Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive161

User:Ronald Wenonah reported by User:Tirronan (Result: 48h)

Page: War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronald Wenonah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

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

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

Comments:

The user;Ronald Wenonah has been committing disruptive editing for some time now, he was blocked on June 9th, 2011 because of it. On June 11th, he was right back to it. I don't believe Ronald got the message last time and I am asking for an extended block.Tirronan (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The user;Tirronan has been reverting properly cited and verifiable edits for around two years(see User talk:Hubertgrove and User talk:TirronanArchive 4,in the section "War of 1812".I am sure there are others.I think that, before blocking me, you should look at these links. The editors in question both seem to have had the same problem: Tirronan dislikes their edits and calls them vandals, says that their properly cited and verifiable edits are incorrect or their own theories, and eventually decide to cease editing on Wikipedia . I am thinking of doing that, but would like to get this properly resolved first. Both aforementioned editors would probably be willing to give evidence if they could be contacted. Please advise.Ronald Wenonah (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have reverted Ronald exactly once in the last week and as maybe ascertained by the history of edits, users, Rjensen, Dwalrus, Discool, have all reverted him each giving him reasons why his edits are not reaching a consensus. I have warned him on his talk page before reverting him that his edits were simply repetition of subject matter already covered and that ascertaining a motive of revenge is not encyclopedic, and counter to the current historiography for some time now. Nor have I been the only one to warn him. Once again, attempts to make this some sort of personal vendetta by myself when I was not the one that blocked him seem to be misplaced anger. Neither I, nor any of the editors on the page has been in favor of this addition and Ronald has been repeatedly inserting said addition into the article over and over again without comment. He has been up for this several times and I believe the admin Phillip Bard was the last that I saw on the subject, and again I was not involved.Tirronan (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ron, just to be clear, your intent is to continue to revert the article to your preferred state and ignore the opinions of the four editors reverting you? Kuru (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The user;Ronald Wenonah is wrong to attack the user;Tirronan on this issue. The problem has been apparent to a number of editors and not just to one. Ronald Wenonah has been engaging in disruptive editing for some time now. It has been pointed out to him that part of his edit is already in the article (on annexation and the small size of the US navy) and therefore it is not necessary to repeat it. A large part of his edit is about events that occurred during the American Revolution and it is the view of other editors that it is not appropriate for the War of 1812 article. He insists that because it is in a book on the war by an historian it should be included. I pointed out that this is an article and not a book, therefore the amount of content must be limited. Putting in material on events from 30+ years previously is simply wrong for this article. This is the largest part of his edit. Finally, part of his edit is nothing more than opinion and is not supported by his source. Sadly, since he will not listen to reason something should be done.Dwalrus (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Ronald Wenohan's edits on the War of 1812 article twice, both within a span of two days. In this latest spate of editing, Ronald Wenonah refuses to bring his controversial edit to the War of 1812 article's talk page. When I saw him break 3RR he reverted edits three times between 08:33, 5 June 2011 and 08:15, 6 June 2011, I was motivated to help keep the article in line with current consensus. This is a case in which I had hoped the editor in question would participate in a discussion about his edits, but he has failed to do so, rather he insists on wasting other editors' time in cleaning up after him. —Diiscool (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Wenonah has repeatedly ignored the editors who point out he's not using RS on the topic of American diplomacy. Rjensen (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The page War of 1812 has a definite American bias, partly due to the fact that the only people editing it seem to be Americans. I would like to add a couple of seperate points of view to the article, and show that,the idea of the US wanting to annex Canada is not just a "minority theory". From what I know of what Canadians think about the war of 1812,it definitely seems that general public opiniion is that the US wanted to annex Canada. Some even think that it was a British victory. So, I think that point of view should be reflected in the war of 1812 page. Dwalrus, who commented above, even said that certain parts of my article were completeley correct(or at least viably supported0. These are the parts that he mentioned:1. the US wanted revenge, 2. the US did not have the naval strength to take on the Royal Navy, 3. attacking Canada was the only viable recourse, 4. the part about the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris"(that was a quote) Wow. Didn't he attack me for that just above?Why won't he let the information he described as correct stay on the page?Ronald Wenonah (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The page is centered on current historiography, as supported by both US and Canadian historians. This isn't my choice nor that of the other editors, we don't get to make that choice, the historians do. I personally think the British won that war, but you don't see that on the info box do you? Because MY OPINION DOES NOT MATTER, nor any other editor's opinion either. We report what the mainstream historians write, regardless of if I agree with them or not. That is what it takes to be an honest Wikipedian with an article, we are not here to put our personal opinions into an article. This is what you are missing, if there is a bias then you need to birng it up with the writers of those books, not childrens books nor some minor historian. I have cross checked the facts, and there is not a lot of variation on the facts between any of the major authors US or Canadian. That is why the article is writen as it is. If the historians change their view then so will the article. Misrepresenting ciations, or in one case flat lying about what the citation said to get your edit in, and endlessly pushing an edit over the other editors objections will not work. I invite you to the talk pages to discuss what you want to see and work with us don't try and force an edit through, it is disruptive editing.Tirronan (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Regardless of content issues, Ronald is clearly edit warring against multiple editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Solopiel reported by User:Hohum (Result: Warned)

Page: Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solopiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continued uncommunicative edit warring over the same edit:

• [6]

Previous AN3 cases:

• [7]
• [8]

Warning by Administrator User:2over0 as result of latest AN3: [9]

Comments:

Despite two previous AN3 cases resulting in blocks and warnings, Solopiel has continued to edit war. 2over0 has advised me on his talk page that he can't currently give this attention, and that I should mention it here. (Hohum ^@) 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Solopiel's edits seem to be reverted by various other editors right away, also with no edit summary or explanation. This suggests that the issue has been discussed before at a talkpage somewhere and there is consensus to include whatever he is removing. Could you please provide a link to whatever that discussion was? (In any case I think a block will probably be appropriate, I just want to check.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You should see that he has been talked to on his talk page about it, but doesn't respond. (Hohum ^@)

Warned User hasn't edited in 2 days and wasn't even reported until 2 days after his latest revert, so at this point a block would merely be punitive. If he makes another revert on this issue, contact me or post a message here and he can be blocked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MrJoshbumstead reported by User:79.144.86.143 (Result: Declined)

Page: Bleep censor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrJoshbumstead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10] (diff against current: [11])

• 0th revert: [12]
• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:
A weird one here. Someone keeps trying to bowlderise every expletive on that article (plus the word Holocaust!). Not exactly a 3RR but although the guy just seems to have some mistaken ideas rather than being malicious, it's been explained a couple of times in the previous reverts that what he's doing is not quite right, with reference to the proper guidelines. He did attempt to explain himself, I think, in the article's talk page but I couldn't quite extract the meaning out of his heterodox spelling conventions.

79.144.86.143 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Yes, I go by IP not user name)

• Declined I understand and sympathize with the concerns of the reporting editor, but the edits have been too intermittent to justify an edit-warring block. I have watchlisted the page and will keep an eye on things. CIreland (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note Updated section title to reflect verdict by CIreland + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 12:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pensionero reported by User:Tourbillon (Result: Decline both reports)

Page: Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pensionero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: 1st
• 2nd revert: 2nd
• 3rd revert: 3rd, with a notable degree of arrogance
• 4th revert: [diff]

An active edit warrior making numerous reverts in what appears to have become a slow edit war, insisting on a personal point of view. Has shown a disrespect for using talk pages (keeps posting on personal talk pages instead), and a POV tendency can be underlined by this revert, where the three heritage branches are replaced by one ("Orthodox Slavic") with a disregard to the source provided. All edits continue to push a POV with demographic data insisting on higher (and misinterpreted) figures as shown here. I am currently working to reduce the article in size for a Featured Article candidate in the future, while the user is doing the exact opposite. I've provided a link to an older version before any edit warring occured, though it is not necessarily the same as the current version due to a number of rather minor changes that have been made.

The user has been engaged in the talk page concerning the constant addition of a "capital" province article which does not exist, with the main reason being that the given user thinks two different provinces can be "confused" [20]. Thereafter, instead of addressing the issue at the article talk page, the user does so on my personal talk page [21], this time with a desire not to engage in edit warring. I responded adequately [22], but after only a couple of sentences the user again demonstrated his own idea of which sources are "reliable" and which are not [23]. I have addressed the nature of his edits on his talk page [24], although he managed to twist it into an imagery discussion. A final example of the tendentious edits of the user would be this edit by User:Питър , which placed the 2011 GDP esimates in the infobox [25]; User:Pensionero's last edits claim mine to be a vandalism to the infobox, while what he does is restoring the old data only to have his nationalist intro and POV-ed information back [26]. The fact that the user engages the issue in my personal talk page, and not on the article talk page, as well as his general preferences for source and image material are demonstrative of his personal POV pushing.

I'll have to remind that the user has already been banned twice on the same grounds.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by Bot and a few seconds later, by me.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:
Could you show where I was exactly insisting with my point of view? This edit [28] I reverted 2 times and explained you that as mistake I haven't seen the source and can you exactly show other example of POV editing by me beacause your explanation have strong misleading? The capital province exist: and I am tired of your illiteracy , when you don't know don't insist. The last GDP edits have not been sourced and usually such replacinf of sourced info is considered vandalism. The things you cover is the distutive removal of information which you revert 3 times today and after my block I was never reverting 3 times in 24 hours an administrator could check. User:Pensionero (UTC)

- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tourbillon reported by User:Pensionero (Result: declined as above)

Page: Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pensionero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: 1st today
• 2nd revert: 2nd today
• 3rd revert: 3rd today

The user is actively disruptevely reverting content from few days in the article. Today he reached 3rd in 24 hours.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pensionero (UTC)

• Declined Neither editor has yet violated the 3-revert-rule. Both editors are encouraged to seek consensus at the talk page and, if necessary, seek wider input by one the methods suggested at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Ceoil reported by User:Δ (Result: stale)

Page: List of large triptychs by Francis Bacon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ceoil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:18, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Δ (talk) to last version by Tabletop")
2. 12:19, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433872097 by Δ (talk)")
3. 12:20, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433872250 by Δ (talk)")
4. 12:21, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "you win, reverting")
5. 12:22, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433872421 by Δ (talk)")

Repeatedly re-adding non-free files without rationales. —ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And will continue to do so. You mamy's boys unthinking bot like prat, did you even look at the article. Ceoil 12:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you will be blocked. The usage of non-free content requires a rationale for each. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I may get blocked, but you'l still be wrong. Ceoil 12:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the non-free content policy it requires rationales for every use of non-free materiel. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• what about listing your own five reverts (with no talk page discussion)? Arm wrestling is no way to convince others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Δ, a much easier way to go would be to explain to Ceoil, who is actually interested in the subject matter about the need for tweaking and adding to the FUR, instead of this confrontational behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I left a clear reason in my edit summary, which was ignored, and then I left a clear warning on his talk page, which he blindly reverted. Not much else I can do if the user will not listen. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh you mean that? Why not clearly and succinctly state what needs to be done rather than some generic template which actually doesn't. How on earth is anyone supposed to read that template as a constructive message? The aim here is to solve a problem collaboratively, not charge around threatening other users. Clearly art is a subject Ceoil cares about, so maybe some tact would have gone a long way. It looks like Ceoil and Modernist are discussing how to solve the problem now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • • you really cant get much clearer than remove files without a valid rationale for this usage and linking to the guide to write correct rationales. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind that Beta/Delta is the King of All Deletionists on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Deletionist my ass, There are cases where I will vehemently defend the usage of non-free content, it just needs to be justified (aka the cover used on Virgin Killer is one of those examples) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Virgin Killer? O mentioning that is a lovely move. Is guilt by association the best you can do, or are you using an extreme example as justification for a crusade. Either is dull. Ceoil 13:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
            • • Neither, It was just the first example that came to mind, There are others, but I dont feel like digging around and locating them at the moment. Two others on quick notice are Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Worf. In both cases I will defend the use of non-free content there. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
                • Listen to yourself. I will defend, Then you will be blocked, Not much else I can do. I'm wondering if there is a mind at work here, prob not given the evidence here. Ceoil 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
            • In that one sentence, he's told us way more than we needed to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Yep. Ceoil 13:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There's plenty else you can do. One thing is to not edit-war yourself and then hypocritically report someone else for edit-warring. Another is to fix the problem yourself, which would have taken less time than edit-warring over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit war has abated and some of the parties are taking constructive steps to address the situation; as such, administrator action is not necessary at this point. Skomorokh 13:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I've rewritten a few of the Fair use Rationales...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:71.83.247.202 and User:202.111.188.125 reported by User:68.33.14.232 (Result: Protected)

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive161
User being reported: 202.111.188.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 71.83.247.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: 11:36, 11 June 2011
• 2nd revert: 09:36, 12 June 2011
• 3rd revert: 13:05, 12 June 2011
• 4th revert: 13:14, 12 June 2011
• 5th revert: 14:02, 12 June 2011
• 6th revert: 19:57, 12 June 2011
• 7th revert: 20:24, 12 June 2011
• 8th revert: 22:17, 12 June 2011

Note: the first two are by one IP and the last three by another. But based on the article's history I think it's clear there's one individual who's intent on preserving the romanticized tone of the article. (Edit) Also, I checked a few of the IPs that have reverted the article, and noticed that they were all listed on various web sites as available proxies.

• 122.224.79.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [30]
• 202.111.188.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [31]
• 71.83.247.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [32]
• 115.78.224.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:
Someone appears to have been protecting the over-the-top language in Drifter (person) for some time, reverting most attempts to improve the article's tone, often as 'vandalism', and telling the editors who make them to justify their edits on the talk page. There have been several comments on the talk page about how biased and unencyclopedic the language of the article is, and none justifying the romantic tone. Most recently I started the section ""A completely free, fulfilling life"?" (referring to some of the language I attempted to remove). The editor re-reverted me and once again ordered me to justify my edits on the talk page, apparently not even having checked it before they reverted me. Am I wrong here? Is this the kind of tone we're going for? (Note: I made my first edits to the article yesterday not realizing there was an ongoing dispute - if I had I probably would have been more careful to make sure I was logged in. Now that it's done I'm reluctant to log in to continue the discussion and link my IP address with my wikipedia account. Sorry.) -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this be considered an irony or a joke? The person who accused me of edit warring is the one who started it [35]. I would also advise anyone to read through this discussion before taking further action. The one thing he is right about is that this computer has an open proxy port that I've been working on, but am currently unable to close. I don't have much else to add, except to check through the article's edit history and judge for yourself.

