Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive180

User:24.68.229.154 reported by Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} (Result: declined)

User being reported: 24.68.229.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Page: Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

1. 00:48, 29 February 2012
2. 00:54, 29 February 2012
3. 01:04, 29 February 2012
4. 01:05, 29 February 2012
5. 01:12, 29 February 2012
6. 01:14, 29 February 2012
7. 01:22, 29 February 2012

Page: Marcus Luttrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

1. 00:47, 29 February 2012
2. 00:52, 29 February 2012
3. 00:56, 29 February 2012
4. 01:03, 29 February 2012
5. 01:12, 29 February 2012
6. 01:21, 29 February 2012

• Diff of warning: here

—Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. User now appears to be engaging in discussion rather than reverting, while s/he was not before. Report again if edit warring persists. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:95.144.200.80 reported by User:Krenair (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Ashley Blake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.144.200.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff
• 7th revert: diff - this is where the user claims to be the subject of the article.
• 8th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

I was not involved in this. I did not revert anything on the page or talk about it. This is my first time reporting an edit war so I hope I'm doing this right. Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. This is the way to handle it, so yes you're fine. Given that MikeWazowski was also reverting, I could also block him, but I don't think it's within the spirit of 3RR to block someone reverting an attempted whitewashing of an article, especially when the IP didn't identify as the subject until a little while ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Scouts Canada

Request impartial oversite on this site as risk of edit war developing relating to removal of sourced paragraph relation to child sexual abuse. I see the blanking as vandalism (as per repeated blanking of a certain section of the Robert Baden-Powell article), but if an admin considers otherwise could you let me know? Regards, DiverScout (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears this has been resolved and in no need of further attention. Thanks to both of the editors involved for responding in a civil manner. -- Tawker (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Liamfoley reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Abortion in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Liamfoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: n/a, abortion articles are under 1RR per ArbCom (user's previous reverts of the material, as self and as IP, are [4][5])
• 4th revert: n/a

Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1RR warning: [6][7][8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Liamfoley#Your recent edits, in which I try very hard to explain policy and am the target of repeated personal attacks for my efforts, followed by reiteration of same ideas here.

Comments:
I took the questioned source (questioned because the source is unreliable on its face and also because the cited survey never appears to have taken place) to RSN because the user refused to, and there has been no support for it there either. (Participation level has been less than ideal, but WP:BURDEN applies.)

(...Also, the first revert up there is actually a 1RR violation as well since it followed less than 24 hours after a previous revert, but I decided to revert it and warn the user against edit-warring in the future, rather than report him for it. This does not seem to have helped.)

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User:KIRILL95 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: protected)

Page: America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KIRILL95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

Adding info about Angelea's disqualification on the show, as cited, there are no reliable sources at the present and there are details in the article's talk page. ApprenticeFan ^work 17:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I second ApprenticeFan comments, KIRILL95 has repeatedly added her back in despite attempts to get him/her to discuss the matter at the talk page (see here and here) this is now reaching a disruptive level. Mtking ^(edits) 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by HJMitchell. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Reacespeaces reported by User:Bakkster Man (Result: blocked 24 hours)

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

Version before user added content: [15]

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Second version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:

Other users involved in attempting to resolve this edit include User:Gobonobo and User:Fang Aili

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Toddst1. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Turvill reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: protected )

Page: Jeffrey Epstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 16:49, 1 March 2012 (edit summary: "put references to the science section and added his financing of national magazines: NY Magazine and Radar. cited NY Times.")
2. 20:40, 1 March 2012 (edit summary: "WP: CITEWIKI accepted some of the last edits but reverted and changed others. An article has to stand on its own and not just revert to Wiki links. The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics is key for what is accomplished in the field quantive biology")
3. 20:48, 1 March 2012 (edit summary: "I removed money laundering in the lead because none of the references in the lead refer to money laundering. This is unacceptable blackwashing.")
4. 21:26, 1 March 2012 (edit summary: "Please cite the Wiki policy that states this. I am going to talk to Ianmacman and others and revert this article to the BLP Noticeboard. There is clearly a cabal of bias. It is not neutral.")

• Diff of warning: here

Note that the first edit here is a revert by virtue of mostly replicating this one from a couple of days ago.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by Fluffernutter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tiptoety ^talk 07:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 1 week)

Page: Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

The article is on a 1RR restriction. When you click the edit button right at top you get a message which states "WARNING: You are allowed to make only ONE (1) revert every 24 hours. Violators of this rule may be blocked." Lvivske is well aware of the rule (and I don't think he'd deny it) - he has warned other editors about it in the past, and has come close to running afoul of it on several occasions, recently and in the past.

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]

Additionally, Lvivske violated the 1RR restriction on February 27th:

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]

I have been mostly observing the article and discussing the main issues on the talk page (including trying to get the disagreeing parties to talk to each other) and noticed this, but in the interest of not inflaming the situation I let it slide at the time. Along the same lines, after Lvivske's 1RR violation today, I asked him to just self-revert it [30] hoping that this could be avoided. He has so far refused to do so and, well, from where I standing is playing at a bit of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32] [33] [34]... and others, basically the whole lower part of the discussion page.

Comments:

• After taking a voluntary 3 days off of the article in hopes that the talk page would be utilized and we could reach some sort of consensus, it didn't seem to be going that way so I took the initiative of making invisible the text (figures) under dispute until consensus could be reached. My summary explained that. I was reverted by Marek, so I then proceeded to be bold and adjust the numbers based on the talk page table, and subsequently add the proper references [along with some prose rejigging] to keep the lede neutral based on talk page discussion to that point. Marek The Volunteer wanted me to self revert, but I'm not entirely sure what he wanted me to revert to, because my edits weren't in the same to what he reverted.. One of the edits he wanted me to return was the line on figures including Vistula, which was part of what I was working on rephrasing so that it remained neutral. I asked him on my talk page what he had a problem with and was willing to dicuss...but apparently he'd rather go the bureaucratic route and hope I get blocked rather than hash things out in a sensible manner. I don't know what else to say abut this My post-revert edits weren't what he reverted and my conduct since the 1RR warning has been nothing but mindful of avoiding another edit war.--Львівське (говорити) 04:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the first revert, you're *changing* the numbers you don't like. In the second revert, you're *hiding* the same numbers you don't like behind the <- -> code. These are also the same issues which you were edit warring over on Feb 27th.VolunteerMarek 04:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In one I'm hiding it because it's under dispute and we have other figures on the talk page, in the other I re-adjust the lower bound and add a citation. If I put in the 50 with no source and you reverted me because it was unsourced, and I came back with a source to reinsert it, would that be breaking 1RR?--Львівське (говорити) 04:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 1RR applies regardless of what a particular side thinks of their "rightness" in a dispute.VolunteerMarek 05:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But I didn't revert you, per se, I edited off on a different tangent. If I went back to the well and re-hid the stuff then sure. But I didn't. And I re-added some stuff you said you wanted me to self-revert regardless. This is the wonderful back and forth of editing, no? Edit warring is if it's trying to revert to ones status quo, not trying to find solutions and compromise in how an edit should be done that is acceptable to both parties (hopefully).--Львівське (говорити) 05:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just dawned on me here ('doh) but I looked at the diffs...the first "revert" I'm being accused of was my first edit since the 27th (it happened on the 2nd). How can I start off with a revert? Wouldn't it be [my edit]/[marek's revert]/[my "revert"]? Putting us both at one (in a worst case scenario)? Who was I even reverting with my first diff?

Additionally, the "3rd revert" listed isn't even a revert. GlaubePL reverted my removal of a picture, so I added a verify tag and started a talk page discussion. --Львівське (говорити) 08:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:REVERT - you should know this by now.VolunteerMarek 08:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously." I neither undid nor restored a previous version of the article with that edit. This is just basic WP:CYCLE stuff, not the malicious conduct you're making it out to be..--Львівське (говорити) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching your debate, apologies for not inserting myself sooner. Since I suspect (hope) you would both consider me a friend to both Ukrainians and Poles with no historical internecine EE axe to grind, I'd be glad to read through on your disagreement on figures more closely and offer some suggestions on a more fruitful resolution. Let me know. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one week for 1RR violation. Previous block was for 72 hours. Any admin may lift this block if the user will agree to take a one-month break from editing the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this was a pretty poor block. I don't see more than one revert here. I see an attempt to find another solution. A revert is just undoing what the other person did. 1RR/3RR would not apply to these sorts of changes. I have no horse in the race cause I know diddly squat about this topic nor do I care one way or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Edit warring: 'A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.' The 1RR restriction on this article was discussed at WP:AN in 2009. In his 01:13 edit on March 2 Lvivske comments out the total casualty figures from the info box. In his 02:21 edit of March 2, he reduces a bunch of casualty numbers within the text. The number of casualties is a constant subject of dispute on this article, between editors who favor the Polish or Ukrainian sides. In my opinion, this interpretation of a 1RR restriction follows the expected policy and practice. Updates of the article that were merely style or wording improvements would not be counted as reverts, but changes in casualty numbers are part of the ongoing dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct but this wasn't reverting, the edits to me look like they were incorporating both sides opinion and in the one case removing the disputed information entirely until it can be agreed upon which again seems to me like another attempt at neutral ground as opposed to a revert to one "side" of the arguement. This does not appear to me to be a case of I don't like your version so I am reverting to mine. These edits were certainly not reverts. Definitely not to the level of a one week block. And looking at your link to the AN thread...a thread with a whopping 4 people in it not including yourself or Lviske that happened 3 years ago doesn't seem to have that strong a case either. It also points to you being involved in the situation which makes it look even worse. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.150.198 reported by User:Achowat (Result: duplicate report)

Page: Order of Saint Lazarus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.150.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Order of Saint Lazarus#User talk:89.100.150.198 - deleting references made by others

Comments: Far more than 4 Reverts, constant edit war (which should be handled at Talk but is currently being gone about in a half-hearted way). While patrolling Recent Changes, I came across this dispute (having no previous interest in French Orders of Chivalry). Seeing references removed, I used my WP:ROLLBACK priviledge. Not knowing of the ongoing content dispute, I can only offer a mea culpa in regards to that. Achowat (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked (see below). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:89.100.150.198 reported by User:Unokodak (Result: blocked one week)

Page: Order_of_Saint_Lazarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 89.100.150.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

(cur | prev) 20:47, March 2, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479862256 by Achowat (talk). Those still aren't reliable sources. Material without an RS may be removed per WP:OR.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 20:28, March 2, 2012‎ Achowat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479861173 by 89.100.150.198 (talk)Per talk, and reference) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:22, March 2, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479857896 by Achowat (talk). Rm unreliable sources.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 19:54, March 2, 2012‎ Achowat (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 89.100.150.198 (talk) to last version by Yopie) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:39, March 2, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479854891 by Yopie (talk). I already have.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 19:33, March 2, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 89.100.150.198 (talk): Use talk page. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:10, March 2, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479685554 by Unokodak (talk). France does not have a royal house.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 19:01, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (User talk:89.100.150.198 - stop your edit war on the article!) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:00, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479683907 by Unokodak (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:49, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (User talk:89.100.150.198 - stop your vandalism of the article!) (undo)

