Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive206

User:Srich32977 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: 01:07, January 26, 2013 Removed "fiscal subsidiarity" from the lead
 * 2nd revert: 01:35, January 26, 2013 Again, and edit summary = "undid"
 * 3rd revert: 02:43, January 26, 2013 removed material recently added by the other combatant
 * 4th revert: 03:15, January 26, 2013 removed material recently added by the other combatant (some of the same material)
 * 5th revert: 03:21, January 26, 2013 same revert and comment = "undid"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:55, January 26, 2013

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

Comments: He stopped edit warring before my 3RR warning, but he may have been warned before. Two of the reverts were reverts of X's edits while an inuse tag was in place, but that's not an excuse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * No previous 3RR warnings to me ever given.
 * To be clear, I had posted the inuse tag. And I reverted but once while the banner was up. (AR incorrectly says I reverted twice.)
 * Some of X's reversions were to material he wants to keep (e.g., the Pope material) and which I was editing to remove remove redundant and poorly formated citations.
 * AR missed some of the edit sparring details: my edit summaries had more than just "undid".
 * In this case, it just amazed me that the reverts were done when the inuse tag was up – I commented "Please have the courtesy to respect the insue banner!" in my edit summary. When X still reverted with the inuse tag up I stopped trying to fix problems (Pope citation, redundant references, et al.).
 * The changes I had hoped to accomplish during the "Inuse" editing have not been accomplished.
 * Re: AR's comment "but that's not an excuse." – does he mean not an excuse for for X to revert while the tag is up, or for me not to re-revert while it is up, or both?
 * In any event, I am aware of 3RR policy and seek to comply. I had hoped the inuse tag would allow for proper editing to be accomplished.
 * And I thank Arthur Rubin for handling this in an even-handed manner. --S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Thank you Solomon.--S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, by "that's not an excuse", I meant that X's edits, although they violate guidelines in regard inuse tags, in addtion to 3RR, are not an excuse for you to violate 3RR. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Raintwoto reported by User:Stephan Schulz (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: N/A (first edit removes significant content)


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

Various warning are on his talk page. I informed the user about the climate change discretionary sanctions here and explicitly about WP:3RR here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various users have challenged Raintwoto and restored the content he removed. Most of them have tried to enage him on his talk page.

Comments:


 * . Clear reverts at 20:17, 20:27, 20:37, 23:05, 23:33, 00:32; was warned previously. Kuru   (talk)  13:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jamenta reported by User:Mihaiam (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: [532292214]
 * 2nd revert: [534304526]
 * 3rd revert: [534928221]
 * 4th revert: [535108939]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Made clear in talk page he is going to revert indefinitely, made personal remarks to other editors.Mihaiam (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . This is a slow edit-war for which I wouldn't normally block as the reporter has also been involved. However, Mihaiam is absolutely correct that Jamenta has personally attacked other editors and evinced a battleground mentality. As a curmudgeonly aside, you'd think that anyone who feels qualified to edit an article on physics would be able to file an edit-warring report with proper diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tdadamemd reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

User:Tdadamemd seems to think WP:NOTCENSORED trumps WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am actually perfectly fine with having a rational discussion about the edit instability over on the Talk page for this article. AndyTheGrump, I suggested to you that we have this discussion in that forum (as opposed to having it on my UserTalk page) but instead you chose to take it here.  I expect that you and I and the other editors involved are rational reasonable mature adults who can come to a satisfactory resolution on our own without any involvement from administrators.  YMMV.  If you really feel that "parental intervention" is necessary, then fine.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You had every opportunity to discuss this on the article talk page prior to violating WP:3RR. You chose not to. Hence, the matter has been raised here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And yet another WP:3RR violation. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * About discussing, as can be seen above, Andy suggested in his first revert of Tdadamemd that the addition should be discussed on the article's talk page first. We know that Tdadamemd didn't take the matter to the article's talk page, even when Yobol suggested that it be taken there. Flyer22 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Nika1234 reported by User:Rvir0522 (Result: 36 hours)
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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:Nika1234 is repeatedly re-adding the same content after it was reverted by other editors including myself and I've already warned him at least twice. --Rvir0522 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The user just resumed in the same behavior again. Nymf  talk to me 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked again for a week by User:Bwilkins. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Py0alb reported by User:In2itive (Result: Py0alb warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535199762&oldid=535184893


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535199762&oldid=535184893
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535255607&oldid=535251069
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535256835&oldid=535255976
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indoor_cricket&diff=535259187&oldid=535258653

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indoor_cricket&diff=535259187&oldid=535258653

Comments: Py0alb has attempted to introduce a different form of indoor cricket into an article covering an internationally recognised version. Whilst 'his version' (for lack of a better term) may be notable, I have repeatedly attempted to assert that the indoor cricket article itself refers to a specific sport, not to all forms of cricket played indoors. This has been the case since 2005. Like futsal, indoor football etc (all forms of indoor soccer) they can be placed in separate articles. My attempts at inclusive compromise were reverted. in2itive (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . I have left a note/warning on Py0alb's talk page. While waiting for a response, In2itive, I suggest you leave the article alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies Bbb23, immediately after logging this report and prior to your comment, I separated his information into a separate article as per precedent in a further attempt at compromise. All his edits are retained, just in a separate article that is heavily referenced throughout the indoor cricket article. As this is my first 'edit war' I am a little unfamiliar with the process. in2itive (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. As I said on Py0alb's talk page, I should have informed you directly rather than relying on your seeing my comments here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Look through in2itives edit history: it is clear his own reason for being on wikipedia is to promote the version of this sport that he himself either plays or administers. I would suggest he is probably not the correct person to be able to have an unbiased view of this page's content, perhaps take it to the cricket working group to get a second opinion as to what should be the contents of this article.

All his links go to one particular self promotion website aimed to make this extremely small sport look like an international sport. I don't think these actually provide evidence of either reliability or natobility. It is simply not the case in reality that this sport is as popular and widespread as he makes out. The ECB National Club Championship is the highest club competition in England, and it uses the traditional version of the game. There are 100 times more clubs that play the traditional version.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a shopfront for promotion of one particular company's product. "Indoor Cricket" describes the sport of cricket being played indoors. Many if not most people, when seaching for this article, would be looking for the traditional UK version that is still hugely popular around the UK. It is unfortunate that the new version of indoor cricket did not think of a more original name, in the same way that "Last Man Stands" did, then it could have its own page; but it can't claim the rights to the wikipedia article simply because he managed to write it up with no-one noticing for a few years.

I have used a fair compromise: an article that mentions both versions of the game with equal billing. Instead of this, In2itive wishes to reduce the content about the original and still far and away the most popular form in the UK of indoor cricket to a subheading right at the bottom of the page. That is not compromising, that is vandalism.

I have no interest in promoting either version of indoor cricket. I just don't like seeing wikipedia hosting deeply misleading articles as a promotional tool for one particular organisation.

Py0alb (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To be fair, all the references I use in the page are to different websites, from Cricket Australia, Cricinfo (somewhat authoritative on the sport of cricket in all of its forms) as well as the national governing bodies of the sport from around the world.


 * Nothing about the edits I have made to the article promotes any organisation in any way shape or form. The article wasn't created by me, and has always been about this particular version of indoor cricket. The like the indoor soccer example I provide, the article does not attempt to define or discuss all forms of indoor cricket. It discusses the version of indoor cricket that is played internationally.


 * Whether the form of indoor cricket you discuss is supreme in the UK is not relevant. Wikipedia is not shaped by what is popular in the United Kingdom. You will find no domestic competition anywhere that takes top billing over and international competition.


 * The fact that the majority of my edits have been to this page (and related pages) is not relevant. Do not confuse ownership with stewardship.


 * I very much dispute your assertion that completely altering the scope of an article (and leaving the reader totally confused as to which form of indoor cricket you are discussing at any point in time) is a 'fair compromise'. in2itive (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just seen the new compromise with the new page In2itive has created. Its not ideal but I am happy to settle with this. However it should be noted that In2itive only put up the new page AFTER aggressively edit warring and then coming to ANI completely unnecessarily. Why couldn't you just have done that first? Wouldn't that have been the more mature approach?

Py0alb (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Though I concede my first response was to undo your changes, any impartial viewing of the talk page and the edit history will demonstrate that my second action, prior to your three reverts, was to compromise. The only difference? I did not create the Indoor cricket (UK variant) article - I had expected that you would place your content in there yourself. The only thing I did differently after reporting you was create the page for you, by simply cutting and pasting your modifications to the existing indoor cricket article.


 * Coming to ANI unnecessarily? After a long attempt at compromise on the talk page, your three reverts in a row left me with no choice as per Wikipedia policy. Were my report unnecessary, no doubt Bbb23 would have informed me as such, and you would not have found a warning on your talk page. in2itive (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, as you clearly haven't read anything I've written or any of the references I've cited, indoor cricket as defined by the article is NOT new. It is not some recent sport attempting to supplant the game you describe. Your failure to acknowledge that speaks volumes about your own lack of impartiality. I at the very least have conceded that the version you describe does have sufficient a following to warrant notability. in2itive (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * so your attempt at "compromise" was to completely delete huge chunks of the article and expect someone else to rewrite them somewhere else? Are you ever being serious? That's not compromise, that's outright vandalism. Py0alb (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am one of hundreds of contributors to this article. It has an 8-year established consensus on the present scope. Your edits defy that consensus. It is clear to me that you are failing to acknowledge the size and scope of the sport of indoor cricket (as defined by the article). "All his links go to one particular self promotion website aimed to make this extremely small sport look like an international sport." Wrong. You have not read any of my references. If you had, you would see that they refer to established and authoritative sites. It is an outrageous accusation to suggest that this is an attempt at self promotion. I am not promoting anything. I am defining a sport, and am supporting that position with numerous reputable and distinct citations, whereas you make claims like "There are 100 times more clubs that play the traditional version." That is nothing short of unverifiable hyperbole.


 * You also claim that the fact that a majority of my edits have had to do with indoor cricket suggests that I am somehow biased or in a position where I have a conflict of interest. Absurd. Check your edit history. All of your edits have been to do with cricket - does that mean you are not the right person to make edits to a cricket-related article? in2itive (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already agreed that the current situation is fine as it is, so why continue with the personal attacks? Which version of indoor cricket are you talking about now. Please be specific. Py0alb (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of clareity, In2itive has actually not just broken the 3 revert rule on this article, but smashed it, ignored it despite repeated warnings. FIVE reversions!

Revert 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=prev&oldid=529954185 Revert 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=prev&oldid=534984634 Revert 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535251069&oldid=535199762 Revert 4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535255976&oldid=535255607 Revert 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535268006&oldid=535256835

Py0alb (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I am responding to personal attacks, not making them (please see Bbb23's post on your talk page - specifically "Worse, your conduct has been personally attacking on the article talk page and certainly not conducive to achieving a consensus"). I don't propose to engage any further with you. You don't read or disregard the majority of my responses to your hyperbole, nor do you read any of the references I cite.


 * Additionally, the three reversion rule applies to a 24 hour period. I didn't simply revert on the first three of the diffs you list - I actually incorporated elements of the UK variant and set it up for you to create the new page.


 * This discussion is going nowhere. If you are happy with the status quo, excellent. Simply bear in mind it is what I suggested immediately prior to your three reversions of the article. in2itive (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You vandalised the page, removing about half the text for no good reason. I objected, and after much dispute you have finally done what I told you to do in the first place.


 * If I hadn't objected, you would undoubtedly have just left large sections of the article blank. So its a damn good job I objected to your vandalism, isn't it? Its a shame it had to come via ANI simply to force you to edit responsibly. In the future, please try to add to wikipedia rather that edit disruptively.