Edit: Another thing this person likes to do is calling different IPs the same person, which we are not. However, I would suggest the administrators to check which account/s the IP reporting me here is linked to. I have a feeling it's someone who's been editing that article before, probably on the same day. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you could say I 'started it' in that I made a change you didn't like, removing silly romantic language about how drifters lead lives that are "completely free and fulfilling," and then had the audacity to object to your revert of my changes as 'vandalism'. But as you have reverted similar changes by other editors before, from a variety of proxies, it'd be more accurate to call this an ongoing pattern of disruption on your part. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And to reply to your addition to your comment, I'll say the same thing I said on the article's talk page: It's unlikely enough that multiple editors would all be watching and reverting this article to keep the romantic language in place using the same tactics and the same edit summaries, but it's even less believable that every one of those editors would happen to be using an open proxy. You can accuse me of being whoever you'd like to (although I would have nothing to gain by intentionally logging out to make this report, as admins frequently pay less attention to IPs than they do registered users). But I actually have evidence of your misuse of multiple IP addresses. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protected Both IPs are edit warring. I would semi-protect, but Dayewalker is also-involved, so I am fully protecting it. You guys now have 1 week to work out a consensus at the article's talk page; if an agreement is reached before 1 week is up, I can lift the protection early. If anyone continues reverting after consensus is established they may be blocked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I am not edit warring. I have reverted that page twice - three times if you count the consecutive, unique edits I made reverting different parts of the article with the other IP reverting me in between two of them, which I didn't even realize. Unless you consider a change a new editor makes without realizing (due to the lack of talk page discussion) that it's been made and reverted before as a 'revert'? Either way, I stopped hours ago and have since made only one edit, with new changes that I hoped would help work towards some sort of agreement, using citation needed tags rather than removing the disputed content, since the other anon was not willing to budge on his romantic language, even though he wasn't willing to explain why it was so important that it remain (it was, of course, reverted wholesale.) Meanwhile the other editor has reverted no less than eight times. And you've just protected the page with his preferred version in place. I guess that's the way to 'win' a content dispute? Just revert over and over against four other editors and hope that your version happens to be the one in place when someone finally protects the article?

Based on the other editor's behavior on the page, I see no chance of productive discussion - he won't even address the neutrality issue, much less attempt to form a consensus about it. What you have here is someone using multiple IP proxies to enforce his romantic ideal of a self-sufficient, non-conformist drifter and whitewash the reality of often marginalized people who are frequently mentally ill or have crippling substance abuse problems. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did edit war. Edit warring is still edit warring even if you haven't reached three reverts; please read WP:3RR carefully.

As for which version of the page happened to be up when I applied protection, that was immaterial; please see WP:PREFER. Administrators generally just protect the current version; that doesn't mean that the current version is the one being "supported", and it is not going to be around forever (the faster you people work out a consensus at the talk page, the faster the consensus version of the article can be implemented and the protection removed.

As for the content issues, to be perfectly honest I don't care. The edit warring noticeboard is not a place to ascertain whose edits are right or wrong; it's a place to ascertain whose behavior has been disruptive. The content issue is immaterial here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Analyzer99 reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: 3 months)

Page: Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Analyzer99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]
• 4th revert: [40]

The above constitutes 4 RR in a 24 hour period on June 6th, but he continues with many more reverts up until the present (June 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

This appears to be a serial edit warrior, going by all the block notices for 4RR already on his talkpage... Pity he hasn't learned anything from those blocks and still refuses to discuss whatsoever, only revert, revert, revert a section that had been previously hashed-out and agreed upon by multiple editors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove the citation needed tags without adding reliable sources. The rest is a simply reformat placing all hypothesis as a list. I didn't remove anything. Editors are free to edit changes to it.Analyzer99 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months Clearly edit warring against multiple editors, and already has a lengthy history of blocks for edit warring. Willing to lift block early if editor agrees to participate in discussion at the talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:LedRush reported by User:John (Result: Stale, editor promised not to further revert and is discussing)

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#An_NPOV_issue

Comments:

User LedRush has been edit-warring against several other editors to restore the NPOV tag to this article. I removed the tag (once) on June 4 as a result of the seeming consensus at this now-archived discussion. This seems like a futile battle for this user to be carrying on. The user has been around and is familiar with 3RR and our policies. John (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake in one of my edits and deleted both the NPOV tag part and the date. Another editor fixed my mistake and accidentally added the wrong date (June instead of March). [49] I fixed his good-faith attempt to fix my accidental post. I did not revert him or edit his work. Therefore, I have three reversions in a 24-hour period. I have continually been discussing the matter on the talk page, but I promise not to edit the tag again until consensus to remove or add it has been reached.LedRush (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but the "consensus" was reached in 24 hours, and immediately afterwards there was a strong backlash of people with specific issues with the article (here[50] and here[51], including comments by Jimbo Wales saying the article is better, but still hasn't addressed the POV issues first raised in March). Of course, that wouldn't excuse breaking the 3RR if I had in fact done so.LedRush (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question[52] was a partial revert of this edit[53] where you disagreed with the editor's correction of the date, thus a clear revert technically seen.TMCk (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

John's findings appear correct - four reverts, not three. SuperMarioMan 13:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully they had to be corrected again about 3RR.TMCk (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That is the same link that John included in his original report.LedRush (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

While I believe that one of my edits above is not a reversion of another editor or his work for the reasons above, I have not edited the article in the last day or so and have promised not to edit the tag until a resolution is made. Additionally, I did not edit after having received the warnings on my talk page (including the the polite warning I received from another editor and the later, template warning that John gave me minutes before he reported me - both which seem to jibe with my interpretation that I had made only 3 reverts, and John's which warns that if I would continue to revert I may be subject to a block) and I have been participating in the talk page discussion. I will furthermore promise not to edit the article at all for another 3 days from now and limit myself to 2 reversions per 24-hour period for a month so that if there is a disputed edit like this one, it shouldn't be an issue. I had no intent to edit war in the past and have no intent to edit war in the future, so these restrictions should serve as a good reminder of that.LedRush (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Report is stale anyway and it's very unlikely you get blocked and with your promise (and I'm sure you'll keep it) even less likely since it wouldn't serve any purpose anymore.TMCk (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:98.89.62.107 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24h)

Page: Bottlenose dolphin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.89.62.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Comments:
User is inserting unsourced material into the article, and an original analogy comparing the animals to the Jews during the Holocaust. I've asked them to discuss it on the talk page [60] [61] twice, and was ignored. Dayewalker (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Above users never attempted to post on the talk page their reasons for deletion, in fact citing only in edit notation no reason other than personal opinion of what "original research" is and personal bias/belief as to the end-user(my) intentions were. Please refer to the talk page of the aforementioned article for further details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.62.107 (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours User is clearly edit warring. Technically Stemonitis is also edit warring, although I am only warning him because in this case he was restoring the consensus version and the onus was on the IP to get consensus for his edits before restoring them. (On top of that, the content under dispute borders on ridiculous anyway, to the point that I have my suspicions it's trolling.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Metabradley reported by   — User:Mann_jess (Result: blocked 24 hours )

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Metabradley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 16:33, 10 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 16:46, June 11, 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 14:31, June 12, 2011 (edit summary: "see talk page --contradictory statements in Lede")
4. 18:38, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
5. 15:36, 13 June 2011 (edit summary: "see talk page for previous revision --contradiction in lede")
6. 19:00, 13 June 2011 (edit summary: "not edit warring --my last comment on talk page dealing with this edit has just been ignored.")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: 4 reverts in 24 hours, and 6 in total, including one immediately after seeing EW warning on his talk page, article talk page, and in edit summary. One of the four is from an ip address he's self-identified as in talk page comments, such as here. He's also warring over a POV tag being included in the article, outside of the diffs provided above.

—  — Jess· Δ♥ 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jayron32 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kanetama reported by User:Rjanag (Result: No Violation)

Page: South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kanetama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert: [63] (reverted [64])
• 2nd revert: [65] (reverted [66])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67] (after 1st revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments: User repeatedly restoring own edits without any comment or edit summary, never responded to edit warring warning left at talk page. I know it doesn't surpass 3RR, but user's unwillingness to engage in discussion and intentional restoration of edits that he knows are under dispute clearly constitute edit warring, which per WP:3RR is just as inappropriate as 3RR violations. User has a prior edit warring warning, although no block history. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Have you attempted to resolve the issue directly with the editor before issuing a warning and reporting them? + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 08:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Juustine reported by User:Drmies (Result: Stale)

Page: Mahasti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Juustine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

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

Comments: Thanks to the bot for notifying the defendant. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Off note, but yes, it's here to help ^-^ + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 22:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: User has stopped a few hours ago, and I've left them a friendly, non-templated message explaining exactly what to do and why to do it. imo this case doesn't need a block, just someone willing to help this new user get used to things here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Seconded: The user does appear to be editing in good faith and is just uneducated as per the policies on Wikipedia. It wouldn't be beneficial for a block, as stated above, just someone to give them a helping hand and give them comprehension of the editing policies. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 09:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stale However, this report would have been actionable at the time. Thanks to Ajraddatz for the polite note. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

kwami: reported by Ibibiogrl:Ibibiogrl (Result: Malformed, No Vio)

Page:  
User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Efik_language&dir=prev&action=history

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

• 1st revert: [(cur | prev) 02:56, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) (1,773 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:54, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) m (1,577 bytes) (moved Talk:Ibibio language to Talk:Efik language: move per Talk) (undo)

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

• Comment. No violation: Kwamikagami doesn't violate the WP:3RR, see: [73] / [74]. Talk:Efik language actually highlights several personal attacks directed against Kwamikagami. Meph^talk 23:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• No violation and Malformed – There must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The reporter does not appear to understand the noticeboard, WP:3RR or the syntax for actually adding a report. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 09:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note Warned user regarding invalid WP:AN3 reports. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Malformed – The report is formatted in a way that is unreadable by the automated processing system. Please ensure the report header and body follow the guidelines. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:71.188.67.25 reported by User:Daniel_Gosser (Result: Warned)

Nixle:[75]
User being reported: 71.188.67.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:44, 4 November 2010 (diff | hist) Nixle ‎ (Craig is no longer the CEO, he is now the Co-Founder only.), 18:07, 9 November 2010 (diff | hist) Nixle ‎ (Craig Mitnick founded Nixle with Firas Emachah. Any change that doesn't reflect this should be considered vandalism.), 20:53, 17 November 2010 (diff | hist) Nixle ‎ (These edits are vandalism. Craig Mitnick co-founded Nixle. This is an encyclopedia not a billboard.), 12:55, 14 January 2011 Henrik (talk | contribs) m (20,963 bytes) (Protected Nixle: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed (expires 12:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 12:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)))) (undo)]

Comments:

<As you can see this has been an ongoing problem. The page is continuously vandalized to take Craig Mitnick off the page as co-founder. It is abundantly clear, by the references posted, that Craig co-founded Nixle. This user should be warned by an administrator. If activity continues, maybe the user should be banned for a time.Danny Gosser (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC) -->

• Warned Report User:71.188.67.25 to WP:AIV if they vandalize the page again. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Mephistophelian reported by User:Ibibiogrl (Result: No Violation)

Page: Efik language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mephistophelian

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• Comment. No violation: I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efik language as a speedy keep (WP:CSK #1, #2.1, #2.2, and #2.4) and subsequently came under fire. Meph^talk 23:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The reporter does not appear to understand the noticeboard, WP:3RR or the syntax for actually adding a report. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 09:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note Warned user regarding invalid WP:AN3 reports. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Garycompugeek reported by User:Jakew (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Garycompugeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:00, June 10, 2011

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

1. 19:13, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "replaced long standing well balanced intro")
2. 16:15, 10 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433107461 by Jayjg (talk)revert to much discussed and well balanced intro")
3. 20:45, 10 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433607950 by Jmh649 (talk)please do not removed properly sourced well balanced long standing intro")
4. 15:10, 11 June 2011 (edit summary: "Restoring long standing well balanced properly sourced intro that was debated and written by many on both sides of the issue")
5. 20:51, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "no consensus for your proposed changes to intro doc")
6. 16:56, 13 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433943266 by Jmh649 (talk)no consensus for rewriting intro restored established well balanced intro")
7. 20:06, 14 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434288859 by Jmh649 (talk)no consensus for this new unbalanced intro")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This is a report for edit warring, not 3RR. Gary has been warned on several occasions in the past (eg., [81]), and can reasonably be expected to be aware of applicable policy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All five sections currently at Talk:Circumcision involve this matter.

Comments:

I haven't reverted 3 times in a 24 hour period and I have been talking on the discussion page AND Doc's changes do not have consensus. Should he not gain consensus before rewriting entire intro and deleting much properly sourced well balanced data? Jake and I have had many disputes in the past so please evaluate the talk page yourself. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This report is for edit-warring, which in my view has reached an unacceptable level, and (in the last 2-3 days) now appears to be taking place instead of discussion. Jakew (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If I am in violation so is Doc James. I am trying to discuss on the talk page and have no wish to edit war. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good grief, folks. Why must we have this constant edit warring over this topic? With the level of edit warring on both sides, I'm not really wanting to issue blocks, and I also don't want to protect the article when there appears to be actual editing going on in addition to the revert warring. Can't we just stop the revert warring? I see there is talk page discussion going on, at the very least. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We where having some problems on this page with sock puppets. A few have been blocked. Consensus if of course that Wikipedia be based on current evidence (within 5 years). Not stuff that is 20 years sorry 19 years old. Also we use review per consensus and that is what I have done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Illegal Operation reported by User:A Quest For Knowledge (Result: Stale)

Page: Windows Phone 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Illegal Operation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Illegal Operation has been edit-warring to remove Windows Phone 7's market share from the article.

• 17:51, June 14, 2011
• 16:36, June 13, 2011
• 19:04, June 11, 2011
• 12:54, June 11, 2011
• 17:05, June 10, 2011

I have warned the editor to stop edit-warring.[82]

But Illegal Operation continues to edit-war after my warning:

• 22:28, June 14, 2011

Also note that Illegal Operation was warned against edit-warring on this very same content by an admin on December 13, 2010[83] so this edit-warring is a long-term problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the source http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011051.html did not talk about Windows Phone market share and was removed. Specifically, the statement on Wikipedia said that Windows Phone has 2.5% market share, yet this is not said anywhere at the source. Apparently, I am using the talk page for discussion, but Enemenemu decided to keep re-adding the source and did not use the talk page until today. I have no idea why A Quest For Knowledge is supporting him. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the last time I was contacted by an Admin was 6+ months ago and is irrelevant to this discussion. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that out of the 4 editors discussing this on the talk page, Illegal Operation is the only one against inclusion.[84] So not only is he edit-warring, he's edit-warring against consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• He's also stopped completely at this point, so I'd recommend that no block be issued (blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). I've left the user a note on his talk page regarding edit warring. It should also be noted that A Quest For Knowledge's actions have not helped at all here. Instead of trying to talk with the editor and find out his side of the story, AQFN has continually left short, commanding messages which only promote hard feelings, not a solution. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted this on Ajraddatz's talk page, but I suppose I should post it here, too. If my messages to Illegal Operation have been curt, it's out of frustration over the fact that he's been edit-warring on this article for 6 months making it very difficult for anyone to work on the article. His latest edit war is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stale Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Metabradley reported by   — User:Mann_jess (2nd report) (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Metabradley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 07:06, June 15, 2011 (edit summary: "see talk page --you scared cynic dogs")

Comments: Fresh off a 24 hour block (see section above), and immediate return to same edit war.