(cur | prev) 13:47, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479639568 by Unokodak (talk). There still isn't a royal house of france.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 13:12, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479575290 by 89.100.150.198 (talk) Please use the talk page instead of deleting in the article) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:35, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479570493 by Unokodak (talk). RV unexplained change) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 01:52, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479562559 by 89.100.150.198 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:51, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479562135 by Unokodak (talk). Rv unexplained change.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 00:47, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479560741 by 89.100.150.198 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:35, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479559687 by Yopie (talk). France still does not have a royal house. User editable websites are still not reliable sources. Not in other given ref.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 00:26, March 1, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 89.100.150.198 (talk): See reference. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:25, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479556754 by Yopie (talk). France still does not have a royal house. France is a republic.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 00:03, March 1, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (another reference) (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:39, February 29, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-173)‎ . . (user-editable websites are not reliable sources) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 23:27, February 29, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,672 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Recognition) (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:23, February 29, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,673 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Recognition) (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:12, February 29, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,671 bytes) (+101)‎ . . (reference for royal house of France) (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:38, February 29, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,570 bytes) (+71)‎ . . (Undid revision 479477469 by 89.100.150.198 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 15:43, February 29, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (Undid revision 479346646 by Yopie (talk). Orleans is not the royal house of france. France does not have a royal house.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:49, February 28, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,570 bytes) (+71)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 89.100.150.198 (talk): Pleae, read articles about Royal houses, France have Royal house, but is not kingdom.. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 15:50, February 28, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (Undid revision 479259750 by Yopie (talk). France still doesn't have a royal house.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:50, February 28, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,570 bytes) (+71)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 89.100.150.198 (talk): Rv POV. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:28, February 28, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (France has no royal house.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 22:29, February 27, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,570 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Recognition) (undo)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Order_of_Saint_Lazarus#User_talk:89.100.150.198_-_deleting_references_made_by_others

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Order_of_Saint_Lazarus#User_talk:89.100.150.198_-_deleting_references_made_by_others

Comments:

Best regards Unokodak (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week; longer block due to previous blocks for the same behavior; appears to be the same individual. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Bill.williamsfour reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: blocked )

Page: ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bill.williamsfour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41] (03:05, 3 March 2012‎)

• 1st revert: [42] (03:24, 3 March 2012)
• 2nd revert: [43] (03:58, 3 March 2012)
• 3rd revert: [44] (04:22, 3 March 2012)
• 4th revert: [45] (04:36, 3 March 2012)

Added after report was filed and user warned twice:

• 5th revert: [46] (05:59, 3 March 2012)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy#Partisan_and_No_Coverage_of_.22Unethical_Behavior.22

Comments:
From the user's talk page when approached about his recent edits:

Jime1138 I never said the articled was retracted. Please pay attention. The statement was retracted and quoting half of a retracted statement is misleading. Get a life because you are obviously enjoying having this terribly biased article out to mislead the public. Did you choose to suck at life or are you paid to do so? (Link)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 07:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Activist reported by User:Kelly (Result: blocked )

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

Previous version reverted to: [48]

• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 07:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Fama_Clamosa reported by User:Taylornate (Result: declinedboth blocked)

Page: Abductor pollicis longus muscle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fama_Clamosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]
• 4th revert: [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Also on user talk with no response: [62]

Comments:
This is not a 3RR violation, but intervention is clearly needed because Fama Clamosa explicitly refuses discussion[63][64]

About two months ago, I merged about ten articles into one. Fama Clamosa is now reverting my redirects. I initially forgot to redirect Abductor pollicis longus muscle and so I completed it recently. I think because of this he saw it as easier to attack, but he is now reverting redirects on nine articles (listed here), has even blanked the recipient article without stating a reason [65], and has falsely reported me for vandalism [66]. He has not posted any discussion with his latest round of reverts.--Taylornate (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How is that supposed to work if he refuses to communicate? Don't most edit wars involve a dispute of some kind? I'm confused.--Taylornate (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any refusal to discuss. I see two people vehemently disagreeing on the talk page (you pointing to what you claim is a consensus on another talk page, which does not appear to be strong consensus to me). Try WP:RFC first, or try WP:M if that fails; my guess is you two can come to an agreement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did dispute this with another user but Fama Clamosa explicitly refused to participate and he is the one reverting now. I thought I gave two diffs showing his refusal, but it looks like I made a mistake on one of them. Here they are again:[67][68]--Taylornate (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please open an RFC or try mediation. Your consensus is not as elusive as you might think: I see at least one other editor who has reverted you: User:Arcadian. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC and mediation are not applicable if both sides aren't willing to participate. Arcadian is refusing to discuss as well, even marking his reverts as minor, and Fama Clamosa is calling me a vandal in edit summaries. If this is not an edit war, what is?--Taylornate (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For quick context, see this. Taylornate is fighting three different editors here, and has already been instructed that he needs to review Wikipedia:Merging, both before he started this process and after. --Arcadian (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with Wikipedia:Merging, my merge was in-line with it, and I've referenced it multiple times in the course of discussion that you are ignoring. The only point relevant to this board is that the editors that disagree with my merge are reverting while refusing to discuss. I won't list here the editors that agree with me because it's irrelevant.--Taylornate (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not comfortable your above use of the word instructed. Do you feel you are in a position to issue instructions to me rather than discuss as a peer?--Taylornate (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fama Clamosa continues to revert[69] and continues to explicitly refuse discussion[70].--Taylornate (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please take a closer look at the history pages before re-reverting an admin. There is one user that is trying to redirect pages out of existence, and three users (including an admin) trying to stop the destruction of information by restoring the individual muscle pages. If Taylornate really wants to engage in a radical new approach to medical content, s/he would need to generate a far greater consensus before doing so. To the degree that a consensus exists, it is for the preservation of the anatomic content. --Arcadian (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Whether or not the merge should have taken place, and support for or against it, is irrelevant to this board. What is relevant is that even after a block Arcadian continues to revert, to mark the reverts as minor, to refuse to discuss, and believing that as an administrator he has special status in this dispute.--Taylornate (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • A few things to note here: 1) Revert warring isn't the proper answer in any case, 2) There is clearly no consensus for the merge - Taylornate is unfortunately just wrong about this - and I note he still hasn't filed an RFC or mediation case and 3) being an administrator doesn't give someone extra clout in a dispute, and using the automatic rollback tool to revert war while engaging in an absolute bare minimum of discussion is terribly unacceptable - unacceptable to the extent that if it continues, he will be on the hook for sanctions according to the last paragraph in the lede of WP:ROLLBACK (I don't say this to shame or threaten him, more as a genuine warning). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
        • RFC or mediation is obviously the next step, but the first step is getting the opposition to participate in discussion. If they refuse to communicate at all then RFC/mediation is pointless. Anyway, that's my interpretation of it. If you can point out specifically how it could be useful in this situation then I will file.--Taylornate (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Just do it. Just open up the RFC and inform them of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Ok, RFC is open.--Taylornate (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Breadbasket reported by User:Yopie (Result: Warned)

Page: Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Breadbasket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74]
• 5th revert:[75]
• 6th revert: [76]
• 7th revert: [77]
• 8th revert:[78]
• 9th revert: [79]

etc., this was only for last month.

Use Breadbasket is edit warrior in the article Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, and he reverted all reliable sourced criticism about duke. Alexander Montagu was convicted for fraud and bigamous marriage. This info is sourced by articles in The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Sydney Morning Herald, Houston Chronicle. OK, these newspapers were not scientific papers, but for informations about living people are sufficient.

Problem is, that any critical information about duke is reverted by Breadbasket, without discussion, explanation etc. I and other users tried to communicate with him, without success. Some diffs of attempts in talk page of the article [80], [81] and [82] - without any reply. And attempts in his page [83], he deleted this [84] and new message by other user [85], again without any reply.

I know, that he is not violating 3RR, but his behaviour is editwarring - reverts without explanation or discussion. We can have different opinions about the duke, but we cannot reach consensus without discussion.

Even in his talkpage was 'We do not wish to receive messages here.Same problem with him have Gareth E Kegg, Bridgetfox and Andy Dingley, so this is not only my personal problem.

Breadbasket was blocked for edit warring in same article [86].

There is other notice about edit warring of Breadbasket [87].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89], [90] and [91] - without any reply.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs) 12:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is also a discussion of Breadbasket's editing of this article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester. While Breadbasket has been known to fiercely denounce some of his opponents, he would get more credit if he would actually participate in the discussions of article content. He has been reverting the material he considers unsuitable from this article since September 2011 (which is when he was previously blocked) but he has never posted on the article's talk page. If he would show up to participate in the BLPN thread his BLP objections would be easier to take seriously. He used to edit as User:Aaemn784 but his account was renamed in December 2011.
• This article was placed under full protection for two weeks per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive177#User:Yopie reported by User:Breadbasket (Result: Page protected). In my opinion the admin who closes this case should take adequate steps to ensure that reverting doesn't continue for several more months. Helpful advice has not been working, the full protection didn't have any lasting benefit, and the previous 3RR block does not seem to have had any influence on Breadbasket. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

A quick comment: I am well aware of the 3RR, and I do not violate this rule in ordinary cases. However, the case above (Manchester) is special. When I again and again have reverted contributions and reversions in the duke's article, I have done it based on (my interpretation of) the BLP rules (i.e. that the 3RR does not apply to critical BLP issues), which say:

‘Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.’

I do not agree that I allegedly only wish positive content. The fact is that of the present contributors, I am probably the one who for the longest time has followed that article. I know and have seen things that the recently arrived contributors haven't. For example, when I discovered the article, there were absurd sentences like 'In 1992, when still married to X, he married, bigamously, Y'(!). If the article looks relatively clean now, it is not the others' merit, but mine. It was ten times worse than now.

As the history section's edit summaries show, I have several times requested a relevant context. This has not happened; instead, they have, despite the rules, reinserted the same, biassed/exaggerated content. One cannot just drop tabloid oneliners like that and as ‘documentation’ provide a link to the Daily Mail; such serious claims should be presented from at least two points of view (if available) and as soberly as possible. For example, has the duke commented on the bigamy? If yes, why do these contributors not include it in the article, thus making the presentation wider? The BLP rules state the difference between encyclopedic and tabloid:

‘Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.’

Conserning my nine(?) reverts above: I think that it is important to distinguish between good-faith reverts removing ‘potentially defamatory material about living persons’ (like mine) and reverts that obviously are purely non-corporating or destructive. I may agree that I early should have brought the whole case to the BLP noticeboard, but this article is not within my primary field of interest, so I don't want to engage myself too much in it, and a good, solid discussion would demand much more time than I have.

