Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive210

User:MrsKrishan reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:62.150.13.66 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 hours for vandalism)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) Reporting per EW, not 3RR - they are unlikely to talk about this issue

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A62.150.13.66&diff=546533696&oldid=466711748 Not on article talk because this is straight removal of sourced content. I did add a comment to the EW template on the IP's talk].

Comments:

Appears to be a static IP, so blocking may be preferable to WP:RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * for vandalism. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GhiathArodaki reported by User:Renetus (Result: GhiathArodaki blocked 72 hours; User:Alhanuty blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page: User_talk:GhiathArodaki

Comments:

Although GhiathArodaki's edit war has been going on for a lot longer then the stated "previous version reverted to" and this is the second time GhiathArodaki is being reported for it in one week (previous time by User:Alhanuty) he has now clearly violated the the three-revert rule. GhiathArodaki was warned and asked to stop multiple times. He continues to change the title of the first paragraph and remove the independence flag from the gallery. He argues that he "is telling the truth" and although being right or wrong plays no role in an edit war or the 3RR it is clear that GhiathArodaki is not trying to reach a compromise and he is not trying to reflect a neutral point of view. Although GhiathArodaki is probably not intentionally vandalizing the article, his edits and english languages skills are not contributing to the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renetus (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove the mandate flag from gallery, And i'm writing the truth, that what i always say, I Returned what did you suggest to me, Yiu know Allhanuty is the one who should be reported , because he is biased to the oppostion and i'm the one who making natural view, I See , terrorist in Syria and Here.GhiathArodaki (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC) why didn't i got notified about this before i got blocked Alhanuty (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC) CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY DID THESE EDITERS DIDN'tGOT BLOCK FOR REVERTING, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DIREKTOR_reported_by_User:Futuretrillionaire_.28Result:_Article_Protected.29 I NEED AN EXPLAINATION FOR THIS Bbb23,right now Alhanuty (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked GhiathArodaki for 72 hours for persistent edit-warring and non-neutral, disruptive editing. I also blocked User:Alhanuty for 24 hours because, although their editing was significantly less disruptive, they violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Iloverussia reported by User:GenQuest (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: March 21, 2013 version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) old 1
 * 2) old 2
 * 3) old 3
 * 4) and the disruption continues today...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page request for discussion before further content removal and name change. See also this from the Talk Page.

Comments: User continues to remove a cited (by The Korea Times), reliable statements (re: religious beliefs) as well as changing her Korean-style name away from western convention in the infobox only. Page is also being disrupted regularly by IPs.

GenQuest "Talk to Me" 06:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see a reasonable case for block, will support if WP:BLP problem is repeated. I am WP:INVOLVED. Shirt58 (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . The account has very few edits. They have not done anything since the edit warring warning, although their last edit is still in place, so it's hard to say whether they get it. There's been no breach of 3RR, although the BLP issues are troubling. I'm not taking any action at this point, although another admin may feel differently. (I see no IP issue; the article has been subject to pending changes since January 1.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * i just prevented vandaliam. that source is false report. the article was misleading.--Iloverussia (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:188.223.226.180 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Steam engine is an obvious vital article for engineering. It has one article's space to give an overview of 300 years' history. Space and relevance is at a premium.

This issue is about the Quasiturbine, a recent invention. Should it have a section within the Steam engine article?

This has been discussed at length at Talk:Steam_engine. It was raised innocently two years ago by, but rejected by a number of other editors on the grounds that there are any number of new inventions to any long-established field, but that a new invention has to demonstrate some worthwhile importance or adoption before it becomes worthy of a field's top-level article. This Quasiturbine has neither – although at WP it does have a rather spammy past.

This issue has re-appeared in the last couple of days:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (, from the same obscure ISP)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

These have been reverted by three four independent editors, on much the same grounds as last time (see article talk:). There is no change to this – although the new IP has added a range of attacks on these editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Now here on my talk: too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . I blocked both IPs, which are supposedly static and coming from same provider, for 72 hours. If more pop up, we'll have to consider semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Harnad reported by User:Biruitorul (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * . I've locked the article for 3 days because of the edit warring. I've reverted Harnad's changes because they are too close to the cited opinion piece and therefore violate copyright.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:70.83.160.23 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Yet another bunch of edit-warring in relation to Coandă-1910 (read the substantial talk page archives, should you care). This is an early experimental aircraft that may (but probably didn't) have had a jet engine and may (but probably didn't) make the first jet-powered flight in 1910.

Specifically, re the edit-warring here, it's about changing Aircraft engine away from a version that is supported by a fairly broad consensus. Be careful though, the details here are subtle and require some understanding of the technical details to judge them. Swapping minor terms like "jet engine" and "jet-propelled" is a highly contentious change in this scope, even if it looks trivial to the layman.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Rounded off with a series of increasingly ludicrous accusations that any editor who reverts is one of a multiple sockpuppet farm. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Sonicyouth86 reported by User:memills (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sonicyouth86 added a new section to the article, which I edited for accuracy and clarity. These edits were then repeatedly reverted despite my efforts on the Talk page here to discuss the content issues related to the new material.


 * I added a reliably sourced new section to the article Evolutionary psychology yesterday. rewrote parts of the sourced content so that the sources were misrepresented. I explained this in detail (using quotes from the relevant two sources) on the article talk page (see Talk:Evolutionary psychology) before partially reverting per WP:OR. It was patently obvious that the sources did not support Memills desired version but he continued to revert three times . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . You're both at 3 reverts, but there is an edit war happening. I've protected the page for 2 days; please use that time to discuss the issue on the talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I count 2 reverts on my part. However, I will continue efforts on the Talk page. Memills (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:FRANKDK2 reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:FRANKDK2

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

Comments:

On PPL Center: repeatedly violated 3rr rule, even after warnings. does not place edit summaries, and refuses to discuss reverts. repeatedly warned on his user talk page. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I have warned the user that if they persist, they will be blocked. I almost blocked them now based on the first edit report, which was closed about 5 days ago by another admin, but in view of their editing history, it would take a fairly long block to do any good, and I didn't like the idea of imposing such a long block as a first block without a warning. As an aside, the editor has never breached WP:3RR, at least not this year (they edited the article in early 2012).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * thank you. I realized after I had posted that he hadn't violated 3rr, but I think this was completely fair. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Futuretrillionaire (Result: Article Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of User:DIREKTOR removing my warning to him. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Comments:

This user is adding controversial material despite the ongoing discussion at the talk page.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The WP:CABAL of users that WP:OWNS that article has been abusing 3RR and gaming the system for months now to WP:STONEWALL sourced changes in accordance with listed references and relevant template guidelines - most likely out of political preference and POV. Reams of text have been written in an attempt to discuss this matter, including three RfCs and a WP:DRN thread - none garnered a response. The highly-biased status quo is being enforced through bullying and organized edit-warring by the said cabal, and apparently may remain in place indefinitely.


 * In my defense, others and myself discussed the matter ad nauseam, only to realize that no matter the state of the sources, the changes simply "cannot be allowed" to go through. The addition is entirely sourced and is in accordance with infobox template standards as described on its own page (and implemented throughout Wikipedia). -- Director  ( talk )  18:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot use stonewalling or ad nauseam as a defense because there is no "clear majority", good faith negotiations are ongoing, and there is no reaction to a "minor error" involved. Sopher99 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiikipedia is not a democracy, Sopher99 - its written based on sources. The motto of you folks - "consensus is required, citations don't matter", is not how we do things here. -- Director  ( talk )  18:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. Baboon is using sources to support his edit-warring, which is absurd. No matter what sources you have, you need to discuss first.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not Futuretrillionaire. The citations you used only proves that the strike occurred, not that the conflict defines the neighboring countries as a belligerent. Sopher99 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Futuretrillionaire. Yeah, clearly you did not mean to put it so obviously. And, as I said, we discussed for weeks, well beyond the point of tedium. RfCs and DRNs were posted, which garnered no response. Even if I get blocked, as is quite likely, I'm glad to clearly show that the extreme bias of the article and its infobox is being maintained merely by a bullying WP:CABAL employing organized edit war.


 * @Sopher99. No, I suppose we should defer to your definitions of a "belligerent" or "participant" or whatnot? Quite plainly, the guide of the relevant template defines combatants for inclusion as "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Many reliable, mainstream sources have been cited to the explicit effect that the country has entered the conflict. The rest is empty wordplay. -- Director  ( talk )  19:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It also says "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article". There are no sources which define the Syrian civil war as being a conflict which involves Israel, particularly small border clashes. Sopher99 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that Sopher and FutureTrillionaire are often opposed to each other in many of the discussions on the page. They are, in no way, colluding to push a specific point of view. Jeancey (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher. Sure, it says a lot of things. None of which justify your arbitrary removal of sourced content. There are only several distinct combatants here. Desperately wikilawyering all over that template is pretty transparent.

@Jeancey. They most certainly are. I would just like to point out that you support their position on the talkpage.

Incidentally, here are the reverts of Baboon and myself by Sopher99 and Futuretrillionaire: -- Director  ( talk )  20:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * But we didn't break the 3 revert rule. You did. In order for you to break the 3 revert rule, logically someone else has to have been reverting as well, just not to the same extent. In fact you went on to continue to revert despite this 3rv rule report. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=546783228&oldid=546782406] Sopher99 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would not consider myself supporting their position. In fact, I have yet to actually add anything that was strictly my opinion. All the stuff I have posted on the talk page came directly from articles you provided, with the exception of my interpretation of your replies to me. I personally think they should all be removed from the combatant section, and just the syrian army and the rebel factions be listed, and Iran, hezbollah, and all other nations be relegated to a supported by section.  I don't think anyone else supports this, so I haven't said anything. Jeancey (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL WHY DID I GOT BLOCKED WHEN I WAS REVERTING Alhanuty (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC) That admin Bbb23 has blocked me for reverting,that is unfair Bbb23 shouldn't have blocked me .Alhanuty (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Already protected. Direktor has indeed broken 3RR here, but so has FutureTrillionaire (starting with the 21:26 edit yesterday) and Sopher99 has four reverts in 31 hours, so no-one's covering themselves in glory here.  There should be plenty of time to discuss this on the talkpage now. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Altrico10 reported by User:Ducknish (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

