oddbodz (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. When three IPs are being operated by the same person to conduct an edit war this violates WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by Joshua Jonathan - With or without an appropriate block for IP? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment #2 by Joshua Jonathan - In total it's five IP's whic are being used: 70.28.64.86 65.95.176.24 207.112.105.233 205.189.94.13 205.189.94.11. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What an amazing waste of time after all. It was the indef user:Serafin anyway. History2007 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Hans Haase reported by User:Rtc (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:Hans Haase is the main author of the respective article in German wikipedia. He is known to be heavily biased on the subject. He violates content policy and abuses Wikipedia to push POV on this matter, ignoring any arguments by other users and ignoring policy even after being pointed to several times. He already caused several edit wars over the past weeks on the German Wikipedia article, so this most recent one cannot be seen as an accident anymore. --rtc (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I looked that article over and removed unsourced content and content sourced to primary sources and a blog. Hans Haase reverted it all back in, the diff is the 5th revert given above. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am the contributor of the German article, right. I am contributing content. We have some lobbyism or involved editors who do not contribute, but just delete. I appers some persons would like to have the case away from the wikipedia. See the German's articles talk (Diskussion). Also editor have been asked by others if they are involved. When I ask a question up to four times and got no adequate answer, but personal (attacs) talk meaning I am wrong. We see what is really going on. --Hans Haase (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I did not refer on blogs. This was a talk in the German article. Other users linked to "Gabriele Wolf", a former general attorney who wrote about the case. But now I got blamed to do so. I never did! I just was asking why Gabriele Wolf's webpage still provides the same information while using a blog content management. I would be also wrong to say discount offers the best price always. --Hans Haase (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your manifold justifications are completely irrelevant. You violated and continue to violate policies, including WP:3RR. This is the only matter of significance here. --rtc (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected three days. Please use this time to find a compromise. The alternative to protection would have been edit warring blocks for both User:Rtc and User:Hans Haase. I don't see any obvious BLP violations in the material added by either side, so I don't see that anybody's reverts are exempt from 3RR. If you have questions about usability of sources, consider WP:RS/N. Bear in mind that, when the situation is rapidly evolving in the media, the best plan may be a short article that documents only the stable facts that are very widely known. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to set some things right: Material has been added by User:Hans Haase only, not by me. I attempted to remove some of it -- with the intention that "the best plan may be a short article that documents only the stable facts that are very widely known". But that is exactly the problem. If you try to do that, you end up in an edit war with User:Hans Haase, not only here, not only me, but several times with other users in German Wikipedia. His editing approach is one of pushing his own, biased opinion on the topic into the article, ignoring any arguments by others. He incorrectly assumes that this is justified if he cites primary sources that "prove" his points. Admittedly, this material was not in violation of BLP, but it was in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. --rtc (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cornelius383 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

(Collectively they span slightly over 24h; only 4 reverts within any 24h period, strictly speaking)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning after the second revert; warning after fourth revert; warning after fourth revert. A fifth revert followed a few hours later.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ananda Sutram, User talk:Cornelius383.

Comments:

There have also been recent discussions about edit-warring on a couple of other related articles - I want to emphasise that Cornelius383 was NOT reverting there (though there have been other concerns), but was involved in the discussion so the three-revert rule can hardly be a surprise... bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring at Ananda Sutram. User:Cornelius383 has insisted on retaining a version of the article holding more than 16,000 bytes of unsourced material, and has reverted this version back into place five times. The user has persisted in the face of reasonable explanations of policy provided by other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Raptor232 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments: This may not be the only account involved. There are striking similarities between edits from this account and User:AtefAadd, which was blocked back in December for similar edit warring. That editor's edits are also almost identical to this editor's edit warring. The other edits from Raptor232 of late appear to be related to this "issue", see, , , and. None of them are sourced, or even remotely explained. I don't have any background or knowledge of the underlying merits, but it seems quite clear the editor's in violation of edit warring on the particular article, and probably is part of a broader pattern. Their response on the talk page is particularly ironic since there's no talk page discussion that I saw on the subject. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I took a look at both users contributions and have filed an SPI here Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Raptor232‎ already indeffed as is his sockpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * - Indef to Raptor232 by User:Lectonar for 'personal attacks with racist undertones'; AtefAadd is blocked indef as his sock. Thanks to Darkness Shines for filing the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Shinatuah reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 10:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Naturopathy
 * 1) 09:23, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 10:23, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "Removed vague and clearly biased statements.")
 * 3) 10:26, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "Fixed vague and highly biased statements.")
 * 4) 10:28, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "Fixed vague and highly biased statements.")
 * 5) 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "Fixed statements that were vague, emotional, and clearly biased. Wikipedia is not the place for bashing on somethingnyou don't like, it's to deliver the facts without bias.")


 * Homeopathy
 * 1) 09:49, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 10:05, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Explanations of perceived effects */")
 * 3) 10:09, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 10:18, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "Vague and biased statements, also untrustworthy sources")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: Past 3rr already, and still going. Account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of edit warring to remove large swaths of reliably sourced content. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 10:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There have been more reverts since. I'm not going to bother adding them to the report, since he's already past 3rr. Check his contrib history for a fairly clear picture.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 11:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:67.170.192.66 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

The reverts are simply restores of the same uncited (since July!), dubious content, with aggressive edit summaries:
 * " Furthermore, the speed at which it can be decoded makes it useful for limited-power devices such as iOS devices. "


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: [diff] Only two, but see comment.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, shows editor doesn't care about verifiability - a SHORT discussion too.

Comments:

The diff immediately above shows another agrees that it's uncited, dubious info and doesn't belong. And suggests it's puffery.

Jimthing's edit summary : "user don't remove info without knowing facts" makes it clear that there's no intention of cooperating. --67.170.192.66 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The edits in question are from September 12 and January 7, there's no edit warring issue here, but I'll leave him a note. Ryan Vesey 19:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. (I think Jim's edit summaries match the definition of "the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." to a T, which is why I posted here. Along with the discussion, it all shows editor doesn't care about verifiability, etc.) --67.170.192.66 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As per Ryan Vesay's comment, this is absolutely nothing like an "edit war" being MONTHS apart! So your limited WP site experience (what, less than 20 edits in circa 6 months) does not fair you well here at all. I have added a citation from a professional source which you could have found yourself in 2 minutes searching, rather than wasting time bringing such a trivial case here. The only reason I didn't bother before was because unlike you —given your non-extensive edit record— I was actually likely very busy editing other more important WP articles in a more extensive manner. This needs closing accordingly, asap. Jimthing (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. The above report only shows two reverts. In any case Jimthing has now added a source for the disputed statement. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kleinsma80 reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Warned)

 * Pages in dispute:


 * User being reported:

This user is impossible to negotiate with. I've asked for cooperation on his talk page and he responded by deleting it. I guess, its a sign of their intentions. On the Rotterdam Blitz article and Kampfgeschwader 54 he has continually reverted and launched attacks against myself and other users. He has violated WP:3RR and WP:Civil. Dapi89 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: Battle of the Hague. He has reverted me, accussed me of tampering with a source. Yet it was me that added the source originally and was correcting "Pyrrhic Dutch victory", changed by an IP, back to "Pyrrhic German victory", as it is in Hooton 2010. Dapi89 (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are pusher of a weird form of pseudo-German POV. I have seen your edits and you continually lurk around articles to do with WWII battles involving Germany. Where you seem very fond of adding things such as '(Decisive) German Victory' or making seemingly small changes in words such as changing (objective) 'bombings' to (daring) 'raids'. You ought to know that can (and will) eventually bring you into conflict with others. As what might be a glorious decisive and overwhelming German victory in your eyes is an unprovoked national tragedy for others. War is not a game. War is war, and it is not the scoreboard of a football match. Kleinsma80 (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Addition: Someone with your record of edit-warring and incivility should not be so eager to accuse others!Kleinsma80 (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What a load of garbage. Stop lecturing others on articles you don't understand. You're tone, willingness to fight, threatening behaviour (on wikipedia which is supposed to be collaborative not competitive) will earn you nothing but contempt to others and may lead to you being kicked off wikipedia altogether. You have systematically reverted everything, regardless of it being sourced. You've done nothing but leave a trail of edit wars behind you.
 * I'm established. My contributions speak for themselves. No editor will be persuaded by this torrent of nonsense which demonstrates only your pursuit of you're own POV, lack of knowledge, and desire to fight against an imaginary 'pro-German' lobby. Dapi89 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your contributions indeed speak for themselves. I have systematically reverted your trickling with sources, your offensive euphemisms, and German '40 POV (not a pro-German lobby, as real German scholars do not have the POV you display!). I will continue to do that as long as this behavior continues as should everyone who wants a non-biased Wikipedia. The only thing you've done above here is show your true colors. Who's lecturing? Who's being denigrating? Who's accusing? You are. Kleinsma80 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of you knock off the bullsh*t, it's unproductive and childish, and I do not care who started it, I WILL end it if I have to. Admins, I have left messages for both users encourage a diplomatic approach to the problem, and I have watchlisted the page. At the moment there is no official grounds for sanctions, but I am keeping tabs on the article in question and if it comes to it I will protect the page and/or block the editor(s) for edit waring. For now, though, I would prefer to take a wait and see approach so as not to borrow trouble. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added Wolfgang Völz to the disputed articles, please pay a special attention to the attack edit comments by this user. Indeed this user is immune to discussions/suggestions from other users and keeps his POV-pushing, see today's edits in Battle for The Hague. --Denniss (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the new article as well. I see a limited attempt to add sourced material to the Battle for the Hague article, but the material is not in english and I can not read german, so I can not say for sure if the information is from a reliable source. I'm also seeing some attempt at dialogue on that talk page. I think at the moment if the edit waring picks up again tomorrow the best thing to do will be to protect the pages for a while and see if the attempted dialogue doesn't firm up. If that does not happen then the next move will be to start blocking editor(s) for disruptive behavior. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:0oToddo0 reported by User:Astynax (Result: Stale )
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:

This user has previously engaged in drive-by tagging/defacing on this article and in the past has refused to accept references or consensus.