(P.S. Yopie is known at the Wikipedia King of Reverts. I also experience him as notoriously dishonest in his argumentation and his presentation of fact. I do not agree with his description above.)

Greetings,

 — Breadbasket 00:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If a 'good solid discussion would demand much more time than you have' it is surprising that you have time to continue reverting the article. You've been continuing a campaign of reverts for several months. (This issue was the reason for your block for edit warring back in September). It seems to be generally agreed that the statements about Montagu are true and well-sourced, and what remains is a question of relevance and how to word the article in the best way. Removal of true and well-sourced statements from a BLP is not an exception to 3RR. If you continue to revert without getting consensus for your changes you are risking a block. You still have made no comment in the BLPN discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait. The potentially defamatory material should never have be reinserted in unedited form in the first place. Even a high school pupil understands that serious cases need a neutral, many-aspected context. It is not a question whether the statements are ‘true and well-sourced’ (but ‘well-sourced’ may be discussed), but about how they are presented. Read also the following in the BLP rules:

‘Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.’

This is not a case about what I allegedly have done to make the article worse, but what other contributors have done to make it better,—and the answer is: nothing. They have not provided (Wikipedia requires this) a context that could make the presentation more balanced. They have not even attempted to see or to accept the several-times explained problems in the article. But why? A comment from one of the many revert-contributors might give an idea of their mentality and incentives: Thank you so much for reinstating the only interesting part of the Alexander Montagu article. I shall back you up if needs be. Keep up your great editing. Gareth E Kegg. Many of the contributors are simply non-encyclopedic.

Will an administrator please enter the discussion?

 — Breadbasket 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm an administrator. Admins are expected to decide at this noticeboard whether reverts are allowed under the WP:BLP policy, and your reverts are not. Your critical opinion of the other editors is not germane. It's your job to convince them, and you've made no effort to do do. You've never commented on the article talk page or at BLPN. If you continue to revert the article without getting consensus, you may be blocked by any admin. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I had intended to suggest that the case was ended by agreeing that I would stay away from further reverting, and the warning may well be considered as a such solution.

If I had time, I should have shown for example how, before the reverts escalated, BLP tags added by me systematically were removed. Also peerage-relevant information has been removed (I assume that his notability is based on the peerage), for example when I added that the duke also is the 16th Earl of Manchester.

The article is still not neutral. The responsibility lies on them who add content. They have several times been told that content must be (1) neutral and (2) placed in a descriptive context, but they have reinserted the content unedited. These two factors are basic in any serious encyclopedia. I also strongly doubt that the Daily Mail is a reliable source, and I have therefore, earlier, claimed that there should be at least one additional—and intellectually independent—source confirming a claim.

 — Breadbasket 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [92] (for 1st and 2nd revert), [93] (for 3rd, 4th and 5th reverts)

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert: [96]
• 4th revert: [97]
• 5th revert: [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Comments:
Editor raised the issue of Bangladesh Genocide on Pakistan's talk and while discussing he/she kept on undoing other editors edits related to this content dispute. He/She was warned by User:TopGun of the 3RR in the same discussion. --SMS ^Talk 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I've probably become too involved with JCAla to hand out any blocks or decline them at this point.
• Statement: The first revert isn't a revert at all, but simply an action (unless I'm wrong, but you haven't pointed to an old version reverted to). The second and third reverts were definitely inappropriate. The final one wasn't edit warring, rather just BRD (thus, assuming I'm wrong about the first revert, this was a technical 3RR violation but not a violation in spirit). Thus, IMO, only the second and third were inappropriate edits.
• Suggestion: I think JCAla and TopGun need to have an interaction ban as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a single revert and left a civil warning. He reverted 3 users. So don't start on me when ever someone becomes disruptive. This content was introduced inspite of 2 additional editors (+ those reverting) opposing the content on talk page. Not BRD, JCAla changed the content (that too actually knowing that there was no consensus since he had started a talk page discussion along with it). This is the revert to an old version to the first edit by the way [100]. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't starting on you at all - I was recommending an interaction ban, because I think you don't work with each other any better than you and Darkness shines do. What's your issue that you would respond so defensively? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Because me and JCAla can probably both show you diffs where we have simply agreed (even though he usually just opposes me). It's just that this article started facing this editwar right after I nominated for FAC. There have been some previous hindrance and socking to disrupt the FAC before its nomination too by another user. Your comment suggesting interaction ban implies that it is due to my involvement with JCAla which is not the case. To prevent any stereotyping I didn't file here for a 3RR violation instead told an involved user who did some rephrases to fix. Now another user (rightly) makes the report... that was due. I think that was enough to suggest collaboration on my part. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

1) About the supposed reverts, which were none. Also note that some of the above diffs used by User:Smsarmad have been manipulated to make it look like a general revert when it wasn't one.

• About the first diff: This is a single action, no revert at all.

• About the second diff: Compare this actual edit as of 07:51, 1 March 2012 to this the diff given by SMS. On content, someone opposed to simply use the wikilink Bangladesh Liberation War as it is and as I had suggested and he replaced it with "armed conflict". I did not revert back to "Bangladesh Liberation War" but instead made the suggestion to use "civil war" instead as it was indeed a civil war. So no revert here. This was the edit in which I added totally new content for the very first time! So no revert either.

• About the third diff: This is the one in which actually TG interacted with me as he had reverted my new additions. The diff provided by SMS is, however, again a manipulated one. Compare this actual edit as of 09:34, 1 March 2012 to the diff given by SMS. This was my actual reaction to TopGun's general revert. I restored the non-controversial content of my edit and left the rest to be discussed on the talk page. So, yes, this one was one partial revert. That's not an offense in any case.

• About the fourth diff: This was a single BRD objection to a single sentence of Regentspark's rephrasing - and in the course of that day he rephrased many sentence which I made no reverts to. Actually - BRD textbook style - we both discussed that very productively afterwards on the talk and he changed it taking my reasons into full account. And I let other things of him stand, that I didn't fully agree with. So that discussion is already solved.

=> All in all, i count 1 1/2 reverts, one partial revert restoring the non-controversial part of my edit as a reaction to a general revert of my whole edit by TopGun. And one rejection of one - out of many that day - rephrasing by RegentsPark which was very productively discussed afterwards and which has long been solved.

2) I don't think I need an interaction ban on anyone as I have dealt with everyone appropriately in the recent past. At the article history you can also see that, in fact, I was mostly interacting with User:RegentsPark, not with User:TopGun (only one interaction with him there). I, however, want to point out that I do not find this report anything close to appropriate for several reasons:

• I was not notified.
• This attempt came just hours before this report.
• This connection.

Thanks and yes, I am tired of this drama also. Regards, JCAla (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok! I admit my report was not that well written, I have amended it (Previous version). @JCAla Sorry for not informing you, I got disconnected (after filing the report) and was out of town for the last three days with no access to Wikipedia, so was not able to inform you. And I don't get what do you mean by other two of your concerns. I would like you to explain these more if you want my response on these. --SMS ^Talk 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, your current report makes even less sense than the previous one, and I currently do not have the time to again put all those manipulated diffs which try to paint a picture that doesn't exist into the right perspective. On March 1, the Pakistan article underwent a major rephrasing effort with regards to Bangladesh. There was a lot of editing, rephrasing and discussing and I mainly interacted with User:RegentsPark. We discussed very productively and since March 1, his version including some of my input stands. The issue has long been solved and the article is stable. I don't think anyone wants to hear my explaining of why I think this report was made by you. People can think for themselves given the links I provided above. JCAla (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not infer any "connection" from any userpage comments, infact you did show I was the one contacting RegentsPark who did the rephrase instead of actually reporting you to prevent such allegations. The edits in question here are solely your edits. The discussion did take place but you added the content clearly opposed in that discussion anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You being here, speaks for itself. RegentsPark came to that article before you went to his talk. Even Magog has stated the same opinion as me about two of the four manipulated diffs (of the original report version which were interestingly also used exactly the same way by you on Regents' talk). Leaves me with 1 1/2 actual reverts and Regents' version stands stable for 5 days now. I won't waste any further time on this. JCAla (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Liamfoley reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Abortion in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Liamfoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [[101]]
• 2nd revert: [[102]]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[103]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[104]] and [[105]]

Comments:

1rr applies on abortion-related articles. User was just blocked two days ago for editwarring on same article (same revert as now). User also seems to have created a sock-puppet and made a rv using that account: [[106]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Two clear reverts (continued from the previous edit war); editor clearly aware of the 1RR on the article, having been blocked for the same reason two days ago. Kuru (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Neogeolegend reported by User:Shrike (Result: 1 week)

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

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

• 1st revert: [107]
• 2nd revert: [108]
• 3rd revert: [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110],[111]

Comments:
.The article like all other WP:ARBPIA articles under 1RR rule.This user has broken it and refused to revert.They have history of edit waring.Should probably be warned about WP:ARBPIA sanctions too.--Shrike (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Clear violation; warned and given an opportunity to self-revert. Kuru (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Demdem reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: page protected)

Page: City-state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Demdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [112]

• 1st revert: [113]
• 2nd revert: [114]
• 3rd revert: [115]
• 4th revert: [116]

Comments:
This user delete fragment of article without consensus. In the description of the changes I exactly explained (3 times) to him - did not help. I am 100% sure that when I go back his edit, he reverted me, again. He does not respect the rules of 3RR, again. Recidivism. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected I would consider this a clear continuation of the edit war that took place in 2010. As there are two parties in violation, I've protected the page for three days to encourage you to finish the discussion on the article's talk page. Further blind reverts or accusations of "vandalism" after the protection expires will likely lead to blocks. Kuru (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Yogesh Khandke reported by User:14.99.234.43 (Result: Stale)

Page: Charles Dickens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]
• 5th revert: [121]

There is a discussion going on the talk page with five-six users involved. All others except this user have agreed that the content is undue and doesnt belong in the article. But he is refusing to listen and is repeatedly inserting the content even after five/six people are reverting him. There is a long discussion in the talk page spanning multiple sections. He is doing it despite the consensus there. He is being careful to avoid the 3RR/24 hour limit, (reverts about once a day) but is continuously edit warring for a few weeks now. A look at his talk page reveals severe POV issues and he has been reported to ANI before. He is also currently edit warring in other articles.--14.99.234.43 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Stale. Should the edit war start again, please do feel free to re-report. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Hibrido Mutante reported by User:Maunus (Result: 31 hours)

Page: John Searle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hibrido Mutante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [122] (not logged in)
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [125] (not logged in)
• 5th revert: [126] (not logged in)
• 6th revert: [127]
• 8th revert [128]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

Comments:
This is a new and potentially valuable contributor who just needs and administratopr to explain to him how we work by consensus and how we decide what goes into articles and what doesn't. Basically I am not asking for any sanction, just that someone reverts and explains him not to editwar when there is no consensus to include.