 * Py0alb (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's go through this point-by-point:


 * Vandalised the page - removing unverified edits to 8 years of established consensus is not vandalism.


 * Done what you told me to do - please illustrate for me exactly where you suggest that we create a separate article for the UK variant of indoor cricket and refer to it from within the main indoor cricket article.


 * Large sections of the article blank - this is not what returning to 8 years of consensus constitutes.


 * Shame it had to come via ANI simply to force you to edit responsibly - perhaps you are confusing who in fact reported whom and who received a warning over this edit war. Any impartial viewer can clearly see my efforts to establish consensus and develop a compromise - the very definition of responsible editing. An admin has already made it clear to you that your actions have been the opposite. No action forced me to do anything. I made the edits I made prior to admin intervention.


 * Please try to add to Wikipedia rather than edit disruptively - this one comment alone is as funny as it is inaccurate.
 * in2itive (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, lets look at the facts here.

I created a large, informative, well referenced section detailing the 6 aside format of the game. On FIVE separate occasions over the course of a month you simply deleted that section in its entirety without ever once offering a satisfactory justification or an indication to compromise. You did not edit it, you did not move it, you simply DELETED it. With hindsight I should probably have requested to have the page protected.

Having reached consensus last week, and I thought this dispute was over, I find that this weekend you simply repeated your vandalism, blanking an entire section for the third time. I objected as to you simply deleting an entire section with no justification, we have had an ongoing dispute, I gave up attempting to reason with you and went to bed, you took it to ANI... and THEN - presumably because you recognised that you were in the wrong and had better quickly attempt to disguise the nature of your disruptive editoring - did you put the contents back up in a separate article.

Those are the facts. If anyone would like to look through in2itive's contribution history they will see this to be the case.

In the meantime, your section on 8aside cricket was about to be deleted because of its poor referencing if it wasn't for me producing evidence to save it. Have you thanked me for that yet? No?

Py0alb (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1 - A reference to the rulebook and to a generic play-cricket page are not examples of being well-referenced. My first two edits were to remove your content - the first on the basis of the article being about a different sport, and was effectively a reversion to consensus. Under WP:BRD the onus was on you to demonstrate the legitimacy of your edits through discussion - prior to making them. The second edit was another attempt at this. Everything after that has been an attempt to compromise.


 * 2 - We did not reach consensus last week - if we had, we would not be there. Again, my reversion to a consensus that has been in place for 8 years is not vandalism. My creation of the second article was what I suggested you do (and I even LINKED to the not-yet-created article first) and this was well prior to bringing this to ANEW.


 * 3 - Your version of reality is lacking.


 * 4 - Firstly, it was not 'my version' - it is the result of the consensus of 175 distinct authors over 8 years. As I've said multiple times (and you've failed to read or acknowledge, much like 90% of what I've said in response to your baseless accusations) the references have been lost along the way. They're back now - and in any event, the article was nowhere close to being removed for a lack of citations. Show me the proposal for deletion? Show me the talk page requiring the removal of unverified material?


 * You would do well to heed Bbb23's advice, and to familiarise yourself with WP:BRD in2itive (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

1, 2: Deleting large sections of text that has previously been approved by an admin as being both notable and verifiable is vandalism. The reasoning "I was here first" is not recognised on WP I am afraid. You need to look at WP:CONSENSUS. Just because an article hasn't been edited in a few years does not mean that any further edits are in contradition to consensus.

3: You also need to take note of WP:CIVIL. Civil conversation on wikipedia is not optional. Telling someone their "version of reality is lacking" is a personal attack and will not be tolerated in our community.

4: Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/2012_October_18

I'm sorry in2itive, but your editing of this article has been extremely disruptive, and you're now adding incivility and personally offensive attacks to your list of offences. You repeatedly deleted large chunks of an article because it didn't agree with your personal view. Attempting to make excuses after the fact is simply unacceptable.

Can we have a resolution to this now please admins? Both sides have presented their evidence. Is repeatedly deleting large, well written and well referenced sections of an article with no justification acceptable or unacceptable editorial behaviour? Can we also have a comment on the acceptability of telling a fellow editor that their "version of reality is lacking" please.

Thanks

Py0alb (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There clearly is no point in discussing this issue with you. in2itive (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether its relevant, but there is a good summary of the differences between the two versions of Indoor Cricket here for anyone who may wish to understand what we are arguing about: http://www.ecb.co.uk/development/get-into-cricket/indoor-cricket/

Py0alb (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . I left a warning on Py0alb's talk page. Their conduct is attacking and ill-informed (all that is laid out on their talk page). The only reason I am not blocking them at this point is because (1) they lucked out by In2itive's creation of a new article and (2) a block for incivility at this point would be more punitive than preventive. However, any more attacks or warring by Py0alb will me met with sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

add in the fact that 1 + 1 + 1 reverts does not equal 4, and this turns out to have been a completely baseless accusation.

Could you claraify for me bbb23, or indeed another admin a) your opinion of the acceptability of the phrase "Your version of reality is lacking" please? b) Whether or not the definition of vandalism contains: "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary."

Thanks Py0alb (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to spend much more time on this because you're attitude is problematic at best. First, I didn't see a diff for the phrase "your version of reality is lacking",so I don't know the context. Second, the part in WP:VANDAL on illegitimate blanking haas to be well-documented to be labeled vandalism. Perhaps you can provide some examples? As for the 1+1+1, you are correct. You did not violate 3RR. Unlike your comment, where you incorrectly accused In2itive of violating 3RR (the 5 reverts), In2itive did not accuse you of breaching 3RR. Some editors make it clear here that they are reporting an edit-war, which is also sanctionable, as opposed to a violation of 3RR, but I believe that In2itive has made it fairly clear that they are not that familiar with the policy. The reason I focused on your conduct rather than In2itive was the combination of edit-warring and your personal conduct, not purely for edit-warring. And with that I'm done. If you wish to continue this discussion, you can do so on your own talk page (it would be far more productive than deleting my warning, as you did), but this report has now been thrashed to death.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't seen the phrase "your version of reality is lacking" or the deletion of large sections of the article Indoor_Cricket? Are you suggesting that you have administrated this dispute without actually doing the minimum due diligence of a) investigating the editorial changes that caused the debate and b) reading the discussion here? Have you considered that it wasn't actually an edit war, but rather myself attempting to prevent vandalism - by which I mean the wikipedia definition of repeated unjustified blanking of large sections of a particular article.
 * Py0alb (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Bbb23, I see you actually admit to not having bothered looking back through the dispute here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=535353358&oldid=535348575 Given that you ackowledge you haven't actually investigated the dispute, I'm not sure on what grounds exactly you see fit to attempt to warn me Py0alb (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear, I didn't "attempt" to warn you; I did warn you. I am now closing this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Clarification12 reported by User:Macedonian (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Comment I see only three reverts by Clarification12 in the article history, and the first revert is really an edit as he was, well editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked Clarification an additional 24 hours for this edit-war. They were already blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on another article by User:Toddst1. DS, the first edit was a revert, not just an edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Everest505 reported by User:The Devil's Advocate (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has already been blocked for edit-warring on this same issue on this same page and started the edit-warring anew minutes after the block expired.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 14:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am confidant singer and have her passport stating that she was born in 1965. http://savepic.org/2665488.jpg According to her official website http://dadashova.com/, she was born in 1965 Everest505 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of putting either/or, another option would be to put both dates, with clear sources for each. As it stands, however, third-party sources are much preferred over primary sources. Airplaneman   ✈  15:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I work with this person and she asked that here was listed her year of birth 1965.Singer gave me his ID card http://savepic.org/2665488.jpg Was wrong in her age would harm her career.Everest505 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating your conflict of interest. Please take note that continual reversion of others' edits will not help your/her cause. In fact, it hurts it. Wikipedia is also not in the business of making people look good, or representing them the way they want to be represented (of course, wikipedia is strongly against defamation as well). By edit warring, you are making enemies of editors that could otherwise help. It is good that marginal amounts of discussion are taking place, but it is sad that it took dozens of useless edits to get to this point. Future reverting will not be tolerated (as implied multiple times already). Airplaneman  ✈  16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked again, now for 72 hours. Everest, whether you're right or wrong, this is not the way to go about proving your point. The talk page is the place. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

User:173.71.64.82 reported by User:A13ean (Result: Page semi-protected)
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 IP's only edits are these reverts, I belatedly created a section on the talk page about the removals for them. a13ean (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * . Elockid  ( Talk ) 21:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Trblmkr1 reported by User:Ryan Vesey (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Note that the first 3 and last 4 reverts are a change from an IP to an account
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's talk page is one big warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion initiated by Trblmkr1 at Talk:AR-15 administrative action can be postponed (IMO) but a watchful administrator is requested for the article. stricken per revert number 8 Ryan Vesey 21:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * . Elockid  ( Talk ) 21:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This AN3 thread hasn't even been archived, yet edit warring has continued immediately after being unblocked, asking others to "revert for me so I don't break the 3RR again." - SudoGhost 17:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One week. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Dman7769181 reported by User:Jusdafax (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

I have never edited at the Australian Democrats page, and know nothing about the issues disputed or the user in question, as I discovered this while noting the 'Recent changes'. I do see, however, that they are a new, single purpose account and use inflammatory language in their edit summaries, and that Dman is in clear violation of WP:3RR. Looks to be a candidate for a preventative block. He is warring with another brand-new editor, IP User:110.142.44.241 on that page who may also need a block. I have notified both parties on their talk pages. Jus da  fax   03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem protected the page -- let's see what happens. Note that 4 reverts in a row only count as one if no other editor intervened. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

User:50.12.217.67 reported by User:Moxy (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * page history is clear 5 reverts today of copy and pasted material from here.Moxy (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:50.12.217.67 editor warned about the edit war and about hes copy and pasting (two 2 different articles).Moxy (talk)


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:50.12.217.67 - he did not get a nice welcome - but has not replied at all on the his talk page as of yet.Moxy (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Could just lock the pages in question I guess - but should  send a message that he needs to talk - not just edit when asked to tlak.Moxy (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

User:RoTi37 reported by User:Duhon (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Comments:

Editor has been reverted several times now going back several months with an insistence to go against the practice of the vast majority of wikipedia articles on NBA players by not wanting to use official height and weight listings from the official NBA website and instead seeking to list a different height and weight from less "official" sources. It has been the opinion of the majority of the editors of that page to use the official NBA.com height and weight listings. Duhon (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * by DQ. De728631 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User:62.152.9.101 reported by User:No such user (Result:24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments:

Long-time sustained edit warring by the IP, with an obvious axe to grind. Multiple warnings by multiple users on his talk page. No attempt to discuss the matter by them. No such user (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Persistent edit warring over the past few days. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * indef semi-protection SarekOfVulcan (talk)  17:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User:91.100.98.17 reported by User:BullRangifer (Result: Semiprotection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: &

Comments:

The editor has been reverted each time and warned, including advice to discuss the matter on the talk page, but has refused to do so, hence a lack of talk page discussion. This is a slow edit warrior who refuses to follow advice, refuses to discuss, and refuses to collaborate. There is some other vandalism from this account. Although this is no longer a BLP situation, even if it were the information is properly sourced and not in doubt. Whatever the case, deletion without comment or discussion is not the way to go. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * for one month. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLouis reported by User:Rhode Island Red (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

We’ve been having a chronic problem with GeorgeLouis over at the Frank Vandersloot page. Over the last couple of days (and over the past 8 months or so), the editor has made repeated attempts to blank reliably-sourced content from the article against consensus. The text in question that George has been blanking refers to Vandersloot’s company as a “multi-level marketing” (MLM) firm – the term is non-pejorative and is commonly used in articles throughout WP, and its use in reference to Vandersloot’s company is supported by more than 20 reliable sources (which have been examined by other editors and serve as the basis for consensus regarding inclusion of the term MLM in the article), yet George has taken the ludicrous position that referring to Vandersloot’s company as such constitutes slander/defamation, as indicated by his astonishingly off-base edit summaries (bordering on a violation of WP:NLT).