 * but feel free to hit up my talk page if he re-adds that tag again. I have warned him that a block will follow. Viridae DON'T PANIC  08:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Paulduffill reported by User:Shrike (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1) 12:36, 16 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 532848445 by Soosim (talk) See explanation in talk")
 * 2) 13:47, 16 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 533364255 by Soosim (talk) I have just completed the talk entry. Please read and respond in talk.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The article belong to WP:ARBPIA and its under 1RR.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . The editor has apologized on the article talk page for the "lapse" and would have self-reverted but someone else reverted him. I've formally notified the editor of the sanctions. I think that's enough unless there's another similar incident.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: Skyring blocked 24 hours; Miesiniacal warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 17 January 2013
 * 1st revert: 02:09, 17 January 2013
 * 2nd revert: 02:20, 17 January 2013

Previous version reverted to: 04:09, 17 January 2013
 * 3rd revert: 06:12, 17 January 2013
 * 4th revert: 06:35, 17 January 2013
 * 5th revert: 06:38, 17 January 2013
 * 6th revert: 06:48, 17 January 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:20, 17 January 2013 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 06:42, 17 January 2013

Comments:

Miesianiacal is being extremely generous in his counts here. A look at the diffs shows that different things are being changed, with the latter edits focussed on restoring sources which Miesianiacal has repeatedly removed, despite being invited to discuss his Bold edits. The earlier reverts are simply inserts of a "citation needed" template to cover unsourced. Discussion ensued on the talk page, various changes were made and both sources and wording agreed upon. User:GoodDay could do with some reminding of our WP:RS policy. If a cite is requested it should be supplied. --Pete (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR: "Undoing other editors—...whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."
 * I stated I did not mean to remove the reference and restored it myself. That is incidental, however, as each time you restored the reference and on more occasions than those, you also reverted to your preferred wording. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  08:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Our articles need to be reliably sourced. The removal of sources constitutes vandalism. In this case, the source was one Miesianiacal and I had discussed at some length here. Its relevance to the topic, being the directly specific remarks of Australia's longest serving Chief Justice of the High Court, is crucial. Repeatedly removing it is wilful vandalism. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake? I let myself be distracted by a tendentious editor. Luckily, I jumped out after 2-reverts. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your mistake was in not pausing to think about whether you should repeatedly remove "citation required" templates from two different articles. I don't know what you were thinking, but if unsourced material is identified, it must be sourced, either by supplying a source or pointing out where the source lies in some other part of the article. You don't fix the problem by removing the template - that merely leaves unsourced content buried in the article! If an edit of yours is reverted - especially by a longstanding editor - then instead of allowing the red mist of rage to direct your actions, you should check with one or all of the three mentors whom you have accepted for that very purpose. I made a comment to that effect on your talk page, which you removed a few seconds later. --Pete (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * . I have blocked Skhyring for 24 hours and warned Miesianiacal. Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLouis reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: No action (see comments))
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:, 16 Jan 20:56
 * 2nd revert:, 17 Jan 03:05
 * 3rd revert:, 17 Jan 05:03
 * 4th revert:, 17 Jan 11:18

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -- a diff that shows GeorgeLouis giving a warning to another editor, thus awareness of the need to comply with 3RR is readily apparent.

Comments:

George appears to think he is being attacked in the comment he is repeatedly removing. He's not, and WP:TPO makes it clear that editors should not remove other editors' comments particularly if there are objections: "This [right to remove others' comments] generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil".

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe Nomo is acting in WP:Good faith, but please note Talk_page_guidelines. And see also "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence," which is also at WP:Good faith. A Talk Page is for improving the article, not for badgering editors. If Nomo has a better way of keeping the Talk Page conversation on track without insulting others, I would be happy to oblige. Perhaps he or she would accept the collapsing of this off-topic gibe instead of deleting it? GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles. "Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way." GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not off-topic, and it doesn't appear to be misrepresenting your views. However, may I suggest that RIR redact "whitewash", and replace "campaigning for" with a more neutral phrase, such as "working toward".  That would make it more clearly talking about the edits, rather than the editor.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would accept Arthur Rubin's suggestion in the spirit of Negotiation. As I mentioned on my user page, I may have thinner skin than most people, but it is my skin, and it is I who am offended. I am not interested in carrying on any kind of war, only in being free from being attacked—and at the same time in maintaining a friendly and supportive environment on the WP talk pages. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WIth only a bit of interpretation, one might read that statement as containing an intention to continue changing other people's posts -- perhaps even to the point of edit-warring beyond 3RR -- if those posts do not meet George's expectations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyway, I am taking a week-long Wikibreak. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of personal attacks has been held in the past to be a "permitted edit" - the issue is whether accusing another editor of seeking to "whitewash" an article is a "personal attack." If such comments do constiture a "personal attack", historically editors may be blocked for making such attacks. If GL reasonably viewed it as a "personal attack" it is then a rather strong ameliorating consideration. Collect (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing it once was arguably reasonable. Doing it 4 times was an unequivocal violation of 3RR.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether this noticeboard is for seeking solutions, or for seeking to get someone blocked. If the former, then a "protected class of edit" (removal of a personal attack - a template exists specifically for such editos) is important. If the latter, then no reasoned view will help.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This latest act of disruptive editing is consistent with the pattern of editing/conduct George has established in the past on the Frank Vandersloot article. In the midst of the latest 3RR violation, he was misusing warning templates on my talk page and has persisted in harassing me. It has become bad enough that I felt compelled to leave a warning on his talk page yesterday because previous informal warnings about harassment and tendentious editing have been ignored. The 3RR violation is clear cut in this case and a block is not only warranted, it is long overdue. I find George's pleas for diplomacy and creating a friendly editing environment to be extremely insincere given that he has been filing frivolous 3RR complaints against me (not one of which was successful) on practically a weekly basis. Collect's modus operandi is similar and he and George march in lockstep on every issue, to the point where it is strongly indicative of WP:TAGTEAM. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where in heck does this come from? The issue is whether what an editor reasonably percieves to be a personal attack belongs in view on an article talk page.  The post above appears to be primarily a ... personal attack.  As for the weird claim that I am in "lockstep" with any editor - my edits speak for themselves on several thousand articles.   Meanwhile, I would like to point out that unsupported (and unsupportable) accusations of "tagteam" are, indeed, generally considered to be "personal attacks" and you likely are in a worse position than you likely should like when you make personal attacks on a noticeboard.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is that the comment in question, while mildly critical, was not a personal attack by any stretch, yet George not only took it upon himself to remove the critical comment, he chose to edit war and violate 3RR over it. His combination of thin skin and an itchy trigger finger is not a good one. A block is warranted. And yes, you two have marched in lockstep on Vandersloot; it merits pointing out in this case as a caveat because you were so quick to jump in and try to excuse his indefensible conduct. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . I think I'm still involved and am therefore constrained from taking any action on this latest in a series of endless complaints about this article and the editors who edit it. That said, my recommendation is to decline it, if for no other reason than George's taking a week-long break.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps George would benefit from some advice on whether it would be appropriate for him to engage in this sort of behaviour again? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that GeorgeLouis has decided to take a break, a block at this point would be purely punitive (provided the edit warring doesn't continue, and for clarity's sake, any further edit warring is very likely to lead to a block). However, to be clear: GeorgeLouis, you did violate 3RR, and more so than that, repeatedly refactoring another editor's comments, especially if another editor disputes you doing so, is disruptive and will lead to a block. There is not a 3RR exemption for removing purported personal attacks, and this type of behavior creates far more trouble than it solves. RIR's comment could have been phrased more diplomatically, and "Focus on content, not the contributor" is generally good advice, but there's a long way between a mildly uncivil comment and a personal attack of the sort serious enough to warrant redaction. Regardless of that, however, it's probably a very bad idea for you to be edit warring to remove a comment that's specifically addressing you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:0oToddo0 reported by User:Astynax (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The previous warning had no effect.
 * The previous warning had no effect and the administrator who told 0oToddo0 he would block him if he continued with the same behavior has "disappeared". I'm concerned this report will go "stale" as the other one did and nothing will be resolved.  The user being reported has not only continued with edit warring, but has re-added a tag consensus was against being added and he's now added yet another tag that seems ill-advised.  Apparently, this is a pattern with this user and he's just repeating old behavior he committed previously last year?  It would sure be helpful is someone would take notice of this and do something to keep this frustration from continuing. Winkelvi (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - 48 hours for long-term edit warring. In response to an earlier complaint, User:Viridae indicated at 08:24 on 16 January that User:0oToddo0 could be blocked if he continued to place tags against consensus: "if you re-add that tag again, in opposition to the apparent consensus, I will block you for edit warring immediately." Subsequently, at 21:40 on 16 January, the 'unbalanced' tag was added yet again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 reported by User:Omen1229 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Reverts:

– One week by User:Joe Decker. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

User:Handsome128 reported by User:CT Cooper (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff (most recent version which is not his own)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link (4th revert after warning)

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

Comments: Handsome128 is determined to have his version of the logo adorn Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and he will just robotically revert anyone that makes an edit that does otherwise. There has been some discussion on the talk page, which remains ongoing, but despite being notified of it, he seems to have no interest in participating and has made no comments at all on the subject of the logo. As can also been seen on Latvia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013, his strategy of resoling content disputes seems to be to silently revert until he or other users give up. I'm involved so I cannot take admin action against him - I have stayed within 1RR, and nobody else has exceeded 3RR. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. Handsome128 has not reverted again in the last 24 hours. If he continues he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:CarthCarsen reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:13, 18 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Commentary on the case */  You can't have your misleading quote, to exonerate Aaron Swartz with a BS legal analysis by a non-expert, without some context to make it understandable. Its presence (with Hayes') is a NPOV violation")
 * 2) 18:31, 18 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 533720842 by Bonusballs (talk) Removing NPOV violation.  See Talk page.")
 * 3) 18:42, 18 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 533728916 by Bonusballs (talk) Talk page clearly establishes that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THIS QUOTE.")
 * 4) 18:47, 18 January 2013  (edit summary: "Fixing NPOV violation.  Please refer to Talk page before trying to re-add it, instead of inaccurately characterizing situation as "one or two" editors against this misleading presentation. Sainting is not required here")


 * Diff of warning: here, in edit summary

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Make sure the mischaracterizations of consensus and edit warring by Bonusballs are taken into context when you discuss the situation. Wikipedia is not the place for fan worship of any person, by presenting misleading out-of-context information or in any other way.  I question Nomoskedasticity's neutrality on this issue as well. (ETA: ... especially as Nomoskedasticity him/herself has mischaracterized 6 or more users expressing concerns as "one or two" including myself, as can be seen in the recent history of the Aaron Swartz page.) CarthCarsen (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

List of users expressing serious concerns over the biased nature of the quote at issue, as presented, includes: ErrantX, Peteforsyth, My76Strat, AutomaticStrikeout and Chicken Wing, as well as myself. The ones attempting to deify Aaron Swartz in the relevant article have falsely presented that there is consensus where there is none; consensus is not a simple vote majority, and should include attempts to address all concerns, whereas here Bonusballs and pals have simply ignored those concerns and attempts to address them. User Bonusballs has engaged in an edit war spanning multiple days, regarding the fix of fairly clear NPOV violations, and with others has falsely presented that there is consensus to the contrary. User My76Strat, who is actually a pro-Swartz editor, even posted a fine fix for the misleading nature of at least the Demand Progress quote as presented; but of course the Swartz fan base, in the person of Bonusballs, would have none of it. There is more to the situation than just an editor making three consecutive undos/edits; of course if I were here for a long time I could recruit meat puppets to do my edit warring for me, but note that Bonusballs has been the one kicking off and sustaining this edit war personally, including three reverts himself today.

