Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive160

User:Night w reported by User:Taivo (Result: protected)

Page: List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Night w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

Night w ended up on the losing end (10-2, Night w being one of the two) of a mediation where a very clear and overwhelming consensus was reached to implement a single-list sortable table instead of the status quo version. Night w has refused to accept the result of the mediation and has resorted to edit warring instead of allowing the consensus to implement the version that was agreed to and that the mediator noted was the result of a consensus: "I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections." (Ludwigs2, the mediator) --Taivo (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the consensus for implementation that was reached. Overwhelmingly, the editors involved chose to implement Sandbox 3i2 and then discuss adjustments after implementation. Night w is simply practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Taivo (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice. The mediator's comments (here, if anyone wants to read the whole thing) were followed by a vote to close, in which 3 out of 8 editors preferred implementing the proposal at a later stage; the mediator then closed the case with "no apparent possibility of consensus". If there has been a ruling of "no consensus" then there is no consensus for your proposal to go live. Discussion went on during this here, during which another editor suggested waiting until an uninvolved mediator had ascertained the level of consensus. This was requested here and here, but the request to hold off for a reply was apparently ignored. Nightw 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR vio here, but Night w's last revert stated that he wanted an uninvolved editor to decide if there was a consensus. I've reviewed the discussion, and I do see a clear (though not unanimous) consensus to implement the list, so I reverted back to that version. I would consider any reverts he performs from this point forward to be clear WP:EW violations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is not the kind of thing usually posted on article discussion pages... Nightw 19:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to whether or not you're edit warring. See WP:NOTTHEM for more commentary on the topic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't an attempt at turning things around on the nominator; just thought it wasn't really in line with how WP:ANEW are normally conducted. Nightw 20:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected for three days by Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - 2/0 (cont.) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the version supported by the party reported here for edit warring, the version supported by the distinct minority of editors, and not the version that the uninvolved editor Sarek of Vulcan found to be supported by a consensus was the version that was protected. --Taivo (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As always. See WP:The Wrong Version. Kuru (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am, of course, aware of the "Wrong Version" problem, but when the Wrong Version is against consensus, a fix must be made, which it was in this case. --Taivo (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:The lost library reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Warned)

Page: United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: The lost library (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:29, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431580673 by DocKino (talk) made it seem as though the U.S. never sent in troops and always surported authoritarian governments which is not the case")

   12:56, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431707625 by A520 (talk) the information provided is beneficial to the article, and fits with other information provied in the section") (no intervening edits since previous revert)

2. 15:23, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431832450 by Golbez (talk)information is commen knowledge, and if you feel it is poorly wirtten then reword it so it is not don't just delete if you dont like how it is phrased")
3. 16:06, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Contemporary era */ moved information, slight rewording")
4. 16:14, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431846510 by Chzz (talk)plese do not undo revisons with out stating reason thanks")
5. 14:47, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431954418 by DocKino (talk)made it seem as though the U.S. never sent in troops and always surported authoritarian governments which is not the case. reword without ommisons")

—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Despite being asked repeatedly to discuss their changes, this user seems to think edit summaries are where discussion takes place. --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

was advised about 3rr more than 24 hours ago which is the trime i was advised to wait befor making any further edits also the edit i made had been disscaused piror as well the edit had nothing to do with the issue from yesterday. -The lost library (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • To be fair, after being warned by several users myself included, the lost library did stop reverting that change back in. I will say that he did attempt to make all his engagement about the subject on user talk pages and edit summaries. My reccomendation is an "official" warning to use article talk pages, not a block. i kan reed (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Warned I consider this a malformed report, since there is no evidence presented that the editor received a 3RR warning (and none could be found in the user's talk page history), only a notice that this report had been created, and the editor ceased edit-warring after being notified. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:86.143.54.206 reported by User:Plasmic Physics (Result: page semi-protected)

Page: Raccoon City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.143.54.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 1st revert: 09:51, 25 May 2011
• 2nd revert: 05:07, 26 May 2011
• 3rd revert: 23:43, 26 May 2011
• 4th revert: 01:55, 27 May 2011
• 5th revert: 04:11, 27 May 2011
• 6th revert: 07:18, 27 May 2011
• 7th revert: 07:25, 27 May 2011
• 8th revert: 08:03, 27 May 2011
• 9th revert: 08:11, 27 May 2011
• 10th revert: 08:15, 27 May 2011
• 11th revert: 08:21, 27 May 2011

Comments:

Accompanying talk page has been reverted also. See [8] for user contributions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected GedUK applied semi-protection to the article which should resolve this issue. Kuru (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Raccoon City (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert: 05:08, 26 May 2011
• 2nd revert: 23:43, 26 May 2011
• 3rd revert: 01:56, 27 May 2011
• 4th revert: 04:10, 27 May 2011
• 5th revert: 07:17, 27 May 2011
• 6th revert: 07:27, 27 May 2011
• 7th revert: 08:04, 27 May 2011
• 8th revert: 08:12, 27 May 2011
• 9th revert: 08:15, 27 May 2011
• 10th revert: 08:22, 27 May 2011
• 11th revert: 08:28, 27 May 2011
• 12th revert: 03:00, 2 June 2011
• 13th revert: 10:31, 2 June 2011
• 14th revert: 10:59, 2 June 2011
• 15th revert: 21:25, 2 June 2011
• 16th revert: 22:46, 2 June 2011
• 17th revert: 23:48, 2 June 2011

Comments:

The user is not responding to the warning in the form of a page-protection, as he/she is continueing to revert the accompanying talk page. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 month by Kuru. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:mtking reported by User:Newsrooms (Result: Malformed)

Page: Olswang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: mtking (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:

Can someone please assist me in my edit for Olswang, before the page is deleted again. I was trying to add in the appropriate law related awards the firm as won over the years, and they kept being removed. Other law firms in the 'magic circle' have been allowed to publish awards on their wikipedia page the same as the ones I was trying to post without their pages being deleted. Can someone please assist me as to why my edit resulted in the removal of the page but the other law firms are still available? All awards were referenced to the appropriate websites to verify them -newsrooms

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. -=- Adam Walker -=- 10:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]
• 5th revert: [15]

Page: Fastback (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [16]

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

Page: Magog (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]

Page: Young Allies (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [26]

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30] (edit summary: don't care)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32] (Note: This is the user's talk page, not the article talk page, see below)

Comments:

User has been removing the bibliography sections from comic book related articles, without giving an explanation. As per WP:VAND this is considered vandalism under the Blanking, illegitimate guidelines, as no reason was given. User refuses to discuss this in any way[33][34][35][36], other than to leave vague edit summaries that do not explain why the content was removed. I have also directed his attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars, which not only says that bibliographies are allowed, but gives guidelines to how they should be laid out.[37], which he has not responded to and continued to remove bibliography sections. He refused to stop and explain his reasons for removal, despite several [38][39][40][41] warnings from editors.