He has launched a relentless campaign (i.e., inundating the Talk page and forum shopping) to garner support for his pie-in-the-sky claims, but the clear and overwhelming consensus does not even remotely support his position. Despite this fact, George has continued to edit war over this issue, completely ignoring the evidence and consensus POV of other editors on the project. At this point, roughly a half a dozen editors have had to revert George’s disruptive edits over the term MLM. He has removed the content in question 4 times in roughly 24 hours and 7 times in the past week (and several more times before that). George was inactive on Jan 29 (a rare occurrence judging by his edit history, which shows almost regular daily activity) and, suspiciously, during that time a new anon IP/SPA did a drive-by and made the exact same disruptive edit that George had been making, suggesting the strong possibility of sock puppetry. Same thing happened just last week when another SPA made the exact same edit.

Incidentally, George first launched this POV pushing campaign back in mid-2012, to support whitewashing “multilevel marketing” from the article. In fact, his very first edit on the article back in June/2012 was removal of the exact same content about MLM.. Since then, it’s been a never-ending parade of constantly shifting (and completely invalid) arguments from George all aimed at the same target – removing MLM from the article entirely. His conduct is strongly suggestive of a WP:COI (MLM companies have legions of “independent distributors” and in my experience, it’s not at all uncommon for some of them to drop by WP and try to whitewash their company’s article page for WP:ADVOCACY purposes).

George was just found guilty of edit warring a little over a week ago, but was let off lightly with a warning. Clearly, the warning has gone unheeded and his conduct has further degenerated, and now a more definitive response (a lengthy page block) is called for. The war of attrition he has been waging is eating up valuable resources and causing considerable frustration. It’s really time to put a stop to it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like both of you (Rhode Island Red & GeorgeLouis) have been going back and forth on that one sentence in the article for the past week. It's getting awfully close to edit warring behavior, but you both are talking to each other on the BLP noticeboard, so it doesn't seem all hope is lost. I'd prefer to wait and see how that discussion goes, but beyond that, there's no technical violation of 3RR. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just me going back and forth with George. There are at least 5 editors all telling George the same thing about this issue and reverting his disruptive edits. He simply ignores it and deletes the content anyway under a premise that has absolutely no basis. It might not be a technical 3RR violation, with one edit falling just outside the 24 hour window, but it is clearly a violation of the spirit of WP policy on edit warring. This just wastes WP resources. The last 3RR warning didn't help and neither have the Talk page discussions. It's the very definition of WP:DE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * George made it really clear today that he rejects consensus outright when he made his latest edit (removing MLM from the article yet again) and said in the edit summary "Consensus not needed for removal of defamation". We've been discussing the MLM issue for more than a week (7 months actually); George has made numerous contentious arguments that have gained no traction; but the astonishingly false "defamation" argument suddenly came out of nowhere today as an excuse for yet another attempt to make the same tendentious edit he's been trying to make all week (and since last year). Misusing the defamation argument also violates the spirit of WP:NLT. The Talk page clearly isn't working to resolve the issue; George just rejects the process and plows ahead with the POV pushing. What to do? Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on his talk. I'll keep the page watchlisted, should there be any further issues. But there doesn't seem to be any recent disruption. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And Rhode Island Red, this warning also applies to you and the others. Discuss it on the talk page first. An edit war has two sides. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger. I have been participating in discussion on the Talk page and will continue to do so. Your efforts are much appreciated. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this notice. I am cognizant of Lord Roem's concern and will respond soonest, but sometimes Real Life intrudes, as it has today. I will refrain from editing for a time. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is an accusation of edit warring or WP:3RR violation. If the latter, kindly note when my edits were made, as listed in the above complaint:
 * 14:30 3 January 2013
 * 8:58 24 January 2013
 * 17:32 27 January 2013
 * 3:45 29 January 2013
 * 3:56 29 January 2013
 * 13:11 29 January 2013
 * 21:17 30 January 2013
 * There is only one series of dates with three reverts. You need four for a 3RR accusation to stick. In any event, I am making no more edits for a few days while I await some guidance on how to get the pejorative material out of the lede without being accused of edit-warring.


 * As far as edit warring goes, no, that is not the case. My most recent blanking of VanderSloot's alleged connection with multi-level marketing  were attempts to pare back the lede to a non-contentious condition in accordance with policy. (The allegations were still to be examined in the body of the article, not simply stated as fact in the lede.) My edits were reverted by others so as to retain the contentious material, in violation of policy. I might note that the version of the lede that I used was proposed by a totally uninvolved editor/administrator and was fully discussed at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot, which see. Also, I returned an addition made by User:HtownCat which RIR had quickly deleted and which I thought added greatly to the article. Still do. HtownCat found a quotation from VanderSloot's company denying that it was an multi-level marketer and giving the reasons therefor. So my revert of RIR's deletion was not edit-warring, but it was article improvement.GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The reversions of your edits did not violate WP policy as you allege. You may not have violated the 3RR bright line, but you were clearly edit warring. When the group of editors kept reverting you, it should have served as a clear warning that your edits were not in fact improving the article but were detrimental. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After a discussion on GeorgeLouis' talk, I'm much more comfortable with the idea that George's reverts are in compliance with the BLP policy. The phrase that is suggested be included can carry a negative (almost accusatory) connotation. I'd advise both parties to leave the lead as it was before, without that phrasing, and go back to the talk page or the noticeboard to continue discussion. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute at WP:THE reported by User:PBS (Result: Page protected)
Page:

Comments:

Slow revert war at Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) could someone please lock the page at the right version :-) -- PBS (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, you should have filed a proper report. Second, you should have notified the other editor (whom you don't name as you should in the report); I've done so for you. Finally, even assuming you mean your lock/version comment as an inside admin joke and not to be taken seriously, not everyone will get it. Sorry to be a bit harsh in my comments, but given all the circumstances ... --Bbb23 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it was a "proper report" -- see my comment below in response to what Black Kite wrote. I did not name another other party or accuse them of any wrongdoing (more than I am accusing myself) there was no need to inform them. -- PBS (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't mess with the guidelines during a discussion on an article that depends on it. If the consensus is to kick the matter back to the policy page, fine. Otherwise, leave it alone. — kwami (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please revert yourself. You're gaming the system. As an admin, you're supposed to know better than that. — kwami (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I read the discussion on the talk page between you and PBS, and I don't get your approach at all. It looks to me like you made the change without obtaining a consensus and now insist that your change remain while the change is discussed. That's backwards. Am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked about this on the talk page, and was told it was the normal kind of exception expected by the naming conventions. I then announced that I was clarifying this in the conventions. No objections. I waited a month to see if there would be any problems before proceeding. When you make a change public, and no-one objects, that is considered consensus. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs please. -- PBS (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed this - I've just protected the page as it is on my watchlist. Firstly, this should have been at WP:RFPP. Secondly, there is no Right Version as you should know - I haven't looked at the discussion in any detail. If any other admin wishes to unlock the article, please do so without needing to inform me. I am going to work now and will only be sporadically online until this evening. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggested many moons ago that 3RR should be kept as a separate page from "Edit warring" in general -- that was not accepted, so it seems to me that this is the correct place to request. If you would like to propose that we go back to 3RR as a page I will support you. Secondly if the "no Right Version as you should know" was aimed at me, I would point out to you that following the words "right version" I placed ":-)" to indicate that I recognise there is no right version. Personally I usually revert to the last stable version when I protect a page. -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk (couldn't reply here as explained). Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - By User:Black Kite. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2013

User:JonathanFreed reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24h)
User being reported:

Time reported: 13:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous). -- This is the first edit that added . This is edit-warring over the inclusion of this source.  There is no consensus to use this source at all.

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


 * 1) 18:20, 30 January 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Alternative medicine */ restore supported info that had been removed for "poorly supported and studies content".  See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperemesis_gravidarum&diff=next&oldid=534291036")
 * 2) 19:16, 30 January 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 535728635 by Jmh649 (talk); restore text that has high-quality PMID references, just like many of the other references in this article")
 * 3) 20:53, 30 January 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 535735826 by Jmh649 (talk); if you don't like them, mark their quality, don't just remove; you also removed some factual text that isn't contentious; here we come 3RR?")
 * 4) 06:07, 31 January 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Alternative medicine */ add material in such a way that it matches WP:MEDREV exactly and also use the primary-source-inline tag mentioned on WP:MEDRS")
 * 5) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 535819438 by Jmh649 (talk);  the new formatting of the material exactly matches an acceptable way of presenting a primary source as per WP:MEDRS")
 * 6) 13:51, 31 January 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 535850689 by Zad68 (talk); I am not merely reverting to what was there before yesterday; I am reverting to a version that is substantially different and is compliant with WP:MEDRS.")


 * Diff of warning: here 12:31, 31 January 2013

— 13:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was about to report Zad68 and Jmh649, but appear to have been beaten to the punch. No matter. The important thing is that we're here.
 * This matter concerns the deletion of a specific primary-sourced piece of material that I added on December 6, 2012. (Significantly, a mere reference to medical marijuana had been on the page since May 2007.) The specific material I added on December 6th stayed in place for over a month and thereby had consensus.  It was then deleted by Jmh649 on January 22nd.  Jmh649 and Zad68 have alleged that there was no consensus despite the presence of the material on the page for over a month.  They have alleged that the material is not compliant with WP:MEDRS and that it is "doubtful and possibly harmful".  I have attempted in good faith to address their concerns and bring the material into compliance with WP:MEDRS and include appropriate caveats and tags to address their concerns.  They have continued to delete.  This is a deletion discussion due to the specific contentious material's presence on the page for over a month until it was deleted (while a mere reference to medical marijuana has been on the page for years).  According to WP:NOCONSENSUS, "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept."  Ultimately, it appears that there is no way to satisfy Jmh649 and Zad68.  Their actions are not constructive.  Their actions do not indicate a desire to find an acceptable way to present the information which is certainly allowable under WP:MEDRS.  I have made substantial changes to the presentation of the material to avoid 3RR on my end, but they continue to delete in violation of 3RR.  JonathanFreed (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan argues that the source was in the article since 6 December, and having the source in the article for a while makes for consensus for it, but Doc removed it on 22 January, and that edit wasn't challenged until yesterday after lots of intervening edits, so there's an argument that Doc's removal on 22 January was the previous consensus. Even if Jonathan's 18:20, 30 January 2013 replacement of is considered the "first change" before his subsequent reverts, that's still five reverts in under 24 hours, and clearly goes past the 3RR "bright line" rule for edit-warring behavior. There's an active, policy- and guideline-based discussion of how isn't appropriate at the article Talk page, and myself, Biosthmors, Doc and Jonathan are all involved in it, with of those four only Jonathan arguing for inclusion of. Actually I see just now that the addition of this source into the article has just been reverted by MrADHD - that makes four editors who do not find this source appropriate, so there is clear consensus against this source. Regardless, editors are expected to discuss and not edit-war changes into the article. 15:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. User argues he is justified and made no response to the observation he had broken WP:3RR. He does not have consensus to include this material when we consider what others have said. The length of time that the material has been in the article is not a vote. His reference above to deletion discussions is off topic. His defence is not excused by WP:3RRNO and unless we want to give him this article to do with as he pleases, some admin action appears to be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect, EdJohnston, I did indeed make a response to the observation that I had broken WP:3RR and you have flipped edit warring and 3RR on its head based on  the evidence.  You do not appear to have followed the guidance to administrators on WP:EW that "where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."  Before I address corresponding specifics, please note that according to Avoiding common mistakes, users who are considering deleting material should first "clarify it instead of throwing it away."  And, editors are over-doing it if they are "criticizing instead of editing".  (These points are in their respective sections' first bullet points.)