  — Jess· Δ♥ 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

FOUNTAINVIEWKID is breaking 3RR!!!

See the article on Samuel Koranteng-Pipim. He has made multple reversions as you can see here. I've been trying to remove an unsourced claim that some people were "progressive" and he keeps readding it without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, both of you are violating 3rr. Please stop reverting and talk it over with the other editor on the article's talk page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pipim article needs help from the veterans here at wikipedia. I have described my concerns at the BLP Noticeboard. I think that the Pipim article, at least the Resignation section, needs to be protected from edits for a while, after the section is reverted back to its basic, verifiable, properly cited text.

Malformed – The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <!-- --> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:50.72.159.224 (Result: Protected)

Page: Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]
• 3rd revert: [87]
• 4th revert: [88]
• 5th revert: [89]
• 6th revert: [90]
• 7th revert: [91]
• 8th revert: [92]
• 9th revert: [93]
• 10th revert: [94]
• 11th revert: [95]
• 12th revert: [96]
• 13th revert: [97]

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

I've been trying to stop him from readding false information that certain scholars are progresssive under WP:BLP. User:50.72.159.224

Comments:

I have a feeling, based on editing styles, that user User:50.72.159.224 is the same as user:75.128.235.12 is the same as user:BelloWello. Not that there's anything wrong with editing as an IP, but, you have to play by the rules. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not this was BelloWello or his helpers is hard to say; the IPs evidently are familiar with BelloWello's off-wiki postings. The article has now been locked until 18 June. The IP was restoring information that directly violated WP:BLP. In comparison the issue of the internal labels progressive/conservative amongst Seventh Day Adventism editors is becoming so disruptive that the subject of topic bans in this area might have to be discussed again. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was a bot they could run to do a comparison of styles, etc., and make a determination, but when Lionel reported IP 75.128 as a possible sockpuppet of BelloWello, the lame response was "we're not very good at matching IPs and named users." Go figure! --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll throw in something to the ring on the two IPs and say that it's  Unlikely that the two IPs are related directly to the same user, (Just from a geolocation lookup). However, if a CheckUser can't confirm/state that such is likely to BelloWello, it may just be someone that has the same opinion as them. It is possible to match IPs and named users via Geolocation in certain cases assuming at least a high amount of data matches, in most cases, it could only be likely or unlikely. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 01:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Crashdoom. I didn't check the times of the edits. You can't be in Wisconsin and British Columbia at the same time, can you? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're correct on that. There is a chance that one of the results could be a false-positive due to the potential risk of a proxy being used, either that or, as previously stated, there is more than one person with the same view on the matter. As such, I believe that's the reasoning behind the CheckUsers being not very good matching users and IPs without direct links. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 02:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a 16 hour break between Wisconsin and Vancouver, so there's no overlap. Both IPs are SPAs. Should I take this to the right (SPI) forum? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful since there's a chance due to the match in editing as stated. However, you may get told the same with only an opinion of it being possible/unlikely, due to the IPs not having a directly verifiable link. The time differennce does pose the question that it may be possible via a proxy or such. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I can be in Ontario Canada and Delaware at the same time. If I were to edit from my IP on this computer it would say I am in Delaware. If I edit from my cell phone it says I am in Ontario Canada. GB fan (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

With all these ambiguities, how do you ever prove an account is a sockpuppet? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, with great difficulty. This does return to the point, that CheckUsers can't say anything is certain unless everything is explicitly linked. Also, the fact that the IP can be edited is unlikely to be used in most cases with average users on Wikipedia. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Protection applied by SoWhy. Minima© (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Thisthat2011 reported by User:Thigle (Result: both warned)

Page: Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]

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

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

Comments:

I can't figure out how to report this right. LOLThigle (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Try the 3rr helper tool, linked at the top of the page. You need to insert diffs of each revert in the above template. The helper tool will help you do that, but you'll still need to review its results.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, see WP:Boomerang. You're both edit warring disruptively. You need to stop, and use the talk page, too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the reported person (Thisthat2011) only reverted once, and the reporter (Thigle) tried to revert to a previous version (by SudoGhost and then followed by his/her version) four times within a period of less than 26 hours [102], [103], [104], [105]. The reporter was blocked twice back in May, and seems to be edit-warring again, despite the fact that she/he is participating in the discussion page. Minima© (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Try looking through that again - both users have violated the 3rr. I've left messages on both of their talk pages. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've spotted it now, and have displayed the diffs above, showing how many times the reported person wanted to "Move contents to the History again". This was harder for me to spot because the number of bytes kept changing, but the edit summaries showed what Thisthat2011 wanted to do. Minima© (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Ajraddatz's messages seem to have had the desired effect. Please open a new report if discussion at Talk:Hinduism breaks down. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwami reported by User:Ibibiogrl (Result:No action taken)

Page: Efik Language

Previous version [Ibibio Language Page]

reverted to: [Efik Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efik_language]

• 1st revert: [(cur | prev) 02:56, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) (1,773 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:54, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) m (1,577 bytes) (moved Talk:Ibibio language to Talk:Efik language: move per Talk) (undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs)

• Efik Language is not the Same language as Ibibio language and the 2 languages are spoken in different states of Nigeria.
• There is no language that is called Ibibio-Efik as there is no language that is mixed with the two. Just like there is no language called Spanish-French.
• There is also another similar language known as Annang, which is similar to Efik and Ibibio just like Italian language is similar to French and Spanish.
• There are also others like Oron, Eket etc. Which although spoken in the same area are not similar to Efik, Ibibio and Annang, but Kwami is linking all these languages to a Single page.
• Kwami is not from Nigeria and does not know anyting about these languages. But I am a native Ibibio, I have also lived in the States and areas where Efik and Annang languages are spoken, that is how I learned to speak Efik, so I understand the differences.
• If you allow this editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia of Lies!

[106]

If You Allow This editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia of Lies! Ibibiogrl (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It does appear that you haven't been discussing properly with the editor in question over the issue, also I note: "(cur | prev) 23:09, 31 May 2011 Ibibiogrl (talk | contribs) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (undo) ", so it does appear that you have been causing problems for the article, whether it was on purpose or not, I don't know + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 23:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this case is suffering from some personal attacks. Closing and leaving note on reporting editor's page. m.o.p 08:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:CartoonDiablo reported by User:CWenger (Result: 24h)

Page: Thomas Sowell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110]
• 4th revert: [111]
• 5th revert (though not within 24 hours, just to show that edit warring continues): [112]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113] (disclaimer: this was done just now)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114] and [115]

Comments:
Thomas Sowell is a BLP and we should have a high threshold for what we include. Biased sources like Media Matters for America are not appropriate. There is very clear consensus on the article talk page against including this, with 6 editors (4 usernames, 2 IPs) for removing it and only 1 (User:CartoonDiablo) for keeping it. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously not valid based on the fact that I was not given a 3RR warning prior to being reported, I attempted to resolve the issue multiple times (diffs: [116] and [117]) and feel the consensus is based on a violation of NPOV. I will attempt to reach a resolution of whether or not removing the section violates NPOV in the respective noticeboard. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Despite awareness of a discussion on the article's talk page in which several users agreed the source was not reliable, you, CartoonDiablo, edit-warred to keep it in. If that's not grounds for a 3RR block, then it is grounds for block under Disruptive Editing -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Minphie reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: No Violation)

Page: Insite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Minphie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [118]
• 2nd revert: [119]
• 3rd revert: [120]
• 4th revert: [121]
• 5th revert: [122]
• 6th revert: [123]
• 7th revert: [124]
• 8th revert: [125]
• 9th revert: [126]

Discussion of why this source should not be used [127] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129] On further investigation this user may be a sock puppet and thus will also report there on time of here. He/she has been edit warring across a number of pages.

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is not exclusively 3 reverts within 24 hours per Wikipedia:Edit_warring Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. However, I do not feel this user deserves a block; they edit Insite sparingly, and appear to be acting in good faith. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Brookster22 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: 24h)

Page: George Demos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brookster22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

There are many more identical section blankings in the past few days, but these are the four most recent:

• 1st revert: [131]
• 2nd revert: [132]
• 3rd revert: [133]
• 4th revert: [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135] and [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Note: There is also a related sock investigation pending at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410

Comments:

• Brookster22 claims that the reason for their reverts is WP:BLP concerns, and has discussed this extensively on the article talk page with other editors. User:Thecheesykid also appears to have broken WP:3RR on this article (in reverting Brookster22's edits). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Francisco luz reported by User:Inks.LWC (Result: 24h)

Page: Boleto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francisco luz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

• 1st revert: unable to be linked due to removal of copyrighted info. Edit was on 22:30, 16 June 2011 here: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140]
• 3rd revert: [141]
• 4th revert: [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

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

Comments:

This user continues to add copyrighted information, after being told multiple times not to do so. He claims he is the author of the article on the website; however, the website clearly states "You cannot copy any text, either in English or translated to another language." Inks.LWC (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)User blocked by User:killiondude for 24 hours. - SudoGhost™ 23:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours by Killiondude for copyright violation and edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee reported by ΔT _{^{The only constant}} (Result: 72h)

Page: User talk:Rd232 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 03:07, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Suggestion */ rm trolling")
2. 03:28, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434699663 by Ched Davis (talk) I may remove obvious attacks directed at me wherever I find them. Let it go, or we can air this at ANI and have a massive drama fest")
3. 03:30, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434700460 by Δ (talk) per previous")
4. 03:31, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434700743 by Δ (talk) per previous")
5. 03:32, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434700867 by Δ (talk) per previous")
6. 04:05, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434703923 by Dayewalker (talk) please don't restore posts that compare editors to members of highly offensive organisations")
7. 04:18, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434705541 by Jrtayloriv (talk) per previous")
8. 04:22, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434705981 by Jrtayloriv (talk) per previous")

—ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours In all honesty I wanted to make this indefinite given the ridiculous block log and history of past edit warring, but I didn't want to have to deal with the pending arbcom case or whatnot. I'll gladly increase the block duration if he keeps at it, though. --slakr^\ talk / 04:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:67.155.175.34 reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.155.175.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [144]
• 2nd revert: [145]
• 3rd revert: [146]
• 4th revert: [147] (rv. + vandalizing
• 5th revert: [148] rv. to vandalized version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150]

Comments:

• Result: Blocked two weeks for edit warring and violations of neutrality. One of the above edits makes ACORN be 'an ongoing criminal conspiracy.' This IP may be the return of User:Syntacticus, whose past efforts are described by Will Beback at the bottom of Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now:

  A couple of years ago there was a concern that this IP was also user:Syntacticus, who in turn may have been someone with a clear conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Syntacticus and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive498#Neutrality dispute at ACORN. These latest edits are consistent with that hypothesis.

  – EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Lecen reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24h each)

Page: Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [151]

• 1st revert: [152]
• 2nd revert: [153]
• 3rd revert: [154]
• 4th revert: [155]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Why Dr Kiernan's editions were reverted

Comments:

Do I have the right to explain myself before any measures are taken? --Lecen (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that would be useful. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. How long do I have to gather all evidences and explain here the reasons to my actions? --Lecen (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite time, since the edit war occurred hours ago and no good admin should be blocking a user for an action which has stopped. I personally recommend that rather than justify your actions, you make an effort to not edit war in the future - if someone reverts your edit, start a thread on the discussion page and don't edit that page again until some consensus has resulted from the discussion. Good luck, Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lecen has broken WP:3RR. I suggest this case might be closed with no block if Lecen will restrict himself for one month from editing the English translations of Portuguese-language personal names, on any articles. He may still present his views on talk pages. It is worrisome that the dispute about these names has continued for such a long time. Lecen has made good contributions but he is expected to abide by consensus like anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comments by Lecen

I believe none of you actually know me, so I'll introduce myself. I'm a quite experienced Wikipedian who focus on Brazilian history-related articles. The ones I wrote were successfully nominated and are now Featured Articles and at least three of them were Today's Featured Article in the main page. I'm saying all this to make sure to all of you that I'm aware of Wikipedia's rules and that I have my share of good contributions.

Having said that, I'll divide my explanation over my behavior in three pieces.

1) Lecen-Dr Kiernan relationship. Dr Kiernan and I have a troublesome relationship since we bumped into each other in the FAC of Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil (which I had nominated). Things were ugly enough to the point that we were both asked to not talk to each other, which I complied. A few days ago I nominated Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil to FAC. Dr Kiernan placed a comment there but suddenly removed it and erased it from the nomination page's history log. Anyone who is an administrator can see that. Why did he do that, I don't know, but I believe he did it once he saw my name as one of the nominators and thought it would be better to avoid it. Nonetheless, he returned to the nomination page and opposed my article.

On June 15 I wrote: "Please stay alway from the FAC which I'm part of. Due to our past troubles, I want to avoid any issues. I would be very grateful if don't get near me."[157] A reasonable appeal, since Dr Kiernan never had interest over articles about Brazilian royals and because whatever was his opinion it would suffer from past judgements about me. However, that's all harder since he made edits in the article itself with no edit summary to explain the reasons for each one of them.[158] Not happy with that, he went over to Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies, the Brazilian Empress and made several changes.

2) The problem in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies: Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is a Featured Article which I worked on and successfully nominated. As a Featured Article, common sense would dictate that any major change to the article, specially in an article which is fully sourced, to be discussed in the talk page. Dr Kiernan did not do that. He simply made major changes and even removed a source without a good reason![159] He said in my talk page after having reported me here that "you consistently refuse to discuss the issue civilly".[160]

That's false. It was I, not him, I repeat, I, who created a discussion in Teresa Cristina's talk page to discuss his changes.[161] Since it's a featured article, he was supposed to have opened a discussion before erasing sources and removing information from the article. Instead of discussing the matter first he persisted on erasing the source and removing information from the article.[162][163] Notice that in the first revert he did not even bother to explain in the edit summary why he did it.

3) What is exactly being "discussed" in Teresa Cristina's article? Many articles about Kings, Emperors, Queens, Princes and ohter royals in Wikipedia have their names anglicized, that is, translated to English. This is the case with Fernando VI of Spain (Ferdinand VII of Spain), Nikolay II of Russia (Nicholas II of Russia), Francesco II of the Two Sicilies (Francis I of the Two Sicilies), etc... Others, however, have their name unchanged, which is the case of Pedro II of Brazil (Peter II of Brazil), Franz Joseph I of Austria (Francis Joseph I of Austria), Alfonso XIII of Spain (Alphonse XIII of Spain), Amadeo I of Spain (Amadeus I of Spain), etc...