Update: He is arguing on talkpage but incoherently, and without responding to concerns expressed by three other editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: This notice board isn't worth much...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:OwenReeceBaines reported by User:NatGertler (Result: 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [130]

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

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

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

Comments: No talk discussion needed because user has been warned on talk page about the specific action (deleting AfD notices). User talk:OwenReeceBaines#AFD_template Removal of AfD templates is generally not a topic for article talk pages, but for user pages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tom Morris Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Rjpsingh reported by User:Sitush (Result: A day)

Page: House of Tulsipur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rjpsingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [135]

• 1st revert: [136]
• 2nd revert: [137]
• 3rd revert: [138]
• 4th revert: [139]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: from here onwards on the user talk page, and subsequently (but after their last revert) on mine. The last edit summary above confirms that they edited while logged out, and their entire user talk page has numerous notes regarding this article. I also did put stuff on the article talk page and think that the respondent is the same person, again editing while logged out.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of A day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Lazyfoxx reported by User:Shrike (Result: 31 hours)

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

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

• 1st revert: [141]
• 2nd revert: [142]
• 3rd revert: [143]
• 4th revert: [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff].There are currently discussion goes on article talk page.Talk:Jesus#Jesus:_A_Palestinian_Jew

Comments:
The user tries to add the word Palestinian and edit waring in other articles too [146],[147].In my opinion he use it as WP:COATRACK to his views about I/P conflict.--Shrike (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I would normally block 24 hours for a first time, but Lazyfoxx's edit warring is particularly toxic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it particularly toxic? S/he's engaged in talk throughout and presented reliable sources for the changes being made. And are all the diffs listed revert or attempts to include compromise formulations. Is it the content you find to be problematic? Tiamut^talk

The second edit cited as a "revert" here isn't one and was described by one of the editors vehemently opposed to adding "Palestinian" as a good move. Please note that Shrike hasn't attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page at all and instead chose to run over here to file a report. I see two reverts above, not four. The sanction is pure overkill. Tiamut^talk 20:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Further discussion has moved to User talk:Lazyfoxx. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:LucMar reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: Protected)

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

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

• 1st revert: [148]
• 2nd revert: [149]
• 3rd revert: [150]
• 4th revert: [151]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]

Comments:User has been warned, I have used the talk page, etc. I'm passing the ball down to your side of the field now. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days. That way everyone will be forced to discuss. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Blade.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

• 1st revert: [155] 22:10, 4 March 2012 (Deleted Controversial Claim)
• 2nd revert: [156] 23:39, 4 March 2012 (Undid revision 480228718 by The Four Deuces (talk))
• 3rd revert: [157] 00:11, 5 March 2012 (What do you mean "Restoring Talk Page Wording"???)
• 4th revert: [158] 16:13, 5 March 2012
• 5th revert: [159] 18:55, 5 March 2012 (Slimmed it down further for you)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160] 01:51, 5 March 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161] 01:47, 5 March 2012

Comments:

I filed a report on this editor for edit-warring on the same article on February 1st. However the report was archived before any action was taken.[162] TFD (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Have added a 5th revert made after this report was filed. TFD (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Five reverts (material beginning with "generally...") in 24 hours; clearly warned. Kuru (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Martinh1985 and User:78.24.20.115 reported by User:Nuno93 (Result: page protected)

Page: Estadio Centenario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinh1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
78.24.20.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

• 1st revert: [164]
• 2nd revert: [165]
• 3rd revert: [166] (IP user)
• 4th revert: [167] (IP user)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168] and [169] for IP user (link to talk page, first edition in it).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [170] (on an old discussion page, Martinh1985 started it there)

Comments:
There was a discussion recently on the spanish wiki which resulted in removing the "tenants" part of the infobox and making a more precise description of the matter with a text in the article.--Nuno93 (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected Protected the page to encourage the discussion; the last edit looked like a good attempt at compromise, but the previous reverting back and forth did not appear productive. Kuru (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:68.198.104.107 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: Article semi-protected)

Page: American Third Position Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 68.198.104.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 16:34, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "Whitewash? You editors clearly have an agenda against A3P. More and more Wikipedia loses credibility.")
2. 20:29, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted back to proper information; undo Wikipedia editor bias.")
3. 06:23, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Nowhere on A3P's website do we describe ourselves as supremacists, though we call ourselves, and are, white nationalists. To continue with the white supremacist argument, considering the biased sources explained away in the talk pages, is WRONG.")
4. 06:24, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480451438 by ClueBot NG (talk)")
5. 06:35, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Seems only anti-whites have a right to write descriptions of pro-white organizations on Wikipedia. Anyone who doesn't agree with this is "vandalizing" and "IP warring".")

• Diff of warning: here

—Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This is only one of several IP address used in a declared edit-warring campaign [[171]]. Other address used include:

50.29.12.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

83.177.80.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

50.29.9.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

50.29.18.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These edits are being discussed on the white-supremacist site stormfront.org: [[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t870653/]]. Page protection has ben requested. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of a fortnight. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:114.229.252.184 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: 31 hours)

Page: List of tallest buildings in the world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 114.229.252.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [172]
• 2nd revert: [173]
• 3rd revert: [174]
• 4th revert: [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [176]

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

Comments:

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Deryck Chan Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:U5ard reported by User:DVdm (Result: A day)

Page: Gravitational potential (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U5ard (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]
• 5th revert: [182] - this time without the source, which was unreliable in the first place.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184] and [185]

Comments:

DVdm (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Shiatsushi reported by User:IRWolfie- (Result: Indef)

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

Original article version, Shiatsushi added dubius material to the article most which were reverted: [186]

• 5th revert: [187]
• 4th revert: [188]
• 3rd revert: [189]
• 2nd revert: [190]
• 1st revert: [191]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]

Comments:
It's a recent SPA account.

• I don't see an editor here who's interested in helping write neutral, verifiable articles. Indefinite here means until this user shows they either understand MEDRS or agree not to edit in that topic area; I won't hold my breath. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jersey emt reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [194]

• 1st revert: [195]
• 2nd revert: [196]
• 3rd revert: [197]
• 4th revert: [198]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199] User warned me as well in an edit summary "One more time and you are in violation of WP:3RR" but it was the editor's fourth edit within 24 hours at that point. Editor is aware of 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [200]

Comments:
At first this was an issue about whether one source was reliable. Then, after I balanced the claims, the editor removed the entire section with only a warning and no discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four clear reverts; aware of 3RR. Kuru (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Aravis195 reported by User:Evanh2008 (Result: page protected)

Page: Dolphin drive hunting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aravis195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [201], basically

• 1st revert: [202]
• 2nd revert: [203]
• 3rd revert: [204]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [205]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page on the user's talk page (I hope that's acceptable): [206]

Comments:
I seriously hope that I haven't committed any misconduct during this whole mess. If I have, I accept full responsibility and will accept whatever corrective actions that are deemed necessary. In addition to addressing the user directly at his/her talk page, I also made an attempt to work this out out WP:AN/I, to no avail. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Page was protected by another admin. Kuru (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:67.59.28.19 reported by User:Taylornate (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Nursing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.59.28.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [207]

• 1st revert: [208]
• 2nd revert: [209]
• 3rd revert: [210]
• 4th revert: [211]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [212] I freshly added the 3RR warning, but see 4 related previous warnings.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See multiple warnings on user talk page.

Comments:
This IP is pushing an anti-nursing POV at Nursing, Anesthesiologist, and Nurse anesthetist.--Taylornate (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked The warning we're looking for here is the edit warring/3RR warning to make them aware of the policy; you've correctly added that one, but I don't see any reverts after it. If he makes another problematic edit, re-open this request. Kuru (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Another round of problematic edits without discussion after the March 6 warning[213].--Taylornate (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I've blocked for 24 hours. Kuru (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:69.47.229.136 reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Stale)

At least 5 reverts on the Bob Uecker article in the last couple of hours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stale Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Festermunk reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: A day)

Page: Jeremy Lin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 00:06, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "removed quotes, explanations on the talk page")
2. 02:17, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "WP:BURDEN falls on you; also I've explained why I made the changes but i see you haven't made any comments on them.")
3. 02:46, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Stop removing the edits. If you're going to do it, at least explain WHY you're doing them on the talk page!")
4. 03:12, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Chris, STOP doing this. WP:BURDEN falls on you I've pointed this out many times. It has nothing to do with my ownership of this site")
5. 15:14, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "WP:BURDEN falls on you so please STOP with the reverts. Also, you've yet to explain why you've made the reverts on talk")
6. 15:37, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted vandalism, user Mubogshu made no attempt to discuss the reverts on talk page")
7. 16:20, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Wikipedia:Vandalism:Reverted vandalism user made no attempt to explain on talk page his/her changes to the article")
8. 16:39, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted Vandalism no attempt by the user to discuss his/her changes on the talk page")

• Diff of warning: here
• Relevant talk page discussion section: Talk:Jeremy Lin#Quotes

Please note that this behavior dates back into February. —– Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the edits were all made in accordance with Wikipedia policies and given full explanation on the talk page. I understand that the edits I've made are plentiful, but all of them were made after having given extensive consideration to not only its merits but the merits of the opposing arguments on the Jeremy Lin talkpage. As for the last edit by Mubogshu, here is an edit by the user here attempting to justify his violation of WP:REVEXP by arguing that reverts to edit wars are justified (in violation of the normal procedures of dispute resolution.Festermunk (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrators reviewing this case may also wish to take note of the fact that, following the normal procedures of dispute resolution, I've taken this dispute to the dispute resolutio noticeboard.Festermunk (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You violated 3RR. It's that simple. The content removal is secondary at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are what's known as 3RR exemptions, which is why my removal of your posts (vandalism) is relevant. It's that simple indeed.Festermunk (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The exemptions include undoing page blanking without a reason, which is exactly what you were doing. Your edit warring does not satisfy any legitimate exemption. You didn't get the consensus you wanted, so you went against it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what the (heck) you're grasping onto. If you go through the talk page, you'll see exactly the reasons I've given for deleting the quotes. I can't help the fact that you haven't even looked at the talk page for Jeremy Lin, but I'd advise you to have a look there first. Festermunk (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:67.84.159.1 reported by User:N-HH (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Bee Thousand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.84.159.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [214]
• 2nd revert: [215]
• 3rd revert: [216]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [217]