 * Regarding specifics, I was not the one who was throwing away others' material. Instead, it was my contributed material that was being criticized and thrown away by others instead of being constructively edited.  The first 3RR that occurred was actually committed by Jmh649 when Jmh649 threw away the material I contributed.  Specifically see the following reversions by Jmh649 that followed my addition of material at 2013-01-30T18:20:41‎.
 * 2013-01-30T18:44:03‎ Jmh649 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,488 bytes) (-2,767)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 534949544 by TylerDurden8823: removed poorly supported content. (TW)) (undo)
 * 2013-01-30T19:28:45‎ Jmh649 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,488 bytes) (-2,767)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by JonathanFreed (talk): No none of these are suitable sources. (TW)) (undo)
 * 2013-01-31T06:10:01‎ Jmh649 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,014 bytes) (-242)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 535817838 by JonathanFreed: removed primary source again. (TW)) (undo)


 * Furthermore, and again, I did not just revert three or more times. Instead I significantly changed what I contributed in consecutive edits and thereby edited in a constructive manner to avoid 3RR.  I changed what I contributed in an attempt to address concerns, as opposed to the others that just deleted and did not actually edit.


 * That being said, I respect that there is a consensus among the article's editors that have been active since 22 January that is different from that of the editors that kept a reference to medical marijuana in the article since 2007. Therefore, and in light of your action, whatever its valid or invalid justification, I will proceed to develop consensus on the talk page before adding any more material about medical marijuana to the hyperemesis gravidarum article.  It appears that consensus among the active editors is that there should not be any reference whatsoever to medical marijuana in the article.  We shall see.


 * Lastly, if Zad68's apparent assertion that time makes consensus is true ("there's an argument that Doc's removal on 22 January was the previous consensus" because the material was not readded until January 30), then clearly the fact that a reference to medical marijuana has been in the article since 2007 indicates that there is a consensus among active editors since 2007 that such a reference should remain.
 * JonathanFreed (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Marcospace reported by User:Oleola (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user is reverting my apptempts to compress the infobox in Henri Bienvenu, despite 3RR warning. He ignored my warning and reverted my edit for the fourth time saying "this is not necessary", despite such dispaly is widely used in other articles, for example Ángelo Henríquez or Federico Macheda to compress the infobox.--Oleola (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . You neglected to notify Marcospace of this discussion; I've done so for you. This is really one of the sillier edit wars I've seen. You're battling over whether to have a hard line break in the infobox. You should both get a grip. What am I supposed to do? Block you both? Lock the article? Has anyone ever heard of an article talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . Marcospace blocked by User:Someguy1221 as sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Hexrei2 and User:Oliverabc/User:71.228.16.160 reported by User:ProtossPylon (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

Users being reported:
 * (who appears to be a sock of, who is also engaged)
 * (who appears to be a sock of, who is also engaged)
 * (who appears to be a sock of, who is also engaged)

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Hexrei2:
 * IP:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm not entirely sure who's the one at fault for defacing the article. All I know is that they both appear to have ignored the warning I gave them and the dispute resolution on the talk page doesn't appear to be getting anywhere. Hexrei2 did appear to try contacting the other person on the IP's talk page and on Oliver's user page but he doesn't seem to have responded.  Protoss  Pylon  21:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for notifying me of this discussion. I suppose if we're going to call changes "defacing", I am at fault, as I am the one who has changed it most recently but I think my changes are completely justified. It read like an advertisement, and the references do not support the tone of the article. My changes were related to simplification and removal of the various colorful adjectives that had nothing to do with the facts. I did see your warning, attempted to contact you (Protoss Pylon) on your talk page, and then chose to make another undo anyway. I was not sure exactly how to get the attention of an editor as I had been asking for a while on the talk page, but it seemed largely abandoned except by users' who entire wikipedia history revolved around promoting Peter Wray. If I am in the wrong regarding my changes to the article then fine. I feel the state of the page when I first came across it was an abuse of wikipedia. Hexrei2 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for a week. That will prevent further disruptive edits by the IP and by Oliverabc. The biggest problem now is the article itself, which is now a disjointed stub, almost none of which makes any sense. I could remove more content from it that is unsupported and/or lacks context, but what it needs is to be rewritten with sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Pleasetry reported by User:Nick Cooper (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As can be imagined, Gun politics in the United Kingdom is a somewhat emotive issue. As noted on Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom, although British police are generally unarmed, specialist officers do carry firearms. Without exception, on an operational basis, the firearms they use are all semi-automatic, whether pistols or longer weapons. The latter are invariably semi-automatic-only versions of firearms that are also available elsewhere with full-automatic fire, and would otherwise be described as "submachine guns" or "assault rifles". As noted on the latter pages, both these terms can strictly only apply to weapons capable of full-automatic fire. Since the ones used by the UK police are semi-automatic only, they are always refered to in official sources as "carbines" (e.g. (,, , , , etc.). UNsurprisingly, the press often mistakenly mis-describe them, but also occasionally acknowledge such mistakes (e.g. ).

In the past, some editors have attempted to introduce the inaccurate use of "submachine gun" and/or "assault rifle" to the page, mostly probably in genuine error, but with others there appears to be a political motive in seeking to present British police as being "more armed" than they actualy are. Since the vast majority of officers are demonstrably never armed at all, this can only be achieved by exaggerating the types of firearms carried by the ones who are armed. This is in the context of even those weapons that are used by the police being prohibited to the general public, licensed or not.

Recently Pleastry has made multiple attempts to impose the factually inacurate terms of "submachine gun" and "assualt rifle" to the page, and has additionally also introduced "assault weapons" as well. As the latter page shows, this is an American legal and political term that is very much disputed in that country. It is virtually unknown in the UK - with the exception of direct reporting of US matters - and is not used globally. The nearest non-US equivalent appears to be in the New Zealand (another country largely unarmed police) use of "military-style semi-automatic," but again this is not a term used in the UK. Pleasetry has rebuffed every explanation by myself and one other use that their edits are inappropriate, relying only on references to events in the United States, claims that the media use the incorrect terms, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also protected the article for three days. All parties should bring their discussion to the talk page; communication through edit summaries is not an appropriate way to handle this kind of dispute. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Colonel Warden (Result: Declined, article locked)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 10:57, 2 February 2013
 * 2nd revert: 11:36, 2 February 2013
 * 3rd revert: 12:38, 2 February 2013
 * 4th revert: 16:36, 2 February 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user does not welcome such warnings: "anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it."

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

Comments:

As I understand it, this user routinely acts in this way and so is familiar with the policy. In this case, please note that the first revert was of several edits by multiple editors, myself among them. The minor edit I made has now been restored by other editors, following discussion.

The second reversion was summarised as ''Reverted 1 edit by 80.7.147.13 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Parrot of Doom. (TW)''. This was not, in fact, vandalism but seems a reasonably accurate addition as may be confirmed here.

It thus appears that these reversions are too aggressive and are not accompanied by reasonable discussion or accurate edit summaries. The article in question is still on the main page...

Warden (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't address the last two reverts listed above. The third was reverting something that was unsourced, and the one you mentioned, albeit not vandalism, was also unsourced, even if a source existed. I wouldn't normally take these sorts of things into account because they are not exemptions to edit-warring, but because this article exists on the main page, it is receiving a lot of attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I do not see any edit warring. Recent edits are typical of those seen in articles that are on the Main Page and are receiving a lot of attention. The quotation from PoD's page is a red herring. Main Page appearances can be a difficult time for content editors and we should support them, not report them, at this time. Graham Colm (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And here is one. Feel free to lock the article, and feel free to block Lgfcd for warring. Warden, this is an FA, plus what Bbb and Graham say. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No action required, per Drmies. --John (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a problem with not locking: someone who, as someone might have said, doesn't know their arse from their elbow makes this edit, a redundant and erroneous wikilink, which prompts another editor who hasn't looked at the whole article to make this correction, which goes to a redirect and is redundant since Hypochromic anemia was already linked, prompting me to make this correction. Lock it--it's fine as it is, with the addition of the link for wolf pit I suppose. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be a surprise to many that we have a 'featured article on main page' clause in WP:3RRNO: "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed--and I thought Bbb was the policy wonk. Bbb, we'll dock you a day's pay. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No one knows more than Ed; I'm constantly playing catch-up. The irony is I've been actually reading/changing the policy. Still, sometimes I have tunnel vision.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . Thanks, Ed. Based on the above, I'm declining the report. I'm not blocking Lgfcd because they haven't done anything since being warned; another admin may take a different view. I've locked the article for 2 days, mainly based on Drmies's recommendation; any admin may undo the lock without consulting me.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:92.234.251.18 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1) 18:46,  2 February 2013  (edit summary: "historical?")
 * 2) 19:05,  2 February 2013  (edit summary: "me")
 * 3) 19:19,  2 February 2013  (edit summary: "correction to the statement 'historical'")
 * 4) 19:23,  2 February 2013  (edit summary: "revert")
 * 5) 19:24,  2 February 2013  (edit summary: "revert")
 * 6) 19:26,  2 February 2013  (edit summary: "revert citation needed for 'historical'")
 * 7) 19:28,  2 February 2013  (edit summary: "revert:")
 * 8) 19:32,  2 February 2013  (edit summary: "CITATION NEED FOR THE TERM 'HISTORICAL' ME:")
 * 9) 19:34,  2 February 2013  (edit summary: "REVERT")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A92.234.251.18&diff=536234045&oldid=536226962

Comments:


 * Kuru  (talk)  20:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:184.18.131.36/184.18.141.124/184.18.129.2 (first IP) reported by User:Aura24 (Result: Declined)
Page(s): Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to (Characters of Spyro the Dragon page): (under current IP address: User:184.18.131.36)

Previous version reverted to (The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon): (under old IP address: User:184.18.141.124)

The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon article
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Characters of Spyro the Dragon article
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th 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:184.18.129.2 (first IP) has been on more than one IP address in the past, posting the same fan speculation on the Spyro pages relating to the character, Ignitus, about his speculation of the character having 'survived' without providing any official proof. We had to resort in repeatedly reverting his edits, but the IP user keeps adding his fan speculation into the articles. One of his addresses (User:184.18.141.124) was blocked for a while for his fan-speculation editing warring, but he made another IP address (User:184.18.131.36, current IP) to get around the block and continued his wild edits. I also noticed that all of the IP addresses he had used started with "184.18". -- Aura24 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . Of the three IPs you are reporting, only one has edited recently, and they have made one edit to one article and one edit to the other. If things get bad enough on either article, you can go to WP:RFPP (not warranted now). If things get bad enough with this range of IPs, who are doubtless the same individual, you could come here and ask for a range block (I haven't looked to see whether that's feasible). Nothing to do here now, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Smetanahue reported by User:Andreasmperu (Result: declined)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1 and 2

Comments:

I was trying to explain the reason why his edits were not appropriate, but he keeps reverting disregarding ongoing discussion. Furthermore, he has added a new category in this dispute (Category:Austrian novels) in here Andreasm  just talk to me  00:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahunt reported by BLACKMONGOOSE13 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I added citations in good faith and twice citations were deleted by ahunt. No attempt by Ahunt to add citations. I removed banner asking for more cites, in good faith after spending considerable time adding no less than 5 citations and improving information listed in the article. Ahunt then removed citations and deleted other text that Ahunt felt was unsupported leaving snide comment saying, "because the tag was removed on this old challenged text the text gets removed as well." I was simply trying to improve an article by adding cites. It was better off then when I found it and Ahunt has simply diluted and reduced the article with reverts; doing three within minutes of my revisions on 1-31-2013 and doing four the following day. Ahunt is no more an authority on this article then I am. We are both found of articles on airplanes. I do have firsthand experience with the Navion airplane but that is beside the point. Punishing the public by reverts, reducing, and diluting the article is not beneficial to the public. Information I added was not made up.