User has consistently reverted in an attempt to maintain a setlist, ignoring the comment: "So don't change anything, or you'll be reverted. We aren't a fansite. We aren't here to list every little song change during the tour. That's what the note is for, to let readers know not every show may be in this order." Ducknish (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Kuru  (talk)  20:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Locked and warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor being reported has a long history of reverting completely back to what he calls "preferred" or "accepted" versions of articles (this indicates an issue of article ownership, in my opinion). His reversion methods appear to be an abuse of a rollback feature, but I'm not sure about that. The edits he reverted several times (at the article referred to) before he reverted my edits were from an IP user. The IP user was removing a peacock term. He even made a notation on the talk page of the editor being reported about why peacocking should be removed from article page (see here: ) and referencing why he had removed the peacocking from the article page. The editor being reported responded by erroneously placing a vandalism warning on the IP user's talk page (seen here:). He then quickly removed the IP editor's comments on his own talk page. Nothing wrong with that since it's his page, but to me, it seemed like he was just blowing the IP editor off. The edits I then made to that article were reverted. No real reason why, no attempt to discuss on the talk page of the article, nothing. In my opinion, this type of behavior is becoming a theme with this editor. Someone else edits an article the editor being reported watchlists, I edit an article the editor being reported watchlists, and bam! It gets reverted almost immediately by Gareth Griffith-Jones (the editor being reported). Warnings of edit-warring seem to mean nothing to him: he simply removes them almost as quickly as they are placed. This has happened at several film articles I've edited over the last week or so: I edit, the editor being reported (or his friends User:TheOldJacobite and User:Ring Cinema) revert everything I edited in one sweeping revert. Evidence of Gareth's friends reverting for him can be found most recently here - note that as is their usual practice, no edit summary or reasoning is given, just complete reverting; no discussion on the article talk page, just complete reverting. Winkelvi (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * .. I've locked the article for 3 days. It was either that or hand out blocks to three of the four parties involved, Gareth, Winkelvi, and the IP. The only editor who didn't breach WP:3RR was The Old Jacobite, although the templated warning they left on the IP's talk page was unwarranted. Everyone should consider themselves warned that this is not the appropriate way to handle a content dispute (and a silly one at that). If the behavior recurs after expiration of the lock, editors may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When the anon. editor's original unexplained edit was reverted, he should have gone to the talk page to explain his edits. Winkelvi clearly followed Gareth to the page in order to revert his edits, simply because Winkelvi has a problem with Gareth's edits in general --- Winkelvi, as he made clear above, believes Gareth, Ring Cinema, and I are in cahoots to revert his edits and basically dominate Wikipedia, which is beyond absurd.  It was irresponsible of Winkelvi to encourage the IP to continue his edits rather than to discuss the matter on the talk page.  All of this drama over one word --- a word I believe was justified --- but this could have been settled easily if the IP had explained his reasoning in the first place. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  00:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the article talk page just a moment ago, I don't want to hear Winkelvi's accusations or yours, or for that matter anyone else's. Give the IP a break. Many editors would remove the word "acclaimed" from a lead as a peacock term (I have no opinion whether it belongs or doesn't in this particlar instance). The IP even tried to explain that on Gareth's talk page, and instead of a response, the IP's post was simply removed. The article talk page would have been better, but assume some good faith in all this. If you believe that Winkelvi believes in some sort of conspiracy, then take it to WP:ANI or RFC/U, but this tiny debacle was avoidable and poorly handled.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Andreasmperu and User:97.85.168.22 aka (User:Alatari) reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Comments:

I stopped at 3 reverts on my IP and named accounts and offered up a final compromise. I attempted to engage with the other user who refused to engage or discuss the article. I am operating in good faith. Alatari (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just started watching that show from 2004 on Hulu and visited the Wikipedia page to see if the show would have more than one season and if it ended in a cliffhanger to see if it was even worth while getting involved. I found the information in the article lacking and attempted to add something about the cancellation status in the first sentence. I don't sign in to Wikipedia while just viewing Hulu so it was done from the IP. It's a great show and a shame that it was cancelled. Alatari (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * After my last edit, I have requested a temporary full protection, since I had no intention of continuing any edit warring. I have also explained to the user my point and he understood it. Andreasm  just talk to me  00:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Gothicfilm (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note I didn't open the Talk page discussion because the external link Nikkimaria deleted without any discussion had been there since June 4, 2010, and being an administrator I assumed she already knew the 3RR rule. I'm here primarily because Nikkimaria has no business being an administrator - she took out the same link seven times - the first four in less than four hours, despite being reverted by two editors. You should look at the article's history page. I haven't had to deal with an WP:edit warring administrator before, so I'm not sure how best to handle it. She acts just like other confirmed edit warriors I've dealt with. She does what ever she wants repeatedly, apparently because she believes she is right, and has no inhibition against rolling in on a page she's never been on before and taking out material other editors have worked on and maintained for years. She comes back two days later and does exactly the same thing, only saying in her edit summary WP:ELNO, WP:ELBURDEN - the same thing she said before, after I've already pointed out to her they don't apply. That's what edit warriors do - the same thing repeatedly. This would be bad behavior from any editor. From an admin, it is appalling. It needs to be blocked.

Nikkimaria finally went to the Talk page after the seventh deletion. I said in my response there:


 * You are the one WP:edit warring as anyone looking at this article's history since March 22 can see. You deleted an external link that had been there since June 4, 2010 without any discussion.  You then edit warred, deleting it again three more times in three hours despite being reverted by two editors, a clear violation of WP:3RR, as well as WP:Consensus and WP:DISENGAGE.  As I said in my edit summary WP:External links allows for excellent resources like The Sacred Scrolls. The book cover images are obviously accurate and very useful to people interested in the Planet of the Apes novel's history. When I first saw The Sacred Scrolls page it answered questions I had about the book's different title Monkey Planet in the UK, for example.  WP:ELNO says one should generally avoid a list of certain EL types. Even if this EL meets one of those types, "generally avoid" does not mean in every case, as I said in my edit summary. You had no business taking it out again after that instaed of going to this Talk page. WP:ELBURDEN says Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. As I pointed out in my next edit summary I've been here many months - you for 4 hrs in which time you've done the same thing 4 times - WP:3RR violation. You then did the same thing again four more times two days later, repeating the same thing about WP:ELNO, WP:ELBURDEN  which had already been answered. That's what edit warriors do - the same thing repeatedly. Only now after all that have you come to this Talk page, and you accuse us of edit warring. One who violates WP:3RR repeatedly as you have here is a confirmed edit warrior. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No action. Three points
 * Firstly, 3RR hasn't actually been violated as far as I can see. Various people have three reverts in 24 hours (Nikkimaria on 22 and 25 March;  Gothicfilm on 22 March) none have more.
 * Secondly, an open wiki is almost never a reliable source. Sure, the information may be accurate; but if it is, there must be a reliable source that it comes from.
 * Thirdly, a contributions history that consists almost entirely of reverts makes me immediately suspicious. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just want to defend myself here. True my history is mostly reverts. But I still feel that I'm new here. I've only been here for a few months. There are a lot of guidelines and rules to learn and I don't want to violate any. There are also coding issues that I'm not very good at. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry, I'm not suggesting you've broken any policy; but it would probably be a good idea to start making your own contributions; when all you are doing is reverting it does sometimes look like you are not being constructive, even if you are. Black Kite (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite is immediately suspicious? Of what? SonOfThornhill is helping protect certain pages he's interested in. How is that suspicious? Black Kite needs to explain how four edits in less than four hours over the same thing (and then another three edits in 14 hours two days later) is not violating 3RR when WP:3RR says it is, even if the violator believes they're right. The page had this link for nearly three years, and had been stable until three days ago when Nikkimaria rolled in. Am I to take it she had to do the same thing five times in a day to violate 3RR? That would be news to me. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see on 22 March Nikkimaria removed that external link (that's not a revert - that's an edit).  She then removed it three times (those are reverts).  On 25 March she made four edits, but one (00:53) as far as I can see was not a revert.  I can see how you are defining the removal of the link after nearly three years existing there as a "revert" (after all, someone put it there in the first place) but if you think about it that would mean any edit which ever removes material from an article would be a revert, which is clearly ludicrous.   Any admin who responds at AN3 will tell you that to count as a revert, one is looking for a reversal of a fairly recent edit by another editor. Black Kite (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR says:
 * Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.
 * You're saying none of that matters. Nikkimaria was clearly edit warring. I hope other edit warriors don't use your posting here to get four free bites at the apple. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful here to remember that it takes two - or in this case three acting as two - to edit-war, and administrators are much less likely to block one side of an argument in situation like that, especially when the editor being reported is using the talkpage and at least justifying their edits per policy. Black Kite (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor being reported did not use the Talk page until after having persistently done the same removal seven times. And I showed her interpretations of policy were disputed, so she should have taken it to the Talk page immediately. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment The way I see it, removing something from an article is a revert, whether it has been in there 5 minutes or 5 years. If you make the same edit four times in a 24 hour period that should count as a violation, because if you don't count the first it means that one editor gets more "shots" than the other editor and that allows the system to be gamed. Betty Logan (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually agree there - but that has always been the case. The problem is that when you have an edit that's clearly not a revert of a recent change, then you'd have to go back through the entire edit history of the article to see if it ever reverted anything - remember, even if an edit adds something, it could be replacing something that was removed years ago.  That's simply not feasible. Black Kite (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Iwachiw2001 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:52, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
 * 2) 14:14, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
 * 3) 14:26, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
 * 4) 14:27, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
 * 5) 14:31, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
 * 6) 14:34, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
 * 7) 14:41, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 8) 14:42, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
 * 9) 15:11, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ spelling grammar")
 * 10) 15:48, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ more ref")
 * 11) 15:50, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Candidates */")
 * 12) 15:57, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ spelling")
 * 13) 16:02, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
 * 14) 16:22, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ more ref")
 * 15) 16:24, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ alignment")
 * 16) 16:46, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ alphabetic listing adjustment")
 * 17) 16:47, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ alphabet move")
 * 18) 17:48, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ ref added")
 * 19) 17:53, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Nominee */ ref")
 * 20) 17:58, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ restored partisan erased listing")
 * 21) 18:00, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* External links */ restored partisan removal of Walter Iwachiw candidacy")
 * 22) 18:21, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
 * 23) 18:38, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 24) 18:49, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ restored vandalism of tiller54")
 * 25) 18:57, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* External links */ restored link removed by partisan poltical censor")
 * 26) 19:03, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ restored partisan erasure")
 * 27) 19:05, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 28) 19:16, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Declared */ please check the http://www.nyccfb.info and look uo walter n iwachiw as candidate for Mayor of NYC 2013..do not delete help me")

—– Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * both tiller54 and Moboshgu have engaged in erasure of the entry for my candidacy for NYC Mayor since 20 March 2013. The effect of the erasures is loss of contributions and confusion in the campaign, effectively censorship that is apparently partisan since no-one has bohered to check the nyc campaign finance board list of candidates. http://www.nyccfb.info/candidates/ look up walter n iwachiw, that should resolve the issue... I suggest thatsomeone in administation lock the page to edis and make sure that all the listed candidates for mayor are listed on wiki iwachiw2001
 * Then you shouldn't be editing about the mayoral election in the first place. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a period of 48h. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:200.120.210.115 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

Comments:

User is repeatedly deleting sourced content after being reverted by at least 3 people, says the sources are biased but refuses to engage in a discussion on how to improve the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 20:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nsc13 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:19, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Democratic Party */")
 * 2) 20:29, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Other potential candidates */")
 * 3) 20:38, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 546963939 by Earlgrey T (talk)")
 * 4) 20:55, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 546966451 by 70.192.197.105 (talk)")
 * 5) 21:06, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 546968089 by Muboshgu (talk)")
 * 6) 21:09, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 546969517 by Ducknish (talk)")

—– Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * for vandalism. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Omar-toons reported by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:56, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "rv unjustified revert")
 * 2) 06:09, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "there's no introduction proper, the article begins with "Morocco controls..." that's a nonsense! + the flags on the intro date from the previous version, there are dubloons since now there's a section for each")
 * 3) 06:31, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "per WP:NPOV, no one should be given more weight than the other")
 * 4) 06:43, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic */")
 * 5) 19:55, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "rv non-sense")

Comments:

Omor's edit was reverted four times be three different editors. Omor insists on unilaterally reverting his revert instead of disusing his proposed change on the talk page, acide from one post that only deals with his change to the "Flag of Morocco" section. —Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by Omar-toons: note that the "reverts" that User:Seb az86556/User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman are reporting are, actually, putting back a consensual version decided through a global RfC with which they disagree (basing on a 3 editors discussion that they pretend to represent a WP:CCC). Note also that no information was deleted, actually I only "reorganized" the article :
 * added a leading section: "There is no official flag for the territory of Western Sahara since its sovereignty is disputed between Morocco and the Polisario Front."
 * moved the image content of the intro to the body of the article ;
 * added a short paragraph about the use of the Moroccan flag in the territory.
 * This was to replace the version User:Seb az86556/Emmette Hernandez Coleman are putting back, a misleading version with a leading section that is close to the nonsense.
 * For information, that issue was discussed through:
 * a "40+ comments by 7 editors" discussion on WP:DRN
 * a "30+ comments by 6 editors (incl. 4 uninvolved)" discussion on WP:NPOVN
 * followed by a "90+ comments by 14 editors (incl. 10 uninvolved)" RfC discussion, result was : "There is consensus for proposal 3 (i.e., a page explaining and linking to the various flags used to represent the territory, similar to Flag of Korea)"
 * Following this first process, a decision was made to have an "elaborated disambiguation page" for each article related to Western Sahara, each one giving links to the topic related to both SADR and Morocco, as it can be seen on the 22 jan. 2012 version of Flag of Western Sahara.
 * So, maybe the one (or the three) who is (are) going against consensus is (are) not me. I let you decide.
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's true. There's never one wrong-way driver, there are always hundreds. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Or maybe there are 3 wrong-way drivers, but not 14, not?
 * This is simply a WP:DISRUPT issue by 3 users disagreeing with a community decision made through a "90+ comments by 14 editors (incl. 10 uninvolved)" RfC discussion--Omar-toons (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You've already reasied that at multple, locations (plus the ANI), and, tough you invited everyone from the original RFC to that first link a month ago, and nothing came of it. No one other then yourself wants the split reversed. Aslo, you're not restoring any previous version of the article, you're edit made a new version. It was reverted, that means you discuss. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. The 06:31 and 06:43 edits count as a single revert (as there are no intervening edits by other editors), but there's still more than enough edit-warring here to justify a block. I'm not taking any position on whether a consensus has been developed elsewhere; regardless, this is clearly inappropriate edit-warring. MastCell Talk 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I had to point out that Emmette Hernandez Coleman claim that a consensus had been reached on the article Flag of Western Sahara, wich is simply not true, as she had imposed her view in that article (for example, she had changed the name of the article from flag of the SADR to flag of WS, with the opposition of several users. She weakly defend herself by saying that no one oppose her move in the few days that the discussion was opened). Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:dan56 reported by User:75.65.123.86 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

I'm requesting admin assistance against User:dan56 He has not violated the 3RR but his edits to Are you experienced are considered disruptive and a violation of WP:NPOV. He claims allmusic is not a reliable source, yet it is listed as one here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources Another thing I would like to touch upon is this user is playing victim in an attempt to get other people to side with him. Even though he has violated the Stick to source policy and the NPOV policy.Keep in mind this user has been BLOCKED serveral times for edit warring or violating the 3RR [] So i think an extended block could benifit this user and teach him that edit warring will not be tolerated on wikipedia or Victim Playing to other user. --75.65.123.86 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a content dispute. Please consider dispute resolution.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  20:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:03, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 546956436 by 74.0.139.105 (talk) restore anon blanking of inline templates")
 * 2) 20:05, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Decline of the machine */ weebly.com not rs")
 * 3) 20:39, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "restore deleted article template")
 * 4) 20:47, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Early history */ restore blanking of inline templates")
 * 5) 20:50, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Under Richard J. Daley */ restore blanked inline templates")
 * 6) 20:56, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Decline of the machine */ restore blanked inline templates")
 * 7) 21:00, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Under Thomas G. Lyons */ restore blanked inline templates")

(for the sake of accuracy, the article history indicates HughD has reached either 4RR or 5RR in one hour, not 7RR as the above might indicate - two of the above reverts were consecutive with others)


 * Diff of warning: here

Note the "warning" is a few minutes after the last of the reverts listed here, but the diff to the warning itself shows an immediately prior editor on HughD's talk page saying "Don't be so quick to revert. I'll get you whatever Reference you need. Work with me."; and HughD is by far an experienced enough editor to know the rules on edit warring. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've also now issued a warning regarding edit warring to the other (apparently relatively inexperienced) editor involved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will that show up on this page eventually? Hugh (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3RR reported, below; thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about this. I understand 3RR. I agree this is 5rr (1&2 and 3&4 above are consecutive). I was working my way through an article, section by section, adding notes to myself and my fellow editors as inline templates. Upon completing a pass and reviewing the page I noticed my contributions had been blanked, w/o resolving the issues flagged or discussion. I started over section by section, that was a blunder, a few sections later on the same page, I violated 3rr. Sorry. Hugh (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No defense, I know, but for what it's worth each of the above edits was an attempt to restore a blanking of my contributions. Hugh (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "...immediately prior editor on HughD's talk page saying "Don't be so quick to revert. I'll get you whatever Reference you need. Work with me."" Again for the sake of accuracy, some context for this excerpt from my talk page: this was a 1 revert situation that did not advance to 2nd, so it is counter-example to a tendency to edit war; it was two weeks ago; posted by an editor distinct from the other editor in this edit war, and certainly not the an example of the other editor in this edit war reaching out. Hugh (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. There was an edit war between HughD and Homeaccount on 25 March. Since the reverts have not continued no admin action is necessary. Please use the talk page to get consensus for any further changes. HughD's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic%20Party%20of%20Cook%20County&diff=prev&oldid=546959806 use of large numbers of 'vague' tags] seems unlikely to advance the discussion: it is hard to perceive your argument. Offer your position clearly on talk and use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:69.181.253.230 reported by User:Transcendence (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:35, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "fails notability criteria for songs")
 * 2) 23:45, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "fails notability criteria for songs")
 * 3) 23:49, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "what part of "fails notability criteria" are you not understanding?")
 * 4) 23:58, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "fails notability criteria for songs")

Note: The last edit came 6 minutes after the warning.
 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: This looks like a pretty lame edit war over what may or may not be a notable article. It also seems likely that whoever made these edits already has an account considering the level of Wikipedia knowledge this user seems to have.

Transcendence (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since there are no further reverts since 25 March. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:TheDirtyBubblezzz reported by User:Transcendence (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:17, 23 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 18:59, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 23:32, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 23:43, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 23:48, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 23:51, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 23:52, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Transcendence (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since there are no further reverts since 25 March. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Srnec reported by User:Daniel the Monk (Result: Warnings, protection)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Both parties are warned for edit warring. Article protected one week. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Limefrost Spiral reported by User:Ropo153 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Limefrost Spiral insists on reverting to unsourced and biased information in the Feature phone article. He falsely claims that the Nokia Lumia series are feature phones and he continues to proclaim the the superiority of the iPhone whenever possible. He refuses to discuss his changes, he just reverts without explanation. Ropo153 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Nobody broke 3RR, but both of you are on the way to doing so. If the reverts continue, both may be blocked. On a well-known topic like this it should be easy to get outside options, for instance via WP:3O. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Homeaccount reported by User:HughD (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:38, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "Requests concern usages that are drawn almost verbatim from the cited sources. Discussion should take place on talk page.")
 * 2) 20:06, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "Tags are placed on cited material. Discuss on talk page.")
 * 3) 20:49, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "Revert. If you are going to restore this tag, explain on the talk page what sections of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style this article needs to improve. Adding the tag by itself is not helpful")
 * 4) 20:58, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "You are now edit warring and ignoring all citations and attempts to discuss this. I am reporting you as having violated the three-revert rule (3RR),")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:40, 25 March 2013

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


 * 1) 17:36, 23 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Hijacking */ recent edits")
 * 2) 18:27, 23 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Chicago machine (political machine)/Democratic Party of Cook County/Political history of Chicago */ inline citations?")
 * 3) 18:47, 23 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Chicago machine (political machine)/Democratic Party of Cook County/Political history of Chicago */ add additional suggestion for going forward")
 * 4) 19:05, 23 March 2013  (edit summary: "f/* Chicago machine (political machine)/Democratic Party of Cook County/Political history of Chicago */ redirect")
 * 5) 00:17, 24 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Hijacking */ call for concensus")
 * 6) 00:21, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Article as it currently stands */ discuss article")
 * 7) 04:27, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Article as it currently stands */ attempt to engage in consensus building as per request")
 * 8) 04:46, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Hijacking */ questions for fellow editor")
 * 9) 17:59, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Article as it currently stands */ suggestion in response to editor's call for concensus")
 * 10) 20:36, 25 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* NPOV */ repeat suggestions")

Comments:

Please see Talk:Democratic_Party_of_Cook_County recent sections Hijacking, Article_as_it_currently_stands, and NPOV for numerous examples of unanswered questions and ignored suggestions before and during the time of the reverts, as WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:EXPERT issues frustrate normal consensus processes.
 * An examination of the article history will demonstrate that the "edit war" is not about consensus over content. It strangely revolves around vague and awk tags that were littered around the article on material that is cited almost verbatim from reliable references, seemingly in retaliation for providing those citations for points that were contested by the warring editor. What has developed is a clear pattern of Tendentious editing on the part of a single warring editor who does not want to see the article improved, but has suggested repeatedly that the article be blanked and redirected to a POV fork of his own creation. Request for constructive discussion with the warring editor, who has repeatedly demonstrated both WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:EXPERT issues with the article, have not been productive. I have never reverted a single edit requesting a citation nor have I ever reverted any additional content. I have repeatedly removed disruptive tags on properly cited material and the rewrite header tag - since the reason provided on the talk page did not involve the MoS, but rather simply stated that the warring editor did not like that the article even existed. It is STILL unclear to me what the warring editor objects to - beyond the fact that we have an article on this subject. -- Homeaccount (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that although I have not made a single edit anywhere in article space since I received the edit war warning on my talk page which was cited here, the warring editor discussed above filed this complaint against me anyway. I think that fact alone demonstrates that I am acting in good faith. Just glancing at my edit summaries on the diffs provided above of my alleged "violations" makes this complaint almost laughable. -- Homeaccount (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The same dispute was reported above; see the closure there. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history reported by User:TimesGerman (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The user Sikh History is indulging in an edit war. He is removing reliable sources, not providing any sources himself and putting them as fact, and threatening with warnings if you ask for sources

— — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimesGerman (talk • contribs)
 * Pfft. No case to answer. I'm doing a major edit of that pathetic article.On a side note, this is a clear case of WP:LAWYER and wasting admins time with this report. This looks also like an attempt to use mechanism in Wikipedia to WP:GAME. S H 08:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * please note that this author does not have a WP:npov and has an agenda and is now leaving unprofessional messages on my talk page. TimesGerman (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:G0h4r reported by User:Debresser (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs (note: this post is about general edit warring, not about the 3RR rule):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diffs of user talkpage attempts to discussion and/or warnings: ,,

Comment: From this user's contributions it is clear that (s)he edits only the Birthright Armenia article, with one notable exception.