Comments: The IP user has repeatedly reinserted a unreferenced, unattributed POV piece of commentary about the release being a "landmark album of the 90s". They're not yet over full 3RR for this 24 hours (their first addition of the sentence was a few days ago now) but they are blindly edit-warring as well as refusing to offer any justification, when that burden clearly lies on them. Only discussion has been through edit summaries and user's talk page so far, including urging IP editor to go to talk. All without response - IP user leaves blank edit summaries; has not responded on their own talk page to welcome & warning; and has not opened any talk page thread. I'm bringing it here rather than carrying on that edit war. N-HH talk/edits 18:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected, or rather semi-protected, for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, OK, thanks ... but the morale here seems to be: edit war a rather blatant piece of unsourced POV into a page and you can not only avoid having any action being taken against you but you end up with the page protected with your piece of nonsense included. As a registered editor with an account, it looks as if I can still take their sentence out. But my whole point was to get someone to explain the rules to the IP editor, and improve the content of the article, but for me to avoid edit warring myself over it. N-HH talk/edits 21:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it seems to be only an issue with anonymous editors, and playing whack-a-mole gets very tiring, I'm trying to force some discussion. If you or another editor removed it one more time, I wouldn't block you or take any action against you. If it flares up again, I have no problem blocking people, but I'm trying to avoid that if I can. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it out again and see where we are in a week. I have now started a formal talk page thread as well (about the lead as a whole, which has other problems besides). I appreciate dealing with this kind of thing can be difficult .. and btw when I refer to "action", I'm thinking less of blocks or whatever than of a third party maybe pointing out to the IP editor rules on a) sourcing content/POV and b) edit warring (they may know them already of course, but let's AGF). That way they can no longer frame it as a one-on-one battle about a specific sentence and see it more from the point of view of policy and principle. If they then persist, it's clear they're not interested in good faith involvement or engagement here. N-HH talk/edits 15:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 1 week)

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [218]

• 1st revert: [219] 05:22, 7 March 2012 (Absolutely no justification for removing the bias tag.)
• 2nd revert: [220] 18:50, 7 March 2012
• 3rd revert: [221] 20:45, 7 March 2012 (It is false to say that ALL on the Right support traditional hierarchy - How many times does this have to be pointed out?)
• 4th revert: [222] 21:50, 7 March 2012 (To be on the "Right" can also mean Classical Liberal)

Comments:
This editor just came off a twenty-four hour block for edit-warring on this article - the discussion appears above on this noticeboard.[223] Some of these new edits were made using a dynamic IP, but it is clearly the same editor. Note that the article is currently protected due to edit-warring. TFD (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Normally I'd escalate to 48 or 72 hours, but the use of dynamic IPs to try to evade scrutiny doesn't sit well with me. I considered an indef, but I'll try this first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikiwriter786 reported by User:Secret of success (Result: No violation)

Page: Ek Tha Tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiwriter786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [224]

• 1st revert: [225]
• 2nd revert: [226]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments: I am at 2RR, and I have warned the user in his/her talk page, but at present, if I revert, I'll break the 3RR and if I don't, the wrong version with image spam will stay. X.One ^SOS 09:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Note - I used the rollback tool for one revert because I believe adding multiple spam images is considered vandalism. If I was wrong, please accept my apologies. Regards. X.One ^SOS 09:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• No violation — Nobody broke 3RR, but this is a slow-moving war in which neither you or the other party has made any effort at communication. Please use the talk page to get agreement on what images should be in the article. The two images may not be essential but one of them (the one with two men) could have some value in the article, since it pictures the director and it shows the filming venue. You should discus the merits of these images with the others.

• User:Secret of success, please fix your WP:SIGNATURE so that it resembles your user name. If you prefer User:X.One as a user name you can ask to be renamed at WP:CHU/S. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Machine Elf 1735 reported by User:Chealer (Result: Both warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page: Naturalism (philosophy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Machine Elf 1735 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 04:37, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "partial rv of Chealer It totally seems trivial don't it? I did the exact same thing at MN. From Danto's definition: “naturalism is polemically defined as repudiating the view that there exists or could exist”…")
2. 16:03, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480333880 by Chealer (talk) obviously no legal context intended, this isn't going change based on your say so, I suggest you find several WP:RS and take it to the talk page")
3. 16:05, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480331154 by Chealer (talk) that turns the sentence pink, use a normal cn like everyone else")
4. 02:11, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "It's called MOS and it's a guideline, follow it and once again, use cn tags like everyone else (on statements that need them, that is)")

Subsequent:

1. 22:52, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480540613 by Chealer (talk) References are right here in the article and you provided two on the talk page. The template is for multiple sentences. Dpm")
2. 02:35, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv obvious Why would an WP:RS inject M&M? / irrelevant: Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning; editor is aware of 3RR and has requested to stay away from "his" talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No single dispute - general dislike for change and perhaps some feeling of WP:OWNERSHIP

Comments:
These reversions just culminated with the revert directly above, citing as only [intelligible] justification "obvious". The editor behaved similarly on Materialism and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (the latter constituting another official instance of edit warring).

Materialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. 02:21, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv retaliation… those are called quotation marks")
2. 20:01, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv Chealer, as you've obviously seen, Antoni Barau dropped one of the outer quotation marks and fiddled with the wording, thrilling as your dramz are, admit your mistake and quit reverting your ridiculous retaliatory banner pointing at *my* edit")
3. 02:51, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480721639 by Chealer (talk) rv #3 absurd accusation of "close paraphrasing" a direct quotation")
4. 19:04, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "the only purpose of these edits is to provide an excuse for the user's tendentious abuse of "close paraphrasing"")
5. 19:27, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480878478 by Chealer (talk) lame excuse about space before ellipsis in order to alter the quotation marks")

Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. 02:24, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480353692 by Chealer (talk) quit abusing this template")
2. 03:15, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Avoiding */ rv uninviting § title back to “When is close paraphrase permitted?”")
3. 03:25, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "opps… s/b “How to write acceptable content” even better")
4. 03:34, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Addressing */ restrore “important”")
5. 03:36, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Addressing */ or undo move rather (see prev)")
6. 03:49, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Milder problems */ rv seems to make casual/specious accusations more plausible")
7. 03:55, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Milder problems */ rv same / unequivocal close paraphrasing is called copying")
8. 04:14, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Milder problems */ rv again the option implied by bracketing makes casual/specious accusation more plausible, better to just fix a sole example of a “mild problem” (a matter of opinion)")
9. 22:45, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480543328 by Chealer (talk) no, not erroneous, the important advice should go first, not last")
10. 22:49, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "no it's not about communication, it's about making things optional that you would have been well advised not to consider optional")
11. 02:55, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480724570 by Chealer (talk) per talk")

All of this happened in the last days, but from looking at the editor's talk page, this behavior doesn't seem to be new. I have unsuccessfully pointed the editor to Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary.

[227] suggests some WP:OWNERSHIP.

Update: Wikipedia_talk:Revert_only_when_necessary#Rejected_attempt_to_alter_this_advice very much suggests the same (yes, this has even spread to Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary now). --Chealer (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chealer (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Documenting Chealer's attempts to unjustifiably excuse his abuse of a close paraphrasing banner for a direct quotation at Materialism. As a direct quote should be exact, it's self-evidently absurd to call it a close paraphrasing problem. In no way do Chealer's new “issues” justify tendentiously reverting it.

• WP:ATTRIBUTION was provided by the reference directly following the closing outer quotation mark. I simply used the preexisting reference. WP cites the SEP quite often, and while the standard SEP citation template is seldom found, I've used it to replace Chealer's peculiar and egregiously pedantic “completion” of the url.
• WP:INTEXT: With the edit summary “Fix attribution of SEP quote”, Chealer merely added: “as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states,” which did nothing to fix his prolix attribution, (see previous). In-text attribution is not a requirement for quotation marks, but if it weren't so awkwardly near the start of the article, I'd prefer to mention the author's name, as well as the author whom he was quoting.
• Wikipedia:MOS#Block quotations: “Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation…” It's 50 words, but not more than a few hundred characters.

Chealer refuses to acknowledge the absurdity of insisting that a cited direct quote is close paraphrasing. As opposed to fixing a perceived problem, I appear to be the second editor he's used that banner to harass in connection with naturalism/creationism/intelligent design. After all, his cognitive faculties were adequate to realize the close paraphrasing guideline had to be slackened in order to accommodate it's use when there's only one “example”, when multiple editors have contributed, and when it doesn't even seem very much like close paraphrasing. His response to my rejection of those changes was likewise tendentious, reverting and alluding to how my changes were thereby fixed. Furthermore, after altering the quotation marks used, he made a convoluted inquiry at MOS and attempted to alter the advice given on Reverting only when necessary.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the culmination above: I provided the citation for the single sentence that Chealer had been requesting with cn-span, (copied, in full, in my edit summary). Apparently, he considered the Catholic Encyclopedia to be a dubious source regarding philosophy. However, it's inappropriate to use the dubious tag to flag a source for that purpose. It is, in fact, quite obvious that he can't expect any and all WP:RS to discuss some aspect of naturalism by drawing a distinction between metaphysical and methodological: neither the sentence, nor the paragraph, mention either of them! This is indicative of a superficial WP:NPOV concern raised by the user's edit history and stated intentions. The metaphysical naturalism merge suggestion, however, flies in the face of advocating science literacy. It's not clear whether that's due to his admitted lack of familiarity with the literature. Eugenie C. Scott belabors the point that metaphysical and methodological naturalism are distinct, for example: [228]. Therefore, why propose that metaphysical naturalism should be merged to methodological naturalism, (that is, to naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism the misguided merge recipient of that infamous term)? Clearly all 3 could stand on their own, and in terms of science literacy, the proposed merge is strongly contraindicated by Scott.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not WP:OWN… he's not receptive to basic information, despite only having just introduced himself to the subject, presently. As I mentioned, he tried to redefine the advice at “reverting only when necessary”, just prior giving it hypocritically, his modus operandi.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, those were 3 non-consecutive reverts, including the partial and the first ‘subsequent’, itself consecutive with providing the requested citation, (apparently not what he wanted out of the pink cn-span). Regarding Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, the one supposedly “constituting another official instance of edit warring” was 3 non-consecutive edits on March sixth, (only 2 separated by Chealer's, FWIW). If an “official” 3RR violation is what he's alluding to, he forgot to redefine it that way.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. I left messages on the talk pages of both editors. If this dispute continues it is not likely to end well. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry but could you clarify what warning was issued? I see a message, but the only thing that could be considered a warning that I see is a possible block ("you've engaged in personal attacks on your own talk page ('stay off my talk page asshole') and depending on which admin closes the report you are risking a block on those grounds"). However, you just closed this report without actually blocking... Thanks --Chealer (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment was: 'If this dispute continues it is not likely to end well'. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. If reverts continue at the various pages before any talk consensus is reached, the next admin may not be sympathetic. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

But his reverts have continued, contrary to talk page consensus. Both of his 3RR accusations were specious, and his underhanded attempt to modify evidence was not the first time I had to tell him to stay off my talk page. Despite going out of his way to repeat that mild profanity here, after the case was closed, the ambivalence is surprising as I didn't get the impression you were sympathetic either way. Now indeed, it ends badly.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So you "warned" the editor that if he continues the dispute, it is not likely to end well. I find the consequences warned against pretty vague, but well, I guess this can be considered as a warning in a sense. Thanks --Chealer (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, you don't understand "warned" but what part of "both" don't you understand? (rhetorical question)—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jmj713 reported by User:RexxS (Result: no blocks)