BLACKMONGOOSE13 (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A block of consecutive edits counts as a single revert. I'd suggest discussion on the talk page. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  05:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

User:86.175.37.54 and User:EscapeX reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link 1 and link 2

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

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, but a long-term edit war. Both believe both are doing right, but I frankly have had enough of watching how this page appears every day in my watchlist and both of them doing very few to resolve this. I told EscapeX to stop it, as this is a blatant edit-war, which he ignored at the end. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  04:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've notified them for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There have been many attempts to engage EscapeX in discussion, in edit comments, on article talk pages, and on his talk page. He ignores them all and adds unsourced or trivial/misc detail, promotional language, or replaces descriptive wording with generic terms (sometimes the same term over 50 times in the same article), overlinks (literally the same link 140 times on a page), and adds blatantly false information. It should be noted that close to 10 different editors have reverted edits by EscapeX, but every day he just comes back and restores his version of the pages in question, usually without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're speaking generally (multiple articles) or about the reported article. I do see discussion about the reported article on EscapeX's talk page, although it's a bit hard to follow as you and EscapeX often forget to sign your posts. In this article, the only two editors who have been edit-warring are you and EscapeX, at least since January 9. There hasn't been any discussion on the article talk page about the content dispute. I try to avoid taking a position in content disputes, but it does seem to me that much of the content EscapeX wants to add is poorly crafted, poorly sourced, and not noteworthy. I will ask EscapeX to comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're talking specifically about This Is It (concerts), then there is some discussion about the terminology - see the section called "Rename?". I didn't start that section, but it puts forward the same arguments that I have put forward in the edit summaries, namely that all traces of the word tour are incorrect and should be removed - they are just a result of sloppy journalism in some of the sources. The second thing this user is trying to reinstate is a whole bunch of unsourced, untrue or trivial facts about songs that he wants to have been played at the concerts. This has been explained to them a dozen times in edit summaries and on their talk page.
 * As for the other articles, EscapeX has made an equal number of reverts to the other two that I mention on his/her talk page (this includes several 3RRs). For the list of songs, they have been over or under-emphasising the importance of artists who have collaborated with Jackson, as well as overlinking, a fact which has been pointed out by other editors in their edit summaries when they have reverted EscapeX.
 * Finally, we come to Bad 25. There are 6 attempts by me to reach a consensus on that article's talk page. And again, 3 or 4 other editors have made attempts to restore the article, each one with a reason why they have reverted EscapeX. All of the other editors are simply reverted without comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've fully protected the article for a week. I don't rule out sanctions against EscapeX, but since I left a "warning" on their talk page, they haven't edited anything at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was busy in real life which is why I wasn't able to respond quickly. Anyways, the IP user claims that I ignore him. I'll admit that the first time that he edited I didn't took him seriously since I thought he was just a random IP user causing vandalism on Wikipedia but he kept on coming back and started a discussion on my talk page. I have addressed his points but he continues to say that I ignore them. On the This Is It page, he wanted a source for the set list. Whoever added that section wrote a sentence clearly stating the source for the set list but didn't used "ref" so I added the source. Then came the issue of two songs that were set to premier during the tour. He said they were unsource so I added sources for them then he ignores them and said that I didn't. I keep on telling him but he continues to ignore them and said that I didn't. He continues to state that I haven't addressed him which I already have. I never said that I personally wanted them to be played, I added the fact that they were going to premier. It was well known that Michael Jackson was working on a new album so it shouldn't be a big surprise that he would've debuted new songs during the tour. EscapeX (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're just going to have to pay more attention to what people are saying to you. Firstly, you've used the word tour again. These concerts are not a tour. That's one of the reasons you're being reverted. Please can you answer the question as to why you keep trying to call it a tour?
 * Secondly, there are HUGE issues with your statement that "It was well known that Michael Jackson was working on a new album so it shouldn't be a big surprise that he would've debuted new songs during the tour." It's just false. The album Michael was not a straightforward studio album that was going to be released. It was a collection of outtakes spanning nearly 3 decades, with post production taking place after his death. If you think it's true that a song from those unfinished outtakes would premiere during a greatest hits tour, then you're going to have to prove it with a very good source (and preferably right next to the text of your claim). You cannot keep ignoring this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I and many others call This Is It a tour because it was a tour. I never called This Is It a world tour. I also never said that Michael was going to be the exact album that Michael Jackson was going to release. Most of the songs on Michael are from the 2000s. The only song from that album recorded in 1980s was "Behind the Mask". "Much Too Soon" was also written during the 1980s but the one on Michael is from the 1990s. "Best of Joy" was written and recorded in 2009 so it wasn't an outtake of any of his previous albums. This Is It was a comeback tour so of course the majority of the songs are his greatest hits but he also was working on new songs. In the Billboard review of Michael, it mentions the fact that "Best of Joy" was set to premier during the This Is It tour. EscapeX (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is another example of you simply ignoring everybody else. This Is It is most definitely not a tour. It doesn't matter what you call it. See Concert tour: "A concert tour is a series of concerts by an artist or group of artists in different cities or locations." That's what the word tour means. PLEASE just drop this issue now.
 * As for the unreleased song trivia, the concerts were due to take place just days after he died. At that time, no preparations for performing the song had taken place (unlike all the songs we see being meticulously planned and rehearsed in the movie or in printed setists, or on the TII album). Furthermore, the song was not on the verge of release when he died, or even at any stage during the planned concerts. Before you unilaterally add this controversial and dubious content again, take it to the talk page and try to reach a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I was ignoring you then I wouldn't even be discussing this with you. Michael Jackson was not going to perform to just one night in London for This Is It, it was going to be 50 concerts. It wasn't days before he died, it was about three weeks before the tour was going to begin. "River Ripple" and "Best of Joy" were going to be performed on the last few dates of the tour. There was a three month break between September 2009 and January 2010 so Michael Jackson had time to rehearse for more songs. Plus there were breaks between concerts. They weren't going to perform day after day without breaks. Some examples include August 10 and 12 (one day break), August 19 and 24 (four days break) and September 10 and 21 (10 days break). During that time they could rehearse for new songs or work on the current songs. EscapeX (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can an admin also consider the editing at List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson as part of this discussion. There may be other pages this has spilled over to, but I have not checked. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Evildoer187 reported by User:Dailycare (Result: directed to AE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

The article is under 1RR, so two reverts ought to be enough. ("When in doubt, assume it is related")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

User notified: diff.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Evildoer187 has been behaving strangely on this article, by e.g. insisting that the phrase Jewish historical scholarship be placed in quotation marks (1, 2, 3) because a source uses the different phrase serious Jewish historical discussions. He has even opened an RFC on the subject. I also feel this article is included in his topic ban. Certainly details of the dispersal of Jews 2.000 years ago amounts to an aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Comments:


 * Given that the article is under WP:ARBPIA sanctions, I'm thinking that this should be refiled at AE. Hto9950 22:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dont see how another block will help (just make the user more frustrated) - User:Evildoer187  has been waiting (in good faith) for a mentor for some time now - We need someone to step up and adopt this user. Evildoer have you looked at Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters yet.--Moxy (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not only are you misrepresenting what I said, but the article in question is not even sanctioned under the 1RR. The issue at the Jewish diaspora article is a neutrality one, as can be seen at this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=535928632&oldid=535924262). You insisted that the highlighted words are direct lifted from the article, in which case quotation marks are necessary. But instead, you fought me over implementing them, going as far as to engage in edit warring yourself (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&action=history). Eventually, other editors joined in and agreed that some rephrasing was in order, and so I tried that (see the diff).

In any case, my edit wasn't even a revert, so this report is simply a waste of everybody's time.

Moxy: Yes, I looked at it.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment That article is not under a 1RR restriction, there is no template on the talk page saying so. Nor is it under WP:ARBPIA as again, no template on the talk. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think there's enough ambiguity here to justify this being pushed to a broader conversation at AE. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Darkness Shines, the absence of the template doesn't mean the article isn't covered. The arbitration remedy says the template "may" be employed, not that it "shall" or "must" be used. It does say that "When in doubt, assume it is related", and if needed I can provide sources to the effect that the exile myth is seen as one point of contention. Moxy, I agree that a block might cause frustration, but the editor's behaviour causes frustration too. --Dailycare (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Its frivolous report.The edit has nothing to do with I/P conflict and the article is not marked as such.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . This is now being discussed at AE. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

User:68.38.80.134 reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: semi)
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:


 * . Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

User:NoblerSavager reported by User:Deltahedron (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ,


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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: /

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

Comments:

Comment  has been edit warring to insert links to his own personal website into these two articles, and this seems to be his only occupation on Wikipedia -- he wants to have Wikipedia record his site as "authoritative" on the subject. His response to attempts by User:David Eppstein and myself to discuss this, and explain why it may not be a good idea, are not promising. His edit summaries above include such comments as "Read Deltahedron's talk page, and then think, and then leave this article alone"; "Put a STOP to information burying. I will take time to clean up this weak article, but in the meantime, do NOT remove the external links"; "Do NOT try to bury information prior to reading and understanding it". Just outside the 24-hour limit, he has made fifth reverts: , His comments on the article talk page include comments such as "The right thing to do is to do your research and figure out that the links I posted BELONG in the Wikipedia articles"; "I shall restore the links until you have taken enough time to come to an informed conclusion about their legitimacy, then we shall resume this discussion"  These respnses, together with personal remarks addressed to the other editors, do not suggest that NoblerSavager yet understands the nature of collaboration. Deltahedron (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

User:172.219.165.61 reported by User:Rutebega (Result:48 hr block )
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: 172.219.165.61 was entirely unresponsive to requests for discussion, and no talk page thread was ever opened, nor any response made by him in defense of his actions.

Comments:

IP user clearly does not want to cooperate, and has ignored every warning left on his talk page while continuing to revert. — Rutebega ( talk ) 02:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . J04n(talk page) 02:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by JakeInJoisey (talk) (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 21:39,  3 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "agreed; take it to Talk")
 * 2) 01:01,  4 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 536424357 by JakeInJoisey (talk); per WP:BRD, please discuss relevance on Talk page instead of revert-warring")
 * 3) 01:39,  4 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "+clarify")
 * 4) 01:41,  4 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "+inc. journalists and fact checkers")


 * Diff of warning: here

—JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by non-admin: JakeInJoisey, it looks like you added a paragraph here, followed by reverting Xenophrenic's reverts with three of your own on the same paragraph over a span of 10 hours, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.  This means you've tried to push the material you've wanted to add into the article four times today.  Furthermore, only two of Xenophrenic's edits you've listed above are actual reverts.  This means you have more reverts in this situation than he does.  Would you mind explaining here how it is that you feel he is edit warring in this situation, but that somehow you are not?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * . For edit-warring and for flagrant disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:76.183.38.120 reported by User:Gobonobo (Result: Stale)
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:

See also the edits at Barry Manilow where there are BLP concerns. Probably this is an instance of gaming the system. This has also been brought to the reliable sources noticeboard. Gobōnobō + c 09:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You should have notified the IP of this report; I have done so for you. The edit-warring and agenda are of concern. The BLP implications are minor, or is it insulting to call Manilow's music crunkcore (not that I know diddly about it)?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. Gobonobo failed to mention that he/she reverted too many times first. I didn't know how to report it, so I reverted again. I have no agenda. Gobonobo keeps removing an item with a reputable source. 76.183.38.120 (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The addition of this genre rests on what is obviously a joke aside on one source. Barry Manilow does not play crunkcore and most would view his music as being the direct opposite of crunkcore, hence the joke.  76.183.38.120 knows this and is being deliberately disruptive, perhaps because they also think it funny.  Too many people have wasted time on this nonsense already. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * . Nothing since February 1.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User:24.193.156.117 reported by User:Vcohen (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert: (note his edit summary after my first attempt to talk to him )
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Vcohen (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected for a week by User:Lord Roem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He is going on with another article, R62A (New York City Subway car). Vcohen (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nucleophilic reported by User:Noleander (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is a bizarre situation: there are three editors that are inserting vanity material into the article Peter Proctor, who is a minor scientist in the United States. These editors continually re-insert the uncited material that Proctor was involved in a "Nobel prize controversy". Apparently they are trying to boost Proctor's reputation by asserting that he discovered something before a Nobel-prize winner did. I've repeatedly asked for a source that states that there is controversy surrounding this Nobel prize, and no source is ever provided. Although the 3RR rule has not been violated by a single editor, this is a slow-motion edit war and I'd appreciate it if some Admin could help out. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Bizarre situation indeed. Why this in the face of what seems to be a concensus of several editors,  clearly expressed on the talk page.  Leaving aside the incivilities,  just one editor's opinion is simply not enough to justify it.  As I have noted repeatedly,  the material requested is in the citations and in the wikipage pointed too.   I have posted a copy of the relevant material from the linked page on talk:Peter Proctor.   It is even the subject of a chapter in a major textbook.  I have always done such wikilinks, rather than put the material on a primary page and cluttering it up. have been here six years and never seen such a situation.