Thus I have to say that if I have reverted three times, I did not do it first, did it against false claims of consensus that has clearly not been reached, and did it to avoid blindingly clear biased presentation in the article at issue. No matter how much Aaron Swartz may be liked, it does his memory no justice to exonerate him by hiding the ball. CarthCarsen (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm rather disappointed that Carth has chosen to continue their personal attacks against me on this page. Regrettably Carth has simply been engaging in repeated edits to articles of significant current controversy - e.g. Aaron Swartz and others relating to the computer crime legal issues surrounding it. These edits have been repeatedly biased, accompanied by edit summaries that make this editor's non-neutral position very clear, while at the same time they claim to be defending WP:NPOV. Both I, and numerous other editors, have said otherwise, and urged Carth to discuss these issues fully on the Talk pages in question. Carth instead repeatedly just removes the referenced material with which they disagree, edit referenced quotes for the same reason, and insert OR and other synthesis commentary to somehow support or 'correct' the quoted statements by the notable figures so referenced. I reject any accusations of edit warring - I have added no material to these articles and my only activity has been in reverting this editor's more egregious transgressions, something which numerous other editors have also done, for the same reason. I must sadly come to the conclusion that Carth's constant attacks, ongoing wild accusations, and inability to WP:AGF are somewhat vexatious. Despite much discussion and many attempts to help, from both myself and others, Carth instead seems to choose to make this personal. I genuinely regret that they choose to do so. Bonusballs (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have obviously been fixing the biased presentation of information, which certain persons simply cannot have when it comes to this particular person/subject. The facts are as stated; all are free to read the history and talk page of the article.  Of course Bonusballs does not like it when I point out his/her edit warring, but edit warring it is.  It began with Bonusballs.  CarthCarsen (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, unfortunately that does not fit the facts. Carth's first edits to Aaron Swartz began on January 15th with attempts to remove referenced quotes from Chris Hayes and Demand Progress. An IP editor restored them, to maintain balance. Carth removed the quotes again and instantly cried 'edit warring'. I then restored the quotes and Carth began accusing me of editing while signed out, the first in a list of wild and crazy accusations. Numerous other editors have also restored these quotes when Carth has repeatedly tried to remove them over the last four days. Discussion on the Talk page has agreed that removing quotes will not do. Carth has been encouraged to improve, but continues to remove, each and every time attacking the editors who disagree. Bonusballs (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The truth is apparent to all readers who care to look. I would also note, re: "wild and crazy" shenanigans, that Bonusballs has accused me of being a sock puppet, in his/her long stream of deplorable tactics and falsehoods.  Discussion in no way has agreed that removing misleading quotes without a proper setting "will not do"; in fact multiple users quickly agreed that the removals were proper, after which Bonusballs descended on the scene.  False is false.  CarthCarsen (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I stand by my actions. You have been repeatedly asked to respect the neutrality of the article, the sanctity of referenced quotes, and the consensus on the talk page. You have ignored them all. The most recent reversions of your edits and comments on the article talk page further underline that your actions are the problem here. Bonusballs (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The more you post, the more you make my points for me. Again, the facts speak for themselves.  CarthCarsen (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I stand by my actions. You, I notice, are still continuing your campaign and even now are still continuing to revert against Aaron Swartz, now clearly and unambiguously well past the 3RR limit. I think that says it all. Bonusballs (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No amount of attempts to exonerate Aaron Swartzy by skewing his article improve Wikipedia. CarthCarsen (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * additional revert, making it clear that action is required to prevent on-going disruption. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Action has been proposed (by other people than me) that would address all concerns: putting the quotes in context by explaining enough about the facts to enable readers not to be misled; and doing so on the page for the case itself, which was agreed already to be made. Action to allow Bonusballs and friends to inject a skewed picture into the article (even more than it already contains, anyway) without opposition is not in the best interests of neutrality.  CarthCarsen (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Clear-cut edit-warring with evident intention to continue, and CC apparently doesn't get it, hence is still (unwittingly, perhaps) cruising for a bruising. Kindest thing would be for an admin to clarify the situation to CC, while holding back on the block hammer, for use only if CC then digs the hole deeper. I note CC's latest revert has also produced a cite error. Writegeist (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification has already been offered on the user's talk page -- but it appears to have been ignored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If I am disciplined, so must Bonusballs be, for edit-warring first. In addition, my own edits fall within [3RR exemption] # 7: "Removal of... biased... contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons", which includes NPOV violations. The analysis is not merely whether three reverts have occurred. Of course I will continue to revert to eliminate clear bias. Allowing, with key placement, unopposed statements to the effect that Aaron Swartz did no more than try to check a few extra books out of a library, when he allegedly did not follow anything analogous to a checkout process but instead surreptitiously circumvented or violated both the terms of service of JSTOR and access control protocols in place, and downloaded 4.9 million documents or more (quite a lot more than a "few extra"), with the alleged intent to destroy JSTOR's ability to charge for its content-- to allow those unopposed statements is biased. The quote would be perfectly fine with enough supporting information to avoid misleading readers-- but as it is, it's a glaring "Exonerate Aaron Swartz" advertisement.

No, there is no question but that the inclusion of the quotes at issue began as clear NPOV violations, for which my removal was approved by other users-- you will note it was initially so bad that a previous editor indicated that one of the two skewed summations at issue was accurate. Presenting the Hayes and Demand Progress quote without any opposition on the factual points they attempt to make is heavily biased. CarthCarsen (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no significant NPOV issue here. The subject was embroiled in a complex legal controversy, and the two brief quotations reasonably illustrate his position. That other people believed otherwise is self-evident. Further, presumption of innocence in criminal matters is both US Law and Wikipedia policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. Removal of sourced information *favorable* to Aaron Swartz is obviously not exempted from 3RR on BLP grounds. Carth was offered a chance to avoid sanctions by taking a break from this article, but would not do so. A claim of fixing POV violations does not grant an exception to 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned by the fact that the block seems to have been imposed only three hours after EJ's offer appeared at CC's talk, and I can't see where CC said he would not take a break from the article (i.e. would not take up the offer), but perhaps I missed something. On the other hand, the block seems appropriately short, and the explanation clear enough. Writegeist (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Carth's response here appears to be declining my offer. He said, "The one starting and continuing the (days-long) edit war is Bonusballs". This does not sound like an acceptance to me. I waited to hear this response before taking action. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OIC. Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Mar4d (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

I'd also like these reverts to be looked and whether or not the IP involved is a sock/proxy. Regardless, DS reverts here also constitute edit warring:
 * 1st revert:, removing POV tag added by me
 * 2nd revert:, removing CN tags added by me
 * 3rd revert:, removing sourced content added by me
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Continous reverts with no effort to compromise or understand alternative points of view on talk page. The ongoing edit warring is highly disruptive for the article and also halting attempts at content dispute resolution on the talk page. I add sourced content, it gets, removed. I add tags, they get removed. He's made up to 6 reverts, all within one day, at the same article.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 21:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I already told Mar I was not over 3RR, yet he files this. Diffs 1 & 2 are consecutive, hence 1RR. The reverts on the IP are not counted as reverting socks is an exemption, and those are proxy servers which I have already reportedhere I have but two reverts to the article, the lst one being due to Mar using sources which I had already explained to him on talk were not usable, one being a blog the other not even mentioning the incident the article is about. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . You should be aware at this point that sequential reverts with no edits in between count as one. The other edits are with a obvious sock using Opera mini proxy.  Kuru   (talk)  00:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:98.192.226.42 reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: 2 months)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of attempt to invite anon IP to participate in discussion (made prior to revert 7 above):

Comments:

This has apparently been a long-simmering edit war on this article, as registered users defend the current status of the article while anon IPs make changes without providing sources or edit summaries. Reviewing the edit history of this article points to two separate anon IPs, but both geo-locate to Maryland, USA, suggesting these may be one and the same person; the second, older IP hasn't edited since late 2012 but was not subjected to a block, so it's possible the editor no longer has access to that IP address. This needs to stop. -- McDoob AU93  23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * – Two months. A very stable IP has been conducting the same war for months. This block should help, but semiprotection might be needed in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: ;;

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

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

Comments: User:Ashrf1979 has been edit warring on the article Uyunid dynasty, since Jan 6, to include his opinion that the Uyunids were Shiite Muslim. I added a source that stated they were Sunni and was reverted. I started a discussion joined by Ibrahim888 and presented my sources. Ashrf1979's sources were coins(which were later removed under copyright violation) and some book that is not verifiable. Both Ibrahim888 and I waited a week for Ashrf1979 to present his information, but he was not inclined to use the article talk page. After a week Ibrahim888 and I decided to use what sources were verifiable and write the information into the article. Whereupon Ashrf1979, reverted me and demanded on my talk page verification of my sources(which is listed on the article's talk page). I reverted Ashrf1979 once and posted another warning on his talk page, which he ignored and reverted me again. Ashrf1979 has been given every opportunity to present his information/sources to be assessed for reliability and verifiability, but has decided that his opinion overrides the information presented by other editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm the admin who dealt with Ashrf1979 last time around. He's been twice at AN3:
 * First time at AN3 (January 2010) the report was closed by me with just a warning, hoping that he would eventually learn our policies: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive120
 * Second time (April 2012) WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive182. This was closed with a two week block, also by me. He wanted Nebuchadnezzar to be listed as Bahrani, couldn't provide a source, but kept on reverting endlessly.
 * In the second 3RR my suggestion was that if problems continued an indefinite block should be considered. Since I'm the only admin who has taken action so far, it needs more views before closing this report. The only article talk page he has ever used is Talk:Bahrani people. An earlier version of his user talk shows that he's been having problems with WP:V for ages. The longest discussion he's ever had seems to be here. He seems to not quite have the ability to edit an English-language encyclopedia, and any explanations of our sourcing rules go over his head. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree generally with your analysis. I would add that Ashrf1979 does also edit talk pages of other editors where he expresses his views. He does more of that than he does on article talk pages. Unfortunately, I do not consider his comments in that area as helpful. Rather, they confirm the fact that he edits from a partisan point of view and is more interested, almost defiant, in his perception of the "truth" than in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. However, before indeffing him, I would wait to see if he responds to the comments you left on his talk page. If his response is inadequate or if he continues to edit without responding, I would support an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been contacted by Ashrf (who also contacted some other guys). I don't think he realizes how bad this current position is, as he simply asked me to help him verify that the two sources he kept using were valid and to "correct" the article. I'm not sure if it's a language problem or not, but based on a quick look into his history in Arabic Wikipedia, he edits the same range of articles. He contacted me before and I gave him some advises in his Arabic talk page  about the importance of inline citations, reliable sources and how to deal when in a simple conflict.