I propose a block and a post on his/her talkpage to demand an explanation, with possibly a request to clarify if there are COI issues. The block is necessary, because this editor has ignored all posts on his/her talkpage so far. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, but the warrior seems to be right about the facts. G0h4r is warring to restore Edele Hovnanian as the founder of this organization, and you are repeatedly undoing that. Most of the sources, including the New York Times and the organization's own website, credit Edele Hovnanian as the founder, just as this contentious editor is insisting. The [//newvoices.org/2009/05/01/0041-4/ blog source which says that Linda Yepoyan is the founder] is based on an interview with Linda Yepoyan. You should probably work this out on talk. I suppose that if G0h4r will not discuss they could eventually be blocked but you can probably see the irony of the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. I had seen only the blog. I will not complain about an editor who is trying to add the truth. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7 reported by User:Fluous (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I made two edits total; Hawkeye7 reverted both. All but a word or two. Hawkeye7 labeled one revert as "restored agreed wording." There was no agreement; he said that to keep his revert count down. Looked at the revision history and found out that he made other reverts today, too. Like he owns the article. Fluous (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This article was Today's Featured Article. As such, it is something of a special case. It naturally attracted more than the usual amount of traffic. As the editor who took the article to FAC, I was one of a number of editors actively watching the page. I was not involved with reverting vandalism, as this was handled by other editors in different time zones. I made only two reverts, to Fluous' changes and  following the usual WP:BRD cycle. The second, fourteen hours later, was only a partial revert, of one paragraph. Discussion followed on the talk page edit. I was reluctant to (a) describe Conant as a "reformist", as this means something quite different to simply having an agenda for reform at Harvard;  and (b) to describe people as being "fired" unless convinced that it has no connotation of being terminated for cause in American English. In sum
 * There were only two reverts (one partial), so there was no violation of 3RR by either editor
 * The matter was under discussion per WP:BRD on the talk page.
 * That's slippery. You reverted more than two or three words. And you reverted another editor's changes, too. Then you made a third revert to my changes—the ones you missed the second time. 4 reverts. Sorry, but the rules are the rules. The fact is that you were revert-happy like you owned the article. You did take the article to FAC, and that was legitimately wonderful. But you don't own the article. Your first revert note: "leave it alone. original sounds MUCH better..." What the? Fluous (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation. Consecutive edits count as one, which gives us at most two reverts by Hawkeye7 on 26 March. Also, featured articles are blessed by their own special loophole in the WP:EW policy, in the section on 3RR exemptions: "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) 17:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:24.113.159.52 reported by User:Carptrash (Result: Warning for vandalism)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Correcting blatant vandalism is not an edit war. If the IP address above is repeatedly vandalizing, here's the steps to fix the problem.
 * Remove the vandalism
 * Leave a note on their talk page asking them (politely) to stop
 * If they continue, report them to WP:AIV.
 * It's that simple. But you aren't edit warring, your merely trying to stop someone who is deliberately trying to make an article worse (note that it is ONLY vandalism if the person you are reverting is obviously and deliberately trying to make the article worse.  If they believe themselves to be improving it, it CANNOT be vandalism, and this would be an edit war.  But since the IP address above isn't trying to make it better, then you're free to try to stop them.)  -- Jayron  32  03:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned the IP for vandalism, per the comments by Jayron32. Any further edits that are similar should earn a vandalism block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24 reported by User:Amadscientist (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Beginning some time ago, a debate began about the use of the English verses American spelling variant on another talkpage where this user subsequently took it upon themselves to go to the MOS Spelling to change the section without gaining a consensus. Even after a number of reliable sources where added to the text to support the reversion to a state that was supported by references the editor refused to allow what they felt was the "truth". A long discussion began where I encountered a rather obtuse attitude and attempts to simply revert my referenced changes, even after finding stronger references then I had used in the actual discussion. The editor reverted my work and began an informal RFC then a formal and properly formatted RFC where they attempted to ask which version was preferred. After a good deal of time no consenus was reached and on the 24th I reverted the page back to the referenced version because there was no consensus for the preferred version of the editor. After this the editor began edit warring using a number of excuses including that the version before our additions was where it should have gone. Per our policy and guidelines, the revert should go back to the version the RFC was arguing against, but this did not seem to satisfy the editor who simply edit warred changes even against the reliable sources which included a peer reviewed academic paper by an expert in Theatre.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed my fourth revert just before receiving notice of this post.  However, the text that is currently shown on WP: Spelling is wrong and should not remain there. My version of the text is less about "what I feel is the truth" and more about what I read in several dictionaries and the Columbia Guide to Standard American English. Amadscientist's source for the claim "there is no standard spelling of the word ['theater/-re']" is indeed an academic paper written by a theater expert. That would be fine if we were using it as a source for facts about theater, but we're not. The meanings of words and spelling are not that author's areas of expertise. The sources that I provided are dictionaries and books about the English language. These authors are experts regarding the meanings of words and spelling. Amadscientist is the one who said that because there was no consensus, the original material should be restored. I don't find that unreasonable, but wouldn't the original material be the text that was there before the two of us started changing it? No consensus doesn't mean consensus in favor of either party; it means no consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, and as far as "taking it upon myself to change the page without gaining consensus," I don't have to gain consensus before changing the page. Another editor had raised the issue of verifiability on the talk page some months ago. I reviewed the sources, agreed, and then removed the information in question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the state of the RfC, edit warring about it is not appropriate. I'd suggest you find an uninvolved admin to take a look at the RfC and judge the consensus there. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will also remind you both that edit warring up to 3RR is still edit warring, even if you don't technically break 3RR. If this edit war continues, blocks may be appropriate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does one find an uninvolved admin? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Try posting a neutral note at the administrator's noticeboard. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:206.45.75.119 reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result:24hrs by Materialscientist via AIV )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:45, 26 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547037228 by Yunshui (talk)2nd source")
 * 2) 17:16, 26 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547090046 by Dawn Bard (talk) Typical bruin fan.. would  you like me to make a compilation for you or something? Plenty more instances to be seen.")
 * 3) 00:30, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547102269 by Dawn Bard (talk) no, you're a bruin fan in disguise. added third source. should be enough. and stop spamming my talk.")
 * 4) 00:34, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547161815 by Dawn Bard (talk) You're not a bostonian if you simply work there for a few months. Same rule applies.")
 * 5) 03:25, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547177752 by Hot Stop (talk)")
 * 6) 03:54, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547184308 by Hot Stop (talk)")
 * 7) 04:03, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547187560 by Hot Stop (talk) He is from Nova Scotia, not Boston. this is fact.")
 * 8) 04:10, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "It is Hotspot who is edit warring. Read the edit. simply pointing out he's nova scotian is not warring. The burden is on hotspot to explain why we cannot include the fact he lives and is from nova scotia.")
 * 9) 04:15, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547188978 by Hot Stop (talk) You violated the 3 revert policy, bruin fan. this isn't in violation of BLP. it's a well known tactic he employs on the ice, thus, notable.")
 * 10) 04:18, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547189278 by Hot Stop (talk) You got dead last in an election to be an arbitrator for a reason, you know.")
 * 11) 04:20, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547189452 by Hot Stop (talk)You're still violating 3 revert rule. if you have problems, go to talk.")
 * 12) 04:33, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547190742 by Seb az86556 (talk) yes it does. see "too much diving from marchand" etc, from multiple sources. hence the well known part.")
 * 13) 04:36, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547191648 by Seb az86556 (talk)")
 * 14) 04:38, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547192164 by Seb az86556 (talk)sourced.")

—Dawn Bard (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Diff of warning: here

User is also at 3 reverts at Patrick Sharp. It's well worth taking a look at User:207.161.117.39, too, because the edit pattern is identical, and if it happens to be the same user, they are well over 3 reverts on Patrick Sharp, Brad Marchand, Daniel Sedin and Henrik Sedin. Both of the Sedin articles had to be semi-protected because of these edits; all four articles are BLPs. —Dawn Bard (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing to add that user is now at 3 reverts on my talk page, too:
 * 1) 00:44, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* March 2013 message for you */ new section")
 * 2) 00:46, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547163456 by Dawn Bard (talk) You're the vandal/ the one edit warring.. If you spam my page with warnings, I'll spam you with warnings. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.")
 * 3) 00:50, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547163979 by Dawn Bard (talk)How do you like a taste of your own medicine? That's what you get for spamming others.")
 * 4) 00:56, 27 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547164283 by Dawn Bard (talk) Not threatening. it's a warning. as you did to me.")

—Dawn Bard (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to report Dawn Bard for edit warring as well. What happened was I made a sourced edit to a page, and because they were a fan of the person in question, they edit warred with me and spammed my page with warnings. So I gave them warnings. And this person has been repeatedly reverting while continuing to spam. So as I told this person, if you can't talk it, then don't dish it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.75.119 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The assumption that I'm a "fan" of Marchand is incorrect, for what it's worth. (Go Sens go! #PeskySens) Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * By your reasoning, you should also be reporting yourself and hot stop, for you and him have both violated the three revert rule as well, simply because you're bruins fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.75.119 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the reasoning is correct. All 3 of you have violated the 3 revert rule. Please read WP:EW for information on avoiding edit warring and what appropriate actions you should have taken. Higgyrun3 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not true. I've only reverted 3 times. It's poor form, perhaps, but its not a violation of 3RR. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * for edit warring against multiple editors. Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right. My bad. Thanks for pointing out my error. Higgyrun3 (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not true, you were right Higgyrun3. Dawn bard is a liar, a fraud, and clearly a hypocrite, as she violated the three revert rule on his page.
 * 00:45, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 206.45.75.119 (talk): Removing specious edit-war warning from vandal. (TW)")
 * 00:48, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 206.45.75.119 (talk): to last revision by Dawn Bard. (TW)")
 * 00:51, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 206.45.75.119 (talk): Removing specious edit war warning with vaguely threatening edit summary. (TW)")
 * 01:07, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 206.45.75.119 (talk): Removing specious warning, please dont remove it again per Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. (TW)")