Page: Template:Washington Capitals seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmj713 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [229]

• 1st revert: [230]
• 2nd revert: [231]
• 3rd revert: [232]
• 4th revert: [233]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [234]

Attempt to resolve dispute on project talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive51#Accessibility

Comments:

The editor even when provided with our accessibility guidelines by multiple other editors is edit-warring to force non-accessible versions of templates, simply on the grounds that he does not like the look of the accessible versions. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You realize that warning was after his last edit right? And that that the attempt to solve the situation is on-going? I think all of you should be admonished for edit warring including Jmj. However, per WP:BRD he should never have been reverted after he objected to the bold change. Nevermind each of you continuing to revert without any attempt to discuss. -DJSasso (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing bold about it; HLIST is widely used: User:WOSlinker/wrapping and was mentioned in the signpost:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report#Horizontal lists have got class

Alarbus (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Every edit is a bold edit. -DJSasso (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This, frankly, is a small group of editors with a major battlground mentality trying to force their viewpoints onto people without even showing the slightest pretense respect to the editors they are impacting. There is no edit warring going on here, but but rather an embarrassing case of trying to win a "war" that features a great deal of canvassing already. This is about as bad faith as you can get. Resolute 02:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you strike that; that's a personal attack (and, at best, a totally groundless accusation). What we have is a group of editors attempting to make template lists (like the one at the centre of this dispute) useful to readers with vision problems, and they're being reverted because of a personal preference over aesthetics. And they are the ones with the battelground mentality? I think not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was similarly attacked on my talk page. Alarbus (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read Alarbus's edit summaries of "we will prevail". I mean if that isn't battleground mentality when everyone else is asking them to discuss and come to a mutually agreeable solution then I don't know what is. -DJSasso (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me; the edit summary was "Accessibility: will prevail here". That's the goal:

• wmf:Resolution:Openness
• “We urge the Wikimedia community to promote openness and collaboration, by”
  • “Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that improve usability and accessibility”

Alarbus (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry "will prevail here" the accessibility is just the section title. So still means the same thing and still shows the same battleground mentality. -DJSasso (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the section title; my intent was the whole piece; that “accessibility will prevail here”. What part of AGF don't you get? Alarbus (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read AGF it says you aren't expected to blindly follow it when there is evidence that the user is not acting in good faith, which by this point you have very clearly shown you are not. -DJSasso (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's appalling bad faith for an administrator to be displaying. Cite some evidence of bad faith or revert your personal attack. Alarbus (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say something similar. I fact, I was even about to use the word "appalling", because that's a shocking thing to say about an established contributor trying to make genuine improvements. Do you have any grounds to believe that his explanation is the lie you so rapidly dismissed it as? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to where I said it was a lie please? -DJSasso (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well a perfect example is your continued use of the edit summary even after it was pointed out by a couple editors that it is inflammatory or at the very least could be viewed as such. That to me shows a clear intent to provoke and thus act in bad faith. -DJSasso (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I explained that edit summary, and stand by it; it's been repeated because my browser remembers it and kindly offers its reuse. That the admins of WikiProject Ice Hockey are out in full force defending the local consensus/poor practises and don't care for my view that accessibility should prevail over them isn't going to change my choice of edit summaries. It's not like I've attacked you, although I do find this all conduct unbecoming an admin. And didn't you revert on top of Jmj713's four? Way to edit war, dude, kinda like a power play in hockey. Alarbus (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Because your browser remembers doesn't forgive your use of it when you know it is inflamitory, the first use fine I have no reason to doubt you meant it that way if you say you did. It is the continued use of it that clearly shows bad faith. The best part about your comment is that no one has disagreed that accessibility should be looked at. Every single one of us has agreed it should be. What we have asked is that we discuss the best way to achieve that and to discuss how to do it before blindly jumping in. The constant bringing up my being an admin is a form of attack. My being admin makes me no different than any other editor. You are actually the one who edit warred by making a change you knew was already objected to. I was just reverting back to the original as per WP:BRD which you so clearly ignored. -DJSasso (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm free to use that as an edit summary. Your calling it inflammatory does not make it inappropriate nor does my continued use of it constitute bad faith. You should retract, methinks. Your conduct here erodes what little respect admins get around here. People expect better from admins. Alarbus (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are free to use it. But your using it after it being objected to does make it inappropriate and does show you are editing disruptively and are acting in bad faith. But of course you will just continue your little "war" as you have done all night instead of work collaboratively. -DJSasso (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please retract your personal attacks and assume good faith. Alarbus (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to retract yours. You are well past the point of assuming good faith while you keep attacking me. -DJSasso (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You really have no business being an admin. Alarbus (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I work on a self-imposed 1RR and find that discussion is always preferable to reverting. I have not warned Jmj713 about his behaviour; it's not my place to do so. I have however asked him to self revert as he has reverted four times and that crosses a "bright line". I would not like to see him blocked, as that would not be preventative, but I would like him to acknowledge that four reverts in a short time against two other editors is unacceptable. Djsasso, I believe that you are encouraging Jmj in his actions, while as an admin, you should be bound to advise him against them. I reject the imputation of bad faith on my behalf, and I am disappointed that an attempt is being made to deflect this report from its purpose: that of reducing the edit-warring on that template. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see this as an attempt to reduce the edit-warring on the template which had already long stopped by time you made this report. Instead I see it as an attempt to silence your "opponent" which I think is in very poor taste when a discussion was already ongoing and the user had already stopped. -DJSasso (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I really do despair when I see you describing Jmj as my "opponent". What is going on in your head? because it bears no resemblance to how I see this issue. You yourself reverted the template to a non-accessible state half an hour after I made this report. My involvement on this page is solely for the purpose of reducing the edit-warring, and I really think you'd be better to join me in that goal, rather than exacerbating the problem. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is in quotes because it is not me describing him as such, but rather me describing how it looks like you are treating him as such. As for my revert, yes I did. I put it back in the original state as it should have been after the original WP:BRD so that the discussion could finish. -DJSasso (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean "how it looks" to you? I really don't wish to be rude here, but can't you see the problem? You are the one viewing this as a battle, not me. I do understand why you reverted – though I think it was inadvisable – but it does make a bit of a nonsense of your claim that "the edit-warring on the template [which] had already long stopped by time you made this report", doesn't it? --RexxS (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I meant that, it is my comment. As for your other comment, I was referring the the warring by the person you reported. That another user decided to jump in and continue warring well that was unfortunate. -DJSasso (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have reverted more than I did (and, I believe, in only this one case, with dozens of templates affected), if BRD was followed as should be done. Just for the record though, before going over the 3RR I notified the original user at his talk page as per BRD, but was reverted and disregarded, and that's how all this started. Jmj713 (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Declined Best discussed on the relevant thread on Wikiproject Hockey. User:RexxS requested above that User:Jmj713 acknowledge that his reversion was superfluous, which he has done above. Warning note to be left on User:Jmj713's page -- Samir 05:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ebrahimi-amir reported by User:Kurdo777 (Result: both blocked )

Page: Kurdish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [235]

• 1st revert: [236]
• 2nd revert: [237]
• 3rd revert: [238]
• 4th revert: [239]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [240]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [241]

Comments:
User:Ebrahimi-amir has been gaming the system on Kurdish people, making half a dozen reverts in just a couple of days, against the consensus of three other editors on the talk page. What needs be noted in this case, is the fact that User:Ebrahimi-amir was blocked indefinitely for similar type of behavior, and was only unblocked after he "pledged not to engage in further edit wars" as noted on his block-log.[242] So he has clearly broken his promise to the admins to behave, and should therefore be given a lengthy block. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) -->

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. It takes two to tango. Tiptoety ^talk 02:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Dmohr123 reported by User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Alcoholics Anonymous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User : Dmohr123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [243]
• 2nd revert: [244]
• 3rd revert: [245]
• 4th revert: [246]
• 6th revert: [247]
• 7th revert: [248]
• 8th revert: [249]
• 9th revert: [250]
• 10th revert: [251]

Regarding another section of the Page.

• 1st revert:[diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcoholics_Anonymous&diff=480883939&oldid=480872593
• 2nd revert: [252]
• 3rd revert: [253]
• 4th revert: [254][

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [255]

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

Comments:

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 02:41, 23:24, 23:10, 23:03 and several others before that. Was warned tactfully prior. Kuru (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:MartinEden5 reported by User:Fram (Result: 24 hours)

Page: David Lifton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MartinEden5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [256]

• 1st revert: [257]
• 2nd revert: [258]
• 3rd revert: [259]
• 4th revert: [260]
• 5th revert: [261]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [262]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [263]

Comments:
I have reverted MartinEden once, User:Location reverted him thrice, warned him, and started the discussion at the article talk page. After this, MartinEden5 reverted the article for a fifth time, without any discussion at the article talk page. He also, despite a request at his talk page[264], continues posting to user pages instead of user talk pages[265]. Fram (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Was warned. Kuru (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:MadGeographer reported by User:IIIraute (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [266]

• 1st revert: [267]
• 2nd revert: [268]
• 3rd revert: [269]
• 4th revert: [270]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [272], 18.6: Science

Comments:The science part is full of bias and misleading in the way it is written. It also did claim (before my edit) that Einstein did write his "General Theory of Relativity (1916)" in Bern, while it was the "Special Relativity (1905)" he did write in Bern. In his early days in Berlin, Einstein postulated that the correct interpretation of the special theory of relativity must also furnish a theory of gravitation and in 1916 he published his paper on the general theory of relativity (in German, in Germany, being a German citizen). In 1921 he received the Nobel Prize for his 1916 publication, while being a German citizen, researching, teaching and living in Germany. (see: www.Nobelprize.org - http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html).

The current source used in the article: "Einstein tops list of leading Swiss - swissinfo.ch", should be removed, as it is full of wrong & bias information. (Wrong theory, wrong date for Nobel Prize, wrong curriculum vitae & citizenship, etc.)

--IIIraute (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)--IIIraute (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Illraute, I reverted your edits expaining the reasons on the talk page. Your correction about the general theory was not reverted, so the current article is correct and only says that Einstein wrote the special relativity theory a Swiss, nothing else. I see nothing that justifies an edit war here. mgeo talk 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this part of the article is still misleading. Apart from that is the biased and revisionist source you added simply unacceptable. You reverted my edits several times with the explanation that "this is how we do it here" without engaging in a convincing/or any argument. You deleted well sourced material. Looking at the Switzerland©™ article and talk page®, it seems like you have some kind of Copyright on that topic! Even after I had sent you a WP:3RR and opened WP:RfC, you still did revert the article another time.--IIIraute (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What is misleading in the article?