 * I have superficial knowledge about the Uyunid dynasty; the coins that were there are often cited in discussions, but I know this might not be a scientific evidence. It is worth mentioning that these topics (about Shia origins in Bahrain) are usually heated and disputed; the Baharna maintain the position taken by Ashrf that they are the indigenous people of Bahrain where non-Baharna sometimes accuse them of coming from Iraq or Iran. Much of this of course has to do with politics and the topic gets more heated at times of crisis such as the one ongoing in Bahrain currently.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * . Ashrf1979 has continued to edit without responding to EdJohnston's warning/request to respond. I have therefore indefinitely blocked him.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The main issues here is not really the editwarring, it is the removal (constantly) of the sourced date for the beginning of this incident January 8 2013, and replacing it with this one giving a start date for the incident as January 6, however the source does not say the incident began on the 6th, and in fact the incident began on the 8th when an Indian trooper had his head loped off by Pakistani infiltrators per the sources Mar4d is engaging in both edit warring and OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding in new sources and content for verification is not edit warring and in this case, the diffs you've given above are not reverts. Moreover, there's no evidence of successive reverts. It was made fairly clear on the talk page that the incident began on January 6, whereas the India incident occured on January 8. Now unless you're having a problem with counting, January 6 comes before January 8, yet you will not stop reverting the sourced version to your own O.R. version. Will you also explain why you keep on replacing January 8 with January 3 when all the sources we have are showing January 8? At least fix up the original research before reverting.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You three times rewrote the lede, so you altered another editors work, that is a revert. You reverted in a cat after being told on talk not to and did not get consensus for. You have four reverts. The incident began jan 8th which is sourced in the article. the January 8 incident in Mendhar area of Jammu and Kashmir The incident began when some poor bastard had his head chopped off. And that is all I have to say on the matter Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, I added new content, I did not rewrite anything. Your constant lies are shoving the credibility of this thread down the drain. And you yet again contradict yourself, if January 8 is the correct date (which it indeed is), why did you earlier revert me (and also another revert) to support January 3 during your previous edit warring? You're also past 3RR btw.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of lies. Your first diff is from before I added the source, your second was reverting a sock. I have but two reverts on the article, so do not accuse me of edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's wonderful how the two of you interact so civilly. DS, fix the revert list. It should be in chronological order, oldest first. Right now, it's all mixed up, and I don't intend to sort it out for you. Mar4d, your idea of what constitutes a revert is contrary to policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, and I am being civil, given I am being called a liar surprisingly so. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I get your point about the lie issue, but how are you "done"? You haven't fixed the revert list above.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought I had, one was out. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mar4d breached WP:3RR with 4 reverts and possibly 5. However, DS, your contention that you reverted only twice is weak. I count three for sure and possibly a fourth, depending on how technical one wants to get. I've come very close to blocking Mar4d, particularly because of the lies accusation, which exacerbates the other behavior. I'm still pondering that. I have a question for you, though, DS. Are you satified with the lead since User:Future Perfect at Sunrise revamped it?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the minor copyedits? Well if those put me over so be it. And yes I figure FPaS version is OK. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To me a copy edit is one where no substance is changed, i.e., grammar, formatting, rewording but only syntactially, etc., but if any substance is changed, and particuarly if it's the source of dispute, then the change of even one character would be a revert. This is all conceptual, though; we'd have to discuss particular edits for this to be more concrete. I don't believe blocking you based on the history here is warranted. Nonetheless, I felt obliged to advise you to be careful.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm currently on mobile so will make this brief. From what I was able to understand, adding new content does not count as a revert and that appeared to be the case in some of the diffs given above by DS so my contention was over that issue. If I am incorrect, you may let me know and I shall accept the advice. I may have made the 'lieying' comment while I was in a state of frustration. As you insist, I will withdraw the comment and strike it, if that makes things better. Thirdly, does the three-day probation also apply to the talk page or just the article? And should the same not apply to the other involved editor/s  Mar4d  ( talk ) 20:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only diff listed above where you only added new content was the 5th, but that was altered by subsequent consecutive edits so by the time you were done with the sequence, you had also changed something. Generally, "pure" addition of content is not a revert unless, of course, it is adding something that was previously deleted. Striking your comments, albeit not an apology, is accceptable (to me, anyhow). The 3-day probation does not apply to the talk page. Finally, these conditions apply only to you. Let me know if you accept everything. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * . Mar4d has accepted the conditions on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Brocach reported by User:BlackPrinceDave (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - I'm not trying to resolve it, I'm simply reporting it. They've "tried" to resolve it via edit summaries, it seems.

Comments:

User:Laurel Lodged also has four reverts on this article, so I report him also. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Alans1977 reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (made one minute after the AN3 notification was posted on his talk page)
 * 5th revert: (made well after this report was lodged)
 * 6th revert:

Note also an earlier revert on 14 January:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This material has been under discussion since 15 January at Talk:Tony Abbott, with a consensus to not include it. Alans1977 has not participated in this discussion, and keeps edit warring.
 * Edit: Alans has just made his first post on the talk page, calling the reversions of his material 'vandalism':

Comments:

Note that this is a report of sustained edit warring instead of engaging in an ongoing discussion in relation to a BLP, which has included a 3RR violation. The 3RR threshold was crossed after this report was lodged. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Favonian (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Applesandapples reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No action)
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:

Yet another edit warring SPA in a long list of edit warring SPA's on articles which deal with the ICT. Something needs to be done about this given there is paid lobbying going on the article and associated are targets for these SPA's. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I also need permission from an admin to fix the ref errors caused by this guy. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have asked him for extracts from the source used to support the crap he is putting in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)&diff=prev&oldid=533985884 Alright, we can forget the source. Now that we've discussed it, I'm not very bothered about it] point blank refuses. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Darkness Shines is being generous with his revert count here. The "1st revert" is not a revert at all, just a restoration of a couple of old sentences with its source. In fact, both of us have made 3RR, Darkness Shines's being, and . He reverted my first edits without warning claiming that I am a sockpuppet. I am not, and am happy for this to be investigated if really necessary. As a side note, I do have other interests which I might have a go at editing later, but I am an editor in good faith. Not a 'paid lobbyist'. Applesandapples (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You restored content already removed, that is a revert. You still have not provided quotes from your source to support the edit, and you cannot as the source does not support it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I have requested a CU check you. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already said with regards to that particular source, you win, we can forget it. I really don't know what I have done to provoke such hostility from you from the start.Applesandapples (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you admit you added content to an article without verification? And the nedit warred it in? And have still not self reverted? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See the article's talk page for the discussion on this source. I also find it so rich for you to speak about edit wars. It's not the first time you've been involved in one either, by the looks of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applesandapples (talk • contribs) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Request. Under WP:ARBIPA I am requesting this article be put under a 1RR restriction, a notice should be placed on the article talk page and on the edit screen of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article was protected for a long time. We are trying to make it decent according to wiki editing rules. Just popping up and start edit warring is not a good idea. I am supporting DS's 1RR restriction.--Freemesm (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest this is closed without action - blocking would be punitive at this point - there has been some reverting which has stopped now - please use discussion more and Third opinion and suchlike - WP:RFC if you can't find agreement - Back off, start again and  a  1RR restriction WP:ARBIPA may well be a good idea for such a contentious article. You  really  can  13:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Report closed as no action. 1-rr imposed. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (the reverts are all attempts to remove this edit and replace it with language taken from  This page from PolitiFact.com].


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

NOTE: Although technically not a 3RR violation, I am arguing that Xenophrenic is gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot. His reverts were at

02:45, 19 January 2013

05:04, 19 January 2013

08:29, 19 January 2013

06:46, 20 January 2013

I am also contending that, given his long history (see notes below) he knew perfectly well that his behavior was exactly four hours past the 24-hour slot.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Xenophrenic is no stranger to our policies on edit warring, having been a party to the Winter Soldier 2 arbcom case, received many warnings over the years and has reported many editors for edit warring --Guy Macon (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of Guy Macon's assertions above: There has been no 3RR violation here, that's correct. I am indeed familiar with our policies on Edit Warring, also correct. In over 6 years of editing, often in controversial subject matter, I have found it necessary to file some reports (please note that 9 of those 10 listed by Macon resulted in "Blocked" results, and 1 marked "Stale", with a note from the closing admin to keep an eye out for the IP's return). So you see, those were not frivolous reports -- I give a lot of thoughtful consideration before I warn or report problem editors.  Unfortunately, other editors try to use warnings and this noticeboard as a way to chill discussion or intimidate editors, so yes, I have "received many warnings over the years" -- which have not resulted in administrative action.  And yes, I have been a party to an arbitration; the other party has since been permanently community banned for long term tendentious editing, and he was subsequently shown to have been sockpuppeteering even during that arbitration, so I'm not sure how that supports the narrative Macon is advancing.


 * Incorrect information above (please just click on the diffs to verify):
 * "Xenophrenic is gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot", is not only incorrect, but a horrible assumption of bad faith. You seem to have overlooked that I was editing Wikipedia at 3:39 (also outside the 24-hour window) which is when intentional "gaming" would have occured if I was of that mindset, but instead I refrained from editing this particular article for several more hours until I could double-check all sources under discussion. When I finally did make another edit, I opted to not reinsert my previous edits, and only rolled back the article to the last stable state prior to Macon's disputed bold edit, pending the resolution of our discussions. So there was no "gaming", even though I had every opportunity to do so.
 * The four diffs provided above, made over two days, are not all "reverts". The first one, for instance, actually takes the source and some of the new content provided by Macon and expands it, locates it earlier in the paragraph for context, and preserves his citation. The last of those four edits is actually a rollback to the stable (for the past month) article state prior to Macon's disputed addition, since Macon indicated he wished to follow WP:BRD.
 * Also incorrect is Macon's assertion that I was attempting to "replace it with language taken from This page" -- I've never seen that source until Macon linked it here. I was using only the sources provided by Macon, or already present in the article.


 * Macon's last Talk page comment says "I stand by my edit", yet he still refuses to address the primary concern about his edit. I can't exactly force his hands to the keyboard and make him explain how he reconciles the date conflict between his content:
 * In January of 2013 Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, announced that it will start producing Jeeps in China. Source
 * and this content:
 * Chrysler announced in October of 2012 that it will resume producing Jeeps in China. Source1, Source2, Source3, Source4, Source5, Source6, Source7, Source8.
 * I am unaware of an IDHT noticeboard at which I can raise the issue. What would be the appropriate next WP:DR step to resolve this matter?  (Alternatively, if an admin with a spare few minutes of time could persuade Guy Macon to address the date conflict his edit introduces, that would be greatly appreciated). Xenophrenic (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * – Three days. It is disappointing to watch two established editors go right up to the edge of an edit war. I trust that both parties have heard of the WP:Request for comment process and they know how to follow the steps of dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:89.180.159.166/User:89.180.32.43/User:89.180.42.116/User:89.180.109.87/User:89.180.158.223 reported by User:Kahastok (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: All are assumed to be the same editor.

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:National Institute of Statistics and Census of Argentina

Comments:

Note that this is both an edit warring and a 3RR case. The last four reverts constitute a 3RR violation, but the others were not within the twenty-four hours. There is a request for page protection outstanding at WP:RFPP, and editor has been repeatedly warned on talk pages for deleting content. I have posted the notification on the most recent IP talk page. I will post a link to this case at WP:RFPP. Kahastok talk 18:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. The fluctuating IP is violating WP:SOCK but seems to only care about this one article, so a rangeblock is not worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Asante90 reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

And a 5th, after this report was filed:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Comments:

The discussion over the inclusion of these statements on Bauval has been put in place on the talk page. . As you can see the people who have been reverting my contributions have yet to comment on the discussion created for this. Where is the dialogue? All I'm seeing are one line comments on the view history tab and an outright refusal to seriously discuss the issues that the editors have with the inclusion of this statement. Asante90 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24h by User:Tide rolls. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:138.88.60.165 reported by User:Andrew Lancaster (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:

(It is a slow edit war, but certainly looking un-endable.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * This IP user, who is clearly actually an experienced user, protests that this is actually a sourcing policy based edit war, and so I brought this case to WP:RSN. The editor has completely ignored the consensus there.
 * I have obviously also down quite a few reverts! But I have also trying new wordings many times, and the aggressive/punitive style of reactions made to those, is worth noting:, ,

This is a scientific article that requires us to adhere to relevant scientific publications as close as possible, all my arguments, which in my opinion are closest to said publications, can be found in the talk page discussions that you have linked to above, so I see no need of repeating them here again. As it stands now however, we seem to be in an agreement on the lead, that is off-course if you do not decide to change the content again.138.88.60.165 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this must surely be User:Muntuwandi. In any case it is interesting that since this case has been posted here, this editor has announced on the talk page, and now here, that they think a compromise has been reached: "the northern part of East Africa" is to be used instead of the "Horn of Africa"! I think this obviously fudged wording is not going to last the next time someone else who speaks English looks at the article, but this also proves that this editor has some axe to grind about the term Horn of Africa, and is not really concerned with anything else. This is all "edit warring" behaviour, and not how we should edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The compromise doesn't really have anything to do with you bringing the thread here, although you are welcome to think that, rather it is the fact that you decided to accept all the reasonable criteria I have asked for (a)Substructure information (b) Same terminology as what is found in scientific publications (c) Substructure based frequency information (d)no terminology that conflicts with area of origin. The 'Northern part of East Africa' statement does not contradict what is in the literature and is also consistent with what is displayed for area of origin.138.88.60.165 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is clearly not in a form which is ever going to be a stable compromise, so it is just between reverts. This is because you have in fact never had a consistent rationale. Your sourcing claim, which you developed after first intervening with other arguments, was unanimously rejected at WP:RSN. The only thing that is consistent is you want to remove mention of the Horn of Africa, which is a clear English term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

After a 35 hour hiatus, Andrew Lancaster has decided to restart the edit war by removing the compromise he had offered himself and re-inserting back into the lead the same terminology that had led to the contention to begin with. As this is the second time he has gone back on his own edits that were seemingly leading to a compromise, it seems as though he rather favors a more protracted war than a quicker resolution. I have now gone back to the exact same terminology as used by the geneticists and all other public sources.