User is also removing the other bibliography sections, but the edit warring is what I'm currently trying to address. As per WP:VAND, I believe my reversions are exempt from WP:3RR, but if this is incorrect please let me know and I will cease such edits in the future. - SudoGhost™ 16:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note After being informed of this report and responding on my talk page, he has since violated WP:3RR on a second article, which I have added here. - SudoGhost™ 16:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

He has violated WP:3RR on a third article, Magog (comics). - SudoGhost™ 17:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the user yet again for explanation, and he has yet again refused to explain, yet continues to vandalize pages by removing content without a valid explanation - SudoGhost™ 17:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of indefinite –MuZemike 18:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:85.210.31.165 reported by NeilN ^{talk to me} (Result: blocked 24h)

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

User being reported: 85.210.31.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 18:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 10:06, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 15:42, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 15:48, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 16:46, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
5. 17:00, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
6. 18:02, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
7. 18:07, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

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

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:74.226.119.107 reported by User:Chester Markel (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Femininity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.226.119.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 18:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 16:33, 2 June 2011
• 2nd revert: 16:59, 2 June 2011
• 3rd revert: 17:28, 2 June 2011
• 4th revert: 17:38, 2 June 2011
• 5th revert: 17:50, 2 June 2011
• 6th revert: 17:53, 2 June 2011
• 7th revert: 18:15, 2 June 2011
• 8th revert: 18:34, 2 June 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Comments:
This matter is also under consideration at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USchick. Chester Markel (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Chester Markel (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Block was issued by User:Courcelles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Zm69051 reported by User:Tweetybird83 (Result: No Vio)

Page: Future Steel Buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zm69051 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44] (@ @ 20:57 / June 1, 2011, same user under different account)

• 1st revert: [45] @ 14:45 / June 2, 2011
• 2nd revert: [46] @ 15:04 / June 2, 2011
• 3rd revert: [47] @ 15:17 / June 2, 2011
• 4th revert: [48] @ 15:32 / June 2, 2011

• I'm also certain that User:Alannaestes and User:Zm69051 are the same person, as witnessed by the collusion of activities @ Alannaeste's user_talk page. In this case, Alannaestes also made an edit @ 20:57 / June 1, 2011 of last night, included within the span of 24 hours. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] (in between 2nd and 3rd revert @ 15:08)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51] (in between 3rd and 4th revert @15:30)

Comments: The user committed multiple reverts over the span of an hour from 14:45 to 13:32, even after warnings not to turn this into an edit war. Also, this user's multiple attempts to delete the article almost seems like vandalism, especially when others are keen on improving the quality of the article instead of just deleting it. Tweetybird83 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Tweetybird83

• Comment As a note, the first 'revert' is not a reversion. That is the previous version reverted to. It does not qualify for WP:3RR, but is still technically edit warring. Also odd that a new user (the reporter) was created with the sole purpose of removing a speedy deletion, which the creator himself cannot remove. - SudoGhost™ 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment This appears to be somewhat of a bad faith nomination. User:Zm69051 has only made five edits in total to the article, only three of them reverts. The first "revert" listed above is his first contribution. It should also be noted that User:Tweetybird83 appears to be a single purpose account or a sockpuppet, as this account was only created today after the article in question was nominated for deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Allow me to clarify: I believe User:Alannaestes and User:Zm69051 are the same user under different accounts. They made four edits collectively. Does this count as a violation of WP:3RR? Not posted in bad faith, just wanted to know. Tweetybird83 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Tweetybird83

Unless I'm mistaken, the 'previous version reverted to' and the first diff seem to be identical. Was that an oversight in changing the report? - SudoGhost™ 23:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was an oversight. I have changed the link. Is it considered a 3RR or am I mistaken? Tweetybird83 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Tweetybird83

Technically, no this is not 3RR, as you have no proof of the other user sockpuppeting - which is an interesting claim, given your brand new edit history and limited contributions... MikeWazowski (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Given that you just signed your post as Saracates, only to change it to Tweetybird83 later, I'm pretty certain that you are the same editor as User:Saracates. That would give you 1 2 3 4 reverts of your own no? TDL (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No violation found on the accused. This is a malformed and bad-faith report. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet of Saracates. I see no evidence that Zm69051 was issued a 3RR warning (the diff provided doesn't point at one, nor does any such warning appear on Zm69051's talk page). Furthermore, the accusation that Zm69051 and Allanaestes are the same doesn't hold water, since Zm69051's activities consisted of removing a speedy-delete tag, and Allanaestes added one (possibly in retaliation for Allanaestes' article SteelMaster Buildings being speedy-deleted). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As a note, the user reported was User:Zm69051, not User:Tweetybird83. - SudoGhost™ 23:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, you're right. Corrected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:66.235.14.67 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 72h)

Page: The Prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.235.14.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]

(see below for reason for reporting after only 2 reverts)

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

Comments:
User (apparently a static IP) was blocked for edit warring on 31 May 2011 (diff of block template) for 31 hours due to persistent edit warring with no discussion. Yesterday, about a day after the block expiring, user began adding the same information. The only change in users behavior is the use of an edit summary to add the info, although it's not helpful and not addressing the concerns of other editors. As multiple editors are asking user to discuss on talk page and user has not done so, I can't see any solution to prevent disruptive edit warring other than an additional block of increased duration. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Clearly the same user, clearly continuing the same behavior immediately after the prior block expired, and clearly hasn't gotten the message in spite of being previously blocked that edit-warring is unacceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Newsrooms & User:213.146.159.4 reported by User:Mtking (Result: 24h)

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

User being reported: 213.146.159.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Newsrooms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

as User:213.146.159.4

1. 10:41, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* History */")

   11:13, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")

   11:16, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")

   11:29, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

2. 11:33, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

and as User:Newsrooms

1. 13:29, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431984258 by Mtking (talk)")

   13:35, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

   13:40, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

   13:41, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

   13:43, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")

   13:43, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")

   14:06, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* History */")

   14:15, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

   14:15, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

   14:16, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

   14:33, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")

   14:56, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")

   15:03, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")

   15:05, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")

   15:05, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")

2. 15:11, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* History */")

   15:18, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")

   15:21, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")

   16:25, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

3. 07:32, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432074733 by Mtking (talk)")

   07:33, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432074616 by Mtking (talk)")

   07:34, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432073897 by Mtking (talk) These awards are notable in the legal sector, look at other law firms with wikipedia pages they are also listing awards that are not 'nobel prizes'")

   07:37, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* History */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Mtking (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the posting of this there has been one more revert - here. Mtking (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Newsrooms blocked 24 hours for edit warring. I will leave a warning for Newsrooms to not continue editing with the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I missed this. I've protected the page for a week, I don't mind if anyone feels like unprotecting it. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Zzz111zzz reported by User:Tarc (Result: blocked 24h)

Page: Michelle Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zzz111zzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58]
• 5th revert: [59]
• 6th revert: [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. IMO, the addition of unsourced, negative commentary to a WP:BLP does not warrant discussion. This person was reverted by 3 different editors.