Next to Teresa Cristina's name one can see the Anglicized versions of her name. This is no more than a "quick guide" to a reader who would like to know which is the name in English of this historical person. No big deal, since other articles do the same (as the ones cited above).

What DrKiernan did? He simply removed them or changed as he liked. He went as far as to add sources to "Theresa Christina" which are incorrect.[164] He said that "It's quite clearly spelled "Theresa Christina" as anyone can see simply by looking at either book: e.g. Longo". The biography of Isabel (daughter of Teresa Cristina) written by Longo which I used as source to write this featured article have all names in Portuguese. Afonso (not Alphonse VI [165]), Pedro II (not Peter II [166]), João VI (not John VI [167]), Leopoldina (not Leopoldine [168]), Maria Amelia (not Mary Amelia [169]), Carlota (not Charlotte [170]), etc...

I tried to explain him that "Theresa Christina" and "Thereza Christina" which sometime appears in a few books is because Teresa Cristina's name was spelled like that in Portuguese before the early 20th century ortrographic revision. That's not the English "Theresa Christina". I told him: "But please, do NOT use sources that use Portuguese, not Anglicized, and claim the contrary. If you're going to use sources, use them correct, or else, just don't" [171].

Dr Kiernan never read any of the books. I did. He does not know how to speak Portuguese. I know. He does not know about Brazilian history. I know. He has no interest at all in Brazilian history and is only doing all this to cause me trouble. He did not try to discuss the matter first and went foward removing sources and information from a featured article, which is not correct.

EdJohnston said "I suggest this case might be closed with no block if Lecen will restrict himself for one month from editing the English translations of Portuguese-language personal names, on any articles". Why should I, if I'm correct? I'm not creating translations out of nowhere. I'm not saying that "John" is "Carlos" (Charles). I attempted to open a discussion and deal with the problem first, but the other editor kept removing sources and information from the article. What am I supposed to do, then? --Lecen (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You are supposed to do absolutely nothing. Wait until the discussion is finished, and after it has, carry out whatever the consensus of that discussion was. If the other editor continues to take actions which oppose the consensus, then he can be blocked. However, edit warring is never a good thing. Remember, if your edit is ever reverted, start a discussion on the talk page. If nothing comes of that, contact a neutral administrator. But whatever you do, do not continue to edit that page until some sort of consensus has been achieved. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

All I want is to someone stop Dr Kiernan from harassing me. I want him to leave me alone. I want him to stop making unhelpful edits on articles which he has no knowledge at all of the subject. Dr Kiernan writes on my talk page [172], he writes on my friend's talk page [173][174] even though he was not invited to the conversation. What is that? What for?

He doesn't like me, I don't like him. Why he keeps following me wherever I go? He never contributed to articles about Pedro II of Brazil, Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies and other Brazilian royals and all the suddenly he appears at them? [175][176]

In two days only since I asked him to leave me in peace he became all interested in Brazilian history? In the exact articles about Brazilian history which I contribute and have nominated before? Then he creates a situation where he demands to have me blocked? He also harasses me on my friend's talk page. Why for? Why doesn't he leave me alone? I want the harassment to end. That's all. Can't you understand that this is not simply a small discussion over translation of names in an unimportant article? Someone has to ask him to stay far away from me. --Lecen (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This specific case is entirely about the edit warring which you did - something which should not happen again. If you want to bring up complaints with that user, please do so at this page, since that is not the function of this one. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. The first three edits he showed I tried to restore removed sourced content. The fourth edit I added a source and another variant of her name. Check bey yourself. They are not the same. Lastly, you have no idea how much I feel powerless and frustrated. --Lecen (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

-

• Not this again? Lecen is technically in the wrong, and has been previously cautioned for edit-warring in similar circumstances, which doesn't bode well for him. However, DrKiernan is aware that this is controversial and that Lecen (from whom I believe he has previously been asked to stay way) would likely feel provoked by his (DrKiernan's) initial edit. I don't know what to do for the best. I'm tempted to block both for 24 hours, because both should know better and an admin should know that "I started an edit war, but he broke the 3RR because he made one more revert than me" is not going to impress. However, I'm not sure such a block would serve any purpose beyond postponing hostilities. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours On further deliberation (the above took me half an hour to think and write), a 24-hour cessation of hostilities is a good enough reason. Upon their return, I suggest Lecen and DrKiernan find a relevant talk page and start an RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:RaptorHunter reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: blocked for 48 hours)

Page: Anthony Weiner sexting scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RaptorHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177]

• 1st revert: [178]
• 2nd revert: [179]
• 3rd revert: [180]
• 4th revert: [181]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [182]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [183]

Comments:

• Within three hours, and in the face of near-unanimous consensus against adding any information regarding heckling of AW, RaptorHunter has repeatedly added to the article what the consensus of editors views as non-notable information. Even after being warned civilly that he was edit warring (both on his tp and the article tp). He lacks support for adding any such information; the fact that he added only part (the exact same first sentence) of the non-notable information in his most recent add (for the fourth time in three hours) does not avoid the fact that that is non-notable info that he has now added four times, now clearly against consensus. Just two months ago, RaptorHunter was blocked for a 3RR violation on another page I was editing, so I see this as an unfortunate pattern.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1st : [184]

Not a revert. Just the initial attempt to add material to the article.

• 2nd : [185]

I reverted and explained that the sentence I was adding had notability.

• 3rd : [186]

I reverted and included more sources to back up the claim of notability including a new york times source.

After only 2 reverts I took the issue to the talk page. Talk:Anthony_Weiner_sexting_scandal#Heckler_at_resignation After the input of another editor [187] I significantly scaled back the added sentences to the bare minimum stripping out any quotes. That is the forth edit

• 4th : [188]

Let the record show I only reverted twice and both times explained my reasoning with clear edit summaries and used reliable sources. After discussing the issue on the talk page I attempted a much reduced 3rd edit that I thought would be an effective compromise. This was rejected so I gave up. Why is Epeefleche continuing to make an issue out of this hours after the fact? --RaptorHunter (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This was clear edit warring, in the face of clear consensus. It is shocking that RH still maintains that his fourth addition of that sentence was not against the consensus on that talk page. The language that was added the fourth time in three hours was the precise same first sentence that had clearly been rejected by nearly all of the many editors who commented on the talk page. It is this sort of tendentious editing against clear consensus that our edit warring rules are intended to protect the project against.

Finally, I'm confused by RH's objection to the timing of this complaint. As being "hours after the fact". This report was filed a mere 2 hours after his last-indicated revert.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours obvious edit warring, and there was obviously a very clear consensus to not include any of the the material in question on the talk page. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:208.168.230.177 reported by User:HXL49 (Result: 24h)

Page: Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.168.230.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

• 1st revert: [190]
• 2nd revert: [191]
• 3rd revert: [192]
• 4th revert: [193]
• 5th revert: [194]
• 6th revert: [195]
• 7th revert: [196]
• 8th revert: [197]
• 9th revert: [198]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Calling Taiwan a 'nation' is clearly against long-standing consensus. Another IP, presumably of the same person, in December 2010 was warned against making such edits.

Comments: This IP (range) has been told repeatedly by Golbez and Off2riorob not to add flags (PRC/ROC) in the text of article; Golbez has told this anon to desist in adding "Taiwan" after each mention of the Republic of China. Moreover, this IP annoyingly insists that Taiwan, which is an island, is somehow a whole nation. The insertion of the ROC President website seems eerily familiar with another address's behaviour during this AN3 thread. It is time to implement a lengthy block, and certainly range blocks and a much longer lock-down on this page than simply 1 or 3 months, perhaps indefinite. My wrath is especially seething, and patience especially short considering this idiot was the sole reason my rollback was revoked in the first place; no degree of imperialist vetting for the separatists could possibly be blamed. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of these people are trying to slander me by misrepresenting my edits. The indisputable fact remains that Taiwan is the common accepted name representing the democratic island country known officially as the Republic of China (Taiwan). Please check here for official independent confirmation:

www.president.gov.tw

Taiwan is NOT controlled by the Chinese communist People's Republic of China (PRC). It is an independent sovereign nation with their own President of the Republic of China (Taiwan), not Hu Jintao of the People's Republic of China (PRC).

China split into two seperate independent countries following the Chinese Civil War, so just like there are two koreas, there are two China's in existence today. Undeniable except by POV editors who try to post Communist Chinese Propaganda here on Wikipedia to make Taiwan look like their territory when it is not.

208.168.230.177 (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Dabomb87 (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Julianbce reported by User:SmashTheState (Result: blocked for 24 hours )

Page: Cassandra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Julianbce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

• 1st revert: [201]
• 2nd revert: [202]
• 3rd revert: [203]
• 4th revert: [204]
• 5th revert: [205]
• 6th revert: [206]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [208]

Comments:

Looking at his edits at Taoism, he seems to have problems with English and with inserting OR.

SmashTheState (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Mikael07 reported by User:Bidgee (Result: blocked for an indefinite period for this and other disruptive editing)

Page: Jakarta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mikael07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: 10:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC) →Economy, governance and infrastructure: delete picture< Neutral point of view
• 2nd revert: 10:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Undid revision 434911758 by Merbabu (talk). what? please look at the sentence: "many of them ended up in slum"
• 3rd revert: 10:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC) It has, but your source is out of date, those 7.2 million is very doubtful for now, and your reason of addition is very personal.
• 4th revert: 10:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Undid revision 434913109 by Bidgee (talk). Not for you Merbabu, but for more than 7.2 million people that you represent with that picture

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jakarta#Illustrating slums

Comments:

• Mikael07 is yet to make any comment on the talk page of Jakarta. Bidgee (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of indefinite I'd just blocked this editor for 24 hours for abusing another editor in relation to this article. However, in light of this request and the editor's extensive history of socking (for which they received a one month block earlier in the year) I'm extending the duration to indefinite as it's hard to see that they're really here to edit in cooperation with others. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:98.232.166.138 reported by User:Rostz (Result: Blocked 1 Year)

Page: NPR controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.232.166.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [209]

• 1st revert: [210]
• 2nd revert: [211]
• 3rd revert: [212]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:NPR controversies#Nina Totenberg

Comments:

I'm an uninvolved editor on this issue, and this is not a 3RR violation, it's a general edit-warring problem. IP editor has been warned and blocked more than once for edit warring, yet continues on this (~18 times since April 2011) and other articles. Rostz (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 year by tedder + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 14:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jaume87 reported by User:Maurice27 (Result: both 24h)

Page: Valencian Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jaume87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [214]

• 1st revert: [215]
• 2nd revert: [216]
• 3rd revert: [217]
• 4th revert: [218]
• 5th revert: [219]
• 6th revert: [220]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link of the warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section of the talk-page (Jaume87 has not participated)

Comments:

I only ask you to read my warning in user:Jaume87 talk-page. I' have tried to explain my point and his unpolite behaviour pointing him to some wikipedia guidelines to back me and I have only received more reverts as an answer. I would like to make clear that I have even made changes to my own edits to include some of the constructive edits of Jaume87 and prevent him to continue reverting. This has not been of any solution.

Thank you for your understanding. --Maurice27 _{About Me, Talk, Vandalize}. 20:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Both editors are warring on Valencian Community and Balearic Islands. I suggested that they stop reverting and move to talk, and I opened a talk section at Balearic Islands, but they have continued. I (perhaps inappropriately) opened a request for page protection, to try and force discussion. And I notice that Maurice has at least once in the past been involved in edit-warring over the very same issue (See this talk section Talk:Balearic_Islands#Dispute_resolution from 2008). Jd2718 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:HappyLogolover2011 reported by User:SQGibbon (Result: 1 week)

Page:Viz Media Viz Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HappyLogolover2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [221]

• 1st revert: [222]
• 2nd revert: [223]
• 3rd revert: [224]
• 4th revert: [225]
• 5th revert: [226]
• 6th revert: [227]

• 1st diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228]
• 2nd diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [230]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Chester Markel (Result: Declined)

Page: User talk:Rd232 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [231]
• 2nd revert: [232]
• 3rd revert: [233]
• 4th revert: [234]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: block log as Δ block log as Betacommand