On a related but separate note, he is now also rejecting scientific sources that have been co-signed by the same major authority of the topic of discussion (Fulvio Cruciani), in addition to other scientists that are also authorities in the field, with the excuse “the link is not to a real source or any mention of V6”, the latter part of the excuse is even more baffling as it is blatantly false, given that the frequency of E-V6 in the samples are clearly tabulated in Table 1 of the article, along with the phylogenetic tree in Fig.4.138.88.60.165 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As explained above, just declaring that there was a good compromise was a reaction to the fact that I posted here, but that declaration never actually made it true. Anyway the occasion for the latest round is that you have also added a new claim to the text which was ungrammatical and needing clarity about the sourcing. (I checked the link and searched for such sources, but found none.) When sourcing claims are challenged, your responsibility is clear, and simply doing another knee jerk revert, re-inserting the wrong wording as well, is not the right way to act. This is edit warring. Just doing reverts is not always edit warring. In the meantime, will you please explain what your previous username was? You are clearly a former editor of this article right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason for you to dwell on who I am, instead of dwelling on the arguments and questions I have been asking you. Why are you insisting on terminology for the subject in question that you can't even source? When I have provided 8 sources ( 4 Authoritative Publications - Cruciani (2002), Cruciani (2004),Cruciani (2006),Semino (2004), 1 Peripheral publication - Scheinfeldt (2010), and 3 Commercial DNA testing organizations - 23andME,Genographic Project,FTDNA) that use the exact same terminology I am demanding of you to put in the lead of the article. Why instead are you insisting on your own opinion for the terminology in question instead of what is most commonly used both by the scientists and the commercial companies out there? Why also are you insisting on confusing readers with the false implication that the possible place of origin and the high frequency areas of East Africa have been given different terminologies when all authoritative publications actually use the SAME terminology? Those are the questions you need to answer and not who I am.
 * With respect to the latest source I gave for E-V6' low presence in Egypt and which you immediately presumed was invalid, I specifically gave a hyperlink for it, which you just simply chose to reject without taking the time to look into it, once again here it is The Berber and the Berbers, Genetic and linguistic diversities, here is another one that takes you directly to the PDF, 138.88.60.165 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The RS aspect of your argument was rejected unanimously and clearly at WP:RSN. It is the type of nonsense argument made by edit warriors such as Muntuwandi who have worked this article in the past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hto9950 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problems is still there, yes, but I think it will not go away if I stop editing. Other editors of the article have also tried to fix this problem. I have been trying to avoid editing, and trying to get real discussion, but this continues to fail. Please note that the result at WP:RSN was absolutely unanimous that there is no sourcing reason for the IP editor, presumably User:Muntuwandi, to be insisting on calling the Horn of Africa, "East Africa". Such unanimity is rare. He/she also admits that the Horn of Africa is what others call the relevant part of East of Africa, and has even said that they'll accept "the northern part of East Africa". There is zero support for the position of the IP editor anywhere in the community, and I think that is relevant to whether non 3R "behavior" is called edit warring?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me explain my position this way: I see myself as simply doing what the community unanimously wants, on an article not many editors visit. That is why I have tried hard to move discussion to bigger forums. So, to be logically consistent, I suggest as follows: if just one experienced and non-involved editor will look at the case and the way this IP editor is working, and declare it a good solution, then let's change "the Horn of Africa" into "the northern part of East Africa" which is the "compromise" this IP editor demands of the WP community. If that happens, then I promise I will not be the next person to change that wording. But I think such twisted English will eventually be changed by someone, right? But if all experienced non involved editors think the proposal is ridiculous (which is, I think, the case) then I do not see myself as edit warring, but I am open to opinions from the community. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This question is not just about giving the appropriate, meaning the most commonly used, terminology to one of the regions where the E-M215 lineage is found abundantly, but also having this terminology be consistent with the terminology used for where the lineage putatively emerged as well. For this you not only have to be familiar with the geographic terminologies in question but also some familiarity with the publications involving a certain level of detail of the E-M215 lineage is also necessary. If the 'consensus' of editors here at Wikipedia is different from what the authoritative publications and the public in general use for the same topic, then in my opinion, one definitely has a right to vigorously question such a 'consensus'138.88.60.165 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The place where something is most common is the same as the place it originated? No. Of course you will not be able to find any source for that leap of illogic. In any case it is clear that you've already admitted that the region involved is northern part of East Africa which other people call the Horn of Africa. You are demanding the community not to use the normal term, based on 2 or 3 steps of logic which are simply impossible. This is precisely the kind of thing User:Muntuwandi and his/her many socks have done over the years, in his/her crusade to emphasize everything sub-Saharan at all possible costs. If you are not the same editor, you are a very accurate imitator.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who this user Muntuwandi is that you have been 'accusing' me of being for the past few days, but it doesn't surprise me that you would throw around such accusations without any proof, seeing that bringing proof to what you claim has not been any of your strong suits, at least from the interactions I have had with you for the past couple of weeks. In any event I will once again bring the quotation from the Cruciani (2004) article that explains why I think using different terminologies for the origin and distribution of E-M215 is not only confusing but is actually misleading,
 * "Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b—that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3)the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup."
 * 138.88.60.165 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please state clearly. Do you claim that this quotation says that the place where something is most common is the same as the place it originated? Don't think so. For this and other reasons, anyone reading that article can see that the authors could never have intended what you are trying to use it for on Wikipedia. There are several logical fallacies necessary, not just one. See also WP:RSN.
 * Anyway I would like to ask again whether there is anyone else can look at this article? After the most recent revert I have now done as promised above and taken the article back to the "compromise" of "the northern part of East Africa". I will not be the next to change it. Is the IP editor's demand considered acceptable by any single member of this community?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can infer anything from any lack of response to your question. This noticeboard is to report edit-warring not to resolve content disputes. It's true that sometimes editors other than the battling parties express an opinion about the underlying dispute, and it's also true that sometimes content disputes are resolved as a byproduct of a report here, but that's not really the objective of this venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have stated clearly and I will restate the same thing again; All the 3 reasons point to the same area of East Africa that we are arguing about, which you insist on calling the Horn of Africa when it is about frequency but want to call it East Africa when it is about origin, I on the other hand insist on leaving it as just East Africa CONSISTENTLY. The same reasoning used by the authors to identify the East African homeland of E-M215 is the same reason the Wikipedia article is showing East Africa as a 'possible place of origin' for E-M215. I am not sure how much clearer it can get than this really.138.88.60.165 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23, indeed the question for this noticeboard is whether there is edit warring. The IP editor's efforts to fill this noticeboard with a finished content dispute should not distract from that.
 * @138.88.60.165, as per the discussions on the article and WP:RSN, of course it is not true either in theory or practice that high frequency is the same as place of origin and that is also clearly not the position of any sources on this subject. You are cherry picking some words out of context, and done some very wrong OR to make your claim. You have never given one source which says that highest frequencies are in "East Africa", and you know very well that to write this is to mislead. Concerning E-M215 there is a massive difference between the Horn of Africa and the rest of East Africa. It is one of the things notable about this haplogroup and you are trying to obscure it, as per the habits of the sock master User:Muntuwandi, who had a long history of efforts to do such things to this article and many others involving Africa.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not withstanding your manipulation of the words 'high' and 'highest' to somehow bring clarity to your un-sourcable argument, it is still crystal clear that the authors use the SAME terminology for both areas of putative origin and high frequency, which is UNLIKE your proposal, and that is the bottom line. In addition, whatever user-name you will try to associate my IP address with next time (and let it be known that as a testament to your paranoia this is not the first Wikipedia character that you are attempting to force an association with me), is just futile and not going to change the above fact one iota either.138.88.63.185 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All a very familiar looking type of nonsense. To repeat, not one person has been convinced by you in the various relevant forums. You simply do not have sources saying what you claim about Eastern Africa, (which you admit is wrong, while insisting we must use the term), and nor do we need sources to use a common English word. Editing against a clear consensus is not acceptable, but this article has seen all this before hasn't it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Pscorp19 reported by User:Collect (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 21:59 18 Jan
 * 2nd revert: 23:19 19 Jan (first of new sequence)
 * 3rd revert: 9:40 20 Jan (second)
 * 4th revert: 16:20 20 Jan (third)
 * 5th revert:  19:19 20 Jan (fourth revert in 20 hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:29 20 Jan with request for a self-revert. His reply at 18:59 iterating the problem edit and  making clear he did not think 3RR was a real rule

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and at WP:3O at

Comments:

User:Pscorp19 is a clear SPA with an inordinate interest in Mail Online accounting for virtually every edit he has every made on Wikipedia. He not only declined to self-revert when he was politely asked, he worsened his edit. He made an edit summary calling me "blind" and said on the talk page that:  And thank you for your effort to delete facts The 4RR in 20 hours is clear. The refusal to self-revert is clear. And his personal attacks are clear. Note that I engaged in talk page discussion and also solicited a third opinion on this, as well as asking him to self-revert. Collect (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Collect is still deleting the facts which I am adding to the MailOnline page. I did not self-revert last edit simply because I wanted to improve this edit according to the opinion of User:Collect. And according my opinion I improved it. The only thing which is clear is that Collect is deleting facts, even without any warning. He also repeatedly deletes the edits of User:Jenova20 in that page. Pscorp19 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . Collect, at the point you asked Pscorp to self-revert, they were not past 3RR. They breached 3RR in their last revert. Although some of his comments are snarky, I don't think they rise to the level of personal attacks. Putting aside the procedural problem, are you satisfied with the material currently in the article (as last revised by Pscorp)? I might add that although you have not breached 3RR, both of you have been edit-warring for a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The prior wording met WP:NPOV. The new wording from the SPA does  not meet NPOV.  Nor does the talk page support the "new edit" nor has Pscorp sought at any point to gain consensus for his POV edits.  When every edit by a person deals with a specific topic, it is fair on my part to describe that editor as SPA, as far as I know.   The Wikipedia policy for NPOV is not negotiable, nor is violation of the bright line rule - which Pscorp has breached (4RR in 20 hours breaks the bright line by any standards).    Last I checked, the 3RR warning is given at the 3RR point - which I did.  I would also note that I opened multiple avenues for discussion including 3O which is what I am supposed to do.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, prior wording was incomplete, and the new wording meet NPOV. I am also discussing, on talk page etc. I would also note that edits of user Collect are very rough, he usually simply deletes whole sentences instead of trying to improve the text. Pscorp19 (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I noticed that user Collect simply deleted (again) one of my edits (whole section), without any discussion. Pscorp19 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And the section in the HuffPo article (the edit you complain about) has scarcely an itoa of relevance to that article - and the claims you inserted multiple times ( and not deleted by me,  and not deleted by me - amazingly enough, sticking in your "Daily Mail" story into other articles seems not be considered proper editing by anyone at all!) there had been deleted by everyone else in the past!  Did you not notice that your edits seem to have a short half-life when they are so blatantly POV?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sections at HuffPo and ABCNews were deleted by someone only because I did not find reliable sources, but when I will have the reliable (suitable for wikipedia) sources, I will add the sections again, they definitely should be there. Moreover, almost all of your edits which you tried to do in MailOnline article are not there, simply because your edits are blatantly POV. Next, it is only your opinion, that the section which you deleted is "scarcely an itoa".Pscorp19 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You made a direct accusation about me. I am glad you recognize that those who removed your POV edits on other pages did so properly.  And you find  to be a POV edit?  Sheesh!   Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You first accused me and when I defend, you are crying. This is a joke. Pscorp19 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this report be closed with no action . Both editors should be advised that they may be charged with long-term edit warring if this goes on much longer. They should both know how to use the discussion page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. The editors have engaged in a series of small text changes, in many cases claiming that a source has been quoted incorrectly. Broader consensus is the best way to insure against subtle misreadings at the level of detail that both parties seem to insist on. It seems risky to issue a simple 3RR block in case there could be true issues of source falsification, but it is still clear that both sides are edit warring. If this goes on much longer, either blocks or full protection should be considered. It seems possible that political zeal (on one or both sides) might be causing small issues of wording to be treated as though they were major falsehoods. I haven't carefully studied the POV issues. The most obvious difference in their views is that Pscorp19 is eager to draw attention to mistakes made by MailOnline and Collect is often coming to their defence, by demanding elaborate documentation for every claimed misdeed. An option that might avoid some of the drama is to write the article in a more high-level way and let the reader follow reference links to see who said what precisely. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see the 3RR 'brightline rule" has ceased to exist. It sure makes it easier for SPAs to inflict their promised "thousands of criticisms" into an article well past due weight.  BTW, I have not "edit warred" on the article - but I do tend to think Wikipedia NPOV and RS policies still count.  And you should note that I did, indeed, use the article talk page, and followed every policy and guideline to a "t".  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:99.129.112.89 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] - some of the material was kept. The version by History2007 is acceptable.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The vast bulk of the talk page, some of which was moved from the anon's talk page, is the dispute resolution.