Comments:

Tarc (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kubigula (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:160.94.47.16 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Block, semi)

Page: NBCUniversal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 160.94.47.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66] (editing from 67.220.12.124, apparent WP:SPA address from the same city as 160.94.47.16
• 5th revert: [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Comments:
IP editor intent on dding his own personal grudge/synthesis about NBC Sports into NBCUniversal article - which not only doesn't belong due to the synthesis problem, but doesn't directly relate to this article. Multiple editors have removed this content, yet the IP continues to revert. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month + semi. Multiple IPs pushing the same material. 160.94 is a school IP that has received many warnings and was recently blocked for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Inspectortr reported by User:NortyNort (Result: 24h)

Page: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Inspectortr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75] and [76]

Comments:
See page history for the full scope of disruption this last week. Despite disagreements against user on article talk, they continue to revert to the text.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Matt Downey reported by GB fan (talk) (Result: 24h)

Page: Nick Clegg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 01:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 13:06, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "This has already been decided and it shall not be included")
2. 20:51, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "This has already been decided upon before, the addition of one (extremely biased) source doesn't change facts as established on the discussion bored. Understand?")
3. 21:14, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "I've looked at the sources and none are real proof, as was shown on the discussion page where it was decided to not include this unless Clegg announced that he had been a member. None of the sources have proof.")
4. 21:39, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "I agree they don't, do why add claims back on?")
5. 21:30, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431479374 by Avaya1 (talk) I'm getting tired of this. Check the talk page, this was decided some time ago")
6. 23:05, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
7. 08:11, 30 May 2011 (edit summary: "There is no new evidence, reason, or purpose for the consensus to have changed.")
8. 00:23, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432435780 by Avaya1 (talk) This has been discussed on the talk page. There was essentially consensus and there is no reason for the established article to have been changed.")
9. 00:51, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432443728 by NeilN (talk) Nobody had disagreed in 3 years, that is pretty much consensus.")
10. 00:58, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Not really. There is no new evidence or reason for the change. This is being pursued on ideological grounds to make Clegg seem more right wing. I don't care if he is or isn't, but this isn't the place to try to make him look one way or the other")
11. 01:09, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432447474 by GB fan (talk) There is no consensus for these changes anywhere, you can check the talk page. I can prove to you that these edits are done politically if you like?")

• Diff of warning: here

—GB fan (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Dreadstar ☥ 02:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: moot)

Page: Joseph Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79], which undid a previous edit by another user
• 4th revert: [80]

The above occurred within a single 24 hour period, and were followed over the next 24 hours with these two reverts:

• [81]
• [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ...John Foxe is fresh off of a one day block for edit warring/3RR violation

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple editors having been trying on the Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.

Comments:
This is the fifth time in five weeks that he has violated 3RR on this page (first two time as reported here, third time here, and fourth time here). John Foxe is fresh off a one day block for edit warring/3RR violation from the last violation, along with User:Routerone. User:Routerone, who also participated in this recent edit war (though only 3 reverts in the same 48 hour period as John Foxe's 6 reverts), was recently indefinitely blocked for chronic edit warring [83] on that same page. The same argument could be applied, and IMO more aptly, to John Foxe's recent behavior. For consistency, shouldn't John Foxe's chronic edit warring over the last five weeks on the same page result in the same consequences as Routerone's? If not, I'm curious why not? --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment John Foxe has agreed to stop reverting the disputed material, which should give the talkpage time to solve this issue (there are several relevant discussion threads - please use them). As there are several editors making alternative proposals and/or edit warring at that page, I recommend protection for a couple weeks as a next step. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous and I would request that the "moot" be removed to encourage further comment. If further comment shows that it is indeed moot, then fine. You've also failed to respond to my queries about consistent consequences for similar behavior. I find it especially ridiculous that the same latitude that you are willing to give John Foxe has not been given to Routerone. Again, both are coming off of the same one day block for edit warring and yet Routerone (who only had 2 rapid fire reverts) get an indefinite block while John Foxe (who has a 3RR violation and two additional rapid fire reverts) gets a warning. How is that consistent? John Foxe has clearly and chronically engaged in edit warring by going well beyond the 3RR limit five times in five weeks, no other editor on that page has crossed that clear edit warring line (note, I am not saying that other editors have not edit warred) in the same time period. How is that behavior not chronic edit warring? How does another editor with less reverts come out with a harsher by at least an order of magnitude? Existence of discussion and participation in discussion does not permit a user disregard basic rules against 3RR and edit warring. As the protection policy page states, "persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking". The only persistent edit warring is by John Foxe, so I don't thing that protection is the answer (especially since it's been tried before, and during that time John Foxe stated his intention - and followed through - to continue edit warring as soon as protection was lifted). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• This article already had two weeks of full protection, ending on 12 May. John Foxe's name keeps being brought up in connection with the warring on this article. I think we either need an expressed commitment from Foxe to wait for consensus, an editing restriction or a long block, in that order of preference. Foxe was warned of the last 3RR report (24 May) in plenty of time to add his comment or make a concession, but did not reply here. I hope others will comment on what should be done. In Foxe's recent contribution history I noticed this comment but it's unclear what he has agreed to. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm restoring 2over0's close as 'moot' to the header of this report. It was removed here by a single-use IP. In the light of that, my comment above should only be seen as a suggestion for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