 * I don't know if you can count, boys and girls, but that's 4 right there on their page. And there's another revert of mine there, for a total of 5. and since 5 > 3, this person has edit warred, by violating the three revert rule. Also the only word in this person's dictionary is specious, how sad. I guess they subscribe to dictionary.com's word of the day. Anyway, Hot stop has 7 reverts on the Marchand page.. which is even worse and can be clearly seen so i'm not going to bother with it. BrainDeadBruins (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, BrainDeadBruins here is now blocked as a sock puppet of 206.45.75.119. Secondly, the page in question here is my talk page; per Don't restore removed comments, I can remove comments from my talk page without consequences, and users "who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user". So all BrainDeadBruins/206.45.75.119 has done here is point out another instance in which he/she was edit-warring. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No one's a sock puppet here bud, block was only for 24 hours and IP users that aren't blocked are free to create accounts. So another specious claim of yours. How do you like that? I've now used your word twice, correctly applied to you! Hahaha you make me laugh. Anywho, 3 revert rule still applies to talk pages so yea, you're wrong bud. Thanks for outing yourself though. 140.193.213.201 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User:75.65.123.86 reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4)
 * 5) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments: User is attempting to classify this band as a genre which they are not, using sources that are sketchy at best, and ignoring prior consensus and the reverts of numerous editors. User continues to edit-war despite ongoing talk discussion, and has removed all notices imploring to stop from his talk page p  b  p  20:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong my last edit set of reverts were made 24 hours apart I have tried to reach a consensus with user:dan56 yet he is refusing to cooperate.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * just because you purposely waited 24 hours between reverts that does not mean you aren't edit warring. the three revert rule is a bright line to tell when someone is edit warring, you can edit war without ever breaking 3RR and you are.  GB fan 20:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, but keep in mind it takes two or more to edit war. I have tried to talk to this user as the above links show. Yet he is being too stubborn trying to get other users to Edit War for him I mean come on look how many times he has been blocked for edit warring.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dan is hardly the only person to revert you. Koafv did, another IP did, and, the very last time you posted, I did (the only time I've edited the page).  This is pretty clearly more your doing than his  p  b  p  20:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What you just wrote was an Ad hominem toward me. like i said in my below post dan:56 is edit warring by proxy having other users edit war for him can you not see that?? That is just as bad as sockpuppeting IMO. --75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I resent your accusation.  p  b  p  20:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What was the point in you reporting me?? The page for are you experienced is protected so i can't edit it anyways, So what was your point in making this??--75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you want me to list the reasons beside edit warring why dan:56 should be banned?? I'll do it if you want me too--75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . The page protection seems to have alleviated the edit war. It may be wise to limited yourself to the talk page until you can control your reverting; clearly the addition is disputed.  Kuru   (talk)  00:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:dan56 reported by User:75.65.123.86 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

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

Comments:

I'm resubmitting the report I filled against dan:56 the other day because he refuses to cooperate and wants to give his own personal anylsis on what the album's genres should be. instead of trying to reach a dispute resolution is trying to get other Users to edit war for him,  Once again keep in mind this user has been BLOCKED several times for edit warring or violating the 3RR. I have tried to reach a consensus but he wants to nitpick which source is reliable and which that isn't. Please block this user --75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kuru  (talk)  00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify I wasn't trying to bring a 3RR case against him, I was reporting him for edit warring and trying to get other users to edit war for him.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Gruesome Foursome reported by User:The C of E (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Has been warned on this issue earlier here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments: Gruesome Foursome has been very focused on removing a sentence in Mid Ulster by-election, 2013 despite consensus indicating that it is meant to be there. Looking at his contributions, they have mainly been targeted on this issue.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The C of E is not being entirely honest here. The discussion on the talk page was stale and related to the inclusion of a whole raft of information whose ommission had already occured. This specific edit war is about the re-inclusion of a single partial sentence, which nobody has started any discussion about on the talk page (not least the C of E, who is one of the people edit warring with me over it). I was infact discussing it via the history comments, whereas the people edit warring with me are not. I'm willing to discuss it on the talk page if they provide an actual proper argument for why it "is meant to be there" (there has been no case made so far, only logical fallacies, which of course support nothing). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . Gruesome Foursome, edit summaries are not the place to have a discussion; that is what the talk page is for. If you are willing to discuss the issue, then do that on the talk page and stop editing. If you continue to edit, you are just protracting the edit war and making things worse. For the other editors involved who did not break 3RR, remember that any form of edit warring is inappropriate, even if you do not technically break 3RR. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User:81.158.30.170 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: blocked 31hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an SPA attempting to insert the unreferenced purported opinions of a small pressure group into an article on the commission set up to consider the so-called "West Lothian question". No response from the editor themselves, or any attempt to explain in edit summaries. Same editor has made same claims at West Lothian question. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Lectonar (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User:69.181.253.230 reported by Transcendence (talk) (Result: Two users blocked.)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 01:17, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "wikia is not a reliable source - besides, you don't know which way the info was copied")
 * 2) 01:29, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Wikia is not a reliable source")
 * 3) 01:33, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Wikia is not a reliable source")
 * 4) 18:18, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Wikia is not a reliable source")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: User was previously warned about edit warring just a few days ago on another article. This user displays great knowledge about Wikipedia, including using templates, and hence, maybe actually be someone with an existing account. I recommend doing an IP check.

—Transcendence (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the IP and Utter solitude blocked for 3RR violations. If you suspect sockpuppetry, you're free to take it to SPI. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User:AmericanDad86 reported by GB fan (Result: Locked; AmericanDad86 blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:26, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547360216 by 76.167.114.179 (talk)")
 * 2) 15:33, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "This has been all fully discussed. And it does relate. See Wikipedia Help Desk for more. Also, that discussion is still pending. Undid revision 547454364 by Maproom (talk)")
 * 3) 21:05, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Sigh! Could someone protect his page please? No legitimate reason has been given for its removal other than a vandalism and weight. Many articles contain a great deal of material on subjects and material not to be removed based upon "too detailed"")
 * 4) 21:26, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Wikipedia guidelines state that the article is to stay AS IS until consensus is reached and legitimate reason for removal is presented. Two editors have reverted it back to the way it was. The IP vandalism reversion doesnt count.")
 * 5) 21:45, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Scaled down as per the arguments as per consensus at Wikipedia Help Desk. Discussion is pending, however, and I still believe full version should be presented as no wikipedia guidelines as to bulk have been presented")
 * 6) 21:53, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Scaled down as per suggestions on Wikipedia page. However, I prefer the full version as it's presents the lawsuit more clearly and have yet to see an legitimate argument against the full version. So this debate is still pending")
 * 7) 21:55, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "This title is inaccurate as Jones never sued Big Ticket Television. she sued Sheindlin. And the staff members sued Randy Douthit")
 * 8) 22:17, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Section in question has already been scaled down. Enouuuuuugh!")
 * 9) 22:32, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Could someone protect this page?! Discussion is pending and no argument has been presented as to removal. Even after I scaled it down, user Canoe has now turned it into a content dispute claiming Judy/Randy didn't get sued when sources say they did")


 * Diff of warning: here

—GB fan 22:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This morning, an IP who claimed that he was Randy Douthit had vandalized the wikipedia article. Then he came to hereHelp desk, threatening to sue Wikipedia. Other users originally reverted the edit of IP as vandalism and then warned him about the legal threats. The wikipedia help desk discussion the progressed into whether or not the information in the article should be scaled down and I made the argument that it shouldn't be because it was all well-sourced. I also provided many examples of other articles where controversies were just as long if not longer than the material that I added into the Wikipedia article. While discussion was pending, this user User:Canoe1967 kept on flat out removing the sourced material. I kept trying to add it back in and tell him that the discussion was pending and not to remove it until a consensus was made. Not only that but I then scaled down the material as was requested at the Help desk until consensus had been reached, and user Canoe then decided to make claims that Judge Judy and Randy Douthit had never even been sued despite the sources stating otherwise. He basically turned it into an editing dispute. No reason has been given to the scaling down of the material yet and the discussion is still pending so could this article be protected. The Canoe editor is just a belligerent IP claiming to be Randy Douthit just doesn't like that something negative about him is in Wikipedia. I don't know this man. I've been editing the article unbiasedly as of relates to the show. If the public figure wants me to be biased and keep out any negative information that may appear about him within outside sources, that's his problem. And by the way, I don't know why the above user didn't report that Canoe has now violated the 3 revert rule. I'm unsure why all the harassment when I've very neatly provided sources for all the material in question and am responsible for most of the information on that article by the way. As a longtime editor who has contributed enormous sums to wikipedia and has paid careful attention to sourcing my contributions, I should not be inconvenienced with belligerent editors like Canoe and GB Fan who take the side of vandalizing and legal threatening IPs. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * and now revert #10. GB fan 23:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by Canoe1967. I was involved as well. There is nothing about the inclusion/exclusion on the article talk page. The help desk, BLPN, and my talk page have more discussion on the issues involved though. I tried to adjust the section to match sources and WP policy/guidelines but my edits were reverted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As Canoe is claiming a BLP issue and AmericanDad has repeatedly restored the material against that, I don't see much reason to delay the obvious here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * and now revert #11 GB fan 00:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * and now revert #12. I have applied full protection and reverted to the version without the information being added by AmericanDad86 until this is looked at by a different admin.  GB fan 00:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Canoe (and GB fan who likely has friendly connections with this user as he's been unusually ignoring the user's misconduct and showing bias in protecting the page on Canoe's edit despite sources that contradict his edits) is reverting to his version based upon his belief that Judge Judy was never actually sued, but just the production company that makes the show without sources as to this. Could someone please then explain to me why this article reads "Judge Judy was sued" this article reads Judge Judy was sued, this article reads Judge Judy was sued , etc., etc., etc., etc. The headlines are in about 30 point font and bold type so I don't know why he's not being quickly dismissed as a troll. In big letters, all these sources have read: Judge Judy is sued. How much bigger does the font size need to be?!

In addition, the reason Judge Judy show is being sued in the first two cases was because of Randy Douthit in alleged racial and age discrimination practices and the third time was because domestic dispute with Douthit's wife. And the articles only read alleged racism and offenses by Randy Douthit, nothing about offenses by a production company which Canoe has claimed. See here and. Canoe's contributions are directly misleading. By Canoe's titling the article as the production company being sued as opposed to Judge Judy when the article is about Judge Judy, it has made the section completely irrelevant to the Wikipedia article called "JUDGE JUDY." Despite all this, he and GB Fan have protected the article to their edit. The section is about Sheindlin being sued and the Judge Judy show being sued, the articles are all about Judge Judy being sued and Randy Douthit being the alleged cause. I can't even argue with the two editors in question properly because it's as if they can't read sources.