Comments:

I have tried to explain Wikipedia policies to anon, but the anon has made so many edits on different pages that I watch that general comments can easily be confused, which is what the first comments appear to have been.

I forgot to mention that the anon should also be reminded about WP:NPA again: Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Historically, i have had NO problems with ANY other editor except: Walter. It always comes back to just him. No one else. As a user for years, it is always him. That says a lot about what he is doing wrong as i am not the only one he takes pleasure in reverting. It is not important to me to "win". It was important to share additional facts and diversity (expanding the article). I am right. I will move on knowing that truth. I regret you have to take things so serious. I pity you. I am a bigger and better man and therefore am moving on, as you and this topic is not worth it. I think you are just "mad" you didn't come up with the knowledge i have on the subject, and you feel threatened. They have therapy for that. I hope you too seek better knowledge of the "rules" as you began to violate them from "jump". So long... P.S. I wouldn't "showboat" being a christian on your user page when you behave the way you have with me recently and in the past, as well as others. Viewers will see the history and see that i added helpful info to the article that you have attempted to smother. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I did not "revert". I resubmitted my first attempt last time. YOU reverted. You created an edit war. YOU didn't follow the procedures. YOU belittled and attacked me. YOU are wrong. NOT me. You didn't discuss why you changed the edit on the talk page which had an open discussion about it. I undid it at first because you were not aware of that. You are conducting yourself unprofessionally. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Help:Reverting: "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It also used to read "More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP editor is warned. He may be blocked if he continues this war, and if he continues to edit these articles to reflect his own point of view without getting support from others for his theory about Christian music. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:TheEconomissst reported by User:Nixie9 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * admin DGG
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * editor tbhotch
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * Warned by DGG
 * Warned by Nixie9

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

This user is advocating an extreme WP:POV regarding the essence of respecting european nobility and titles, and in doing so initially removed (repeatedly) well sourced references to First Ladies, cited by publications such as the New York Times, Forbes and USA Today, replacing with blog (or more often no) references to obscure hereditary nobles from the former Portugese monarchy, and their first and second husbands. Has had my POV and 3RR warnings and admin DGG's POV and 3RR warnings. Other editors have also attempted and failed to get through.User:Tbhotch Added repeated uncited nobility titles in both the article lead and body paragraphs, in bold face. User reverted an administrator's removal of their content. Attempts at Talk have resulted in lengthy sermons on the need for American recognition of european tradition of titles and respect of wealth, etc. Fully admitted POV bias. See User talk:Nixie9, User_talk:DGG. My own reversions of this user have been of unreferenced or poorly sourced BLP material, but I'll risk the friendly fire. This user should be blocked from this article.--Nixie9 (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear administrators,

HE - Nixie9 - is promoting this Edit warring. I even put the "from - to" about the tradition of the U.S. First Ladies, but he just wanna know about his personal culture, and ignores the European millennial culture, about the person personifying the title, as it is the case. We've references but he just want the ones that support what he think it is "correct". He's picking on me.

Regards,

--TheEconomissst (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear TheEconomissst - Now is your chance to support your case, the brief sentence above certainly won't convince anyone.--Nixie9 (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an absurd what he - Nixie9 - is saying.

--TheEconomissst (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He's annoying you all with nonsense things, and sometimes even lying to be "benefited".

--TheEconomissst (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say that he deserves to be blocked. I've being very very flexible. I put about the First Ladies, I show him about all the news about the Duchess of Cadaval and her dress by Carolina Herrera (Talk:Carolina Herrera (fashion designer)

The important is that her actual name is Carolina Herrera. But she was born as María Carolina Josefina Pacanins Niño, so why she's Carolina Herrera? Because she married to Don Reinaldo Herrera Guevara, The 5th Marquess of Torre Casa. And, as in Europe the important after she was titles is the title, that's an European millennial tradition, 'cause now she personifies the title, she's, above all, Your Excellency The Marquise consort of Torre Casa (look, for example, Wallis Simpson, The Duchess of Windsor. In all her luggage she just put The Duchess of Windsor, and that how all the European nobility works. And we've lots of sources/references that corroborate it. But all the references he - Nixie9 - say that are insufficient. Oh, please! This man is picking on me. I kept the two First Ladies and put the "from-to" to indicate a tradition, as he wanted. About the Doña, that's an European millennial tradition, and she don't need to be titled officially as a Doña, as it is common to the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian nobilities. And we're talking about a Spanish aristocrat. The whole article Don (honorific) express this.

Lastly, I really don't know what this guy drinks, or which medication - maybe dr - he utilizes. That's an absurd what he's saying.

--TheEconomissst (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Followup - Turns out that Carolina Herrera does not currently hold the noble title TheEconomissst advocated so vigorously on so many pages. It was retracted in 1992. I guess this is why we insist on reliable references.--Nixie9 (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Pottinger's cats reported by Yobol (talk) (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:33, 12 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 532699760 by Yobol (talk) - source discusses the exact procedure which EFT and related modalities fall under")
 * 2) 15:19, 12 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 532703880 by Yobol (talk) - article mentions EFT - see talk page: regarding review of trials - ")
 * 3) 04:43, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 532765856 by Yobol (talk) - All my sources are WP:MEDRS compliant and supersede current critical sources, they also comply with the "righting great wrongs" criteria, see talk page")
 * 4) 06:44, 15 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 533163443 by A13ean (talk) - reviews in mainstream journals are WP:MEDRS, cochrane reviews supersede articles in skeptic magazine")
 * 5) 00:02, 16 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 533180950 by Bobrayner (talk) - my sources supersede your sources in quality")
 * 6) 20:30, 16 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 533290692 by MastCell (talk) - see talk page")
 * 7) 06:33, 18 January 2013  (edit summary: "my sources are reviews in mainstream journals and supersede skeptic, and the skeptical inquirer in the WP:MEDRS hierarchy (though I have included them). If these reversions continue I will request arbitration.")
 * 8) 03:48, 19 January 2013  (edit summary: "included ALL sources, pro and con")
 * 9) 08:10, 20 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 533953100 by MastCell (talk) - no valid reason for revert - except for the fact that you don't like it")
 * 10) 01:09, 21 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534001668 by Bobrayner (talk) - I have give reliable secondary sources that are totally appropriate for this article")
 * 11) 02:53, 22 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534093398 by Garamond Lethe (talk) - see talk page")


 * Diff of warning: here -- for Orthomolecular medicine
 * Diff of warning: here -- for Emotional Freedom Techniques Edited to provide the diffs for the two separate EW warnings for two affected articles  04:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

—Yobol (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

While none of the combination of these specifically violates WP:3RR, 11 reverts over 10 days against 6 different editors shows clear edit warring behavior. Yobol (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, perusal of the edit history of Orthomolecular medicine shows similar behavior. Yobol (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just writing up an arbitration enforcement request when I saw this. PC has been causing nearly identical problems at orthomolecular medicine, Weston A. Price Foundation (where he has been logging out to edit war), and organic food.  Skinwalker (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just notified User:Pottinger's cats under WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Sanctions per WP:AE would not be possible unless he makes further troublesome edits after the warning. It would be best if admins can leave this report open until the editor has a chance to respond here. Since it's a complaint of long-term warring it won't go stale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I will resort to using talk pages more before making controversial edits - as I am doing at Orthomolecular medicine and Emotional Freedom Techniques - the two articles that are deemed problematic.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. Thanks for your reassuring response. If you resume the pattern of editing that is documented above you may be blocked without further notice. You are expected to wait for consensus before making controversial changes to fringe science articles such as Emotional Freedom Techniques. If you again remove the tag from any articles without consensus, as you did on January 12, this may also lead to sanctions including a possible topic ban. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Readin reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Editor advised)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: this is about a collapse template I added as.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (this one technically only moves the cot, but its reverting the cot from the top, which has the same effect)
 * 4th revert: (marked revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Readin. Note the user has a prior block fro 3RR so knows the rules.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: that is the talk page. I did offer Readin not to report this if he'd leave the page alone for a bit, but he declined.
 * . Why does this feel like deja vu? Frankly, I'm not impressed with this report. I get the technical breach, but I don't get the dispute at all and why editors see fit to argue about whether a particlar piece of a discussion should be collapsed. It's not so terrible to collapse it, but if someone objects, let it go. If it's really egregious soapboxing, then theoretically it can be removed rather than collapsed, so obviously it doesn't meet that guideline. And now, to make silly things sillier, there is a sub-discussion about whether the discussion above it should be collapsed. Isn't there something more productive you can do? And, William, don't inject the prior block into the report - it seems more like a dig than anything else. Not only is it from 2009, but I assure you we all know how to look at block logs. At this point I'm not going to take any action. I'll leave this open a bit longer in case more comments are forthcoming or if another admin wants to act.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The warning left on my page said, "You've broken WP:3RR on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. If you're prepared to leave the page alone for a few days, I'm prepared to not bother report you." Normally a 3RR warning is given to tell an editor that they've reverted twice (or more) with the point being that they should not revert again.  However in this case the reporter chose to wait until he believed I had already violated 3RR, and then to threaten to report me if I even edited the page again (whether that editing was a reversion or not).  That is, rather than combating 3RR, he attempted to use the supposed violation to blackmail me should I make any comments at all on the page. I'm not sure if there is a rule against it but it does seem inappropriate. Readin (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Editor advised. Readin should be aware that 3RR violations on talk pages can be enforced just like regular 3RRs. If you considered the 'hatting' of the discussion to be an important issue, you should have taken it to ANI before breaking 3RR yourself. Others who regularly edit that talk page may have had reason to lose patience with that particular IP. In my opinion the IP from is on the edge of a WP:SOCK violation since he is making contentious edits to the article itself from a fluctuating IP. He can't be properly warned under WP:ARBCC since he has no permanent talk page where admins can leave a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:173.162.247.129 reported by User:Aura24 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * Previous revert:
 * Updated revert by anon:
 * Latest revert difference:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * User:173.162.247.129 ignores the warning about adding false information into the Spyro (series) article about the cancelled 3D animated film that doesn't state anything about the Legend of Spyro movie being remade whatsoever. External links leading to the official sources mention hints of Activision looking into the possibility of a Skylanders TV show and movie, not Legend of Spyro media the anonymous user persistently adds in: and  -- Aura24 (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(semi). It seems that anonymous IP address contributions in general over the past week or so haven't been entirely constructive, so I have semi-protected the page for 1 week. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What if the anonymous IP address continues his/her vandalisms after the page becomes unprotected again? -- Aura24 (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The same thing that would happen if the anon had been blocked for 24 hours and the block lifted. The anon would either be blocked, or the page re-protected. In this case the protection lasts a week. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will let you know if he/she starts again after the semi-protection expires. -- Aura24 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Unforgettableid (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maglite&oldid=534440884