• Stop right there Let me clarify something for both of you: There is no justification for edit warring, ever, unless it is the reversion of blatant vandalism. This is a content dispute so it is subject to the edit warring policy. Everybody got that? Also this page is for reviewing the edit war itself, not for discussing the actual article content. If you guys might care to take this back there and work it out we can avoid blocking all involved parties and/or protecting the page from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. The parties can still be sanctioned for long-term warring if this continues in the future with no proper discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Whatthedog reported by User:Chikazuku (Result: no action)

Page: K-pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whatthedog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [273]

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

1. 14:24, 29 February 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2000s: Popularity in Asia & Globalization */")
2. 10:00, 3 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2000s: Popularity in Asia & Globalization */")
3. 09:10, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2000s: Popularity in Asia & Globalization */")
4. 18:03, 9 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2000s: Popularity in Asia & Globalization */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [274] [275]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I have reason to believe that they may be an anti-fan of Girls' Generation? They have been removing anything related to them from the article. --Chikazuku (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Declined No warning specific to edit warring; no attempts to communicate with the other editor. Kuru (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:JayJay (Result: Both blocked)

Page: List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 21:58, 9 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 481057853 by Scorpion0422 (talk)don't be foolish. Backing Bands go in their own section, as this is an area for official inductees.")
2. 00:13, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 481087948 by Scorpion0422 (talk)table stays. Backing bands AREN'T part of the offical induction including those 6.")
3. 00:22, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Performers */ could say the same thing for Early Influences. Backing Bands remain seperate. Everyone in that sham of a place is a performer, don't be a hypocrite")
4. 00:30, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 481090592 by Scorpion0422stop. They aren't part of the formal group of traditional 6. Take to talk page (which you appear to snidly remind me of). We are wasting time")
5. 00:36, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "ab bub bub! talk page!")
6. 00:41, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 481091901 by Scorpion0422 (talk)there is a discussion on the talk page. I suggest you discuss on it before pursuing revert")

• Diff of warning: here

—JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hypocracy surrounds me. Why isn't Scorpion on trial? RAP (talk) 0:51 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well your the one who started the ordeal, that's why I believe you should be reported. Correct me if I'm wrong anyone? JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

People are so full of shit here these days. RAP (talk) 0:55 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Scorpion's history here makes me think he should be blocked too. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked It takes a minimum of two users to edit war, both parties behaved badly regardless of who "started it." RAP blocked 24 hours, Scorpion blocked 48 as he has been blocked in the past for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [276]

• 1st revert: [277]
• 2nd revert: [278]
• 3rd revert: [279]
• 4th revert: [280]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [281]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [282]

Mar4d is also under a one revert restriction when reverting against me as can be seen here [283] He violated this restriction with these reverts. [284][285] Darkness Shines (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Comments:

• False report, this user is on a 1 rr restriction. He re-inserted content into the article which was objected to, as can be seen here, without getting any consensus (see comments at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#Supposed misrepresentation), therefore it's actually him who's in the fault here. Mar4d (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, that was my first revert to that article since 13:09, 8 March 2012 That's like two days ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear reverts at 02:48, 01:58, 16:06, 13:20. Editor is aware of 3RR, as he has two previous edit warring blocks. I don't see the necessary 2nd revert by DS to break a 1RR; if there is some other random restriction in place, let me know. Kuru (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Moviehub reported by Nyttend (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: N. T. Rama Rao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moviehub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link, diff

• 1st revert: [286]
• 2nd revert: [287]
• 3rd revert: [288]
• 4th revert: [289]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [290]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Can't find anything, except some discussion at User talk:Dr. Blofeld

Comments:
Note that I've never edited this article (nor Chief Ministership of N. T. Rama Rao, where warring has started); I became aware of it after Dr. Blofeld asked me for help. Because he asked me to come in, and because it's not blatant vandalism, I'm feeling rather involved right now. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very busy today and haven't got the time t keep reverting an editor who persists on removing any mention of Rama Rao's political career from his main article and messing up the sourcing with bare urls when I spent a lot of time cleaning it and ensuring it was referenced properly. My efforts to suggest a discussion of content on the talk page ended up with this user blanking my message on his talk page. The political sub article Chief Ministership of N. T. Rama Rao is a fork causing major problems and should be deleted. Rama Rao is a POV magnet and attracts all sorts of insistent POV pushers. I don't think Moviehub is a POV pusher, but he has the same persistent traits many have over his article. I would have reported it here myself but experience over the Gobichettipalayam article a week or two ago when I reported it at ANI and not one admin would step in I thought I was wasting my time even reporting it. I had hoped to see some swift action in reporting it to Nyttend but like Moonriddengirl said he felt unable to take action for being "involved". When things like this happen it sometimes feel like eons before anybody actually does anything and is a very real problem on here, because the persistent editors are not essentially vandals. Unless its blatant vandalism I think admins find it difficult dealing fairly with situations like this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Moviehub (talk · contribs) is most certainly a sock of Padmalakshmisx (talk · contribs). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. — Abhishek  ^Talk 14:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

One of many I'm sure, the arrogance of his actions suggests a lot of experience on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

He has since stated that I use "kindergarten english level and unprofessional language", "I make wikipedia a hell of a experience with non sense and POV".♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And so the edit warring continues. Somebody keep an eye on this which I've reverted. His edit summaries like this implying "peacock" over simple grammar edits He is likely to restore his "finest actor" to an article which already says he was one of the most prominent actors. It is not necessary to mention twice he is the finest actor and then the most prominent actor or to start a new paragraph discussing his film work continuation. I've really had enough of this now but I ask that somebody really does look into the quality of his edits and trusts my judgement on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had enough of him. I can't work in an environment like this. I will return to wikipedia once somebody deals properly with him and examines his editing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I suspect the SPI will result in a much longer block, though... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Some IP accused me of being a liar and a vandal here. Ironically it was actually me who cleaned it up in the first place to make it half decent and was why the article was stable, he didn't know that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the SPI confims that Moviehub is a Padmalakshmisx sock; block has been upgraded to indef. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Tony May reported by User:Edinburgh Wanderer (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Gerard Dewhurst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tony May (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [291]

• 1st revert: [292]
• 2nd revert: [293]
• 3rd revert: [294]
• 4th revert: [295]
• 5th revert: [296]
• 6th revert: [297]
• 7th revert:[298]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [299]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [300] , [301] and [302]

Comments:
User keeps saying he is reverting vandalism it has been explained that it isn't vandalism and that even if he thinks he is correct then this is edit warring at 7 reverts but appears to be continuing. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Blocked by TeaDrinker. Kuru (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Green-Halcyon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Lynette Nusbacher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Green-Halcyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 13:40, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by NetNus (talk) to last version by Tbhotch")
2. 17:41, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 481160354 by Green-Halcyon: Restored to version before unconstructive removal of content. Personal life is relative to the articel, the Sun is well known newspaper, claim of sex change is likely true. (TW)")
3. 18:11, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Phil Bridger (talk) to last version by Green-Halcyon")
4. 21:14, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Youreallycan. (TW)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts; was warned. I've removed rollback as well; it was clearly misused here in a dispute with good-faith editors. Kuru (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Baibhavr reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [303]

• 1st revert: [304]
• 2nd revert: [305]
• 3rd revert: [306]
• 4th revert: [307]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [308]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page is filled with discussions of this topic, and of denied edit requests by unconfirmed users requesting this very edit.

Comments:
User is continuously reinserting a POV into the article's lede, refusing to discuss it on the talk page despite being informed of a consensus concerning what they are rewording, and requests on their talk page to discuss the change. - SudoGhost 04:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 04:30, 04:15, 04:04, 02:27. Was warned. Kuru (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:NerosRevenge reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:48hrs )

Page: Rape in Indian-administered Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NerosRevenge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [309]

• 1st revert: [310]
• 2nd revert: [311]
• 3rd revert: [312]
• 4th revert: [313]
• 5th revert: [314]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [315]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [316]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of hours48 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:B.vikram.b reported by User:Abhishek191288 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Ekal Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B.vikram.b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 11:50, 01:09, 00:46, 20:32. Warned prior to last reverts and a few days before as well. Kuru (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:184.90.184.25 reported by User:TheFBH (Result: 1 week)

Page: Montel Vontavious Porter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.90.184.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [317]

• 1st revert: [318] 18:41, 10 March 2012
• 2nd revert: [319] 19:08, 10 March 2012
• 3rd revert: [320] 02:33, 11 March 2012
• 4th revert: [321] 05:44, 11 March 2012
• 5th revert: [322] 14:26, 11 March 2012
• 6th revert: [323] 16:56, 11 March 2012‎
• 7th revert: [324] 17:21, 11 March 2012
• 8th revert: [325] 18:27, 11 March 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [326]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [327] [328]

Comments:
The user keeps removing sourced information, doesn't add any source of his own, just claims to have "first-hand information". Has been warned and blocked for 48 hours, returned and kept making the same edits that got him blocked. When I try to point to him that the info he is removing has a source and that his "first-hand information" isn't a reliable source, I get called a "mark".TheFBH (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Obviously this is a problematic editor, but it would be helpful if you could report here before such a massive edit war develops. Kuru (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ahmad2099 reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ahmad2099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [329]
• 2nd revert: [330]
• 3rd revert: [331]
• 4th revert: [332]
• 5th revert: [333]
• 6th revert: [334]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [335]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [336] [337]

Comments: This has been going on for almost two weeks now, and it's this single editor against a whole slew of other editors active on the page. I've reverted him maybe two or three times over the time period; other editors have reverted him other times. I'm not sure the editor has violated WP:3RR, but the page is under WP:1RR. Anyway, this pattern of behavior is extremely disruptive, the editor has been admonished repeatedly to discuss the issue on the Talk page instead of edit-warring, nobody else seems to agree with the edit he is trying to make, and it's not remotely constructive. I'm actually surprised he hasn't been reported yet by one of the more active editors on the page, though he has been warned.

—Kudzu1 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 15:39, 13:39, 18:27, 16:35. Has been warned previously. Kuru (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:HasperHunter on FC Barcelona reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24h)

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

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

• 1st revert: [338]
• 2nd revert: [339]
• 3rd revert: [340]
• 4th revert: [341]
• 5th revert: [342] made after the 3RR warning and after the notice of this dispute was made on editor's talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [343] More to the point, the editor was warned within the past day of edit warring on a different article.

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

• none

Comments:
This editor appears to have an WP:AXE to grind on this one point and has attempted to indicate that the reference is unreliable despite verification to the contrary: it is from the club's official website and has been vetted as a WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagreed. User Walter Gorlitz is violating WP:NPOV and assuming a fan blog to be the official website of a big club. The user is self violating three revert rule.HasperHunter (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• The User is cleanly lying of the facts stated above. I have contributed to the discussions before editing any article. The user has not contributed before reverting or misusing the templates on my talk page.HasperHunter (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but when you're reported to AN3 for 5 reverts in roughly 24.5 hours, that's not a good response. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Also, to be clear, Walter is not in violation of the three revert rule. Swarm ^X 02:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• The editor seems to believe that the placing of any warning template is a misuse of the template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User:TopGun reported by User:AshLin (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: This version

Links to diffs about Reported User's reverts: Only two diffs provided since user is under a 1RR Restriction.