Canoe also suspiciously removed this material Sebastien alleges Douthit told producers, 'We're not doing any more black shows;' 'I don't want to hear no black language on T.V.;' 'I don't want to hear black people arguing;" and other comments. Sebastien, who is seeking unspecified damages, claims he submitted cases featuring African American people anyway, only to have them rejected and mocked by Douthit. that detailed what happened in the case of the African Americans and racism lawsuit against Judge Judy and sugarcoated this information so as to remove it's most controversial portions. This was after the section had been scaled down to size as was suggested prior to his coming along and making claims that Judge Judy had never been sued /: \ despite it being all about the internet. I don't know what to say if credible sources can't even be used to defend my position against these two here at Wikipedia.AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Two of the nationally syndicated show's producers have filed separate lawsuits in the last two months against the show's production company, claiming that they were treated with less justice than most of the people who appeared before the wise-cracking TV judge." From: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4081369&page=1--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (Note: Above two lines are not my post) Canoe, please sign your post. You left the above two lines unsigned. Sheesh! That's one of the basics here at Wiki. Moreover, the Judge Judy show got sued. The other half of the lawsuit against the production company is all as a result of alleged discriminatory actions on the Judge Judy show by Randy Douthit as according to the sources. Saying the production company got sued is directly misleading and irrelevant. And besides that, it's the Judge Judy article so stating "Big Ticket Television" got sued is irrelevant and misleading. The articles say pointblank that Judge Judy show and Sheindlin got sued so your removal of this is misrepresenting. The articles are not about anything the production company did. The entirety of the articles is about alleged offenses by Randy Douthit. Further, I have to question why you sugarcoated the section about racism and nothing much else. You mysteriously cut the controversial sections about the alleged anti-black racism and left other controversial sections asserting other forms of discrimination in the other section. Sugarcoating and misrepresenting should not be allowed here Wikipedia.AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not have any connection to the show or the IP that posted on the help desk to start all of this. I have seen Canoe1967 around but I do not have any connection to them.  I protected the article without the information because of BLP concerns.  Until those are worked out the information should not be in the article.  GB fan 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked AmericanDad86 for 48 hours for edit-warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks. I also blocked their alternate IP address for the same period. I am not blocking Canoe1967 based on the BLP exemption, although I think it was arguably ill-advised for Canoe to continue reverting rather than seek help elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not blocking me as well. I did request help at BLPN to try and 'normalize' the article. In the future instead of claiming 3RR exemption I will bring it straight to ANI on my 2nd revert.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:VicIlongo reported by User:Xeltran (Result: Blocked)
Pages:

User being reported:

Notes: Times in my timezone. Some of his edits and mine are compared alongside through diffs because some of the reverts are done partially or are not done immediately after my edits.


 * 1) My edit (15:41, March 28, 2013 (edit summary: "→‎Economy:  Unsourced, WP:NOTDIR, WP:CRYSTAL") . Revert (16:26 March 28, 2013  (edit summary: "→‎Shopping centers")
 * 2) My edit (15:58, March 28, 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by VicIlongo (talk): Rv non-neutral, biased text, WP:NPOV. (TW)") . Revert (16:22, March 28, 2013 (edit summary: "→‎Economy")
 * 3) 16:09, March 28, 2013
 * 4) 14:46, March 29, 2013
 * 5) 20:23, March 29, 2013
 * 6) 20:25, March 29, 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:31, 28 March 2013 (edit summary: "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Iloilo City. (TW)")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 09:09, 28 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Removal of some information in the article */ add")

Comments:

VicIlongo keeps on including information in the article that are either not notable, indiscriminate (a huge office directory list on "Government Center" section, also see WP:NOTDIR), or speculative ("investors list"). Some edits also tend to introduce bias as per WP:WORDS. I tried to explain my removal of these through the edit summaries but VicIlongo has reverted them anyway.

I was getting aware of his revert count (and mine) and so, with good faith and hoping to break the impasse, I left a message at his talk page (diff). I didn't get a reply. Assuming that this is relevant, VicIlongo has also been reverting my edits on the Hiligaynon language article (e.g., , ), without leaving edit summaries to explain why. Left a note at his talk page but it is also still unanswered. FWIW, there's a current sock report about VicIlongo that I also recently filed here. Xeltran (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . The last revert was after the warning left on their talk page by User:EdJohnston. Vic has never edited a talk page in his small contribution history, so part of my block was on his unwillingness to discuss content disputes. In addition, there are odd things going on off-wiki related to this article and to Hiligaynon language. I just reverted Vic's edits related to the latter article because it copied text from a website (there is a possibility that Vic wrote the text on that website, but there's no way I can confirm that). Vic's edits content-wise are very poor for a variety of reasons, although the City article could use a lot of work from an English standpoint, and probably from other standpoints as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Ground Zeroes editor reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Blocked)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain:
 * 1)
 * 2)

On Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Ground Zeroes editor

Comments:

There has been some debate over the best way to proceed with the Metal Gear Solid V page. The game has been announced as two separate installments, and a discussion on the talk page is trying to figure out the best way forward: whether the article should be kept as one, or split into two separate sub-articles. Ground Zeroes editor (and User:Metal Gear Solid V editor, who I suspect of being a second account) has taken it upon himself to split those pages before a full consensus has been obtained. My edits have been restoring the original content of the page to try and allow other users to actually discuss things.

Some of his other beaviour has been a little worrying, too. He has been trying to force every single content decision to the talk page, and often makes sweeping statements about the direction the article is taking. Any attempts to talk with him are usually met by rudeness, as evidenced in the above, where I linked to the discussion on his talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked User:Metal Gear Solid V editor indefinitely as a puppet of User:Ground Zeroes editor, whom I blocked for one week for edit warring, obvious conflict, and WP:ISU (also WP:PRODNAME), just to name a few of the problems associated with this editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User:98.169.199.113 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Note: restoration of just the section listing supposed other minorities who benefit from DOMA]
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGertler (talk • contribs) 06:50, 30 March 2013‎ (UTC)
 * — 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrt3366 reported by User:Maunus (Result: Voluntary restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * See Talk:Kashmiri_Pandit. It's a content dispute and wikipedia is not a majority rule. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * this revert is not only about the content inside the dispute but also content that was mistakenly deleted by me and I was reinstating it, Maunus didn't even check it before reverting it multiple times. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think a block is really necessary nor is it punitive. I promise not to revert the edits again if an admin finds my edit inappropriate. But don't tell me just because 2 disagreed with me with no reliable source, I should back off and lay down. I won't accept personal biased opinions as facts. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mrt3366 seems to have made five reverts on 30 March:
 * 11:35 (Marked as a revert). Restores 'Adelung Kashmir Valley is the cradle of the Aryan Race'
 * 12:01 Removes Marc Aurel Stein reference
 * 12:08 Restores 'cradle of the Aryan race'
 * 12:37 Restores 'cradle of the Aryan race'
 * 13:14 Restores 'cradle of the Aryan race'
 * There is a chance that Mrt336 can avoid sanctions by agreeing to take a 7-day break from this article. On a controversial topic that is full of racial theories it is especially important that decisions be made by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't edit the page but only the talk and I expect you would monitor the page as a responsible admin. It's not only me who is warring. I think I must admit the bias of the majority regardless of how many sources I present? Is that what you're saying? What was inappropriate in my edit kindly clarify? (forget the numbers and focus on the content of my edit) Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: After the above discussion, Mrt3366 has agreed to take a seven-day break from editing the article. The sanctions of WP:ARBIPA can (in my opinion) be applied to whatever is going on at Kashmiri Pandit, since it's been a magnet for nationalist editing in the past. Anything containing the words 'race' and 'Kashmir' in the same sentence is a recipe for trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User:68.60.232.105 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Blocks)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:36, 30 March 2013  (edit summary: "Las Cruces, NM - Undid revision 547853394 by 67.164.132.184 (talk)")
 * 2) 19:33, 30 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547861195 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)")
 * 3) 19:47, 30 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547865424 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)")
 * 4) 19:56, 30 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 20:02, 30 March 2013

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here
 * There are other reverts -- but the report is stripped down so that there's only one from each group.
 * Will block, if only for BLP violations. Article is semi-protected right now; this is a POV warrior who may return under a different address: I'm blocking 64.134.162.246 as well. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ;

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

Comments:


 * FFS, I'm not reverting anymore, even though the information is still wrong. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're just . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "you're also not going to be able to resolve this by just talking to me" isn't very reassuring either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One would perhaps be more reassured if one didn't take quotes out of context, and realized that a) I'd like someone to fix the problems, which no one yet has tried to do, and b) the larger "infobox war" involves people who are not me. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: On March 25 Nikkimaria took out the same external link four times in less than four hours. The first was taking out a link that had been there for nearly three years, so I was told here that it was not a revert. Here's what I believe was the last diff from the posting on this page regarding that incident. Today, Nikkimaria has done the same revert four times in just over eight hours on the Sparrow Mass page - this only five days later. She claimed the first revert was "cleanup", but then says "this was just added today" in reverting it the third time. So this is four reverts in well under half a day - a clear violation of WP:3RR. This edit warrior needs to be blocked. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Homeaccount reported by User:HughD (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:00, 29 March 2013 reverted sentence in lead identifying derisive term; second time this week this sentence was deleted by reported user, see also 21:31, 27 March 2013
 * 2) 22:00, 29 March 2013 reverted coat rack and geographic coverage article templates; second time this week the geographic coverage article template was deleted by reported user, see also 21:40, 27 March 2013
 * 3) 22:02, 29 March 2013 mass reverted multiple replacements of derisive term with neutral term, the subject of this article
 * 4) 22:05, 29 March 2013 mass reverted multiple replacements of derisive term with neutral term, the subject of this article; mass removal of inline templates without addressing tagged issues
 * 5) 22:06, 29 March 2013 revert addition of subheading
 * 6) 22:07, 29 March 2013 revert replacement of derisive term with neutral term, the subject of this article
 * 7) 22:07, 29 March 2013 revert addition of subheading
 * 8) 22:08, 29 March 2013 revert addition of subheading
 * 9) 22:10, 29 March 2013 revert replacement of derisive term with neutral term, and removal of inline template without addressing tagged issue

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Please see highly repetitive, largely futile good faith attempts at engagement in concensus building at Talk:Democratic_Party_of_Cook_County


 * 1) 17:36, 23 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on subject of article and on the role of inline templates
 * 2) 18:27, 23 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on the role of inline templates
 * 3) 18:47, 23 March 2013 good faith suggestion for dispute resolution
 * 4) 19:05, 23 March 2013 another good faith attempt to disambiguate the subject of this article
 * 5) 00:17, 24 March 2013 yet another good faith attempt to disambiguate the subject of this article
 * 6) 00:21, 25 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on nominal and actual subject of article
 * 7) 04:27, 25 March 2013 another good faith suggestion for dispute resolution
 * 8) 04:46, 25 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on geographic coverage and on WP:EXPERT
 * 9) 17:59, 25 March 2013 yet another good faith suggestion for dispute resolution
 * 10) 20:31, 25 March 2013 another attempt to engage in dialog on WP:EXPERT
 * 11) 20:36, 25 March 2013 repost good faith suggestions for dispute resolution
 * 12) 21:18, 25 March 2013 attempt to engage in discussion of a wp editor's responsibility w.r.t. WP:NPOV, also repeat good faith suggestion for dispute resolution
 * 13) 21:28, 25 March 2013 another attempt to engage in dialog on the role of inline templates
 * 14) 22:05, 25 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on WP:NPOV issues
 * 15) 16:49, 26 March 2013 another attempt to engage in dialog on role of WP:POV
 * 16) 17:03, 26 March 2013 yet another attempt to engage in dialog on the appropriate role of inline templates, also on the relationship of rs POV, tone, and word choice relative to wp guidelines on  POV, tone, and word choice

Comments:

All above listed reverts with no intervening edits from other editors; these diffs document the first ten minutes of an edit session being devoted primarily to deleting a previous editor's contributions.