 * Also, this article was recently taken to arbitration and turned down.   user:noleander seems to be trying for another bite at the apple.  Also see: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander for some of his prior history of tendentious editing. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a month since it is relatively unwatched and will leave a note on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 22:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the assistance. --Noleander (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Wattlebird reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: 24h)
Page: User being reported:

Comments:

This user is engaged in an edit war over 666 Park Avenue because he thinks Facebook is a reliable source. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Rey Keshe reported by User:MyLeftNut (Result: Submitter blocked for username)
Page: User being reported:

Comments:

This user is engaged in an edit war over 666 Park Avenue, and has reverted over three times in 24 hours.


 * Please take note of the filing contributor's numerous other complaints within a very short time span. A sock puppetry investigation re MyLeftNut has been initiated. I have no dog in this fight, but I suspect socking as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Submitter blocked indef for username by User:Gamaliel. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lough Neagh Rescue reported by User:Martin451 (Result: Semi-protected one week)
Page:

Edit warring going back a year with changing ip users, and a few single purpose accounts. 300+ edits based upon whether the official site is .net or .co.uk Will be taking to AfD Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . You should have taken this to WP:RFPP, but I took care of it anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User:AdamDeanHall reported by User:MyLeftNut (Result: Warned)
Page: User being reported:

Comments:

This user is engaged in an edit war over 666 Park Avenue, and has reverted over three times in 24 hours.


 * I would have to second this motion. AdamDeanHall reported the other party he was edit-warring with and the other party was blocked and he so far has gotten away with it. As for the user who made this report, i would leave that up to those with user rights i lack to address. As for what AdamDeanHall and Wattlebird have been edit-warring over, both the broadcaster's Facebook notice and the scifinow.co.uk article are now out-dated sources for broadcast of the episodes as the broadcaster's website has the episodes in question on their schedule starting next Monday not today or three weeks ago. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've opened an sockpuppet investigation against due to the newness of his account after the block of Wattlebird. I don't think any action should be taken on this request (or the one below) until the SPI is resolved. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with Lord Roem, as per my comments below. This smells loudly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

iwas about to suggest that something sounded fishy about two AN3 complaints popping up in quick succession. I am not privy to the tools the Checkuser has, but I think it is highly curious that less than an hour after the block of Wattlebird, MyLeftNut (pretty much a red flag of a sock, to be sure) files a complaint against both of the people W's been arguing with. New user, knowing their way around AN3? Not likely. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Submitter blocked indef for username by User:Gamaliel. I reopened this complaint per the statement below, and will leave a note for AdamDeanHall. It does appear that *official* Facebook pages are acceptable as sources. ADH has been revert warring to exclude the use of Facebook as a source. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this mean a second report would need to be submitted for ADH edit-warring on 666 Park Avenue? I would think the merit of the report would not be negated because of the questionable circumstances of the one who filed the report. ADH basically used this noticeboard to get his opponent in the edit war blocked while hoping noone noticed he was the other party to the edit-warring. Technically ADH has 6 edits to the area in dispute in 23hr 59min and with the other party to the edit war now blocked the edit-warring seems to have ended but that wouldn't negate his participation in it. Its just that i came here to report it only to find him already reported by a now blocked & suspected sockpuppet of the person he was edit-warring with and whom he reported before he could have a report filed on him. A second report for the same criteria seems silly but letting him off because he was the first to file a report seems not right either. I think this is why i usually avoid things like this. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 00:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit war was over use of http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=592475164111262&set=a.232962533395862.78734.137131239645659&type=1 and goes back to a previous post from http://www.facebook.com/FOX8 as well as whether the original anticipated Australian broadcast dates of 7, 14, 21, and 28 January were reliable and even appropriate for inclusion (before they became known to be incorrect). The immediate edit war and discussion revolves around whether official facebook pages of tv broadcasters are acceptable sources and if FOX8's page is an official page. The most recent facebook notice was an estimate of the re-revised broadcast schedule. The scifinow.co.uk source had been correct when published but since things beyond FOX8's control prevented broadcast of the episodes as noted in that article it became out-dated and inaccurate yet ADH kept reverting to its use. All of that is now out-dated sources per FOX8's formal schedule which has the episodes in question being broadcast starting next Monday night. The timeline isn't too hard to follow. The edit-warring has been going on since about the time word of the forthcoming Australian broadcast of the episodes hit the interwebs some four weeks ago and really got intense in the past 36 hours or so. It didn't help that Warner Bros. kept delaying delivery of the episodes to the Australian broadcaster. As for what prompted ADH to file the report here on Wattlebird i really shouldn't have speculated but it does appear to not have been as pure in its intent as one submitted by anyone else would seem. I can understand why Wattlebird might feel jilted by a one-sided block in an edit-war but that doesn't mean i condone all actions it appears he subsequently undertook. My advance apologies to whomever undertakes a review of this due to how much of it there is to go through. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. Too much time has passed to issue a block, but ADH is warned not to keep removing links without getting consensus. It seems there is a bona fide issue of whether official Facebook pages can be cited. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Iranian Space Monkey and User:Zemlja snova reported by User:Sokac121 (Result: both indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:


 * User:Iranian Space Monkey and User:Zemlja snova, removed images same as it did  It was solved with help of   ,
 * User:Iranian Space Monkey and User:Zemlja removes Hungarian and German links   IP  ,
 * and German and Hungarian names for villages in Serbia

Here Iranian Space Monkey threatens me (I have this suggestion for you: stop that shit for articles on northern Serbia on the English Wikipedia) They only contribute to the removal, I think that these four accounts are connected--Sokac121 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is some sort of content dispute. All parties (including Sokac121) are edit warring across multiple articles, and all of them (including Sokac121) should be blocked.-- В и к и  T  15:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . User:Zemlja snova indeffed by User:EdJohnston; User:Iranian Space Monkey indeffed by User:DeltaQuad. Both editors blocked as sock puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

67.169.46.25 reported by User:Martin of Sheffield (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_This_a_Zombie%3F&diff=536601105&oldid=534098479

Comments:

I have only become involved in this due to an appeal for help on my talk page from user LoneWolf. LoneWolf and the IP are disputing a fact and it is threateneing to degenerate into an edit war (17 changes in fortnight, all reverts or counter-reverts). Yesterday I warned both users about their behaviour and LoneWolf has come back to me asking for more help. The IP has been previously blocked by User:Materialscientist to whom I mentioned it yesterday. As a relatively junior editor I feel this needs to be escalated and so am "passing the buck" up the chain of control.

I have posted AN3 warnings on both users' talk pages. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am one of the parties resposible for this. I wasn't aware of the three revert rule and I have stopped once told. I have been on here for a while but, I'm still getting the hang of lots of things and have never violated a rule like this before so I didn't realize. I am sorry and have again stopped. LoneWolf1992 (talk 19:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Both sides have stopped reverting for the moment. If this resumes, let us know. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nickst reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

I should add he already received a final warning at his talk page for removing speedy deletion templates here before I made this entry. C 679 17:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Nickst is edit warring to remove CSD tag on "own" page, has been on Wikipedia for four years so I am sure he knows about 3RR. My understanding of CSD policy is that it is up to an administrator to review the case for CSD and not the author of the page. C 679 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear friends. It is not repost. It is a new article with new sources. 11 interwikies and speedy deletion? See new AfD for this article. WP:SD is not needed due to WP:AfD considerartion. NickSt (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion nomination is not prohibited due to an active AfD over the article. As an administrator, I ask you to please stop removing the CSD template. I'm willing to let this go, but consider this a very stern warning from me. I also would have no qualms if another admin decides to take further action given just how bad the 3rr violation was here. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. User has given up their revert campaign. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:بیکار reported by User:Debresser (Result: Final warning)
Page:

User being reported:

This editor added a paragraph in bad English, and when I remove it, he undoes. I posted on his talkpage, but he simply doesn't care about the fact that his lines are not acceptable as is. Please explain to him that his edit is not up to standards, and that he should not simply edit war. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dougweller dropped a warning on their talk page, Debresser commented further, and I reverted the editor's poorly phrased contribution again. I left them a final warning: if it continues, a block is the immediate solution. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's something else. Look at this, an edit by بیکار to a project by . Then compare بیکار's edits to Espiral's, especially this one]: they are the same editor, it seems to me. Dougweller, Debresser, I gotta run off: I hope that one of you will take the appropriate action. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * SPI raised. Looks like a duck though. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Ricojellyfro reported by User:Cavann (Result: One-week block)
Page:

User being reported: and IP's, , , and  (most certainly the same person)


 * Previous version reverted to: Complex case stretching couple of months. The user and the IP's add fake information and WP:OR and deleting sourced information. Eg:

This person is deleting sourced material and replacing it with OR. Examples:. Explanation of how he is inserting OR and deleting sourced material:. He was warned by me and and an admin, but still continues same behaviour. The page was protected due to sock puppet IPs. Recent revert:


 * 


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Comments: Seems a clear case of long-term edit warring by an SPA editor with a POV they can't control. Will block for a week: return to the previous behavior should result in an indef block. I'm also going to semi-protect Archaeogenetics of the Near East. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:70.53.24.135 reported by User:Drmies (Result:Blocked 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Grunge

Comments: I'd have blocked this person already, but I've edited the article (a little bit) and I think they're a bit hard of hearing and should hear this from others too. It also seems to me that they are likely to return to this matter, perhaps with a different IP address. Note: I have just reverted their utterly unhelpful edits again, which puts me at 3, but this simply cannot stand, certainly not in a Featured Article. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 24 hours, but if they come back we can look at other options. Killer Chihuahua 18:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Jean-Jacques Georges reported by User:KillerChihuahua (Result: Blocked 12 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (after third revert, before fourth)