Comments:
*I'm not an admin, but what troubles me is that many of his image removal edits seem to be bot-like. For example, at Notre Dame-UCLA rivalry, he removed the UCLA image but left the Notre Dame one (which clearly suggests not paying attention to the context of the article, either both should be there or both should be removed), left the same edit summary that he's left on dozens of other pages, and after I undid his revision and explained why it was fair use in the edit summary, he just made the exact same edit with the exact same summary and no acknowledgement of my reasoning. He needs to remember WP:BRD. We have bots that can do bot work. We don't need editors acting like bots Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry, wrong forum Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • First, Delta's reverts in this are to revert the remove of a message on a user's talk page by neither that user nor the user that left the message. That's a violation of talk page usage (you don't refactor others comments). So the reversion is correct. In your image case, Delta is also correct and that logo as he put in the edit summary does not have a non-free rationale for that page, which is required and explained on the page linked. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What image? I redacted the above comment, and there is now fair-use rationale. My point was mostly about the way he goes about his edits, not whether he was right Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • The talk page comment that MickMacNee was removing could be construed as an egregious personal attack. Or not. There was a genuine dispute over which the edit warring occurred, as a result of which MickMacNee was correctly blocked for 8 reversions. But Δ also breached the 3RR. The reverts don't seem like removal of vandalism or any other exceptions to the 3RR. Chester Markel (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the disputed section myself, as I was the person who posted it. I was not attempting to make any personal attack on anyone, least of all MickMacNee. I was attempting to compare discourse, not people. I grant it is a subtlety that could be lost in the text, and that a personal attack could be construed. It was not intended in any respect as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding the situation with MickMacNee, I do believe that arbcom will ban him, as a most unfortunate and regrettable necessity, so the situation should be resolved in a month or two. Chester Markel (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm the one that made the first revert that restored your (Hammersoft) comment. I also didn't see it as an attack on MMN, just comparing how conversation with someone who ... ahhh ... was unwilling to compromise with that of beating ones head off a brick wall. To be honest, I was hoping that Mick would take my edit summary to heart, and I was shocked to see what transpired over the next hour. Considering his current situation of being before Arbcom, I think it was a HUGE mistake to edit war over such a thing. I guess he was deeply offended, though I fail to fully understand why, and he felt it worth fighting for. Hammer, I applaud you for removing the post, as well as for attempting to offer sound advice to Rd232. <sigh>, I doubt this is the end of it all, either for Delta or for Mick, there's just too much history for this to slip quietly into the night I fear. — Ched :  ?  06:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm trying to have delta added as a party to the MickMacNee arbitration. Hopefully, we can resolve the situations with both users at the same time. Chester Markel (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW .. I personally would be opposed any block for Delta on the Rd232 issue, I think he had solid footing in policy for reverting this time. — Ched :  ?  06:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) The reversions that Δ was performing in this case were also done by several other editors. I.e., several other editors identified MickMacNee's edits as improper. Removing someone else's comments from a talk page that is not yours can be considered a form of vandalism. In that sense, Δ's edits were undoing vandalism that had also been undone by several others. That said, there's extenuating circumstances here. MickMacNee is most likely under a lot of stress from the ArbCom case. Further, I know full well his extreme distaste for me. Given these, it's very understandable that the comparison I was trying to make in my comments could easily have been lost, with it instead being construed as, as Chester notes, an egregious personal attack. It's a misunderstanding, pure and simple. I don't think MickMacNee's block should be in place in part because of that and in part because of the ongoing ArbCom case. I think we should slap some wet fish around, remove the block, and close this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that no action should result from this report. It confuses too many issues already being discussed on other noticeboards, in an ArbCom case and in the report immediately above. Chester Markel trying to add Delta as party to the ArbCom case suggests that Chester Markel's editing of wikipedia is getting out of control. Two other users previously added as parties have had to request their removal (Beyond My Ken and Sandstein), with the approval of ArbCom. Please stop this Chester Markel: it is very unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some mistakes in formulating the initial list of parties, as this is the first time I've filed an arbitration case. However, it's obvious that the dispute between MickMacNee and delta is longstanding, heated, and current. I have only requested that delta be added as a party, rather than adding him myself. Chester Markel (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Increasing the scope of an ArbCom case by adding a second user, associated with a different set of problems and only tangentially involved, can create a giant mess. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RPA#Removal_of_text While not fully supported by policy it suggests that blatant personal attacks can be removed, even other other people's pages. If he felt it was a blatant personal attack, I could see why he felt he had policy on his side for removal. Being compared to a highly controversial and negatively viewed organization seems like it could easily be interpreted as a blatant personal attack. As pointed out, there are no exemptions on 3RR for this restoration--Crossmr (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Per consensus above, and because Betacommand was reverting inappropriate edits by MickMacNee. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this report existed at the point I blocked Δ, but I don't think that undoing the block would be appropriate at this time -- as Crossmr points out above, MMN had reason to believe he was removing a blatant personal attack, and Δ was doing rapid-fire reverts without discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't find this block appropriate at all. For one thing, the other user has been blocked and the edit war will not continue - so therefor, why are we blocking a user to punish them? There is nothing to prevent, so this block must be being used as punishment, which is something that I strongly oppose any day. Second, considering that his reverts were appropriate, that should exclude him from 3rr. There are many people on this encyclopedia that revert edits quickly, so that's hardly a good reason. And finally, he wasn't the only user doing that. If we're going to block him, we should block the other user as well (though they technically only have three reverts). This is ridiculous - let's save blocks for people that are causing harm to the wiki. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Considering that his reverts were appropriate, that should exclude him from 3rr". This is not general practice... (Fastily should take note of this too) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked – for now – without prejudice to any party. This discussion had reached a consensus conclusion prior to SarekofVulcan's block. While SoV was unaware that this discussion had taken place and blocked Delta in good faith, it is one of our guiding principles that decisions reached by community consensus in open noticeboard discussions should nearly always supersede the judgements and opinions of individual Wikipedia editors. Once SoV became aware of this discussion's conclusion, he was bound to respect it even if he disagreed with it. I have therefore undone the block. (To do otherwise would be to encourage admins to do an 'end run' around noticeboard discussions they didn't like. Any admin who didn't like a discussion's outcome could override its conclusions simply by not commenting, and waiting until after it closed to place whatever blocks he liked. While that is emphatically not what happened here, it's a loophole that we don't want to open.)

Any party, SarekofVulcan included, is welcome to appeal the outcome of this discussion in an appropriate venue. (I would imagine that that's going to be either here or AN/I.) If a new, broader consensus can be established that a block is necessary and appropriate, then SoV (or any other admin) is welcome to restore it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Chester Markel (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of the banned user John254 (talk · contribs) and has now been indefinitely blocked by Risker. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:jtizzi reported by User:Nicole.colson (Result: Page Protected)

Page: International Socialist Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: jtizzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [235]
• 2nd revert: [236]
• 3rd revert: [237]
• 4th revert: [238]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [239]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [240]

Comments:

Nicole.colson (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) There's alot of SPA editing on that page, User:Jtizzi on one side and User:Nicole.colson / User:Alanmaass on the other. The only article edits from User:Alanmaass seem to have been to remove content introduced by User:Jtizzi. The editing history shows User:Nicole.colson picking up right where User:Alanmaass left off as soon as User:Alanmaass hit 3RR. I'm not saying it's sockpuppetry, but looking at the article history there seems to be some sort of tag-teaming here, possibly to avoid 3RR. - SudoGhost™ 07:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:82.132.138.183 and User:82.132.138.156 reported by User:Muhandes (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Push (Bros album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 82.132.138.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.138.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [241]

• 1st revert: 20:52, 18 June 2011
• 2nd revert: 22:38, 18 June 2011
• 3rd revert: 10:35, 19 June 2011
• 4th revert: 14:22, 19 June 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [242]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [243]

Comments:
These are just the same edit four times with two different IPs, but you might want to semi-protect the page as well, same editor before that at similar addresses at the day before:

• 89.242.242.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [244]
• 89.242.209.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [245]
• 89.242.209.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [246]

Note that most of these also contain removal of maintenance templates, and addition of material in contradiction to sources despite numerous attempts from me to discuss it.

• Page protected -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:IllaZilla (Result: Protected)

Page: The Dark Side of the Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [247]

• 1st revert: [248]
• 2nd revert: [249]
• 3rd revert: [250]
• 4th revert: [251]
• 5th revert: [252]
• 6th revert: [253]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [254]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [255]

Comments:

The moving of album reviews out of {{Infobox album}} and into {{Album ratings}} within a "Reception" section is part of a large drive at WP:ALBUMS (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space). Parrot of Doom seems to oppose having the ratings displayed in articles in this fashion, but it amounts to a content dispute (he calls them "crappy little boxes of graphics that only the anally retentive care about" [256]) and edit-warring in content disputes is unacceptable. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it a "content" dispute when the content is merely being moved, not deleted or altered? Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the infobox is only supposed to be used in the "Reception" section and that the Albums project is not recommending using them, the reverse in fact. The box is not mandatory.

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums § Album_reviews, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums § Mandatory_or_not

Here it is a clear case of 2 (PoD and Nev1) saying "do not include the box" and one saying "I am putting it on whether you like it or not" (IP). To me it is a clear case of "against consensus" and this should be dropped immediately. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, the Albums project recommends that articles have sections discussing an album's critical reception, and the point of the current drive is that the Albums project now recommends that ratings be displayed in such a section, using {{Album ratings}}, rather than in the infobox. There is no requirement to use the ratings template, but it is recommended to implement it when moving ratings out of the infobox, so that they may be elsewhere displayed as opposed to outright removed.

Malleus Fatuorum, what makes it a content dispute is that the IP editor's contributions are not vandalism, original research, or any other type of edit that would justify outright reverts. Rather, the IP is adding sourced, valid content to the article, in the form of the ratings template containing sourced critical ratings. Parrot of Doom's reasons for continually reverting is that he thinks the template is "ugly" and "a crappy little boxes of graphics". These are arguments of pure opinion, not legitimate grounds to revert 6 times in under 24 hours. Since the edits are not vandalism, and the edit-war consists of the adding and removing of legitimate sourced content, this is a content dispute. What would you call it? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the IP is equally at fault for edit-warring and should probably be blocked on those grounds as well, but as the IP does not appear to be static I'm not sure if that will quell the edit-warring. Parrot is a veteran editor with 5½ years experience and should know that edit-warring, except in cases of obvious vandalism, is almost never justified. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:69.115.82.63 reported by User:Shaad lko (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Mughal Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.115.82.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [257]

1. 15:50, 17 June 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 434777017 by 115.118.41.128 (talk) this is perfectly good revisions")
2. 13:34, 19 June 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 435068221 by SpacemanSpiff (talk)")
3. 13:35, 19 June 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 435061315 by 14.98.63.111 (talk)perfect revision")
4. 14:55, 19 June 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 435097289 by 121.245.27.68 (talk) No this is not the correct version!")

These are just some of the recent reverts.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:69.115.82.63#Violating_the_3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mughal_Empire#Edit_war_by_IPs

Comments:

The page is on my watchlist and there is a heavy edit-war going on out there. I believe there is another user who edits with different IPs but is engaged in edit war with 69.115.82.63 Shaad lko (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:209.32.70.56 (Result: protected)

Page: Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [258] [259] [260] [261] (consequtive)
• 2nd revert: [262]
• 3rd revert: [263]
• 4th revert: [264]

After report filed:

• 5th revert: [265] - another unexplained revert of a clearly explained edit. I note that a previously uninvolved user has added the {{peacock}} tag to the article, a problem that my edits have been intended to rectify.
• 6th revert: [266] same as above.
• 6th revert: [267] - unbelievable! He's been blocked before, looks like.

User is vandalizing the page by repeatedly adding poorly sourced material and irrelevant material back to the page. 209.32.70.56 (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the IP is the one doing the vandalizing. This article has been vandalized recently. I am trying to keep the content from being vandalized by reverting the IP (which has only edited this one article). --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You are blindly reverting edits that I clearly explained. 209.32.70.56 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because you explain an edit doesn't give you the right to blank whole sections. Especially controversially without discussion on the Talk page.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You keep blanking the page then attacking me for reverting your blanking. You are not trying to "eliminate peacock terms". You are trying to remove huge sections of the article, some of which have very reliable sources. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because some of those sections are irrelevant to the article and are not sourced well. I didn't attack anyone, stop making incivil accusations about me. 209.32.70.56 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You're a new IP who begins blanking whole sections of an article and removing reliable sources. That's not in line with the policies on here. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This new IP appears to maybe have been blocked before under the username "BelloWello" or BW. The new IP has also made more than 3 reverts. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected by Barek for three days. Please try to resolve this by discussion at Talk:Samuel Koranteng-Pipim in the meantime. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:GiovBag reported by User:Tia solzago (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Lega Nord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GiovBag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [268]

• 1st revert: [269]
• 2nd revert: [270]
• 3rd revert: [271]
• 4th revert: [272]
• 5th revert: [273]
• 6th revert: [274]

IPs are without doubts GiovBag

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion and consensus can be find here

Comments:
It's the third time that I report GiovBag; every time he was rollbacked by different users but he continuously ignores talk pages --Tia solzago (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me break the blockade just this once, because the user Tia solzago lacks the truth. First: my actions have always been discussed on the talk page [275]. Second: the previous versión is this one: [276] But, there is a group Italian users, adherents or supporters of the Lega Nord, who are trying to eliminate from the "infobox" and the introduction a text which they consider inadequate, but that is well referenced by several sources: BBC, Der Spiegel, University of Zurich, etc. Reaching an agreement between them, and excluding references and opinions presented by those who don't agree, stating that it has reached a consensus, wich is not true. Refusing to consider whether references or reasons[277]. In fact he has been reported by their hostile attitude towards those who have a different view from him.[278]. GiovBag.--95.251.8.176 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Bradka reported by User:Flummi35 (Result: no vio)

Page: Kevin Warwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bradka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Warwick&action=historysubmit&diff=434899965&oldid=434832601
• 2nd revert: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Warwick&diff=next&oldid=435020711
• 3rd revert: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Warwick&diff=next&oldid=435057647
• 4th revert: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Warwick&diff=next&oldid=435124157

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I've skipped this hoop to jump through, Bradka is a veteran editor and should not have to be warned about edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above

Comments:

The article is almost entirely a listing of achievement after achievement, it reads as if it had been written as a self-promotional piece. Bradka is continually reverting the insertion of well-sourced criticism against consensus of two editors besides myself. His edit summaries (revert of "vandalism") are misleading and insulting to the other editors. A serious case of "article ownership" in my opinion. Flummi35 (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I stronly disagree with User:Flummi35, see my comment here. Also: It looks like a case of POV pushing by an anom, Brada didn't revert more then 3 times withing 24 hours, and Brada is no veteran editor. -- Mdd (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Mdd carried out an extensive overhaul of this particular webpage to arrive at a well balanced article. The article in fact already contains, as a result of the overhaul, a section concerning criticsms, which is not, I feel, usual in biographies of this type. One particular paragraph that was removed by User:Mdd has been reinserted from different IP addresses (no user name) - the exception being User:Flummi35. I agree entirely with User:Mdd it appears to be a case of POV pushing by an anom. In the article - the fact that Warwick gave a particular set of lectures fills part of one line towards the bottom of the text. The criticism (relating specifically to those lectures) that is being inserted on the page, that was removed by User:Mdd, fills several lines higher up in the text. The criticism thereby takes on far more importance than the original act. User:Flummi35 has only recently joined and does not yet have a User page. I therefore remain concerned about this page, strongly disagree with User:Flummi35 and still see the actions being taken as vandalism to the page. As can be seen from the history, I have tried to open up a Discussion to solve the problem, however the reversion has simply gone ahead without comment. -- Bradka (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence of "POV pushing by an anom" (did you mean anon, as in anonymous?) Every IP recently editing the article geolocates to a different country and internet provider. Regrettably, now Mdd, too, has joined in the edit warring. 89.204.137.194 (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is typical case of the 3RR exemptions : Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. There has been a discussion about the text since 2008, and I welcome any further discussion. However if anonymous users keep reinserting the text, without any contribution to the ongoing discussion on the talk page, those actions are called POV pushing. If this continues this page should be (semi) protected. -- Mdd (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question:

Warwick's tendency to court the media has led some of his critics to accuse him of concentrating on publicity at the cost of research, grossly exaggerating the importance and implications of his "experiments". For example, the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour complained to the organisers of the 2000 Christmas Lectures about their choice of Kevin Warwick, prior to his appearance. They claimed that "he is not a spokesman for our subject and allowing him influence through the Christmas lectures is a danger to the public perception of science.< ref>"Cyborg off his Christmas tree". Times Higher Education. 2000-12-21. Retrieved 2011-06-17.< /ref>

It is not

- libelous

- biased

- unsourced,

- or poorly sourced (even you have agreed: "Now I tend to agree that this critique is well-sourced. The timeshighereducation.co.uk website could be considered a very reliable source, given the numerous times this source is already used in Wikipedia, see here.")

Hence BLP exemptions do not apply. It is an innoucous, normal edit that improves Wikipedia. Flummi35 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation The reverts must occur in the same 24 hour period to violate WP:3RR, and I do not think that blocking anyone under generic edit warring provisions is indicated here. I am, however, going to semi-protect the page due to probably sock/meat puppetry, and ask both Bradka and Flummi35 on their respective talkpages to be more careful. As a generic editorial comment, THE is generally considered an excellent source, though due weight for the cited comments should be established through talkpage discussion. Please do not restore the disputed material unless consensus is established at Talk:Kevin Warwick. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Love4eveverymuch reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: Declined)

Page: Nine-dotted line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Love4eveverymuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [279]

• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]
• 4th revert: [283]
• 5th revert: [284]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [285]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but this edit summary suggests for dispute resolution on the article talk page, as does comments placed on the user's talk page.