Good faith offer to avoid WP:AN3 deleted from talk page: diff

Second WP:AN3 report this week, on same page, please see WP:AN3 archive User:Homeaccount reported — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughD (talk • contribs)


 * "First report" was dismissed as having no standing - it was in fact User:HughD who was warned on this very noticeboard that "use of large numbers of 'vague' tags seems unlikely to advance the discussion: it is hard to perceive your argument. Offer your position clearly on talk and use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)"  Article has changed substantially since dispute began :, yet HughD ignores all efforts to improve the article or engage meaningful discussion on the Talk:Democratic Party of Cook County, which needs to be read in full to be believed. As a show of good faith I requested a Third opinion: . I made this clear on the talk page, but it was ignored by User:HughD who is also playing a hilarious game of Clue right now: . Note that all of the content reverts above involve changes made to cited material, reverted as vandalism in the absence of any explanation in edit summaries or on Talk Page. -- Homeaccount (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected for one week due to a two-party edit war. Homeaccount gets credit for applying for a WP:Third opinion. I suggest that Homeaccount should start using the WP:PREVIEW button to avoid needing to make 52 edits in a row. If a compromise is reached on Talk the protection can be lifted early. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Jww047 reported by User:Canoe1967 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

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

Comments:


 * Clearly, this is a resumption of his previous problematic behavior which lead to a yearlong block and an indefinite block. I've reinstated the indefinite block.  Kuru   (talk)  01:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be an old account they dragged out of the woodwork. If so should we see if any sockish edits happen now? The earlier similar edits by IPs etc. were revdel. His may need revdel as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Si. He's clearly been editing as 69.249.133.74 since his last block. If that IP begins to edit after the autoblock expires, I'll block it directly. Kuru   (talk)  02:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

User:KnowledgeIncreases07 reported by User:Raeky (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:55, 31 March 2013  (edit summary: "It is important to detail what a building block is and how it relates to a protein. In addition, there are not even any citations in the first paragraph. It should be removed or updated with relevant citations, not your opinion. —  raeky  t  08:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)")
 * 2) 06:15, 31 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Current models */ Removed the citation to wired. As an encycopedic article, or secondary literature, primary literature should be cited. In addition, citation 39 was previously the same as citation 38. Why cite "wired" in an encyclopedic article —  raeky  t  08:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)")
 * 3) 06:16, 31 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Current models */ Removed the citation to wired. As an encycopedic article, or secondary literature, primary literature should be cited. In addition, citation 39 was previously the same as citation 38. Why cite "wired" in an encyclopedic article —  raeky  t  08:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)")
 * 4) 06:18, 31 March 2013  (edit summary: "Quit deleting this and go learn what a protein is. —  raeky  t  08:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)")
 * 5) 07:52, 31 March 2013  (edit summary: "What is a protein? —  raeky  t  08:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)")
 * 6) 07:59, 31 March 2013  (edit summary: "Ignorance or citation? Hmm —  raeky  t  08:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here and here

Comments: The user is adding material that isn't supported by the source, stating "it is not understood how hundreds of amino acids became spontaneously linked to form the primary structure of a protein." It's a standard creationist argument against Abiogenesis that has been discussed to death on the talk page, and is debunked via a plethora of sources. The user keeps reinserting the material after being told it's not supported by the source, to discuss the changes on the talk page, etc... All the while trying to make it sound like he's just adding an explanation of what a protein is, but the statement quoted is clearly WP:OR and not supported by the source. Continued reverting after warning template. Has done 4 reverts. — raeky  t  08:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Now the user is removing sourcing stating that we should only use primary sources instead of secondary, and warring on that as well. I'm stepping out of trying to revert the user and waiting for the decision here or someone else to step in. *sigh* — raeky  t  08:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Raeky is adding opinion and ignoring science. I created a separate section on the talk page to discuss amino acids and proteins. Future research should focus on how amino acids spontaneously formed proteins. Please block Raeky from editing the page". In addition, I created a part on the talk page for Raeky to address.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeIncreases07 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a direct quote to be supported from the source! KnowledgeIncreases07 08:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeIncreases07 (talk • contribs)
 * The article you are citing has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis, it's about the biogenesis of proteins, biogenesis != abiogenesis. Show me where in that source it states that we do not know how proteins can form during abiogenesis? — raeky  t  08:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

User:61.14.187.232 reported by — Blue-Haired Lawyer t (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: (ip address changes but clearly the same person)

Time reported: 13:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:06, 24 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 546577995 by Snappy Inserting link to statement made in his capacity as government senator with links to events spoken about and relevant Irish government legislation.")
 * 2) 23:38, 28 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547439501 by Blue-Haired Lawyer Inserting link to statement made in his capacity as GOVERNMENT senator with links to events spoken about and relevant Irish government legislation.")
 * 3) 12:03, 29 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547597753 by Snappy Inserting link to statement made in his capacity as GOVERNMENT senator with links to events spoken about and relevant Irish government legislation.")
 * 4) 12:17, 29 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547604914 by Snappy Inserting link to statement made in his capacity as GOVERNMENT senator with links to events spoken about and relevant Irish government legislation.")
 * 5) 15:15, 29 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547630503 Inserting link to statement made in his capacity as GOVERNMENT senator with links to events spoken about and relevant Irish government legislation.")
 * 6) 22:28, 29 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547647579 I am inserting a link to statement made in his capacity as GOVERNMENT senator with links to events spoken about and relevant Irish government legislation.")
 * 7) 00:00, 30 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 547713349 by Blue-Haired Lawyer I am inserting a link to statement made in his capacity as GOVERNMENT SENATOR with links to events spoken about and relevant Irish government legislation.")
 * 8) 08:51, 31 March 2013  (edit summary: "Adding information on his political career")
 * 9) 12:19, 31 March 2013  (edit summary: "Adding information on his political career.")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * I posted to his/her talkpage here but got no response. (Admittedly he probably didn't see this as he keeps changing ip addresses.)

Comments:


 * This ip user made a total of five reverts within 12 hours.


 * Dominic Hannigan is a blp article. Given that the user is an ip address(es), I'd request that the article be semi-protected.

—— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . Semi-protected for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Omar-toons reported by User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman (Result: 48h)
Page: To many to list

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Too many to list, I'll provide examples bellow.

Comments:

Omor on a massive scale replaced " 🇪🇭 Western Sahara " with Western Sahara. User:Koavf then reverted Omor's edits. Omor then reverted the reverts. I today reverted that revert of a revert and asked Omor to discuss if he wanted WP to start using Western Sahara instead of "🇪🇭 Western Sahara". Instead of discussing he re-reverted. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I just found out that User:Scheridon reverted one of Omor's edits too. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * precision: 1 edit + 1 revert (of a well known POV pusher, aka Koavf) in 48 hours, not a 3R case. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 Omor's edits + 1 revert of Omor's edits + 1 Omor re-reverting + 1 revert of Omor's edits and asking Omor to discuss + 1 Omor's re-reverting (all this on a massive scale across a number of articles). Scheridon arguably adds another revert of Omor's edits and 1 Omor re-reverting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also see this post on Omar's talk page Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:50.75.234.202 reported by User:George Ho (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Unnecessary; also, 3RR messages are ugly.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: That user filed a dispute in the BLP noticeboard.

Comments: There have been past discussions about the subject's arrest. They have ignored them in favor of fresher one. See more at Talk:George Maharis. Also, I made request for protection in WP:RPP. --George Ho (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope I didn't violate 3RR rule, did I? --George Ho (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. It is up to editor discretion whether this information stays or goes. Factors working against it would be that 'indecency' was one of the charges, but it was dropped and he pleaded guilty only to trespassing. The information about the plea is adequately sourced, but in the past, consensus has often favored excluding such material. The motive for *including* the charge seems to be to allow inference about the actor's sexuality. There is no other mention of his sexuality in the article. 'Being a matter of public record' is not by itself a reason for inclusion. It is awkward if it turns out that Wikipedia is the vehicle for outing someone who has not volunteered for that. Consider opening an WP:RFC on the article talk, or on the talk page of a WikiProject. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Are other arrests also banned? For example, the DUI or drug arrests of celebrities? I don't see that. This seems to be banned because it is considered more "distasteful" than those, when it is of equal significance in the celebrity's life. Pee Wee Herman's entry has an entire section on his arrest for exactly the same reason! 50.75.234.202 (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Suenahrme reported by User:Kazemita1 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps reverting the sourced content despite the fact that reliability of the source has been established in WP:RSN (link) Kazemita1 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * i am edit warring no more than jazemita who keeps wanting ti add his edit while discussions are still ongoing on RSN with some inresolved issues.Suenahrme (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing could be further from truth. The discussion is closed in WP:RSN with no one on your side.Kazemita1 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No its not closed because there are still questions that need answering on RSN. like why is your so called RS stating that misyar is temporary when it clearly is pernanent. And from that how such permanebt marruage can ever be conpared to tenporary muta and a purely sexual gratification role? Also just because the publisher is RS does it mean that any content no matter how false can be pirtrayed as truth on wiki? All these important issues need discussion & addressing.Suenahrme (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The editor made five reverts since 27 March. I was hoping that discussions would make a block unnecessary, but the editor displays no awareness that he needs reliable sources for article statements. From his comment just above, he *personally knows* that misyar is permanent, therefore Kazemita1's 'so-called RS' has to be mistaken. Since he is sure that he is correct, he goes ahead and removes the source that comes from Oxford University Press, which was already approved at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments : There are more reverts in the last 24 hours, but the toolserver thingy isn't working...

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments : This is not true. I was simply trying to clean up the page. This person is doing this out of anger. Ngoesseringer (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: In lieu of blocking two people for 3RR I will close this with no action. It's been 12 hours since the last revert. Be aware that there is no 3RR exception for either adding or removing low-quality sources. Perhaps the AfD discussion will lead to enlightenment. If the dispute continues, the next admin may take a harder look at the conduct of editors. Being new is not a license to behave badly. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:DVMt reported by User:Gregbard (Result: No action for now)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

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

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


 * Talk:Philosophy_of_Chiropractic
 * WT:PHILO

Comments:

This has been an ongoing issue with this User:DVMt. First of all, "Philosophy of Chiropractic" isn't philosophy. Second, the references don't support this usage. Third, the content appears to be a way to avoid criticism by people who do not support chiropratic (which is ironic, since otherwise that would be legitimate philosophy). Fourth, why the capitalization? If this doesn't qualify as a 3RR violation, then could someone step in and help out here, please? Greg Bard (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing an actual WP:3RR violation here. You could be wanting to file a complaint about long-term edit warring but that needs more data. Since the editor has already been warned under WP:ARBPS, various restrictions could be imposed if they were justified. It is too soon to tell whether the AfD discussion will allow a separate article on the philosophy of chiropractic. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action for now. See my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Gzyo reported by User:Ratnakar.kulkarni (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is the discussion about the same thing that the user was trying to add, I invited him to the talk page

Comments: I have invited the editor to the talk page as there was already a discussion going on about the same topic that this editor wants to add. The editor neither uses his talk page or the article's talk page. We just cannot have a discussion using edit summaries --sarvajna (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: 24 hours for long-term warring. Gzyo wants to give prominent coverage to the Other Backward Caste designation for Narendra Modi, which he repeatedly adds to the article lead. He has inserted or reinserted this information five times since 20 March, so I'm treating this as a case of long-term warrring. Since he never participates on talk pages we can't tell whether his campaign has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Armbrust and User:66.199.245.66 reported by User:Spc 21 (Result: IP blocked, Armbrust warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

Comments:

IP for multiple additions of inconstructive edits. Armbrust for breaking the 3RR (11 reverts made including one which says "looks stupid"). Just noticed Armbrust has been blocked on numerous occasions for breaking the 3RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spc 21 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 April 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Result: The IP is editing from a /19 web hosting range so it is blocked as an open proxy. Armbrust is warned against further edit warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:77.61.48.108 (proxy user) reported by User:Pikolas (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 541939784

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

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

Comments:

The article is controversial and this one particular user who comes back as different IPs always adds the same offensive and uncivil comment. This probably warrants attention. Pikolas (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Talk page semiprotected two weeks due to personal attacks from a fluctuating IP. The most recent offender,, has now been blocked as a proxy by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sundostund reported by User:2.239.136.182 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

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

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.239.136.182 (talk • contribs)
 * . @2.239.136.182, see your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bobrayner reported by Evlekis (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Four reverts inside 24hrs violating 3RR.
 * First
 * Second
 * Third, should have been last for while
 * Fourth - please note that this blanket revert also cancelled an intermediate contribution from another editor and no explanation was provided (the summary is just a template per previous edits).