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Jean-Jacques Georges has made substantial edits to the lead of Creationism, resulting in this version, which he has been edit warring to keep. He was warned but chose to remove the warning with a dismissive edit summary that he "knew the rules." Please examine the 4th revert carefully: he left the first bit of the original lead, but added much of his rewrite after, and removed a sourced and replaced the source with a citeneeded template. Killer Chihuahua 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And he's removed the notice of this discussion, but I did post it. Killer Chihuahua 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, please take note that KillerChichuahua has been quite agressive with me ("incredibly poor verbiage"), and that I am now discussing calmly with Dave souza on the article's talk page. I have not "ignored" KC's message, just removed it from my talk page, as I am entitled to do. Also, after removing his message, I have not been edit warring. If his idea of discussion is complaining to the admins, that's his problem. But as I said, I have no interest of a conflict with him. Should he present arguments, I'd just appreciate to have a relaxed talk. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover, please take note that, in the fourth link, I have not been edit warring : this edit was limited to removing a source which I find misleading and insufficient, and replacing it with a "citation needed" tag. If you "examine carefully" the link, you will see that I did not add any parts of my rewrite : the text after the tag was the original one, which I did not alter. My reverts have been limited to three. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have misread my post. I did not say you'd "ignored" my notice, I said you'd removed it, which is neutral and accurate. As I am required to notify you of this discussion, and you had removed it, I was merely adding the dif so that the administrator who reviews this could easily verify that I'd complied with that requirement. Killer Chihuahua 18:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Anyway, as I said above, I did not break the 3-reverts rule, have not been edit warring since, and am not interested in a conflict with you, or with anyone for that matters. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is technically four reverts and a block should be considered. JJG has been reverting the lead of this article since November 2012. His edit summary then was "dubious - we can't have an intro that states flatly, "creationism is the belief that God created the universe" : that's not the general use of the word. We can't just equate "creationism" and "religion"". I see no indication that he is now willing to accept talk page consensus if the decision goes against him. Perhaps he can confirm that willingness now. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c)If there's any doubt that 3RR was broken, there was clearly an all-out edit war underway and I see at least 4 removals of a source. Blocked 12 hours for edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:112.198.130.242 reported by - MrX (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:50,  7 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 03:09,  7 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 03:19,  7 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 03:29,  7 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 03:37,  7 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 03:50,  7 February 2013  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

The user is also a suspected sockpuppet. —- MrX 03:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * by User:Materialscientist for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Zorglub reported by User:Cruks (Result: Cruks warned)
Page:

User being reported:
 * . Putting aside that this is a malformed report, I've warned User:Cruks that the material they are insisting be included in the article is a WP:BLP violation and cannot be reinserted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Demiurge1000 (Result: warned here and elsewhere)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Demiurge1000&action=history

I'm allowed to remove nonsense from my own talkpage. Would someone please block these two jokers ASAP. I don't see that requesting full protection for my own talkpage serves any useful purpose, especially considering what I do there. I don't see any other way to stop this from continuing. yet another message related to this came into my talk page even while I was trying to write this message. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're allowed to remove nonsense. Yes. What you aren't allowed to do is continue being unresponsive to valid concerns multiple times regarding refactoring and removal of valid comments by another user. Also, don't call us jokers please. I see no way for it to stop unless you discuss. Which you've failed to do. gwickwire  talk edits 23:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've stated my opinion about the original dispute which was related to my user page. This does not need to go any farther. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 23:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this goes back a lot farther than the most recent edit war on ASO's page. gwickwire  talk edits 23:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would actually like not to be called a joker. I was raising perfectly legit questions regarding two reverts that have taken place which I have a problem with. Demiurge1000's edits summary were labelled with 'IRC' removal and I had no mention of IRC (Just not answering via that channel) so I requested it on the users talk page after being recommended to do so by an Administrator. Plus two reverts is not classed as edit warring so I am out of this as I was acting within policy. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, no. People, he's allowed to remove pretty much anything from his talk page, per WP:OWNTALK: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". Stop restoring it. I'd really hate to block anyone over something so stupid. "Jokers" is the weakest "personal attack" ever, so just ignore it, okay? Everyone just let it drop. Edit-warring can start before the 3RR threshold has been broken or even approached, so that excuse is right out. If you have a problem with his behavior, ANI is that way; fun times for all, I'm sure. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Two reverts is edit warring, and the combined team edit war is also a problem, but I suggest that this be closed and that neither you nor Gwickwire makes another comment on Demiurge's talk page. The RfA talk page seems to be the place to go for the underlying issue with refactoring there. Ryan Vesey 23:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I won't be taking action here at this time (though other admins are free to), but all three of you (including John F. Lewis), please stop the revert warring. This isn't the first time this has happened, and your revert warring has made the situation worse. --Rschen7754 23:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It would have helped if I had been asked about it before the edit warring. Phightins! initial edit was not problematic and rudely telling him to engage his brain escalated the situation needlessly. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 23:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rschen7754. Any more nonsense with reinstating crap like this on my talk page and I will be going straight to WP:RFPP to have it full protected. Which is sad for the new editors I work with, but it seems that some kiddies' wargames just don't end. I've had enough of this. G'bye. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo Rschen's sentiments, both here and at WP:ANI. The editors who have been reverting - and Demiurge is not included (it's hard to believe that John F. Lewis threatened Demiurge with 3RR) - should know that if they resume this behavior in the future, they will be blocked. There was no basis for gwickwire to open a topic at ANI, and Demiurge should not have been pushed into filing a report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Utgirl1990 reported by User:PRONIZ (Result: Submitter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:


 * . The report is malformed (obviously). The edit war is a slow war. Utgirl was never warned about edit-warring nor notified of this report (I've done the latter). There are two sections of the article that form the basis of the battle. One section I've removed because it's a clear WP:BLP violation (sourced to a dead link and probably unreliable even if live). The other section is more problematic, and I wouldn't remove it as a clear BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: User:PRONIZ is warned. With this edit he introduced negative information to a BLP article that is based on a dead link, as noted by Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Armughanpk1 reported by - MrX (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:32,  6 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:05,  6 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 21:20,  6 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:41,  6 February 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 536941442 by Mike Rosoft (talk)")
 * 5) 09:32,  7 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 22:11,  7 February 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 537079724 by MrX (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—- MrX 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Too much time has passed to issue a block. User:Armughanpk1 is warned not to continue warring to add unsourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Fastfromlight reported by Dougweller (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:42,  8 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 17:04,  8 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 17:22,  8 February 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:48,  8 February 2013  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

Asked to discuss, no response, the above are the user's only edits, all removing the same material from the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Continuing, see . Now at 5RR. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Obvious sock of  who also never responds to messages on talk page. RL calls or I'd file. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:GiantSnowman. The Starmagicxxx and Fastfromlight accounts were created the same day (2 March 2010). If the other guy continues an indef might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Chascharl reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 06:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff


 * 1st revert: 11:56, 8 February 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 536980904 by AussieLegend (talk)")
 * 2nd revert: 12:13, 8 February 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 537210204 by AussieLegend (talk)")
 * 3rd revert: 01:42, 9 February 2013  (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Chascharl's first edit to List of Pair of Kings episodes included a misleading edit summary, which is what made me look more closely. According to his edit summary, he had reverted this edit and, I assumed corrected some text based on the "Geno Segers was absent for five episodes not four" part of the summary. As well as this he had inexplicably split the first episode (aired in 2010) into two parts, renumbered all subsequent episode, and added part numbers to two episode titles contrary to standing convention by merging the Title and RTitle fields. The last listed episode is cited as a single episode, so splitting this and not including a citation in the second part was incorrect. The only valid change, as I discovered much later, was "Geno Segers was absent for five episodes not four". Because of this I reverted the change, and notified Chascharl on his talk page, inviting him to discuss it on the article's talk page. His response to that came several hours later, when he simply reverted to his preferred version of the article, without explanation. I reverted that, and again invited him to discuss. I then started a discussion on the article's talk page, only to discover that while doing so, he had again reverted without explanation. Rather than prolong a pointless edit war I left the article as is but I did warn him about edit warring. Some time later an IP reverted the edits. That edit was then accepted by another editor. (The article has pending changes configured because of recent excessive vandalism) When I noticed this on my watchlist, I did some minor cleanup and restored the original, and only valid edit that Chascharl had made to the article. A few hours ago Chascharl reverted again. While this is obviously not a 3RR breach, it is clearly edit warring. Two attempts have been made to engage this editor on his talk page, one on the article's talk page and he has been warned twice about edit-warring. He has ignored all of these, simply reverting to his preferred version of the article and refuses to discuss his edits. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Chascharl has finally responded on the article's talk page. Unfortunately it was only to extensively refactor my comments, effectively deleting them. I've left a warning on his talk page, but he has deleted again. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

After Chascharl logged out and started vandalising with his IP, I submitted a report at WP:AIV. Both Chascharl and the IP have now been blocked for a week. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * by User:Daniel Case for abusing multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Msoamu reported by User:MezzoMezzo (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The issue was originally discussed at WP:ANI here after User:Msoamu became aggressive and resorted to personal attacks across several articles. This behavior has continued despite the ANI thread and the user has continued reverting all contrary edits without responding to the concerns of other users. User:GorgeCustersSabre and User:Dawn Bard are both witness to this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This Mezzo Mezzo has regularly stopped me from editing Wahabi Article to more objective version and has with illogical reasons reverted my edits.I am al ready into discussion on talk page of Wahabi.The hidden propaganda of terrorist supporters must be exposed here that they are not allowing us to show a relation between Wahabism and Terrorism. User:Baboon43 and myself have tried to resolve the conflict but to no avail.Msoamu (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've blocked Msoamu for edit-warring across multiple articles, disruptive editing (POV-pushing), and personal attacks on other editors. I've looked at all three articles from the three reports, Wahhabi, Barelvi, and Ahl al-Hadith. They're all a bit different, but they present a picture of an editor with an agenda who is willing to disruptively edit to achieve that agenda. Of the three, the Barelvi article is the most complex in terms of the interaction between Msoamu and the reporter (MezzoMezzo). Mezzo's edits are not necessarilyl as uncontroversial as they are on the other two articles. I considered a block of Mezzo for edit-warring as they certainly have not been entirely blameless. However, my sense is there is a clear POV pattern in Msoamu's edits, coupled with rather inflammatory rhetoric, whereas Mezzo's edits reflect a more neutral (I don't know much about the subject matter) and a less disruptive pattern. If another admin feels that Mezzo deserves a block or a warning, they can feel free to do either.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Should I wait a day or so before entering into the talk pages on these articles again? What's the protocol here? I want to do things the right way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Msoamu reported by User:MezzoMezzo (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The issue was brought up, along with User:Msoamu's edit warring on other articles, at WP:ANI here. Despite being warned not to personally attack other editors, Msoamu has continued reverting all contrary edits and has even continued with personal accusations across several articles. User:GorgeCustersSabre and myself have both tried to reason with this user on Barelvi, to no avail. We're at the ends of our ropes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply:-MezzoMezzo has not got any Support in his edits and is just playing tricks here.See the Discussion Page of Article Barelvi.Rather he has been told to stop vandalizing page.Msoamu (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC) MezzoMezzo started inserting his POV and removing balanced version Which was on consensus since a whole year. User:GorgeCustersSabre Opposed his Vandalism ,here ] There was the total consensus for more than a year on the Article till motivated Mezzo Mezzo started vandalizing it.See here [] User:Shabiha reverted his edits here []

Comments:-He is continuously Vandalizing the Barelvi Article according to his will.He must be stopped.The editing is motivated and insertion of negative comments is enough proof of it.Msoamu (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Msoamu (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Further Discussions:- On Ahle Hadees I just removed un sourced POV content.Those names which I removed were totally biased and that too were with out references.[[[]]]