For practical purposes, I'm the only non-Mormon editor at Joseph Smith, and a number of folks there would rejoice if I were to be blocked. FyzixFighter's position is especially interesting because he never makes edits at that article. He steps in only to revert my edits or try to have me blocked.--John Foxe (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that it is fair that John Foxe won't be blocked as long as he holds to his agreement to not edit war, but I also agree that if he isn't blocked, then neither should Routerone be blocked. Routerone has not done anything more egregious in this editing war than John Foxe. Also relevant to the discussion is that this isn't something that has only come up in the last month or two. There was a similar issue with John Foxe four or so years ago as shown here. Zashitnik (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe's statement is misleading; COgden, for example, is a nominal Mormon who takes a very naturalistic approach (i.e. Joseph Smith made it all up). Believe me, there are enough non-apologists working on this article that I we could have a very reasonable, balanced approach without John Foxe. Frankly, he just wears us all out with his random digs thrown in at places where no reasonable academic with an eye for comprehensive holism would put them. Twice he has replied to my questioning his choice of placement for material by saying "this is important because it reflects negatively on Joseph Smith," as if that by itself is a reason to include or not include something. Mormon history is very complicated, there are dozens of pages that are are spun out of the JS article if we want to find a more thorough discussion for some of these issues. For example, in the "ethics section" a few quotes are cherry picked from literally dozens of different discourses. Why these ones? If we want to have a page on Joseph Smith's complicated political theology, fine, but do these few particular quotes justify their own section? It's not that he's fixing apologetic material (which I respect as a Wikipedia editor), but that he's just wasting our time with these random hits that ruin the flow of the article. But we can discuss this until the sun goes down, a look at his edits and rationales will confirm what I am sayingKant66 (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, practically speaking, I'm the only non-Mormon editing at Joseph Smith, Jr.. COgden's a liberal Mormon, remarkably knowledgeable about early LDS history, but still a church member. Plus, he's an administrator, so he can't step into the fray as easily. Otherwise, I'm the only one over there who represents the vast majority of English speakers who are non-Mormons.

Looking at the four-year-old attempt to block me that Zashitnik dredged up was a walk down memory lane. But in essence it's just another chapter of the same book: the story of a non-Mormon editing at a Mormon article.--John Foxe (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The only two times that I have reverted John Foxe on this page in that last little while have been after he has violated 3RR. His above statements should be taken for what they are: attempts to justify his actions and violations of basic wikipedia rules that totally disregard WP:AGF and WP:NOTTHEM. Let's add in this last little nugget as an example of his disregard for AGF and now WP:NPA (essentially using other editors' religious affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views). So watching admins, does any of this change your mind about whether or not John Foxe, the only editor in that last five weeks to go beyond 3RR on the page and do it five times at that, is or is not a disruptive source at the article? --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kurdwiki reported by User:Rafy (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [84]

• Section blanking: [85]
• 1st revert: [86]
• 2nd revert: [87]
• 3rd revert: [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:

I reverted first after he blanked a referenced section without any reason.--Rafy talk 20:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically, that's only three reverts. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it's still an edit conflict as he refuses any mention of "Kurdish irregulars" in that section although all given sources supports it.--Rafy talk 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This might be counted as four reverts since I would take the original section blanking as a revert. In the talk discussion the editor displays no hint of any willingness to compromise. He seems to be engaged in promotional editing in favor of the Kurds. He does not want them to have any share of the blame for the massacre of the Assyrians in 1920, for example. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. The initial reverts at Hakkâri were followed up by four reverts at Shanidar Cave. The warring continued after an admin warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Itsbydesign reported by User:Der Golem (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [91]

• 1st revert: [92]
• 2nd revert: [93]
• 3rd revert: [94]
• 4th revert: [95]
• 5th revert: [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:
I've done very simple edits to Sade Live, an article about an artist's tour: I changed the 1-event poster to an international one and I fixed the format of a reference. The user reverted 3 times without a single comment or edit summary, although I urged to discuss every time and warned not to edit war. Then he just posted warnings on my talkpage like "Welcome to Wikipedia" and resumed plain reverting. Maybe problems with WP:OWN.--Der Golem (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor has made zero attempt to discuss situation. There is zero comments left is this editor's edit summaries besides referring to another article. There is no discussion on neither the talk page of the article nor user talk page. Itsbydesign (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on, do you really think other editors are so stupid that they can't check the article history to see what's going on? It's not difficult to edit Wikipedia without having problems. Just respect other editors and attitudes.--Der Golem (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I thought I would comment here. Itsbydesign is known to exhibit WP:OWN throughout the musical tour articles of Wikipedia, and continuously Edit wars, without providing any reasonings or edit summaries. Yes, he's disruptive and I do believe a thorough administrative action should be taken. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Agree with Legolas. There seems to be another edit war brewing at Aphrodite World Tour. See here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment This user keeps reverting and editing mainly tour articles without any reason or explanation. He/she has already reverted the edits made to the Aphrodite World Tour article by Ohconfucius. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 22:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Rose Marie Aragon and User:Island Monkey reported by User:Island Monkey (Result: Both blocked - 24 hours)

Page: Raymond v. Raymond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rose Marie Aragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Island Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_v._Raymond&diff=432289970&oldid=432289635

• 1st revert: [99]
• 2nd revert: [100]
• 3rd revert: [101]
• 4th revert: [102]
• There are many more, but meh.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103] and [104].

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

Comments:

I only reverted twice!! The others were ALL manual edits. He on the other hand reverted 7 and by now I'm sure 8 times. I should not be blocked nor should I have been reported. My edits were good and improved the page as even he Island Monkey admitted. If he is not blocked I will be shocked. There must be a way to prove my edits were manual and not reverts like his.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I even compromised and left in the edits that we were discussing on the talk page to avoid conflict!! But no he kept going. Make it 9 now 10 reverts by him to my 2.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The above simply isn't true. A quick glance at the page history reveals that both users engaged in edit warring: [106], making at least four reversions. Meph^talk 12:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats non sense!! I made sure to manually edit. I only reverted twice. There must be a way to prove this. I am not lying.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out from the very beginning that I did not violate the 3 revert rule by manually editing. From the very beginning!! I made sure of it.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you manually edit the page to change the content back by removing content by another editor, then it's still reverting. -=- Adam Walker -=- 12:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. That is why they tell you to manually edit. He reverted 13 times and counting yet you say nothing to him.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:3RR it states "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." Where do people say to manually edit the page to get around 3RR? He appears to know what he did because he also reported himself at the same time. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Who is "they"?

It's nothing to do with whether the edit is "manual".

Also, "Two wrongs do not make a right".  Chzz  ►  13:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:50.80.139.102 reported by User:Tommyjb (Result: Blocked 1 Week)

Page: Beaussac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.80.139.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110]
• 4th revert: [111]
• 5th revert: [112]
• 6th revert: [113]
• 7th revert: [114]
• 8th revert: [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Comments:

User is adding talk content to article space, and reverting every removal of this.