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Dear Sir/Madam,

User twice reverted my contribution to Maglite instead of starting a discussion and waiting for it to complete before reverting. The second time, the user merely wrote on my talk page (not the article talk page), then immediately reverted my work without waiting for me to reply. (I have not had time to reply to the user yet.) Please see also Sandstein's summary at the top of previous RfC regarding the user. Kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't edit warring. I'd like to see this section re-introduced (if it's a real issue, it's a significant one) and would add it myself. However it's poorly sourced at present, with very real WP:SPS and forum-post issues, so Wtshymanski and Cantaloupe2 are quite within policy to remove it. I wish all concerned, particularly Unforgettableid, would instead work on finding some rather more robust sourcing for this issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

. If anything, I would be inclined to block the petitioner Unforgettableid for repeatedly inserting dubious text referenced to forums and amazon.com in contravention of established policies and guidelines. These actions demonstrate a lack of comprehension of what constitutes a reliable source and what constitutes a link normally to be avoided, and Wtshymanski was correct in reverting them. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish you had decided in my favor, but still, I thank you both for your time and your advice. Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Because Unforgettableid filed a bogus user warning and because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT -- filing this report after I told him that his warning was bogus, I would like to see Unforgettableid acknowledge that he has read and understood the relevant policies and guidelines and that he understands what behavior is expected of him. If he does that, I see no need for a block. if not, this would raise a question of WP:COMPETENCE. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your talents are not being exercised enough here. Perhaps you shoudl seek employment with the UN? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But would we still have time for our bromance? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keeping you to myself would be greedy. Go! Go! For the good of the city, go! --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Littlepils reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:55, 24 January 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:50, 24 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534649695 by Jmh649 (talk) Source is solid")
 * 3) 23:04, 24 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534720527 by Jmh649 (talk) Tell that to University of Carolina")
 * 4) 23:06, 24 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534731617 by Littlepils (talk) cincinatti, sorry. written from a research paper they published, source checks out")
 * 5) 23:07, 24 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534720527 by Jmh649 (talk)")
 * 6) 23:54, 24 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534734844 by Jmh649 (talk) I could find another source, quoting all the same lines from the same Eurekalert report. Can you point me towards the List of Approved Wikipedia Sources pls?")
 * 7) 00:05, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534739319 by Zad68 (talk) Nope, nothing here to say it's not reliable.")


 * Diff of warning: here

— 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Edit warring at Migraine, an article which is under WP:MEDRS. The sourcing requirements for medical articles were already explained to this editor, but he continues regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Hari7478 reported by User:Mayasutra (Result: Protection, caste warnings)
Page: User being reported:

Hari7478 has broken the 3-revert rule by reverting changes within 24 hours 3 times. I reinstated the changed version of the article twice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mayasutra. Hari7478 reverted the article thrice. He did so the third time to bring it back to the original (ie, the current) state. However, it does not show up in history the third time because he chose 'Minor Edit' and Do not Show Minor Edits. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * See also a discussion at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mayasutra, breaking 3RR means to revert more than three times within 24 hours; Hari7478 has only reverted three times. He could still be blocked for edit warring in general, but I personally don't see much of a case for it. (Though I don't think it's appropriate to use edit summaries that give the impression that one has to have a certain amount of experience to make substantive changes, especially when you only have 600 more edits than the person you're reverting.) So perhaps Hari could use a little talking-to from an admin, but I doubt a block's in order. Likewise, you, Mayasutra, should realize that "expecting editwar"  is, for obvious reasons, a very bad summary for a revert. —  PinkAmpers   &#38;   ( Je vous invite à me parler )  03:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A little talking has not helped. Hari7478 have talked since June 2012. Hari7478 must have very well known the 3-revert rule. Hence chose to hide his third revert. A very meandering case. Anyways, the main issue is misquoting sources. I expect Hari7478 to answer on that account in the ANI Page. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * Note as explained in ANI, generally speaking (i.e. not counting the use of administrative tools) people cannot hide their edits from the edit log. They can mark them as minor in which case anyone who selects to hide minor edits will not see them, and misuse of the minor edit functionality is generally seem as problematic, but it doesn't hide them from anyone who does not hide minor edits. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the visibility of reverts (supposedly a cache prob) is nearly resolved. However, as posted on the ANI page, i request clarification on the 3-revert rule. On whose discretion does a block depend on? What if opinion is divided between admins involved in issuing blocks? --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * I'm hereby posting the diff of Mayasutra's talk page comments and edit summary which proves that it was he who planned the edit war.
 * - Mayasutra's comments - "So what am going to do is delete all the trash you put into the article. If this goes into an edit war, there is nothing you can do except agree for mediation. Good luck." This comment proves beyond doubt that Mayasutra planned the edit war.
 * - Mayasutra's edit summary - "Expecting editwar, admin intervention...". Mayasutra indicated in the edit comment that he knew he was edit warring. He was literally calling me out for an edit war.
 * There's a template on top of the article's talk page(Iyengar) indicating that it, like all articles on caste in South Asia (especially India) are under general sanctions, which means people must work extra hard to be civil, to not edit war, and generally behave better than usual. With the discretionary sanctions template, i wonder how Mayasutra keeps getting away with his abusive behavior and the "planned edit war". I will not be intimidated by such behavior. Here's another diff of Mayasutra's abusive behavior:. Getting back to the topic - Though Mayasutra was literally calling me out for an edit war, I could've been a little patient, although i was only reverting it back to the original revision(the version that has also been edited by other experienced users and an admin). I would like to hear an admin's verdict on Mayasutra's "planned edit war". Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not plan the edit war. The discussions on talk page were fruitless. I had a feeling; or so to say i knew (had this gut feeling) that this was going to end up in edit war and hence mentioned so. Hari7478 also must have felt all along, that this was heeding to edit war. Just that he did not mention it. The main issue is misquoting sources. It was apparent Hari7478 will not agree for mediation. Was also apparent he does not want to be answerable, on why he is misquoting sources. So wanted to bring to ANI notice anyways. The main issue here is misquoting sources. Edit warring is only a secondary issue. Since some admins adhere to "more than thrice" rule of reverts, i suppose this report (for edit war) stands null and void anyways. All the same, wud be glad for clarity on the 3-revert rule (i.e., how does it work and who makes the final decision if opinion between admins is divided). --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * Result: The Iyengar article has been fully protected by User:Scottywong until February 3. I'm leaving uw-castewarning notices for both participants, which will make them aware of the sanctions established by the community at General sanctions/South Asian social groups. I encourage both parties to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution while the page is protected. Resumption of edit warring after protection expires could lead to blocks and possible bans from caste articles under the General sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:75.183.144.91 reported by - MrX (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:37, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "/* Views and activities */")
 * 2) 18:47, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 18:52, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534860041 by MrX (talk)")
 * 4) 18:56, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534870762 by Eyesnore (talk)these are facts anyone can see by going to his twitter account, and the reaction to his tweets is as I have said they are this is not vandalism it is true")
 * 5) 18:58, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534871294 by Eyesnore (talk)google Bryan Fischer twitter of to his focal point Facebook page he has said all of this")
 * 6) 19:03, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534871584 by MrX (talk)")
 * 7) 19:05, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534872200 by Eyesnore (talk)")
 * 8) 19:06, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534872411 by Eyesnore (talk)")
 * 9) 19:08, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534872617 by Eyesnore (talk)")
 * 10) 19:10, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534873001 by Eyesnore (talk)")
 * 11) 19:11, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 534873126 by Eyesnore (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

- MrX 19:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Before seeing this report, I blocked this IP for 24 hours for disruptive editing.  I'll leave it up to another admin to determine what, if any, other action may be needed.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - MrX 19:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no need to add more time to the block as the disruptive editing and the edit-warring all relate to the same article. It's a first block, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Codetruth reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:12:16, 25 January 2013
 * 2nd revert:17:52, 25 January 2013
 * 3rd revert: 18:20, 25 January 201
 * 4th revert: 18:29, 25 January 2013
 * 5th revert: 21:04, 25 January 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (non-template but extremely specific warning w/ advice and links)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, also see Codetruth's talk page

Comments:

Codetruth has a strong POV toward this article and is pushing a very obvious POV in their edits. Particularly concerning for me is the highly deceptive edit summaries, difficultly in getting them to follow Wikipedia policies/guidelines (see honorifics discussion on their talk page) and no effort to use the article talk page, despite multiple requests, to discuss changes. The article is, frankly, a mess of POV pushing both pro and con. I've reverted Codetruth 3 times this morning before starting my cleanup efforts. His most recent revert is to again simply restore his version. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:118.92.203.57 reported by Widefox (Result: blocked for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: latest (compromised by adding rs tag to sources)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC 3RR
 * 1) 19:23, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "findarticles dead, other sources do not by any means measure up to reliable source criteria")
 * 2) 20:04, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "rv. restoration of poor content re. BBC article, also reverting the readdition of dead references and sub-RS sources in regards to justice for Devlin in the USA")
 * 3) 20:33, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "findarticles is dead as a doornail, and an opinion piece in a  militant catholic communist zine is a dubious source in any case. if you have real sources, back the claims in this article up! 'cronyism' is not an excuse for violating BLP")

And a separate 2RR (with BLP violation NPOV/pejorative language)
 * 1) 20:55, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "unfortunate not to mention her later marriage")
 * 2) 20:57, 25 January 2013  (edit summary: "um.. have you noticed that you happen to be removing just about the only link in this article which goes to a live reliable source? nice.")


 * Diff of warning: here


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

Comments:


 * My initial revert was from vandalism, and I reported then withdrew my AIV report. Widefox ; talk 02:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Further reverts done by me and other editors.
 * More comments at User talk:Widefox

— Widefox ; talk 02:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Lnhbm reported by User:Lajbi (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

It is worthy to note that the case hasn't reached the 3RR yet I'm at three reverts (4 overall in two months) he's at two (4 overall in two months), but I'm the one who provided explanation for the edit and no matter how many times I asked for a reasoning in return, said user just reverted without giving a valuable edit summary. Also I'm quite sure he's the one under the IP 220.246.196.51 who has done two more reverts to avoid 3RR and also his account is a suspected sockpuppet of banned user Chamberlain 234. I need some kind of help/intervention before it gets worse.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (For the record I've just did it the same time as this report)

I haven't opened a discussion on the talk page but rather asked the said user to do so, because he was the one who hasn't communicaated in any form while doing his edits. I used the edit summary for that. 

I will expand this report with the edit reverts as soon as the user crosses the line OR the IP given above (since I'm still pretty sure they are the same people. Is there any way to check this?)