The link I added between Ahle Hadees and Terrorism is totally justified.There are thousands of neutral sources on Internet which supports my view.The present reporting is baseless and motivated.He must be asked his reasons of supporting terrorist ideology by regularly removing these sections from Wahabi and Ahle Hadees Page.Msoamu (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked Msoamu for edit-warring across multiple articles, disruptive editing (POV-pushing), and personal attacks on other editors. I've looked at all three articles from the three reports, Wahhabi, Barelvi, and Ahl al-Hadith. They're all a bit different, but they present a picture of an editor with an agenda who is willing to disruptively edit to achieve that agenda. Of the three, the Barelvi article is the most complex in terms of the interaction between Msoamu and the reporter (MezzoMezzo). Mezzo's edits are not necessarilyl as uncontroversial as they are on the other two articles. I considered a block of Mezzo for edit-warring as they certainly have not been entirely blameless. However, my sense is there is a clear POV pattern in Msoamu's edits, coupled with rather inflammatory rhetoric, whereas Mezzo's edits reflect a more neutral (I don't know much about the subject matter) and a less disruptive pattern. If another admin feels that Mezzo deserves a block or a warning, they can feel free to do either.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Msoamu reported by User:MezzoMezzo (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: A case was initially brought up against User:Msoamu at WP:ANI. Despite having been warned about personally attacking other editors, this user has continued doing so and continued reverting all contrary edits across multiple articles, all while refusing to engage in actual discussion. User:Dawn Bard is also a witness to these edits on the Ahl al-Hadith article. A number of articles are becoming un-editable due to this behavior. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've blocked Msoamu for edit-warring across multiple articles, disruptive editing (POV-pushing), and personal attacks on other editors. I've looked at all three articles from the three reports, Wahhabi, Barelvi, and Ahl al-Hadith. They're all a bit different, but they present a picture of an editor with an agenda who is willing to disruptively edit to achieve that agenda. Of the three, the Barelvi article is the most complex in terms of the interaction between Msoamu and the reporter (MezzoMezzo). Mezzo's edits are not necessarilyl as uncontroversial as they are on the other two articles. I considered a block of Mezzo for edit-warring as they certainly have not been entirely blameless. However, my sense is there is a clear POV pattern in Msoamu's edits, coupled with rather inflammatory rhetoric, whereas Mezzo's edits reflect a more neutral (I don't know much about the subject matter) and a less disruptive pattern. If another admin feels that Mezzo deserves a block or a warning, they can feel free to do either.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:SwediePie reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (without directly reverting me because I made an intersecting edit that prevented a direct revert)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (not so much an attempt to resolve it as it was to bring others to the attention that an editor is inappropriately removing images and why that editor is doing so).
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Warnings, move protection)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: removes islam and baha'i
 * 2nd revert: removes islam and baha'i
 * 3rd revert: removes islam and baha'i
 * 4th revert: removes baha'i

move warring:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:


 * Comment: I've only just seen this - I wasn't notified of this discussion. Yes, I made three reverts on Friday. Then I backed off and yesterday I proposed alternate wording on the talk page. When I had no reply in over a day, I implemented the changes. The fourth edit was therefore more than two days after the third one. StAnselm (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Editor has also been move warrring over an essay making a total of 4 reverts. Pass a Method   talk  11:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The definition of 3RR is more than three reverts on a single page in a 24 hour period. StAnselm (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish you would stop these sneaky and dishonest reports. You know very well that the 1st revert of your second grouping occurred five days before the other three. StAnselm (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, 5 editors supported the page move, you were the only one opposed so consensus was against you. Pass a Method   talk  11:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Both Pass a Method and StAnselm are warned not to revert again at Abraham (disambiguation) before getting a talk page consensus on some appropriate page. There is also a dispute about moving an essay from user space to Wikipedia space. After a complaint at AN, there is now a formal move discussion regarding the essay. Another admin has move protected the essay pending the outcome of that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

User:202.62.104.17 reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: 48h)
Page:, ,

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Comments:

User is repeatedly posting bullshit. He's copied from peopling of Thailand, substituted "Khmu" for "Mon-Khmer", and posted it as a content fork in three articles, claiming for example (because of the name substitution) that the Khmu have been around for 40,000 years, not bothering to correct for the Mon, who have never lived in Laos, etc. — kwami (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The IP editor has never left a talk comment or an edit summary. He did not reply to an invitation to respond here, but kept on going. I am not qualified to tell if these changes are really nonsense, but the single-mindedness and lack of discussion is obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Animegirl14 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Last month, I cut a lot of content from. In the ensuing time there were one-off attempts at restoring the content by IP editors, but these were reverted. In the past 24 hours (give or take), Animegirl14 has repeatedly restored the article to a previous state. I reverted the edits three times, as there were other helpful edits to the article performed in the interrim that Animegirl14 removed, and she has inserted a factual accuracy not present in previous editions of the page. After the third time, I went to her user talk to say why I had made the changes and also warned her about the edit warring rule. After that I did some other cosmetic changes to the page. Two hours ago she reverts again, erasing any work I've done to the article, removing the valid information that was added, and reinserting the wrong information, so I've made the report here.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . The violation of 3RR is clear. Ryulong, I've not blocked you, but your last series of edits could also be construed as a breach, even though you apparently don't think it is. I'm taking into account your good faith efforts to talk to the other editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So I'm not allowed to add in things she removed by blindly reverting? Or, as I've just done, fixed the factual inaccuracy she inserted? I would rather the article be bereft of the massive color coded table that had been inserted by an IP editor last year and diligently kept by other editors.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also restored my cosmetic changes that do not affect the 15k worth of content previously removed from the page. Should, after the 24 hour period pass, Animegirl14 perform another revert on the article to restore the previous content, despite the bulk of the page that I believe she had issues with remaining in place, what should be done then?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 20:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless there is an exemption, you are limited as to what you can revert, even if it's not a wholesale revert of someone else's changes. You'd have to seek input from other editors who agree with your position so someone else can revert based on that consensus. As for Animegirl14, a resumption of edit-warring to impose her version right after expiration of a block would not be viewed favorably.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It just seems odd that content that was not evidently problematic to the reverter (Animegirl14 sure wants that table in the article) isn't allowed when it's removed in a blind revert as the user has clearly been doing. I have opened up a dialog on the talk page concerning some of the content, but if nobody responds that's basically a sign that no one cares and you have free reign to make the changes you want. And then if I do that, and Animegirl14 comes back to restore the edits I'm back in this stupid cycle. It's clear that she's never going to respond to any sort of message left on her talk page. It hasn't happened in the past and it's not happening now. And then I'm back here because she's edit warring, being unresponsive, and not editing the project in any other way than to restore this one table and the unnecessarily long series descriptions. Then what? I know this is rhetorical and I might not be assuming good faith, but I doubt that this girl will even realize she's been blocked unless the content is removed, again, in the next 24 hours and she tries to restore it, again.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but you, too, must abide by the rules. My comments were intended to help you understand that and to avoid the possibility of sanctions in the future in these kinds of situations.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So what am I to do when the change gains consensus and she reverts again? Or if she reverts anyway because she doesn't see the page exactly as she left it (likely reinserting the wrong kanji I've deleted again)?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 21:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the problem of her coming back from her block and editing inappropriately above.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Ratnakar.kulkarni reported by User:Lowkeyvision (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhagyalakshmi_temple&diff=536650353&oldid=536577515
 * 2nd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhagyalakshmi_temple&diff=536398538&oldid=536313577
 * 3rd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhagyalakshmi_temple&diff=536471930&oldid=536419645
 * 4th revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhagyalakshmi_temple&diff=536518231&oldid=536516622

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bhagyalakshmi_temple#Politics_and_Recetism

The user responded by stating: "I do have the opportunity, I can cross 3RR to revert vandals like you"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bhagyalakshmi_temple#Politics_and_Recetism

Comments: The user agreed that the description of the riots dont belong on main page, but instead on a stub page, but then tried to put the onus of creating the new stub on me. I warned him to stop reverting and another user tried to help but this user just wont stop reverting. He has violated the 3RR rule and expresses blatant disregard for the 3RR rule.


 * . There's been no breach of 3RR by either of you. Instead, there's been a long-running battle over different material in the article for quite some time. The two of you are battling over another article as well, which is currently at WP:DRN. Perhaps you should take this dispute to DRN. At this point, you both run the risk of being blocked for edit-warring (not breaching 3RR), or the article may be locked so neither of you (or anyone else) can edit it until these disputes are resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * . There's been nothing further on the article since my note above. Although I'm declining the report, I will keep the article on my watchlist and may take action in the future if it is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Nug (Result: Both blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 23:04, 9 February 2013‎ (Reverted to revision 535161972 by Joe Bodacious: user is trying to redefine sovereignty to fit his argument on an RfC. (TW))
 * 2nd revert: 23:15, 9 February 2013‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Nug (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Lvivske. (TW))
 * 3rd revert: 20:58, 10 February 2013‎ (Reverted to revision 537456976 by Lvivske: WP:SYN synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. (TW))
 * 4th revert: 21:28, 10 February 2013‎ (removing WP:SYN disruptive edit form lead, inserting full quote from source to appropriate section)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk:Sovereignty - Lvivske threatened to start edit warring if I didn't stop adding reliably sourced material, as if he WP:OWNs the article

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

Comments:

User:Lvivske seems intent on characterising my additions of reliably sourced text as vandalism, then claimed it was SYNTH. I'm just trying to contribute to the article while he is bringing gobs of bad faith assumptions. --Nug (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said I would start edit warring, I just saw the trend happening with your edits and wanted to prevent it from escalating. Also, your diffs are from separate edit sequences, not subject to 3RR of a single article entry. The first 2 were regarding the lede you were altering, which you also 2R'd 1, 2; the second 2 diffs were when you started adding WP:SYN material (your 4th diff cited wasn't even a revert, it was shifting your source into an appropriate section).--Львівське (говорити) 01:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I only reverted once, the second diff you link is a new sentence I inserted and subsequently moved to the end of the lede. --Nug (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. They are similar, and use the same source, and insert the same point into the front of the lede....--Львівське (говорити) 02:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverts are still reverts, even if they apply to different text in the same article, and thus subject to WP:3RR. Note that Lvivske is subject to an indefinite 1RR/48hr sanction in another topic area, so edit warring seems to be a persistent issue for him. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. And if you want to sling mud, Nug has previous interaction bans due to conflicts on Eastern European topics; the Eastern European mailing list fiasco; and subsequent EE related topic ban(s). There, now we're all aired out.--Львівське (говорити) 02:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note that I asked an admin how to properly file a dispute resolution like this a few hours prior to this being opened against me. Preemptive strike?--Львівське (говорити) 02:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Edge4life42 reported by User:Bdb484 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1, 2, 3

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

Comments:

The user has been trying to push these changes based on his belief that historians are too liberal. There has been steady consensus against his proposed changes and a phalanx of editors are opposed. Edge4Life42 stopped participating in the talk page conversation on December 13, but is continuing his edit war. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . After two months of nothing, they've made one edit. Granted, it appears to be an attempt to inject the same rejected change, but it's not like they were blocked before or even officially warned by an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking it out. I didn't know admins' warnings were more meaningful than the rest of ours. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I'm noticing now that Bencherlite actually is a sysop. Was his warning not official enough? I don't understand what standard we're supposed to be using here. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on the circumstances. Let's assume a non-admin warns someone they have or are about to violate 3RR. If the warning is accurate, it's no different from an admin's warning. However, in this instance, Edge has not violated 3RR; nor have they even edit-warred, at least not recently. If, they had been blocked in December for edit-warring, then a resumption of their conduct might be grounds for a block. Alternatively, if they been warned by an admin (that is not the kind of warning that a non-admin can rightfully issue as they don't have the power to block) and they stopped their behavior, then a resumption of that same behavior might also be grounds for a block. Here, I don't see any of that. (Nor do I see any warning by User:Bencherlite on Edge's talk page.) I am closing this now as declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense. Thanks for checking it out. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * . Subsequent to my decline, Edge's change to the article was reverted by another user. Edge reverted right back. I have restored the material on the Bush page to the December 2012 consensus. I have also warned Edge that any more reverts will result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)