—Tommyjb Talk! (03:52, 5 June 2011)

Reversions removed by me, problem solved, quit harassing me. 'nuff said. 50.80.139.102 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week by User:Timotheus Canens. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:GageSkidmore reported by User:William Saturn (Result: Stale)

Page: United States presidential election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GageSkidmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [117]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123]

Comments:

I added some images to the article and improved some others, but reverted without rationale. I reverted the revert and explained in an edit summary that an image (of Pawlenty) from 2011 is preferable to an image from 2003 in an article about the 2012 election. However, I was reverted again, but now with the rationale that "an official image is preferable" although I saw no evidence for such a statement (and no similar sentiment for a photo of Santorum) and believed the user was pushing his own POV. The user then backed away and I added some other images to improve the article and made some noncontroversial stylistic changes. I also started discussion on the talk page of one of the candidates (Johnson) whose photo I had replaced, to explain my objections. Discussion revealed a history of edit warring on Commons by the user in question. Without discussing the matter, he then reverted me once again, including the noncontroversial stylistic changes. In his edit summary, he displayed some ownership issues by declaring: "I don't appreciate my photos being used in this manner" (emphasis added). I asked the user to please revert his latest revert and discuss the matter where I began discussion, but after an hour, he had done neither. Perhaps I did not give him enough time, but I feel that this is an important issue that should be addressed with his user. He has a history of disregarding consensus [124], reverting without discussion [125] and edit warring as documented above. If he chooses to revert his latest revert and discuss the Johnson image issue, I will withdraw this report.William S. Saturn (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Gage has not edited the page since you warned him of 3RR. If he reverts you again, please re-report. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Four reverts have been provided above in a seven hour time frame.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I had another look, and from what I can see, I could just block you both for 3RR. However, I do not believe that would be beneficial to anyone. If Gage makes another revert of any sort, leave a message on my talk page and I'll block him. That said, I'm marking this report as Stale Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:4twenty42o reported by User:118.90.142.132 (Result: Reporter Rangeblocked)

Page: Greek Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 4twenty42o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [126]
• 2nd revert: [127]
• 3rd revert: [128]
• 4th revert: [129]
• 5th revert: [130] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.142.132 (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [132]

Comments:

User appears to be pushing agenda and not adhering to NPOV... - 4twenty42o (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You were already told about WP:burden here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4twenty42o#who_are_you_accusing_of_bad_faith.3F but resorted to edit warring again. Furthermore wording like "allegedly" is not neutral in any way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.142.132 (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my actions and statements in both cases. Your ability to dig into my "past" does not impress me, nor do I believe it has any bearing on this particular case. - 4twenty42o (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You disappoint me 4twenty42o. It shows that you (regardless of whether or not it was in good faith) are just as guilty of edit warring. 50.80.139.102 (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was late and judgement got impared when dealing with the hundreds of anon vandals out there. Let's forget it. Why don't you get an account and avoid this kind of thing? Nasnema  Chat  16:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There are rules you know. They are not for interpretation in a way, to suit you more in a particular situation. BTW above ip is not even me, the reporter. ;)

• Reporter Blocked – for a period of 31 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I love this justice! :) I remember it next time i get e-mails about donations ;)

• Note Due to further block evasion and harrassment, I have placed a 31 hour block on 118.90.134.0/20. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Various IPs reported by 108.69.80.43 (talk) (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Man-Killer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• User being reported: 90.5.129.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User being reported: 86.221.101.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User being reported: 86.207.163.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Other IPs used more than 10 days ago to make the same edit: 86.213.30.136, 86.221.33.105

Time reported: 16:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 17:45, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 09:55, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 21:50, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 11:03, 3 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
5. 18:53, 13 February 2011 (edit summary: "")
6. 20:29, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "")

Apparently whoever this is has been at it for a while, using multiple IP addresses. They are insisting that the character is a lesbian, without sources to back this up, and the article itself says nothing of the sort. I probably reverted more times than I should have, but I was hoping they would stop without me having to report them.

—108.69.80.43 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:24.177.120.138 (Result: Reporter Blocked)

Page: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [133]
• 2nd revert: [134]
• 3rd revert: [135]
• 4th revert: [136]

24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: IP is attempting to close a WQ thread he is directly involved in, and has been reverted by multiple editors. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Firmly recommend declining the request and instead applying BOOMERANG; I have also filed an ANI on the disruption that is being caused by the reporting IP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note: Reporter blocked by Horologium (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with talk page privileges revoked. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:SISPCM reported by User:Nmate (Result: No Violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [137] with a minor edit here: [138]

1. 21:24, 12 May 2011 (edit summary: Undid revision 428774392 by Apuldram (talk)") But there is no evidence that he was Hungarian, except that he was born in what today constitutes Hungary")
2. 22:50, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432553744 by Paxfax (talk)")
3. 20:22, 5 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432635362 by Paxfax (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139] Familiarity with 3RR :[140]

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

Comments:
User SISPCM is edit warring with two users over the nationality of Ignaz Semmelweis without having started any discussion on the talk page of the moot article , nor is there any attempt to contact each other on their own talk pages. SISPCM has made 3 reverts on the article while his opponents per capita have made only one there. Technically, there is no violation of 3RR ,however, in my opinion SISPCM may be indictable, even so , basing on the fact that last time I reported SISPCM for a non technically violation of 3RR on the basis that he was also unwilling to discuss edits then [141], he received an Arbitration enforcement warning for that by admin Sandstein. [142]--Nmate (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since then one of his opponents Paxfax also made a newer revert on the article because of which I left a notification about the 3RR rule on his/her talk page as well[143]--Nmate (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:S-i-m-o-n reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 31h)

User:S-i-m-o-n is essentially a new user (only 16 edits since 2006), who has stayed clear of 3RR but continued to edit-war at X-Men: First Class, here, at 20:50, 6 June 2011, after I'd asked him nearly 10 minutes earlier, here, at 20:42, to please discuss rather than edit-war.

He insists on a change to his POV, changing an objective statement that does not have a POV one way or the other.

While this is not 3RR, the fact that he edit-warred after a request for discussion displays edit-warrior behavior. I hope you can help.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae, apparently more interested in fellow users' date of registration than accuracy, is using his own frequency of editing as a foundation to place, ironically, his own spin on what actually happened in the closing scenes. At what point do details not matter? I'm sure the scene could have been summed up a lot more cursorily than it has been, as that would appear to be his main concern. What is being described as my "POV" is in fact both visually and literally evident in the film—he has yet to refute any of the components which constitute evidence.

He now states he considers the matter worthy of discussion but would not start one until reverting to his preferred edit a number of times.

Tenebrae has constructed an alternative take on the scene whilst ignoring (A) pertinent dialogue and (B) the only visual cue used consistently throughout the film which signals the character's otherwise invisible powers.

However, more attention ought to rest with Tenebrae's opinion of myself and my edit summaries, given the reasoning and course of action that is being mistakenly attributed to me. Not one for having words put in my mouth, it would be appreciated if this was looked at by someone who doesn't throw Edit War warnings around at the first sign of being wrong but instead believes in actually having a discussion.