 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * He reverted again. I can't figure out what he meant in the edit summary. Everyone reached his limit.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems he is trying to force the use of piped links in the Template:Footer World Champions Table Tennis Team Men. This makes no sense because the accented forms of these names already have perfectly good redirects that take the reader to the unaccented article titles. This makes us wonder why someone would insist on creating redundant links unless he is trying to make a point against the use of diacritics. Or perhaps it is a simple misunderstanding, one that is so firmly held that it causes him to edit war. As to socking, I see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chamberlain 234 but there is no SPI and Chamberlain 234 is not blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the next step? Should I revert it again?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Lnhbm is warned. If they continue to make reverts of templates involving accented names, without working to obtain consensus on the talk page, they may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User: Walter Görlitz reported by User: 99.129.112.89 (Result: Declined)
I typed up a longer "defense" explaining how my edits were wrongfully reverted (with over 29 points) and how I was improperly blocked after being provoked and attacked by "Walter" if anyone is interested (even though I didn't provide it while blocked because I wasn't on the site for a few days nor concerned with requesting to be unblocked since I don't NEED to use this IP and Wiki isn't my master nor do I have anything to prove). I want no contact from User: Walter Görlitz nor will I read any responses of his. I am not coming back here via this IP address, I only wanted to set the record straight via this IP. I don't require use of this IP to be on Wiki, as I would rather avoid "Walter" due to past problems only with him (and once with "Bugs Baseball" who behaves the same way). I can show historical proof of Walter's improper actions towards myself and others (after researching for days and years overall) and how my statements are valid and properly sourced, as well as already included in related articles that are not challenged because he does not "watch" those pages. Because I was right, it was Walter's mission to block the IP even though he was the one attacking my edit abilities (see his edit history and "Contemporary Christian music talk page). No one really researched/investigated, they just quickly reverted my edits then blocked me since I'm "anonymous" (in my opinion although I'm sure it will be denied). I have evidence that "Walter" just reverts without actually reading/reviewing the content/context thus creating unproductive edit wars. My first attempt to "undo" his revert was done because I felt he did it in error or as vandalism since he had done NO research/verification (evidenced by the fact the same content is included in other articles and not reverted since he's not involved with them) and didn't read the open discussion active on the talk page yet. I was also NOT warned because I was the one suggesting to "talk it out" first (he was just posting unwarranted "rules" and saying he's taking it personal on his edit notes). Reading "edit summaries" doesn't count. Nonetheless, I am not too concerned nor does it matter that much to me to get my way like it does "Walter". I also know no one will take action or do anything about this or his poor behavior because they will just take his side automatically (which is wrong and shouldn't be policy). Hence the reason I don't want to associate with Wikipedia in general. Nevertheless, it seems he has made it his mission to remove what he does not want on the article (and keep what he wants) to the point of having users blocked for insufficient reasons. I have saved a history of this for my records where he contradicts himself (not removing statements that haven't been cited or are poorly sourced/written content and instead removing legitimate content different editors include which is already included in other articles that were approved, all while creating edit wars to the point users who are usually anonymous are provoked/upset, plus misconstruing edit summary notes as personal attacks even though he belittled my abilities including suggesting he "educate" me without even knowing my experience while I post better sourced/written material then him only "undoing" good faith work). Regardless, I am making a "report" about it (and saving my full investigation on the matter as well as past experiences with myself and others I've tracked). I am only updating my reaction to additional contradictions by "Walter" here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard 99.129.112.89 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a follow-up of this previous report by Walter Görlitz. I have now informed him about the new discussion. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Declining to investigate because this is not in the usual form for an edit-warring report. As you know, you were warned per a previous complaint here: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive205. The warning was to get consensus for your position on Christian music before adding your own judgment to a bunch of articles. Subsequent to that, you were blocked three days for personal attacks per an ANI discussion. One of your comments (in the edit summary) was "fallacy, manipulation, inept, sabotage and narcissism... and a "stalker"!" If you want to continue working in this topic area, please be careful and don't insult people. It is likely that your views will get more deference if you register an account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops! This can be removed from here and I will move it to the proper article for reporting Walter since I don't want contact from him or you because you both have not properly complied to Wikipedia procedures and there is now a conflict of interest between us. "Warnings" were done in error and not according to Wiki (as much as that may be a hard pill to swallow). And they do not mean you are right nor were they justified. The content I provided is accurate with legitimate sources and therefore he created the unnecessary edit war and the block was done with ignorance as well (lack of research). Edit summaries are also not direct insults towards anyone. You and Walter need to also remember not to attack people. He insulted me first which I called him out on more than once. Where is that justice? Exactly. Besides, these so-called insults via the edit summaries are only true if he's guilty of it (and proves he was "following" me to cause trouble). At any rate, disregard... I'm moving on from you all. P.S. I have another account already. And you just confirmed that IP's are treated differently/poorly/improperly. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tried to communicate with the IP above on his talk page - first suggesting he gets an account so all dont see were hes from and then with the intend of some mentoring. After the reply and edit summaries that were given I dont see how this editor will ever be able to conduct themselves in a productive adult manner here. Never in my time here have I seen a response of this nature to someone willing to help someone.Moxy (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. I asked to be left alone and do not need those reminders. It seems you are just upset I didn't reply and removed it. Your involvement seems a bit shady/creepy. I did not ask for the info from you and feel you are part of the group not helping, but rather making things worse. Why is everyone focused on my reply and not removing the info from the CCM page that is wrong? Walter is aware that About.com is not accepted, yet he left it. He also has unsourced info he admitted to on the talk page. Let's deal with that and not putting rules and reminders on my page I don't need. I don't like playing head games. Why can everyone say what they want and make things worse, but when I defend myself, I'm wrong? 99.129.112.89 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will be very blunt here - Your attitude towards our editors  is much more of a concern then the article(s) content at this point. If you except people to listen to your position you will have to show some respect and maturity and not assume we are all out to get you. I offered some help but you just insulted me with your edit summary and did not even have the courtesy to reply normally. So what would you like us to do - editors uninvolved with your dispute  are try to engage you by talking -  but to no avail what so ever. Pls explain what you hope to accomplish if your un-willing to talk to our editors?Moxy (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. You claimed I was a new editor and needed help with my way around. If you did some checking, you'd see I'm not new. This is what I'm trying to say. Editors like "Walter" have jobs to do. But sometimes you do them automatically with assumptions and not actually considering every situation is different. So that was a "red flag" that you just pop up telling me to create an account. I'm aware of the motive/reason admin wants editors to create an account. You telling me where I am as if I'm not aware of how IPs work also freaks me out a bit. Why would you even post that on my talk page? Makes no sense. Who does that? Hence my reaction. That is why I asked to be left alone and yet you replied again. You want to help? You want to "mentor me"? Again, my mesage was just to have this fixed (not ignore it and drag it out until I'm frustrated then blame me for not behaving properly): Reliable_sources/Noticeboard See the talk page on Contemporary Christian music about the two items not sourced and/or not correctly sourced (using about.com which is not valid). How about just removing it finally since "Walter" won't? Because if I do, there will be another "warning" or "block" all because people are overlooking facts and judging me because of the IP address. This isn't difficult. If my properly sourced info is reverted (ie. NY Times), why isn't this info? The section of the article about Kim (author) needs to be removed. Thanks for the "help"! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My "attitude" comes from being jaded by editors who are only out do to one thing. My "attitude" is in response to "attitude" given to me first. How about looking at how nice I messaged "Walter" in the beginning until I was provoked (especially when it turns out I'm right and no one can admit that so they would just rather warn and block as a defense or smoke screen). Check into how I was attacked about my editing skills from the start when I was the one asking to talk about disputes first instead of him just being "revert happy" (as he did again on Jon Gibson's article). How about everyone who is bothering me actually do some checking around, not pushing their big red power button cus they can. I mean, really? Talk about maturity and respect... Ugh. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: The necessary changes have finally been made or are being made to the article by Walter which is greatly appreciated. I have yet to replace my contributions/statements to the articles, but I have composed a summary of the content on the talk page of the CCM article and will add it back in the near future (hopefully without resistance/confrontation). Fyi only... Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Everest505 reported by User:Parishan (Result: blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

The page has recently been placed on pending protection due to high-level IP vandalism, possibly initiated by the same user (given the timing and the nature of reverts). Parishan (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Protected for 5 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (complicated; see below)


 * 1st revert: 23:40, January 25, 2013 Added "fiscal subsidiarity" to the lead; it had previously been at X's version of 20:43, January 23, 2013
 * 2nd revert: 00:53, January 26, 2013 restored the same wording to the lead
 * 3rd revert: 01:20, January 26, 2013 again, and edit summary is "Undid"
 * 4th revert: 02:59, January 26, 2013 edit summary is "undid", and did revert this edit
 * 5th revert: 03:22, January 26, 2013 same revert
 * 6th revert: 05:49, January 26, 2013 edit summary = "undid", and really did undo that edit
 * 7th revert: 06:34, January 26, 2013 restored the same material as the previous revert, and some more deleted material

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:53, January 26, 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The other combatant attempted to resolve the dispute here and here, although I'm not sure it was a very good attempt.

Comments: I shouldn't refer to the other blocks, as they weren't exactly for edit warring, but for WP:NPA violations. He had been edit-warring on this and other articles, before, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:74.192.23.108 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: The following four diffs all relate to the removal of material. The first three remove this paragraph:

The Civil Rights Movement — Historian Nancy MacLean states that Neo-Confederates used the history of the Confederacy to justify their opposition to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Historian David Blight writes that current neo-Confederates are “ driven largely by the desire of current white supremacists to re-legitimize the Confederacy, while they tacitly reject the victories of the modern civil rights movement.

The fourth revert, after the warning, reverted this paragraph:


 * White supremacy and opposition to Civil Rights — After the Supreme Court decision on segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, Neo-Confederate organizations emphasized the “white supremacy meaning of their Confederate heritage.” They saw the struggle against civil rights as “a repeat of the postwar struggle of ex-Confederates against racial equality.”
 * Black Confederates — Toward the end of the Twentieth Century, in order to support the idea that the Civil War was not about slavery, Neo-Confederates began to claim that “thousands of African Americans had served in the Confederate army.” A Neo-Confederate publication, Confederate Veteran, said in 1992 that “the overwhelming majority of blacks during the War Between the States supported and defended, with armed resistance, the Cause of Southern Independence.”


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

Diff of edit warring:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The issue is sourcing. The editor is deleting properly sourced material with arguments that amount to nothing more than he doesn’t agree with what the sources say. I have prodded him to produce specific objections, but he has not responded. His responses are criticisms of me and our past interactions; although he appears to be a newby, in fact this is at least the 4th time this user, using different IPs, has made these identical types of attacks. His most recent language includes “your two new slurs”, “your childish and self-serving editing”, and “they [the topic of the article] are just a figment of your imagination".

In addition to the specific deletions included in the diffs, the editor has added material which has its own sourcing problems which are addressed on the discussion page. I stopped reverting by, in one instance simply tagging the material he added, and with the deletions adding entirely new material with different sources. This new material was the 4th deletion (this is submitted as edit warring rather than 3RR). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . Besides the edit-warring, there were other things that tipped in favor of a block of the IP: (1) the removal of sourced material, (2) the comments on the talk page, and (3) the history. At the same time, I caution North Shoreman to be more careful of his own editing as he, too, was edit-warring. I suspect the article will need semi-protection. If the need arises in the future, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or, if I'm not around, to ask another admin and point to this comment, although obviously any admin is free to exercise their independent judgment as to whether it's warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)