• 1st revert: [344]
• 2nd revert: [345]

Comments by User:AshLin

User:Top Gun has been edit-warring with me. He is under 1RR Restriction. He is currently under consideration for a topic ban.

The issue

During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, an Indian Gnat aircraft landed at an abandoned airfield and was captured. Primary Pak sources claim that it was due to being forced down by PAF Starfighters. The History of the IAF, a reliable secondary source mirrored online, claims that the pilot ran short of fuel and mistook the airfield for an Indian airfield.

My stance

That this situation be represented by a neutral version, which includes mention of both the fuel explanation and the starfighter explanation. This is on the basis of The History of the IAF,, a secondary source mirrored online.

I have also deleted the reference from pakdef.info, a tainted source, so declared by WP:RSN here.

My NPOV version is:

During the initial phase of the 1965 war, an IAF Gnat, piloted by Squadron Leader Brij Pal Singh Sikand, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur, ostensibly out of fuel, and was captured by the PAF. Pakistani sources claim that the Gnat was forced down by Lockheed F-104 Starfighters. This Gnat is displayed as a war trophy in the Pakistan Air Force Museum, Karachi.

I use the word "ostensibly" to show that it is the Indian POV, though there is far greater credibility to the Indian view, the so-called surrendering pilot's behaviour was examined by a court-of-enquiry and he later went to become a very high ranking officer in the IAF, which would not be the case if he had landed being frightened by Starfighters.

TG's stance

TG's POV version is:

During the initial phase of the 1965 war, an IAF Gnat, piloted by Squadron Leader Brij Pal Singh Sikand, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur and was captured by the PAF. Two Lockheed F-104 Starfighters forced the Gnat down. This Gnat is displayed as a war trophy in the Pakistan Air Force Museum, Karachi.

Other material opposing his viewpoint was deleted by TG

Material (previously added by other editors) supporting my stance was deleted by TG:

• {{#tag:ref|Later, a retired PAF historian, Air Cmde Kaiser Tufail, determined that the Gnat actually landed before the F-104s arrived on the scene, giving credibility to the Indian version.|group=N}}

By reading the relevant reference, the note can be seen as being justified and TG in his edit summary was lying - (India: added pakistan's view of aircraft tested, removed incorrect note after review.)

POV material added by TG - "not a Sabre-slayer"

The POV text given below was added by TG.

Sqn Ldr Saad Hatmi who flew the captured aircraft to Sargodha, and later tested and evaluated its flight performance, was of view that Gnat was no "Sabre Slayer" when it came to dog fighting."

It was commented out by User:Bzuk in article text with scathing comment on TG on talk. It was also rebutted by User:MilborneOne and User:Nigel Ish.

TG's Edit-warring

TG responded to my edits of 9 March by reverting me. This was his first revert (03:24 hrs UTc of 9 March 2012). He claimed in his edit summary that only the tainted source should be removed and that his previous edits were as per sources, not giving reason for why my edits were reverted. He did NOt talk on the talk page. He was already under 1RR Restriction which I knew about.

My response to this was to revert his reversal with reasons on talk page (my first and only revert, 04:17 hrs, 9 March 2012). He responded by reverting once again (his second revert, 1540 hrs UTC, 10 March 2012), and by accusing me of not following BRD and adding dubious material and also accused me of gaming/baiting of the 1RR ban of his.

It is obvious that he violated the 1RR ban for a specific topic and gamed the system by waiting more than 24 hours between the reverts. He claims for his second revert that he was only following the BRD cycle. Can he do this based on his 1RR ban?

Solution?

It is very difficult for me to resolve this issue without getting sucked into a destructive combative edit-war. Especially as TG accuses me of baiting/war gaming his 1RR restriction which has nothing to do with me. This is one of the reasons I support his topic banning from India related articles. Either I allow him to get away with POV additions and slip-shod defective (imho) edits or I get drawn into this vitiated combative situation - in both ways, Wikipedia loses and/or my time gets wasted.

User:Top Gun is undergoing consideration of a topic ban. It would be best if that comes through. Otherwise admins may take action as felt appropriate.

Connected References

Diff of 1RR warning: 1RR Restriction

Diff of notice of ANI: Diff.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Discussion after TopGun's first revert.
• my reply 2.
• my reply 3.
• Before I could reply to his allegation that there was no source for lack of fuel excuse, he reverted the second time.

Comments:

• Comment. I'm not going to action this report, but I'd like to comment on it all the same. I believe that TopGun has at least gamed his revert restriction, because he appears to have waited just long enough not to technically violate 1-rr when he reverted. However, this happened on the 10th, which, in my opinion, makes this violation stale. As I was saying, I'm not going to take action, but I think that, in this case, a warning is probably the best response... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• My watchlist has over 5000 WikiProject India articles and for some reason, I did not detect this second revert on the 11th. My time on 11th was completely spent on WikiProject work and the previous Saturday night (much against my wishes) in toning down Rape in Indian-administered Kashmir. I discovered this only because I wanted to continue my argument with him, it was my turn to reply and found he had done a second revert. I fail to see how the report becomes "stale"? Is there a time bar for reporting infringements? Does my noticing it 24 hours later than I could have reduce the gravity of his continued defiance of the community? I leave it for each editor to decide for himself. AshLin (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

I've not read this TLDR report, but I know what 1RR restriction is. I specifically informed this user of not baiting me over my 1RR (which he has done at another place too.. or probably makes a second revert over me while he's the one making the first change ever since I have 1RR). The second revert was not even 'just out side' the 24hr period or 'one revert each day' to game the restriction.... it was in the middle of the next day. When AshLin's edit was not justified, I reverted him to the last stable version. I find it quite telling that he's supporting a topic ban on me to get past content disputes from other articles. Simple bad faith report in my opinion. I find no point in dumping the whole content dispute here either. In addition I remember informing Salvio of this user trying to bait my restriction. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And oh, wouldn't I be surprised by the admin-shopping: [346]. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stale - In this particular instance, the two reverts are not close enough together to constitute an explicit 1RR violation, and even if they were, the incident is stale. I will just generally remind TopGun, however, that appearances of gaming the system are actionable, even if there isn't an explicit revert rule violation. Swarm ^X 17:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Qingxin reported by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin (Result: 31h)

Page: Jian'ou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 14:21, 12 February 2012(edit summary: "")
2. 06:31, 9 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 06:34, 9 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 05:23, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 06:19, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

• Summary of reverts: After I added the map "Nanping county-level divisions", Qingxin removed it without explanation, and, also without explanation, has consistently delinked "County-level city" in favour of "City", which is far less informative, again constituting removal of content. Only in his most recent revert did Qingxin explain (without sources) that the PRC is supposedly doing away with prefecture-level divisions. —GotR ^Talk 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. User has been repeatedly warned for removing content without explanation. Swarm ^X 16:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Three users reported by User:Izidorscats (Result: Two blocks)

Page: Siege of Homs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brucerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Just watch the page history, it is an endless edit war between 3 users http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Homs&action=history action needed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Izidorscats (talk • contribs)

• I filled in the names of the three users that Izidorscats must be referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Objection

User:Brucerman is a sock account of User:ChronicalUsual. ChronicalUsual publicly announced his intention to create more sock accounts to edit wikipedia in a POV manner. Brucerman was created specificly to alter the Siege of Homs page without getting caught. It was created shortly after Chronical's banned. ChronicalUsual has been proven to have created 7 sock accounts within the last month. It is my understanding that users have a right to revert the actions of sock accounts. Sopher99 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive

• Result: Two editors have been blocked for personal attacks, and an SPI has been filed on Brucerman. Sopher99 seems OK. If he was reverting a sock he gets some slack. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I fully understand that edit warring on any scale is not tolerated and that discussing on talk pages or requesting a third opinion is the way to go, but I truly believe Brucerman is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of ChronicalUsual, who other users and I have spent a great amount of time working to scale back his POV pushing. Sopher99 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:AV3000 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arzel (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [353]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [354]

Comments:
Although one of 3RR's exemptions regards "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." "When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard."
User:Arzel's 4th revert comment indicates that he instead chose to continue edit warring ("This is being discussed on BLP, please do not revert."); I've asked Arzel to consider self-reverting. AV3000 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This contentious addition of information is currently on the BLP messageboard. I don't believe 3RR applies when editors are adding possible BLP violations. Arzel (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Update - Those are TWO different articles~ AV3000 should revert this submission. Arzel (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - struck with apologies. AV3000 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User: Caitlyn4272000 reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result: 24 hours )

Page: The Hunger Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Caitlyn4272000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 14:58, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I have only edited what is not needed in explaining the plot.")
2. 18:20, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

   18:28, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

   18:39, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

3. 18:41, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

   18:42, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

4. 18:54, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")
5. 22:59, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")
6. 00:11, 13 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

   00:12, 13 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

7. 23:57, 13 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 04:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:78.1.187.85 reported by User:Eleassar (Result: 24-hour block)

Page: 2Cellos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.1.187.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 93.139.32.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [355]

• 1st revert: [356]
• 2nd revert: [357]
• 3rd revert: [358]
• 4th revert: [359]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2Cellos#Croatian and Slovenian

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Per the instructions at the top of this page, this section is not a place for continuing disputes: do not argue here over whether someone's conduct is vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Two users reported by User:NJZombie (Result: Both IPs blocked)

Page: Brian Gerard James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• 90.201.91.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.176.237.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [361]

• 1st 90.201.91.232 revert: [362]
• 1st 124.176.237.176 revert: [363]
• 2nd 90.201.91.232 revert: [364]
• 2nd 124.176.237.176 revert: [365]
• 3rd 90.201.91.232 revert: [366]
• 3rd 124.176.237.176 revert: [367]
• 4th 90.201.91.232 revert: [368]
• 4th 124.176.237.176 revert: [369]
• 5th 90.201.91.232 revert: [370]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [371]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [372]

Comments:Two IP editors (90.201.91.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 124.176.237.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) began an edit war over whether a championship title was legitimate for wrestler Brian Gerard James. 124.176.237.176 removed the title information citing that the source provided was questionable in its validity. 90.201.91.232 restored it citing vandalism. After repeated reverts by both users, I issued a 3RR warning to both of them. 90.201.91.232 responded by accusing 124.176.237.176 of vandalism again, despite 124.176.237.176 making valid attempts to explain the item's removal. At the very least, the edits made by 124.176.237.176 do not constitute obvious vandalism as noted in WP:NOT3RR. Inspection of prior 90.201.91.232 edit summaries show a history of uncivil accusations of vandalism against several users, including those that issue valid warnings on the user's talk page. After issuing the 3RR warning, BOTH users have made contributions to the article's talk page but have also continued to make reversions to the page itself.
NJZombie (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 day. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)