I have been reasonable with them up to now but I cannot understand this display of bravado. Many thanks in advance.

S-i-m-o-n (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly not following what he's trying to say in that convoluted post.

I do know that he's now on his third revert, having reverted a second editor. User: J Greb made this edit and S-i-m-o-n reverted him here.

S-i-m-o-n still refuses to discuss on the article's talk page, and treats his POV edit as objective fact. For instance, "visual cues", as he mentions above, are by nature open to interpretation.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If User:Tenebrae fails to understand follow-up posts does that automatically mean the post is unreadable or that possibly Tenebrae is failing to recognise the situation? I believe I have been succinct and that this is now verging off-topic whilst becoming more reliant on who has the most friends and who has the most posts etc. It is sad if that is how discussion gets reduced and can only be seen as an indictment on Wikipedia contributors in general if allowed to prevail. An independent voice on the matter would be appreciated. I'm still at a loss to understanding Tenebrae's aversion to interpreting a subject through facts as opposed to misinterpreting it, surely it is the latter that needs avoiding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S-i-m-o-n (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you two had spent this much time discussing things on the article talk page as you have here you might have resolved this by now. GB fan (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

A few things:

• Date of joining and editing history can be irrelevant and it can also point out an editor that may not be aware of or up on editing guidlines and common practices. Would others looking at this thread look at the contribution history of those involved? Maybe. Is it fair to under line some thing that will have bearing on the discussion? Most often. Opting for a verbal route rather than a link can be seen a erring on caution to make sure the info is there and seen.
• WP:Synth tends to get bandied about with story summaries. The long and the short is that any editor plunking in info to a summary needs to take care that they are not adding "based on X, Y, and Z it is blatantly obvious that A happened even though A is never explicitly stated." Interpreting the narrative is not the function of a Wikipedia article. If the narrative is explicit, fine. If there is a reliable secondary source for the conclusion, fine as long as it's cited. Otherwise it is going to need to be discussed.
• "Bold, Revert, Discuss" is common practice. If a bold edit is reverted, the desired change should be discussed on the article's talk page. This is a way to avoid disrupting the article with material constantly being changed.
• Edit warring can, and often is defined as disruptive editing over changing a section of an article. This often includes reversions to add a desired point of information or interpretation, using the edit summaries to debate the point, and an unwillingness to use the article's talk page among other things. the situation here meets a number of those criteria.
• WP:3RR is considered a benchmark in how bad an edit war is. While the spirit of it is that editing by constant reversion in lieu of actual discussion applies in cases with as few a 1 reversion, hitting a 3rd is almost always considered a warning point - any more and blocks for disruption will be handed out.
• X-Men: First Class is suffering from more or less the norm for an article on a newly released film. Maybe a little more since it has attracted problems with the talk page. I am unsure if this has colored the characterization of those involved, but there has been a share of single minded edits hitting the page.

(added)

@GB fan - Yes, it would have been nice if this has gone to the talk page after the first round. Sometimes the long roue is needed though.

- J Greb (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Hoops gza reported by User:Ajh1492 (Result: Declined)

Page: Treblinka extermination camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 18:53, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432424788 by Ajh1492 (talk) this really is a stand alone article that is not addressed in the Holocaust in Poland")
2. 18:54, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432423405 by Ajh1492 (talk) sorry, but i do not think that parts of the timeline belong in this article; suggests that this is the complete timeline")
3. 18:55, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432423244 by Ajh1492 (talk)")
4. 18:56, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432419991 by Ajh1492 (talk)")

—Ajh1492 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

For interested administrators, please see my proposal here. This user has been having some trouble understanding the policies here. -OberRanks (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You copy-edited a bunch of material from another article (Timeline of Treblinka) into this article (Treblinka extermination camp). The main reason for having a separate article for the timeline is because the timeline is too long to incorporate into the Treblinka camp article. In addition, you added only parts of the timeline dicriminately to the camp article, thereby misrepresenting the information from the actual timeline, and therefore misrepresenting the record of time itself at this place. That is why I reverted the edits. The only reason that multiple reverts were made was because you made multiple edits. I don't think that even fits the definition of "edit warring".Hoops gza (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits were reverted because they did not improve the article and misrepresented the information that is known about the subject.Hoops gza (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As the nominator of this 3RR request, I agree with OberRanks comment. I think it is a case of misunderstanding of WP policies (and how WP software operates at a user level). I cite the passage left by Hoops gza above - The only reason that multiple reverts were made was because you made multiple edits.. I think it speaks for itself.

I just want to shepard the article back to FA status, the topic is too important to let it languish at C-class - but the article isn't going to improve by itself. Hoops gsa needs to be mentored to understand that an article doesn't magically improve itself, but it edited constructively by many hands. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-listed at ANI. Recommend we keep all the discussions in one place. -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined User:Hoops gza made 4 reverts to Treblinka extermination camp in a matter of 3 minutes. IMO, it's not really a 3RR violation. If User:Hoops gza makes another revert, leave a message on my talk page and I'll block them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkcat1 reported by User:TheFarix (Result: 24h)

Page: List of Suite PreCure episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkcat1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

• 1st revert: [145]
• 2nd revert: [146]
• 3rd revert: [147]
• 4th revert: [148]
• 5th revert: [149]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [151]

Comments:
Darkcat1 has repeatedly attempted to added in unverifiable episode titles to List of Suite PreCure episodes. His "source" is the Live Journal of an illegal fansub group which distributes copyrighted material without the creator's authorization. Either Darkcat1 or a member of this fansub group added the information to ANN's Encyclopedia, which has already been judge unreliable by WP:ANIME, (see WP:ANIME/RS). While a reliable source for the next four episode titles will not be available at the end of the week (when the titles are formally announced), Darkcat1 has refused to wait until then and insists on adding the unverified, and potentially incorrect, episode titles. Darkcat1 has also declared that they will revert any edit that removes the disputed titles.[152] On top of that, Darkcat1 has twice engaged in personal attacks, first by calling me an "idotodic wiki nazi"[153] and second by again calling me an idiot.[154] —Farix (t | c) 03:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Declined)

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

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

• 1st revert: Revert 1
• 2nd revert: Revert 2
• 3rd revert: Revert 3
• 4th revert: Revert 4
• 5th revert: Reverts 5 and 6 (2 in 1)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Yugoslav_Front#Chetniks.2C_constantly_followed_by_people_adding_negative_labeling

Comments:

I am adressing here to report the situation that occured in Yugoslav Front article. User DIREKTOR has been edit warring while discussions were still opened. In meantime he has made a complain at WP:AN about my 4 reverts and I was sanctioned by a 6 months revert restriction. However, I am counting to DIREKTOR in that same edit war 5 reverts in less than 24 hours, including 6 in 27 hours. I posted all seven reverts up here. DIREKTOR claims his reverts 3 and 5 are edits, but they aren´t because his edits, beside being about a sensitive issue currently under mediation, are a change in a relatively neutral version that was agreed in meantime to not be changed until the mediation gets over. Beside that, the changes were still being discussed on the talk page, however DIREKTOR ignored the discussion (knowing he was oposed) and inserted the text anyway. He calls it "sourced information" and missinforms in the edit summary about the situation, because he is perfectly aware his edit is disputed by other sorces, and all that is the reason of the mediation under way already for more than a year. Now, even if we consider his edit nº3 an edit, it was reverted by my and by BRD it should have been discussed, so his insistence on it in the edit 5 without finishing the discussion, is basically the same revert, just that this time he expects to game the system by changing the source and a few words. Similar gaming of the system he tryied at his revert 5, which is a double revert because in that same edit he reverts the image, and insists in his lead edit. As much good faith he can receve, he has at least 4 reverts in less than 4 hours there, and gaming the system by joining 2 reverts in one, or changing a few words (or a source) just to not consider it a revert, should not be awarded. Since then, he has been edit warring in other articles as well, exemple [155] including a prejuditial offensive edit summary. A real pattern in the past. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined No page activity has occurred since June 4th. User:DIREKTOR did indeed violate 3RR on the 1st and 2nd of June. However, blocking him nearly a full 5 days after the offense would be nothing but punitive. Next time something like this happens, be sure to report it in a timely manner. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand, and I apreciate very much your time spent over this. But, something really strange happend. I was punished with reverting restriction (6 months 1 rv 48 hours) before I even had a chance to defend myself, and I didn´t even got the notification about the report, only a day after. I thought I had made 3 reverts, but seems that I indeed made 4, because I divided 1 revert into 3 edits (I´m actually still not 100% sure if I really breaked the 3RR, or not). Anyway, User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise took the decition to punish me without listening to my reasons, and when I actually explained to him that he was manipulated by that user at the report (because those edits were under mediation, and it was not a question of sources, but rather about WP:UNDUE), Fut.Per apologised about the lack of notification but has refused to provide me any further details (which I asked several times) either about my conduct, either about DIREKTORS. I obviously presented this reverts 3 days ago, as you can see here: User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#.3F, but again he declined to comment. I actually hoped he was going to respond, but seems I only lost time waiting, which is quite an unfair situation for me. Beside, I am acused of being "disruptive" and having a "battleground mentality" when actually the situation was much different. Beside sparing the other user of eventual sanctions, he has indeed punished me and further refused to have a discussion about it. I can live with the sanction because I actually don´t usually edit war, but the unfair remarks done under the influence of the other user version and that stay at ARBMAC, and the refusal of discussion by Fut.Per. has really left me quite disapointed. I plan to challenge the decition, but I was hoping that the situation can be rectified by easier means. FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of double standards, both editors should be punished, or none. That is only logical reaction to this situation. By this, it looks that more damage to wiki guideline was created by DIREKTOR, then sanctioned FkpCascais. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:PublicAdvocate reported by Rhode Island Red (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [156]

• 1st revert: [157]
• 2nd revert: [158]
• 3rd revert: [159]
• 4th revert: [160]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161][162]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163][164][165]

Comments:
The editor in question is an SPA who recently showed up on the article (about a multilevel marketed dietary supplement product) and began modifying text about the side effects of the product. While the manufacturer directly acknowledges that the product can cause side effects, the text in the article was modified by PublicAdvocate to state that "there are no side effects", in contradiction to what the cited source indicated. I reverted the edits and pointed this out to the user repeatedly on the talk page but to no avail; the discussion degenerated into an I didn't hear that situation. The repeated reverts by PublicAdvocate actually began a couple of days prior to today, but I assumed good faith, backed off on the reverts, and tried to cut the new user some slack -- I didn't bother counting up their reverts or consider reporting for 3RR violation until today, whe it became clear that discussion wouldn't put an end to the reverts. I warned the user that they were in danger of violating 3RR, and they went ahead and reverted again after the orignal version had been previously restored by another editor. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:71.205.240.85 reported by User:Yobol (Result: 31h)

Page: Aspartame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.205.240.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [166]

• 1st revert: [167]
• 2nd revert: [168]
• 3rd revert: [169]
• 4th revert: [170]
• 5th revert: [171]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

Comments:

Yobol (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Virtualerian reported by User:Mtking (Result: 24h)

Page: Template:Emerging technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 23:47, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "More articles")

   00:28, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "Brain–computer interface added")

   00:30, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "fix")

2. 01:41, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "Cyberethics, Ethics of artificial intelligence and minor changes")
3. 03:07, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "Brain implant and Exocortex into Neuroprosthetics")

   03:14, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "See: Hovertrain#Newer efforts")

4. 03:43, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "Fluidics into flexible wings")

• Diff of warning: here

—Mtking (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
Yes, I passed the law. Sorry. Ban me if If i supposed to (?) Virtualerian (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Drrll reported by User:DavesPlanet (Result: Declined)

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

Drrll has a history of beligerant edits, edits without collaberating, has engaged in edit wars in the past, has required moderation in the past. Currently he is arbitrarily deleting content on several political pages on the assertion that www.citizensforethics.org (CREW) is not a reliable source for BLP. I reverted his edits to the Bill Frist article and asked on the talk page for him to justify his deletions of well sourced material. He did post to the discussion but again removed well sourced content rather than discuss the merrits of the source or attempt to find additional sources (would have been a third revert if I had found his original reverts sooner). He has also removed CREW edits from other political pages. I believe Drr11 is pursuing a political agenda to delete anti-GOP references. I have refrained from an edit war by leaving the well sourced information deleted at present, I will find additional references shortly.

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:

DavesPlanet (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I see this dispute got listed as an edit war but it did not go that far. I was only intending to highlight Drrll's unwillingness to come to consensus and work with others, he carries the BLP standards too far by making arbitrary decisions about the credibility of referencing well respected national watchdog group CREW. He carried this to the extreme by arbitrarily deleting content that was currently in dispute based solely on his dislike for the CREW web site instead of doing a quick search to find additional references to the same material by the New York Times and Huffington Post in the top few results from Google. I found this activity offensive enough to want to make an official notice. DavesPlanet (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I try to observe WP:BRD, but WP:BLP calls for a higher standard for BLPs:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources...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." (emphasis in original)

Although I was not required to, I did discuss this in the article's Discussion page. CREW, a partisan source, is not "high-quality" enough for BLPs, as I discussed on the Discussion page.