Comments:
User is engaging in WP:OWN behaviour and is edit-warring on the article through reverting all edits that are not his own; he has reverted English grammatical fixes by Visik, making the English quality poor, and is continuously adding content that is off-topic to the article. User shows no interest in communicating with other editors or gaining wider WP:CONSENSUS, and is overall being disruptive. The topic of the article relates to a nine-section line drawn by the PRC on its maps of the South China Sea, however this editor repeatedly adds unrelated content relating to the Spratly Islands dispute to the article, essentially making a WP:FORK on Nine-dotted line with duplicate information. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

this looks like Benlisquare has not followed due procedure and did not try to get WP:CONSENSUS as previously claimed and is reverting perfectly reasonable edits by Love4eveverymuch. Nasnema  Chat  12:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How, may I ask, were these edits perfectly reasonable? Is reverting grammar fixes reasonable? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The grammar revert was a mistake because I did not intend to rever a "minor" grammar fix but was to revert the information deleted by Belinsquare. Belinsquare not only did not attempted to resolve the issue but instead sending threatening message without any reason. Instead of trying to fix the grammar errors that was inadvertenly done, he attempted to delete other relevant information added to the thread. This is a serious abuse of the right to contribute of other editors on Wikipedia and should not be encouraged. Love4eveverymuch  Chat  —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

This and this are unexplained reversions of general fixes, and subsequent reversions do the same. This and this adds a huge chunk of text that is meaningless in regards to the topic - sure, it's all wonderful information on, say, South China Sea or Spratly Islands dispute, but it doesn't belong here simply because the topics might have some kind of connection. Would you have 12 paragraphs on the rules of Basketball in Barack Obama simply because he plays basketball? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, even if you do believe your edits are justified, that does not justify edit warring. I have suggested for you to bring it to the talk page - why haven't you? Why haven't you engaged in dialogue like I have suggested to you, many times? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please let neutral parties determine whether the information is relevant or not rather then continuously deleting information added without a reason but instead using "VERBAL ABUSE". Have you really tried to get get WP:CONSENSUS? Indeed, a third party (Nasnema) has indicated the information is relevant while you are the only one who keep saying that it is not relevant based on your own "opinion and agenda". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love4eveverymuch (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, where is the verbal abuse? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sending message to other user threatening of "ban without further notice" for adding releavant information is a "Verbal abuse". Every editor has the same right to post on Wiki, if you disagree, instead of deleting please bring it up for discussion. I did not delete any information you added, except for some mistakes in reverting minor grammar fixes which were not intentionally while you have deleted any updates to the thread making it your own "home page". Please respect the rule and do not abuse it! Love4eveverymuch (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well then I guess you should make a suggestion for everyone to change the template messages to be a bit more pretty-sounding, if that is what your greiviances are at. As for your other points, you're practically bringing up my own points, and you haven't addressed my questions for you either. Can you please stop avoiding the question by changing the topic? Can you justify adding a whole plethora of information that doesn't relate to the nine-dotted line at all? Wikipedia isn't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, and neither is that page - "quality, not quantity" is what the page needs, not 9,000 bytes of unrelated information. Can you explain how you believe that the information is related? Can you explain, justify, demonstrate why you believe your additions shouldn't be removed? Why haven't you discussed? I've tried to bring my points across to you; on the other hand, many of your reverts weren't even explained in the edit summary. "Every editor has the same right to post on Wiki" - yes, provided that you follow policy - engaging in disruptive behaviour is an entirely different story. And I would really appreciate it if you stop WP:WIKILAWYERing so much as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please list out specifically ANY INFORMATION that are NOT RELEVANT to the 9-dotted line topic that have been added and let others to judge. Also please do not forget to include objective reasons instead of your own opinion. Thank you! Love4eveverymuch (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was the one asking you here. Stop dodging the question. My attention is currently on your additions, not my removals, and I'd like to know the reason for your additions. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Consecutive edits count as one revert, and the first 3 are consecutive edits. Having said this, I'll point out that the reasons for reversion are not relevant unless they are BLP issues, copyvio or vandalism (have I missed anything?). I'm inclined to mark this resolved, but let's wait for a response - and this is not the place to argue content. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Well slap me silly, it just looks like I've found a copyright violation. I'll be reverting the addition again, if you don't mind. It wouldn't count as a 3RR vio on my behalf for removing copyvio, right? (I'll do it upon your reply just to make sure, I'd rather not run the risk) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section as copyvio, warned the IP and Love4eveverymuch. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I received the warning and would like to give the apology for posting portion with the same wording as in the other website. For further posting I will follow strictly the copyright policy. Thank you Dougweller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love4eveverymuch (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined It appears this matter has been resolved. Love4eveverymuch has been warned and copyvio removed. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: indefinitely blocked)

Page: Venom (Marvel Comics character) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [286]

• 1st revert: [287]
• 2nd revert: [288]
• 3rd revert: [289]
• 4th revert: [290] (Note, user logged out to revert, apparently in an attempt to avoid WP:3RR. This links the IP to his account, as well as the IP's other contributions).
• 5th revert: [291] (Note: Not a reversion of the same content, but of this edit. I'm including it because WP:3RR applies to the same or different material)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, as I didn't come across the article today until this edit, however user's block log shows that he is well aware of WP:3RR, being recently blocked in a similar situation.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Brian Boru is awesome did attempt to discuss the dispute on the IP's talk page, but an attempt at a talk page discussion was also made at the article's talk page by User:Darktower 12345.

Comments:
No additional comments. - SudoGhost™ 19:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely due to long-standing abuse. m.o.p 19:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note Make sure there's a space between the Result: and the actual result in the header for automated processing. Thanks! + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Post2013 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 24h)

Page: UCLA School of Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Post2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [292]

• 1st revert: [293]
• 2nd revert: [294]
• 3rd revert: [295]
• 4th revert: [296]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [297]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [298]

Comments:

This is not a 3RR report, but an edit-warring report. Post2013 added inappropriate language to the lead of the article. I reverted with an explanation. He reverted w/o explanation. I reverted back and asked him to take it to the Talk page. Because he is a newly registered user, I also posted a short explanation on his Talk page. He reverted again w/o explanation. Another editor (not me) reverted him and told him to go to the Talk page. Post2013 reverted yet again w/o explanation. This time I posted a warning on his Talk page and reverted, telling him in my edit summary to look at both his Talk page and the article's Talk page. He reverted yet again w/o explanation. I have not reverted back. Since registering, he has edited only this article. Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC) -->

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Sarujo reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: both 24)

Page: Bugs Bunny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sarujo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [299]

• 1st revert: [300]
• 2nd revert: [301]
• 3rd revert: [302]
• 4th revert: [303]
• 5th revert: [304] <--updated 6/21
• 6th revert: [305] <--updated 6/21
• 7th revert: [306] <--updated 6/21

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [307]

Comments:
Sarujo appears to have ownership issues with the Bugs Bunny article. He refuses to accept change of an infobox image, or the addition of an image of the latest version of the character. Tried to imply my edits would be vandalism for trying to correct and update things. Also edit-warred over File:Bugs_Bunny_Pose.PNG when I tried to correct the obvious color problems with the original. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Have you considered dispute resolution with the editor? + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 15:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I stopped editing the article, so as not to break 3RR. However, Sarujo's "warnings" to me ([308][309][310]) were overly antagonistic. I only reported him after he reverted an uninvolved editor who also disagreed with his reverts. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)When did I remove an edit by this Treybien? Maybe I lost track of myself. My apologies.

I don't have own issues. I just see your image upload as redundant as we already have a working image of the character. The color is fine, and even that is a trivial reason for a replacement. Let not forget that you tried to replace the image as a re-upload, then when that failed you chose another graphic a separate image. If this had been a free I would have conceded, but a replacing a non-free image with another non-free image over a matter of color?!. Even when I uploaded a version with the "correct grey", they still call fowl. Calling it bad fan art, but a color scheme is not evidence of such. Sarujo (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazing how this editor is trying to paint me as a villain after I made a minor slip up with hyperbole. Last time I checked going to a talk page asking for an editor to stop their edits is not antagonizing, but a friendly request. The editor had no interest either way as rather than issuing professional response, they erased the comments and ignored me. I do not believe the editor would ever consider the idea of working together, unless they were sharing their vision. Sarujo (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 Rami R 16:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Update 6/21 - Sarujo's first edits upon his block ending were to continue the edit-war - he's reverted to his preferred version twice three times now since the block expired. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

mike is right. this user maybe needs blocking for good. as he has again been waring on the same bugs bunney page. --Iniced (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC) er this is a update on this report. hi mike and olters. i have taken this case in to Administrator intervention against vandalism however i was told there. that this users edits are not vsndalism. so i nut sure were we are to go from here about this. as it seems sarujos edits are ok. but however i have tryed to help on this. but now i think i let olters sort this. i rest meself out of this case. --Iniced (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Vexorg reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: blocked, reporter warned)

Page: Quantitative easing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vexorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [311]

• 1st revert: [312]
• 2nd revert: [313]
• 3rd revert: [314] - This was NOT a revert but an edit to include additional information. Vexorg (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• 4th revert: [315]
• 5th revert: [316]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
User has been banned before for edit warring. In the last week, user has been warned several times about edit warring on the Quantitative easing talkpage. Diff of one such warning.[317] User has also been warned in the edit summary,[318] following which the user promptly reverted to his prefered version.[319]

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Several talk page sections are devoted to this issue:

• Talk:Quantitative_easing#Ex-Nihilo
• Talk:Quantitative_easing#Edit_warring
• Talk:Quantitative_easing#Hypocritical_editing

Comments:

User has also been uncivil, has adopted a battleground mentality, and has made personal threats.[320]
--LK (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The user User:Lawrencekhoo filing this report is guilty of edit warring, being uncivil and removing properly sourced material from the article several times, despite being warned several times. The user started his battle by leaving a patronising template on my talkpage here .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vexorg#June_2011 - I then took it straight to the talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quantitative_easing#Ex-Nihilo

here is the user User:Lawrencekhoo recent edit warring

• 1st revert: [321]
• 2nd revert: [322]
• 3rd revert: [323]
• 4th revert: [324]
• 5th revert: [325]

and so on....

Vexorg (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Also note the user User:Lawrencekhoo has claimed above I have made personal threats "and has made personal threats" - This is clearly nonsense. I have no authorisation on wikipedia to sanction other editors, so this cannot be a personal threat. I was merely pointing out the user User:Lawrencekhoo will be sanctioned if he continues his disruptive editing.

Further if another editor continues to remove properly and reliably sourced information from an article then reverting that is not considered edit warring.User:Lawrencekhoo is guilty of removing such properly sourced and verifiable content from the article on several occasions and IMO there is nothing wrong in correcting those edits. Vexorg (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Claimed 1st revert[326] was from 3 days ago about another issue, and claimed 3rd revert[327] is a followup edit to my own edit. LK (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk page for this article has been a battleground for a few days now. As I mentioned when I arrived at the article it seems the trouble started when LK reverted one of Vexorg's edits and templated Vexorg's talk page. Vexorg took offense and re-reverted, and off it went. There's been a real breakdown in civility, and without pointing fingers I encourage anyone seeking to understand how bad it's gotten to look beyond the article's talk page to those of users Lawrencekhoo, Vexorg, and Andrewedwardjudd. I tried to focus on improving the content and reaching consensus, but at one point I accused Andrewedwardjudd of having a political agenda based the accusation on that user's admitted goal of adding fringe ideas on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether my accusation was justified (which I've come to doubt) I shouldn't have said it. I apologize to AEJ, and I recognize that I should have apologized before now. Lagrange613 (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The user Andrewedwardjudd did not admit to adding fringe ideas Lagrange613 (talk). You are bring disingenuous accusations to this page now. Vexorg (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lagrange please do not repeat i am supporting fringe ideas by quoting me on the real fact that academic textbook writers are out of touch with central banking practices, where my attempts to improve wiki using central bank citations have been met with a huge amount of difficulty from people who think the opinions of text book writers are more important than operational documents and citations from central bank governors and deputy governors and so forth. Your comments are totally and absolutely unjustified. Wiki is full of errors in the financial pages because people slavishly rely on the incorrect opinions of text book writers when faced with central bank citations. It is an absurd situation and evidently you want to support that. Obviously real world practices are more important than the opinions of text book writers. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

I've said all I'm going to say on this. The user LK (talk) has been repeatedly removing properly and reliably sourced content from the article over a long period of time and guilty of edit warring. LK (talk has also called reliably sourced information from the BBC and other reliable sources as fringe ideas. It's a waste of everyone's time to continue an circular argument with this editor here as a spillover form the talk page of the article in question. Vexorg (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If I'm honest in looking at this, there needs to be some dispute resolution before either the reporter or reported editors attempt to contribute to the page again. You both need a break, as such, refrain from adding or removing any disputed content in the article until a consensual decision is reached. So step back, go to the talk page, talk it out without throwing any low blows at each other and cool off. (Do note, I did only briefly flick through everything) + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 08:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment VexOrg Created a section that labels other editors as "hypocrites".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor VexOrg has been blocked for edit-warring and for personal attacks by an administrator. It seems that some wise words have cooled things at the talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is enough productive editing at that article that I am loath to lock it from editing, but if the edit warring keeps up that may be the best option; an extended period where a contentious article is edited solely through Template:editprotected sometimes helps. I have blocked Vexorg for edit warring and personal attacks, but Lawrencekhoo is far from blameless in this. I am requesting that Lawrencekhoo and Andrewedwardjudd voluntarily avoid editing that article (but not the talkpage) for one month, which will hopefully help in the consensus-building process. There are two or three other editors who might also be included in the voluntary ban, but I have hopes that a more normal editing atmosphere might prevail with minimal admin intervention. This article ban on Lawrencekhoo and Andrewedwardjudd is purely voluntary, but further edit warring by either would likely be grounds for a block. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• There is a problem with wiki financial pages. A number of editors have indicated they have some kind of preference for the opinions of text book writers over operational documents and published policies of central banks. Even the governor of the bank of england have been reduced in importance on the fRB page as being outside of the mainstream or having alternative ideas regarding FRB.
• The other problem for the financial pages is that a number of editors chose to be abusive towards university professors or central bankers when they dont agree with them, and want to emphasise them when they do agree with them, which makes it impossible for other editors to bring balance to the pages. A classic example is the attitude of LawrenceKhoo towards Richard werner who he chose to trash as a 'fringe character', or his attitude towards people who think the money multiplier theory as regards bank lending is utterly bogus - which includes one of the formost central banking economists in the world and many governors of central banks. The result of this peculiar behaviour is that wiki financial pages are at times so hopelessly confused that no intelligent reader could ever hope to get an indepth understanding of modern finance from the point of view of published central banking operational documents so that they understand the nature of 'how it actually works'.
• Further most editors are more or less refusing to discuss why they revert edits in such an abusive manner towards the editor working to create a better encylopedia, and since many of these editors are fully familiar with wiki policies and editor warning and so forth the ordinary person has no chance of altering wiki unless they spend *as i have done* a huge amount time to overcome these other editors often absurd reverts. Anybody can revert but few people can create useful encylopedic knowledge when faced with this kind of continual assault against reason.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