Proof that this is edit-warring is confirmed by the fact that even these four revision immediately follow the first blanking session, there is no indication that this user is on the brink of stopping for a break. Furthermore, conversation is taking place here and these actions have been disruptive for User:FkpCascais too. This is not the only area within the ARBMAC range in which Bobrayner is abusing his free editing privileges but is the only one I wish to concentrate on for the time being. Hopefully the outcome should induce a more constructive side to his editing from here on. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I freely confess to having walked into the trap set by Evlekis; Evlekis and FKPCascais were tag-teaming to reinsert factual errors into the article. I would self-revert if that were possible, but somebody else has already joined in.. Taking the article to a noticeboard might help; if uninvolved, competent editors have a look at the problem I am confident that they would solve it, as long as Evlekis and FKPCascais can keep their fingers off the revert button.
 * I would also point out that Evlekis is on a 1RR restriction due to previous editwarring problems; a few hours after Evlekis did their revert, a mysterious IP in the same country as Evlekis appeared to do another revert on Evlekis' behalf.
 * Note how Evlekis made no attempt to solve the problem, instead just hammering the revert button to restore factual errors. Here Evlekis comes to FKPCascais' support by arguing that we don't need no steenkeeng sources anyway. Here Evlekis changes tack and argues that actually we should follow sources, which is unfortunately impossible to reconcile with this revert by Evlekis which did the opposite; here Evlekis seems to be arguing that it's OK to revert factual errors into this article because he disagrees with me on a different article.
 * Evlekis recently seems to have got very upset with me about some other articles; although getting me blocked for editwarring might in the short term help keep the factual errors that Evlekis wants in the Republika Srpska article, I'm concerned that this ANEW thread is more motivated by a feud that has spilled over from other articles. bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wooo hold your horses, I never said "block", I never even suggested topic ban. Furthermore, I am not using this thread to go into that wider and uglier issue, I am not even going to broach that subject. I raised this not because of the violation but because it was the same approach each time - mass blanking - and the last time even ran over another user's edit when he listed ICTY correctly. Now if you simply tell the world your problem and how best to fix it without deleting it (ie. use that talk page positively instead of justifying the blanking) then I am happy to forget this incident and will even help with the mending of the problem on the article, I am not hell bent of upholding that very revision you have been blanking. If not, then that option is not open to me. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you did talk about abuse of editing privileges. Anyway. Could you answer a couple of questions?
 * Are you on a 1RR restriction due to previous editwarring?
 * How do you explain the IP address which came along to perform a revert on your behalf, a few hours after your first revert?
 * bobrayner (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * bobrayner (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Evlekis, this article that not the only problem. I noticed that user Bobrayner removes very much data from Wikipedia, also with sources (for example: links to edits from last 26 hours:, , , , , , , , - WOW) and in most cases, without consensus. If anyone withdraws its editions, Bobrayner starts an edit war. Clearly, consensus and later changes for him does not exist. Bobrayner, currently the best way of resolving disputes is Wikipedia:CYCLE, namely: edit, revert, discuss cycle; not to push own new version without consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lately I've been cleaning up quite a lot of different articles. This has, alas, led to friction with Subtropical-man who is insistent on keeping very long unsourced lists of skyscrapers, and who has subsequently followed me round to pick fights on unrelated pages (I do not know whether Subtropical-man has stalked the other editors who also wanted to trim his lists). Bravo, Subtropical-man. Alas, if you put as much effort into complying with WP:V as you did into following me round looking for other places to cause trouble, your skyscraper lists would be much better. A look at my recent contribs will show a very different picture to what Subtropical-man presents; make your own mind up. bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed skyscrapers without sources or separate articles. I left skyscrapers that have a sources or separate articles with sources. You removed skyscrapers with sources because you push own version without consensus and talking about lack of sources. Also, you enter data without articles and sources, for example: Sinpas Bomonti and Park Arkon Residence 1 and you left skyscrapers between 300 and 150 meters without sources which proves that you just pushing own new version. However, an article about skyscrapers is the tip of the iceberg. You removes very much data from Wikipedia, also with sources and in most cases, without consensus. If anyone withdraws its editions, you starts an edit war. This is a big problem. If someone withdraws your new changes, first discuss and wait for consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Answer to Bobrayner's questions. 1) Yes. 2) Pass. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, just to clarify: You're on a 1RR restriction due to previous editwarring problems, but you're refusing to explain why an IP in the same area as you turned up to perform a revert on your behalf, a few hours after your revert...? bobrayner (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, to clarify, the answer to your question is I don't know. That is the answer. Don't put words in my mouth. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The behavior of bobrayner is absolutely unacceptable. The section he insists to remove is sourced. He claims some numbers are wrong and uses that pretext to remove the entire section, which is a no-no. I invited him to fix the problems if he sees some, but he refuses to do so and keeps on removing the entire section and the source. He clearly abused the WP:3RR, a rule he is clearly well familiarised with, so no excuse. FkpCascais (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * FkpCascais, I agree with you but the case is probably a foregone conclusion. User Bobrayner continues edit-wars in other articles during the course of affairs in the AN/I in his case. User Bobrayner is incorrigible, I see no chance of improving his behavior. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I know Subtropical-man, I am aware of his conduct and I tend to agree with you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it is sourced now. I have corrected the numbers to match the source being used. But FkP, please, let's not forget why this discussion is happening. It has nothing to do with the editor disputing the information, tagging it, questioning the source, making adjustments per the source in question or looking for other citations, nor any of the other million or so good faith solutions, it is about blanking the section as though it were blatant vandalism. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man. Absolutely shocking. Now there is a vacuum on the article, and yet Bobrayner had the choice of adding a tag label to the top of the section if he felt there were issues (OR, POV, Unsourced, etc.) and yet blanks the section, his trademark. Yet who needs sources on those pages anyway? I see the items have wikilinks to their own articles and each one I have seen belongs to that table which currently does not stand thanks to our friend. He fails to realise how hard people work to build these sections, how much time is taken and moreover how many editors over such long periods are involved in these efforts, one click, gone. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the figures. Why couldn't you do that in the first place, instead of insisting on putting factual errors back into the article and creating this thread when I removed the factual errors? Personally, I don't care whether or not figures are in the article, as long as they actually agree with what the source says; but if you want to add stuff it's your responsibility to make sure that it's actually true. Pretty simple stuff. bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you knew the figures were wrong, it stands to reason you must have had access to the correct information. The numbers themselves being incorrect didn't mean that the items in the list were erroneously reported so it was equally wrong to blank them. There are labels and tags that deal with that scenario. Nevertheless, as you have now acknowledged an end to the blanking sessions I am happy to leave a note for the closing admin that the problem has been resolved and that I seek no further action. If this is your wish too. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * . I'm closing this because the content dispute appears to be resolved. However, Bobrayner is warned to be more careful in the future. It's one thing to say that I miscounted or I got carried away and violated 3RR. It's another thing to say that I fell into a "trap", which is hardly an acknowledgment of responsibility. In addition, Evlekis is warned about violating his 1RR restriction. I don't know whether the IP is Evlekis, but I agree it's very suspicious. In addition, Evlekis's response of "pass" is hardly a resounding, "No, that wasn't me." Neither is the subsequent, "I don't know."--Bbb23 (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Peterzor reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

There's more reverts going back to March 30. -- Dianna (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

that is not true that claims about nazi germany, i said the germany WAS TOTALITARIAN AFTER Gleichschaltung Peterzor (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked: That's an unambiguous 3RR variation, and general edit warring. I've blocked for 2 days; maybe the user will learn that no edit warring really does mean no edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:86.182.128.243 reported by User:Aaron Booth (Result: Full protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Another one since my report:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

-Aaron Booth (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully protected by Riana. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 10:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:125.168.97.231 reported by User:mohsen1248 (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

I asked for protection of this page and they told me, I have to report it here. This is not 3RR yet but this user uses multiple IPs and accounts, I can't talk to him/her since he changed his IP everyday. I gave him clear reference for my edit. but he still removed my references and gave me a speech in edit summary instead of even reading my reference.Mohsen1248 (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mohsen, stop being your own rule nazi. I believe a lot of people in this community are very angry with you because you have applied tyrant-style editing in Wikipedia. You revert pretty much everything that you don't like, whether is volleyball, soccer, basketball, the Olympics or just the style of editing. Come on, get a life! What are you trying to show us? You are the KING of Wikipedia?


 * BTW I did check your source, I checked it more than once. It's not the one used by NORCECA. The original author has put up the correct source. Your source only has 28 ranked teams (excluding the Top 6 which received bye in the 1st and 2nd round), which doesn't even match the "correct" number of entries you try so desperately to protect (34 entries).


 * I take this opportunity to formally report you, as I should have done a long time ago. 101.119.30.50 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to answer personal attacks.
 * NORCECA says here (Page 9, section 9.6) that they used their NORCECA Senior Men’s Confederation Rankings as of January 15, 2012 for seeding. and this is a link to their ranking of January 15, 2012. only 34 countries are here in this ranking and it means the rest were unranked. they probably sorted the rest by geographical location or other factors they didn't explain. This link is clearly NORCECA Ranking of January 15, 2012. anyhow I am the original author of this article. Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Being the creator of that article doesn't mean you are automatically the original author of everything, especially that particular point of argument. You didn't supply the valid reference while someone else did. You still haven't answer my question, if your source is right, why did you tried so hard to protect a list of 34 ranked entries when, according to your source, there were only 28 valid entries? 101.119.30.50 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Still I wrote the whole article, including that particular point of argument. I put that reference too not someone else, and every other things in that article. NORCECA at first didn't say even a single word about ranking, they just published first round draw, they published that PDF file later after the 1st round. I didn't say there were only 28 valid entries, those 4-5 countries apparently didn't participate in any tournaments for that period of time and they were unranked. they still could participate like everybody but they were ranked. and my source is an official ranking from NORCECA official website, it can't be wrong. Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * by User:Ged UK.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)