User:Pastel kitten reported by User:NuclearWarfare (Result: warned)

Page: Abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pastel kitten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [328]
• 2nd revert: [329]

• Article is on 1RR; editors are informed of this via edit notice and talk page notice. I also encourage the reviewing administrator to look through the article history and consider taking action against Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) and possibly also Gandydancer (talk · contribs) for "violations" of bold, revert, discuss. For reference, note the discussion here. NW (Talk) 01:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • NW, small point. MastCell (talk · contribs) warned the editor after they made their second edit. I think most editors of Abortion are unaware of the 1RR restriction. I've been editing the article for five years (I would guess), and I didn't know about the 1RR restriction until recently. No one reads those talk page boxes. I didn't like the edit at all, and would have reverted if I had the choice, but Pastel kitten is slightly innocent in this matter. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm, OK. I still think the other two editors' conduct (esp. Anythingyouwant/Ferrylodge, who having been placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee, should know far better) should be looked at. NW (Talk) 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Again, you know me, I give good faith about once every month. Ferrylodge again? Wow, it may predate you, but he made it a mess years ago. Didn't know he was still around. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not here to comment on other users. But I would first consider that this was a case of being unaware of the sanctions under which the page operates. New editors to it frequently are not aware of the 1RR. Really no need for an AN/I in my view. I certainly think it does no good to bring other editors into it. Basically looks like a case of "there is nothing here to see." Good use of Admin's time? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Warned by other people. --slakr^\ talk / 04:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MJC59 reported by User:Simple Bob (Result: 24h)

Page: Cornwall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MJC59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [330]
• 2nd revert: [331]
• 3rd revert: [332]
• 4th revert: [333]
• 5th revert: [334]
• 6th revert: [335]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [336]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This, and similar topics have been discussed at length on the talk page but this user doesn't seem to engage in a sensible discussion.

Comments:
What is clear is that this user does not want to play nicely on Wikipedia e.g. through this comment in which, for some bizarre reason, he thinks people outside Cornwall are not allowed to edit Wikipedia content relating to cornwall. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note Fixed report body. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 12:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish to report Simple Bob for his bullying attitude. I am an elected Councillor and holder of an MA in Cornish & Celtic Studies. How dare he ignore the points I have corrected. No wonder we are set to create our own version of Wiki in Cornwall ! An utter disgrace. I intend to have the CE examine Wiki funding methods as it is being allowed to publish untruths ! MJC59 (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Limulus reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Judith Reisman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Limulus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [337]

• 1st revert: [338]
• 2nd revert: [339]
• 3rd revert: [340]
• 4th revert: [341]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: experienced user--didn't template

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [342]

Comments:

This is not an edit war in the traditional sense that there is a dispute with intransigent parties. There was a bit of a tussle between Limulus and 2 editors (including myself) over the section "Naxism and homosexuals", but that appears settled. But because of the tussle Limulus committed 2 reverts. Then a 3rd revert on a different issue. The real problem is that they don't think that the bright line of 3RR applies to them. They wrote "Fixing the article (e.g. putting refs where they should actually go) is not edit warring." In fact, they were in a mini-edit war with 2 editors over addition of POV content. Right after that statement they ignored my warning and reverted.Lionel (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the linked versions and reverts, first, if one checks the history [343] the one immediately before Lionelt begins editing is 435214017 not 435129249; I find it interesting that he has selected the edit immediately before mine in which I commented "fixed last bit of damage by suspected sockpuppet Truthinmyheart" (see User:Truthinmyheart).

So we need to look at *435214017* as a starting point.

The end of Lionlet's first batch of edits is 435255378

Given that we are both doing batches of editing (note that I most recently started on the 18th and have been in a bit of a marathon of edits since), I don't see how even if I reverted *all* of that batch of edits (which I did not) that that would count for more than one, but let's look at the specific examples given:

• "1st revert" "diff=prev&oldid=435206242"

???? That is the difference between two of *my* edits *before* Lionelt even started! FAIL!

• "2nd revert" "diff=435307849&oldid=435255378"

Lionelt had removed a wikilink to persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and I added it back in with the comment "please keep a link to Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust in this section; The Pink Swastika as per its page is clearly fringe theory WP:FRINGE" BUT then user Nuujinn removed it again in the next edit saying "no, let's keep it nice and flat and neutral, just the facts." At this point (while I disagreed somewhat) I decided to let the matter rest and I did NOT re-add it. This is NOT "a mini-edit war with 2 editors over addition of POV content". So why is Lionelt complaining about something that was resolved in his favor before he got back to editing again and AFAIK without him having to ask for intervention? To prove a rhetorical point here rather than be pragmatic about the community editing process? WEAK.

• "3rd revert" "diff=435311589&oldid=435309087"

The next edit of mine, "Shuffle sections; keep child-related items near top, fix ref issue, title tweak" This is several changes that are not exactly a rv. Before Lionelt's edits, I had put three sections into a "Fringe views" section. Lionelt had taken those three and another and put them into two new sections. I then put the one back (though not exactly the same way; I felt it needed to be readded as it was suporting the basic theme of its parent-section: "the imperative to protect children from this sort of harm became a driving force in her life.") and split the remainder up differently, modifying the names a bit. I continued to tweak the arrangement in my later edits until I settled on a still different arrangement [344]. The ref issue (mentioned earlier) is definitely NOT a rv; Lionelt had reworded a section in a way that incorrectly sourced a quote to a different ref: that was me fixing a mistake Lionelt had introduced into the article.

• "4th revert" "diff=435383284&oldid=435375292"

Yes! Finally, an honest-to-goodness revert! But wait, look at the comments...

18:45, 20 June 2011 Lionelt (talk | contribs) (44,985 bytes) (→Images of children, crime and violence: what do Reagan & Regnery have to do with this?)

19:53, 20 June 2011 Limulus (talk | contribs) (45,264 bytes) (Undid revision 435375292 by Lionelt (talk) please see my talk page; Regnery is mentioned later in that section and Reagan has to do with the social conservatives.)

(note: my talk page regarding this: User_talk:Limulus#Reisman)

21:28, 20 June 2011 Limulus (talk | contribs) (45,219 bytes) (→Images of children, crime and violence: removing "during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan" due to a WP:SYNTH concern by Lionel on my talk page)

So Lionelt breaks a mention of Regnery because he apparently didn't read the whole section and didn't read the refs. But then when he somewhat elaborated a concern with the Reagan mention, I undid that part I had reverted. Sorta rv?

Regarding the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: experienced user--didn't template" this is the first time anyone has jumped down my throat like this and it seemed a hostile act for what was IMHO *not* 3. In fact if you look at the times, it seems that he reported me before even trying to talk to me! (and I only noticed this page thanks to NekoBot)

FASTILY: regarding "dispute resolution", I don't really know that there is a "dispute" that needs resolving. Obvious errors like the ref issue and the Regnery issue just need fixing. The Reagan issue was resolved between us (before I even knew that a complaint had been filed!) after he explained a concern. It seems like this was reported in haste, though in the future I will have to be more careful in 'counting' reverts (what to me was <3 was >3 to him). So, i guess in summary, if you wouldn't mind, please unlock the page. THX! -- Limulus (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of a revert is defective.

1. You changed "discredit" to "debunk"
2. You changed "wrote in the New Yorker that Reisman holds the" to "recounts a contrary position held by"
3. You changed "Causation of homosexuality" to "As a promoter of homosexuality"
4. You hit undo: obvious. Even though you re-removed Reagan, you left Regnery. It is still a revert.

Please see WP:NOT3RR. None of your claims for exemption are valid. You violated 3RR: consider yourself lucky that you did not get blocked. You know, I have nothing against you. I warned you about 3RR in good faith. Your arrogant response on your talk page and subsequent revert in defiance of the warning was probably ill advised. Lionel (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not support lifting page protection. By their comments above it appears the editor in question does not grasp 3RR thus may continue to violate 3RR. Lionel (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I may not fully grok 3RR (and honestly, SYNTH gives me trouble), but (again) how is #1 (where you are pointing to two of *my* edits) a rv at all? In fact, looking at 435255378 you left debunk in... are you trying to say that it is a pejorative in the context of the lede? (that was not my intention) Or the fuller quote from the ref is? (But that's not a rv...) Does this have to do with the banned sock puppet account? *confusion* Why did you remove the first (wikilinked) instance of Regnery, but leave the second? For someone who just started editing ([345]) a somewhat mature article, you seem quite easily angered... perhaps the block will help you more than me. Anyway, the article was fortunately locked in a good state and one can always leave notes on the Talk page. If a week-long block is necessary, then so be it. -- Limulus (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A revert is: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Changing just 1 word is a revert, and for the most part the reason is irrelevant. Regarding Regnery, I didn't notice the 2nd appearance. But on first glance, it doesn't look sourced.Lionel (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced- specifically to "Trento, Susan (1992)." which is currently ref #14 and there's a link to a copy of the relevant section on Reisman's own website (as she puts up lots of stuff there about herself). When reverting edits in the future I will attempt to do it all at once rather than in a piecemeal fashion (though I do prefer the latter for editing). This conversation would be more appropriate on the JR talk page though, so if you wish to continue, please do so there. -- Limulus (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:Looks like someone is busy waging their battles by filing ever more reports. Reviewers, please check closely. Veriss (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, may I ask what's going on? :( -- Limulus (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

User:E2e3v6 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Declined)

Page: Press Your Luck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: E2e3v6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [346]

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

1. 10:50, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Winning the game */ Press was not on during November 1986.")
2. 18:52, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Home Player Spin */")
3. 19:17, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 435683574 by MegastarLV (talk) I have permission to put this stuff in by another wiki writer. check out discussion.")
4. 20:06, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 435685614 by WikiLubber (talk) Thank you for giving me another chance. Bye Bye.")
5. 20:20, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "I should have said Thank you for giving me a "Second Chance". Get it?")
6. 21:38, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "This is the last one. please keep it in. The link is not dead.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [347]

Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Press Your Luck#Home Player Sweepstakes

Comments:

This user has been using a fansite to back up his claims. Fansites are considered an unreliable source, and this one is no exception. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Technically speaking, 3RR has still not been broken... The editor has been warned once by an IP. So I am not going to block right now until another revert occurs from the user. In case the user doesn't revert again, engage in further discussions, take up dispute resolution. In case the user reverts once more in the next few hours, come back, the block will happen. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And closing as Declined per above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Event.Horizon.000 and User:Maphobbyist reported by User:Asav (OTRS) (Result: Event.Horizon.000 one month)

Page: Cultural genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Event.Horizon.000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Maphobbyist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [348]

• 1st revert: [349]
• 2nd revert: [350]
• 3rd revert: [351]
• 4th revert: [352]
• 5th revert: [353]
• 6th revert: [354]
• 7th revert: [355]
• 8th revert: [356]
• 9th revert: [357]
• 10th revert: [358]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [359] and [360]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [361]

Comments:
On June 17, OTRS received a notice that editors are reverting each others' entries without trying to reach consensus. Both editors have ignored my warning and call for constructive collaboration posted on their and the article's talk page and continued to reverse each others' edits. For the record, I have no involvement in the article itself, but act only as an OTRS volunteer. Asav (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Malformed – The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <!-- --> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Asav (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The header and the diffs are now OK so I believe the report is well-formed. It's a case of long-term warring, since nobody has reverted four times in 24 hours. In my opinion both of the reported parties should be blocked 72 hours and notified under the WP:ARBAA case, since both seem to be interested in the Armenian genocide and they are breaking WP policy by edit warring. (A diff that reverts Armenian material is here). Socking appears possible. User:Event.horizon.000 may also be editing as 178.78.187.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and as two other IPs, judging from Maphobbyist's contributions. Here are the userlinks for Maphobbyist: Maphobbyist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both parties do a lot of reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Event.Horizon.000 I'd suggest that Event.Horizon.000's block be for one month. He has already been confirmed by checkuser as a sockmaster and has just returned from a 72 hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I reverted the POV material the blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 added in the Cultural genocide and Daşkəsən articles, he got angered by this, and is now erasing any editions I make indeed in any article for no apparent reason, except due to a gruge it seems. This user also has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars. (Maphobbyist talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: User:Event.Horizon.000 is blocked one month for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. Cultural genocide has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Gisling reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: warned)

Page: Decimal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gisling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• A
• 1st revert: reverted A
• restored A
• 2nd revert: reverted A
• restored A
• 3rd revert: reverted A
• templates by Gun Powder Ma and discussion on talk and notification of edit-war (Gisling took notice)
• B
• 4th revert: reverted B
• restored B
• 5th revert: reverted B
• restored B
• 6th revert: reverted B

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notification of edit-war (Gisling took notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: templates by Gun Powder Ma and discussion on talk

Comments:
User reverts against four other users (User:Arthur Rubin, User:Kwamikagami, User:Gun Powder Ma and 115.117.153.184) a version which is untenable. Discussions on talk fruitless. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Clearly edit warring, and clearly aware of 3RR having been blocked before, but I don't see a clear enough warning here. Continuing the edit war and or insults after the warning should be grounds for a prompt block.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:66.112.61.23 (Result: 2 Weeks, reporter blocked 31 hours)

Page: Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [362]
• 2nd revert: [363]
• 3rd revert: [364]
• 4th revert: [365]

This user has been blocked for 3RR many times, and his edit warring on this page has caused the page to be protected two times prior. Simply protecting the page for the third time is unlikely to be a deterrent from further edit warring. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a "new" IP at an article which has been struggling with vandalism. I am trying to keep the IP from deleting whole section of the article. We need to use the Talk page rather than delete enmasse. Also the IP has violated 3RR as well, though it looks like it may be multiple IP's making the same edit (possible the same person)?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I might also add that the IP keeps trying to add unsourced allegations that a church leader resigned his ministerial credentials in spite of no evidence saying otherwise. Especially since this is BLP there needs to be a credible source saying such a statement and there isn't. All the evidence suggests the opposite.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Fountainviewkid seems to not understand how ministerial credentials are issued in the Adventist church. They are given to ministers of a specific conference and continue only as long as an individual is employed in a pastoral capacity by that conference. It is not the same as ordination. By resigning his employment with the Michigan Conference, anyone with knowledge of the Adventist system knows Pipim resigned his credentials (not his ordination) as well. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Pipim resigned his employment, but if he were to be employed by another conference he would have his credentials. The statement was very misleading and provides no evidence. Provide some reliable source about Pipim losing his credentials. And don't make it "synthesis" either.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is. If he was employed by a different conference, that conference would issue him new credentials under their conference.

66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again provide some reliable sources showing Pipim had his credential resigned. When you provide the reliable source we can add it and the problem is solved.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been struggling with loads of promotional language that multiple individuals have attempted to remove. Unfortunately, Fountainviewkid continues to insist on including said promotional language that multiple editors have noted and accuses those attempting to trim it of vandalism. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh really new IP? You know how the article is struggling? And yet your first edits were within the last hour? Yes there are issues, but those are best handled via the Talk page. You seem to be more experienced and should know that, of course you may have other accounts. I am trying to keep the article from being vandalized by having whole sections removed. Sections which include some reliable sources I might add. It's vandalism to make those kind of edits without consensus, discussion, or a very very valid reason. Simply not liking certain terms does not justify wholesale removal of paragraphs.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not justification to edit war. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not justification to vandalize--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

Comment The IP seems to be a disruption-only account. Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid, if these disputes are best handled through the talk page, why have you not attempted to use the talk page yourself? Also, it is not vandalism to remove sections as you described above. A "very very valid reason" is a very subjective term, to the point that any edit that removes content could be considered vandalism by at least one editor. Simply not liking an edit does not make it vandalism. This can in no way be considered vandalism, these two were instances where the IP removed unsourced content, which you restored, which also do not fall under the definition of vandalism. This edit is not exempt from 3RR, as it does not meet the criteria of Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. as can be seen with the edit summary, as an explanation was given. Wikipedia's rules on what falls under vandalism are very narrow for a reason. - SudoGhost™ 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying one editor is "wrong" and one is "right", and I personally disagree with the IPs edits, but WP:3RR does not have a "I'm right" exception, especially with when there is no attempt to use the talk page. - SudoGhost™

I have used the Talk page. Check out the sections that are being removed. They include some reliable sources. The IP is removing them it appears more out of POV reasons than anything else. It has nothing to do with mean not "liking" an edit. I still see it more as vandalism since again I argue while some of the edits have merit, others are far too broad to be considered "constructive". While that may be too harsh of a term I guess I could call the edits "extremely disruptive". Either way the IP is adding statements that are not reliably sourced, removing reliable sources, and deleting whole sections that serve a valid purpose in the article. I might also add that the IP itself has violated 3RR, and suspiciously looks similar to another IP that was editing right before. I'm not saying there should be an "I'm right" exception, and you're right that I probably should have been over here reporting the IP for disruptive editing. If you look at the content under dispute, the IP however is clearly in the wrong in how it is editing. Yes maybe I should have reverted so much, but I just wanted to protect the page from what I see as "vandalism" from a disruption only account. Look at the IP's history.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole resignation situation, Facebook source, and other edits the IP is trying to put in are discussed at length on the Talk page.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I've requested the page's full protection at WP:RFPP. Hopefully in lieu of issuing blocks on both sides, so that the edit warring will cease, and talk page discussions will result (something that may not happen if blocks are issued). - SudoGhost™ 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started a section on the Talk page called "IP's editing". Yes that may not be the best title, but I have my view of the situation. Hopefully others will comment. Page protection should help.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Note Page has been full protected. - SudoGhost™ 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the third time the page has been protected due to Fountainviewkid's blind reverting. It needs to stop so everyone can collaborate on improving the article. 184.158.78.248 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And this is your first edit to wikipedia apparently. Please explain. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 Weeks by DeltaQuad + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 21:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that everyone of these IPs who appear at Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, edit war, and then disappear, seem to have an editing pattern, temperament, and familiarity with policies uncannily reminiscent of a certain edit warrior recently gone inactive? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the case hasn't been presented in the right forum, yet. Since CheckUser is fairly useless, we need to request a "behavioral analysis" of all these experienced SPA IPs and our favorite "edit warrior recently gone inactive". The only person in the world who cares about this stuff as much as Fountainviewkid is BelloWello. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Avanu reported by User:Avanu (Result: Declined)

Page: Campaign for "santorum" neologism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nobody

Santorum article undergoing massive rewrite, requesting more lax edit rules temporarily

Comments:

Editor and administrator SarekOfVulcan earlier today dropped a congenial reminder on my page about the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article and how I had come up against the strictly interpreted 3RR rule. My request here is really just a pre-emptive request that admins look carefully at the tone of editing for the time being, more than the strict number of edits with regard to this specific article.

As reported in the Signpost, this article has gotten a massive amount of attention lately, and overall I would say that most of us are working to improve this article.

Edits per month to the noted article. A very clear spike is visible starting last month.

Simply going by a strict 3RR would most likely interfere with natural give and take and flow. Also most editors are frequently checking in at the Talk page and discussing edits in line with a vibrant Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. So all in all, I think we have a good flow going and I would hate to see it ruined by a zealous admin enforcing process for sake of process. To be clear, I'm not saying that edit warring be ignored, or that 3RR be ignored, just an understanding that LOTS of edits are occuring and people are moving forward and improving the article, and judicious enforcement will most likely work best for now. -- Avanu (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As nobody is being reported here, I think this might be more appropriate on the talk page. - SudoGhost™ 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Not a report. This kind of post belongs at WP:AN/WP:ANI. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks. Moved to Administrator's Noticeboard. Avanu (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kvvvvxvvvvv reported by User:Chimino (Result: No Violation)

Page: Speculation about Mona Lisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kvvvvxvvvvv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [366]

• 1st revert: [367]
• 2nd revert: [368]
• 3rd revert: [369]
• 4th revert: [370]
• 5th revert: [371]
• 6th revert: [372]
• 7th revert: [373]
• 8th revert: [374]
• 9th revert: [375]
• 10th revert: [376]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [377]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [378]

Comments:

This is an ongoing dispute regarding the so-called "Roni Kempler theory" introduced to the page by user Relpmek (Kempler spelled backwards) earlier in the year (see talk on article page). It now appears the above user (whose page has been marked sock account by another editor) is attempting to insert the same theory despite well-worn explanations by several editors, including myself, on the WP policy against original research. It seems we have all attempted various means to diplomatically resolve the dispute, but the user, under his various names (Szs567 is likely another via [379][380][381]), simply will not listen.--Chimino (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So the editor, under his/her multiple usernames, may add their OR ad infinum until their fingers curl up with paralysis with no recrimination?--Chimino (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, then this is the wrong forum to request administrative intervention. Please do so at WP:ANI instead. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks.--Chimino (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:S a narasimhan reported by User:Hari7478 (Result: Protected )

Page: Iyengar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: S a narasimhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: :[382][383]

• 1st revert: [384]
• 2nd revert: [385]
• 3rd revert: [386]
• 4th revert: [387]
• 5th revert: [388]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [389]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [390]

Comments:

The user had been engaged in edit wars and high levels of vandalism, by reverting other's contributions that are wells sourced. "user:s a narasimhan" removed highly authentic sources(Government publications, online books by famous University Publications, Online books of renowned neutral party authors, etc). Except his last edit , all other previous vandalising edits were unexplained. I havent mentioned his other vandalising edits. Please check his contributions. The user had always disapproved of the authenticity of "source materials", and had urged me to edit based on "What one holds to be true" , and had denied wiki' policy of "Verifiability, not truth". Accepting the user:s a narasimhan's request for discussion, i had discussed the issue in the talk page. But the user gave no repsonse, and continued with his vandalising edits. In his last vandalising edit here:[391], the user had contributed an untrue discriminatory information without any source. In one sentence he had mentioned "though they consider Ahobila mutt as inferior because Ahobila mutt incorporates lots of Tamil worship in its rituals." Saying that "one is superior/inferior to the other, and saying a language is inferior" is highly prohibited here, but the user had used such terms in his contributions. None of his contributions were sourced. However the info' he had provided is untrue because the geneteic tests were done on "Ahobila mutt" group, as the test was taken from "Kurnool district(incorporating ahobilam), and the individuals' genes were similar to punjabi aryans. He should be blocked. But he's getting away with vandalism, as he calls for discussion, in his revert comments, but fails to discuss anything in the talk. Although he calls for consensus, he continues to make vandalising edits, even before a discussion, and has not provided a valid discussion in the talk page. Check the article's talk. "User:s a narasimhan" has also repeatedly disapproved of wiki' policy Verifiability, not truth, inspite of the fact that i've adequately explained wiki's policies to him in the talk page. Check this message here, which he{sa narasimhan) posted on my talk page: [392]. He is consistently denying the authenticity of "Neutral party sources(online articles), and is repeatedly urging me to edit based on "observance & empathy". How could this be possible in wikipedia??. The user has clearly disobeyed and violated every basic policy of wikipedia editing, and should be blocked. Sometimes, he just does not choose the undo option, but changes the previous edit, by editing it manually. Please help. The user is also including polemics in main article, rather than in the talk page. Hari7478 (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop your forum shopping (your SPI case came back as unconnected) and follow the procedures of dispute resolution as I've mentioned to you on my talk page and on the article talk page. The page is protected, discuss on the talk page, WP:DRN or follow other processes at WP:DR. This has gone on for long enough. —SpacemanSpiff 09:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But the user i have reported had been removing source materials constantly, calling them "not reliable" , and had repeatedly committed vandalism , and for once, he had contributed a highly discrminitory information , as mentioned above. I've discussed it already. Most of his reverts were unexplained. But the user is repeatedly asking me to deny the authenticity of "source contents", and is asking me to edit based on empathy, i guess. How can a contribution like that be allowed here?? Expecting an appropriate result. Also, the spi case where the registered users were compared, was unconnected. But i'm sure the user had used anotgher(Ip), to win the edit war. But ips are not linked to names. Will certainly read the instructions from your talk page. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protected prior to report. —SpacemanSpiff 10:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Stho002 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result: 24 h)

Page: Four-dimensionalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stho002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:00, 23 June

• 1st revert: 01:12 (rv)
• 2nd revert:03:28 (rv)
• 3rd revert: 05:56 (rv)
• 4th revert: 08:33 (rv)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning on 00:47, June 21

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Article talk page (see Talk:Four-dimensionalism#EditWarring).

Comments:Stho002 has been editing tendentiously as the sole opponent of the consensus. He was given 3RR warning on 00:47, June 21 and reverted 5 more times directly thereafter. Please note, on his user talk, he admits that he reverts using his IP address, 130.216.201.45, so his edit history doesn't look bad. Please let me know if I copied any diffs wrong, (page hist). Thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69
User:Bretonbanquet reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: protected)

Page: AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [393]
• 2nd revert: [394]
• 3rd revert: [395]
• 4th revert: [396]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [397] and [398]

Mlpearc powwow 14:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Nobody has edited the article since the 3RR warnings above and nobody has broken the letter of 3RR, but all parties here are experienced enough that I expect that they are well aware of the edit warring policy. Please take a moment to re-read the policy regardless, and avoid future edit wars over minor issues of presentation on an FA. If matters are not resolved before protection expires in one week or if consensus is reached before then, please make a request at WP:RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Neither of us have breached 3RR, and I don't really see the helpfulness in someone warning me about 3RR on an issue where I have already notified the other user of 3RR and asked him to discuss the matter. Furthermore, there have been no edits to this article between Mlpearc issuing both of us with warnings, and this report being filed. I have reverted this guy 4 times in 4 days, and got warned about 3RR. Do me a favour.

Hoponpop69 made a change to the article which I disagreed with - on a specific point that had been stable for over 8 years - and I reverted him. He continued to revert back, at which point I left the article at his preferred version and started a discussion on his talk page and the article talk page, urging him to discuss the matter. A discussion took place involving other users, during which Hoponpop69 called me and other editors "foolish" [399], "dense" and "lacking in intellect" [400]. We ignored that, and the matter now seems to have been resolved, with another editor restoring the original version. Hoponpop69 meanwhile made another change to a different part of the same article, and I reverted him again. Some reverting went on between us and another editor as well, while I asked Hoponpop to discuss it. He seems to think that a change can be made to an article and then everyone else has to prove him wrong because as far as he's concerned, his edit was just common sense. It doesn't work like that. I continued to discuss on his talk page and he ignored it, reverting again, threatening to report me if I reverted him [401] So it's "I'm not discussing this - don't revert me or I'll report you". He also accused me of reverting every edit he makes, which is patently not true and an assumption of bad faith. That is unacceptable. Why do other editors have to start discussions every time Hoponpop69 wants to make a change that is contested? The onus is on him to justify his change, not on the rest of us to justify the status quo. Furthermore, why should I be obliged to leave the article at his preferred version (again) and start another discussion when he has openly admitted that he is refusing to discuss the problem? I would have reported him myself, but since he threatened me with further action, I thought I'd trigger that further action in order to bring about a resolution. Thus my final revert, and my first in 2 days. Before that could happen, Mlpearc got involved with templating experienced editors without bothering to actually check through the discussion and the whole history of the problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just drop it and move on ? I'm {{done}} Good luck. Mlpearc powwow 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So the guy who shouts the loudest, throws some insults around and bends the rules always wins? It's about a principle. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:Moni3 (Result: 24 h)

Page: Harvey Milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jimjilin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [402]
• 2nd revert: [403]
• 3rd revert: [404]
• 4th revert: [405]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [406]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [407]

Comments:

• Jimjilin is attempting, I believe, to insert an irrelevant fact that Milk's partner at this point of his life was 16 years old and therefore slanting information to make it seem as if Milk was a pedophile. The source used for this does state that McKinley was 16 at the time he met Milk, but that McKinley had left his home in Kentucky or Tennessee, where his family was very religious, and was seeking out gay relationships in New York. Within the pages Jimjiln has cited for McKinley's age is a thorough explanation that McKinley left his home because he was gay and that he had come to New York "to suck cocks". Seriously, that's the opening line of the chapter. Milk met McKinley when McKinley was already involved with Milk's friend and theater producer Tom O'Horgan.
• Harvey Milk is a Featured Article. No other partners Milk had have their ages included in the article because it's irrelevant. No reliable biography on Milk has ever suggested he was a pedophile, including the one cited by Jimjilin. I urged Jimjilin to start a talk page thread to discuss this if he thinks the issue has merit, and he did, but then inserted the information into the article again. Then accused me of censoring the truth. This smacks of POV and UNDUE. --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Although technically that would be wikt:pederast, not wikt:pedophile. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:DMSBel reported by User:NuclearWarfare (Result: 72h)

Page: Abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DMSBel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [408]
• 2nd revert: [409]
• 3rd revert: [410]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned after the second revert by myself and a another editor

Abortion is on 1RR. DMSBel is aware of this. The lead is in a very active state of discussion; nearly the entire talk page and much of a recent archive is dedicated to discussing this. He has edit warred multiple times regardless. There are other editors whose conduct might ought to be examined; see the article history. NW (Talk) 18:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation that DMSBel is aware of the 1RR restriction at that article (in addition to the edit notice). I have edited abortion-related articles, so I am leaving this open for someone else. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)