I might add that while some material was supported by the already-included Washington Post reference, the thrust of the sentence was that CREW declared him a corrupt politician (rather extreme thing to say, but it is a partisan organization). The rest of the material was sourced solely to CREW. It is also important to note that FEC violations by high-profile politicians is hardly a rare occurrence.

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Lgmagone and User:130.76.32.99 reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Greg Mortenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 130.76.32.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Lgmagone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [173]

• 1st revert: [174]
• 2nd revert: [175]
• 3rd revert: [176]
• 4th revert: [177]
• 5th revert: [178]
• 6th revert: [179]
• 7th revert: [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No diff, sorry. I did let him know in the edit summary that he was editing disruptively, I also let an administrator know what was happening as this was a repeat of a few months ago from the same user. [182]; [183] Comments:

NOTE: This user is actually User:Lgmagone who has been editing as an IP (130.76.32.99)

I did make one error in this where I did not check one of his reverts for an added reference and reverted back to the version before the reverting started. This was mostly becaue I looked at the edit summary alone and saw nothing in it, believing that Lgmagone was behaving as he did a couple of months ago in a disruptive, edit warring fashion. I reverted only based on references being needed for BLPs and made my reasons for the reverts clear in the edit summary. After that, with the reference added, the text could certainly stay but needed to be moved to a different place for purposes of visability. I moved it to what I thought was a more appropriate section, the user then reverted my move stating that it wasn't moved but removed. This was definitely not the case (as the diffs above will show). I moved it back once more, and the user continued edit warring by reverting my changes. He has gone way past 3RR on this AND he insists on continuing to edit as an IP after being warned not to do so tonight, but also when he edited previously. During that time period, he was also notified that he was behaving disruptively by Administrator Will Beback. The user decided to leave Wikipedia and asked that his talk page be scrubbed at that time. From what I have seen tonight, I believe this user is here just to make a point and win. I have let the user know about this noticeboard entry here [184] Thanks for considering this. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is my response: I added a one line contribution tonight to Wikipedia because there was a recent news article that had some relevant information about Greg Mortenson. It was promptly removed by LHB1239. Then, I readded it including a source that he wanted to see. It was removed again. And again. And again. The he removed the contribution saying it was moved - but it wasn't, it was gone. He added it back in a subsequent edit.

LHB1239 has been at least equally engaged in the edit war as I have. It was not my intent to start an edit war, it was my intent to contribute. LHB1239 quickly turned it into an edit war by continually removing or moving what I had contributed to the article. It doesn't matter what I contribute - he removes everything that I write and contribute.

Further, he reports that he does not disagree with the content on the talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greg_Mortenson. IF there is no disagreement, then why did he revert what I contributed multiple times? He has no good explanation for this - as he was not reading the article and just automatically reverting what I put in because he did not want it there. When pressed on this point, he clams up and refuses to discuss what was wrong with the subsequent edits that he continually removed. I think he was simply mad and didn't want me contributing to the article.

That leads to a difficult question: When you have an editor that refuses to allow another person to contribute,how do you handle it? My contribution was refused by LHB1239 tonight and there was nothing I could do to have him leave it in the article, even for a shrot while like 24 hours. He simply removed it, even though it was sourced and relevant information. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement "my contribution was refused" is a complete misrepresentation. Looking at the last couple of diffs, it is obvious that I not only was fine with the addition of the material, but I tried to move it to a better location for enhanced visibility. It was not "removed" but moved. I explained in the edit summary two times that I was moving it and the user still reverted my edit (and without an edit summary). Lhb1239 (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think many editors would agree that moving it in the criticism section is "enhancing visibility". 98.203.237.77 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• After both editors complained on my talk page I glanced at the contribution history and protected the article for three days without further investigation. Talk:Greg Mortenson#Edit warring). I have edited the article in the past but have not been involved in this current dispute. Looking over the dispute now, I'd simply say that there is a BLP involved but that doesn't entirely excuse repeated reverts of good faith edits without discussion. I invite any admin to remove the protection and/or block editors as they see fit. As I wrote on the talk page, the editors should discuss this material on the talk page in order to get a consensus on NPOV for this difficult topic.   Will Beback  talk  08:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a content dispute, I think it is an editor dispute. Anything I write will get revereted multiple times by LHB1239, even when it is a neutral, sourced information. I'm not sure I see the point of trying to contribute to wikipedia when everything I write gets taken out of the article by one other editors and then I get reported to the user board. LHB1239 is a {WP:FANATIC} on this article and is overzealous about trying to protect Greg Mortenson. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lgmagone's charge here that my reverts and edits at the article reflect an editor dispute and that I am trying to "protect Greg Mortenson" are patently untrue. His continued use of personal attacks against me here, in his edit summaries, at Will Beback's talk page and the article talk page are unwarranted. I would like them to stop.

Back to the issue of the article: With my first revert, I didn't even know it was Lgmagone because he was editing was an IP rather than with his user name. After he reverted my revert with the edit summary, "rather than reverting my change, please either add a ref needed citation or add a citation", I then checked the Geolocate on the IP and saw that it was coming from Boeing in Renton. This is where Lgmagone had edited from previously before creating a user account, and I deduced it was the same user. Because of what he wrote in his edit summary I believed he had still not provided a reference. I reverted his change back and added the edit summary, "reverting back in accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE do not change back w/o a ref and please do not edit war". My concern was in regard to the article being a BLP, nothing more. He then changed it back without an edit summary (I still didn't realize he had put in a reference at this point) and it was at this point that I placed an edit warring template on his talk page. My concerns were that he was returning with the same edit warring behavior as he demonstrated in April (or May) and that he refused to edit with his established user account (isn't that classified as using a sockpuppet?) When I saw that the text he provided had merit and a citation, I was merely placing it in a better location for visability (as I stated above). In the beginning, it wasn't the text or the editor I was concerned about, it was the lack of a reference because the Mortenson article is a BLP. That's where my problem(s) with what was happening at the article stood as well as the edit warring. This was never a content dispute for me. Lhb1239 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Enough! If you do not disagree with my content and are not disputing what I added, then you have no argument with me. Leave it alone at this point, and in the future, please read the article before reverting what I contribute. Also, I do not have access to my prior account and will not be using it in the future, please let it go away without continually referencing me by my old username. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Never, ever change what someone has written on a talk page. If you want something changed, ask the person who originally wrote it or ask an administrator to help you out with it. Your account is still active as far as I can see, therefore, you can access and use it. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Altitude2010 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 1 week)

Page: Cowboys & Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altitude2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

• 1st revert: [186]
• 2nd revert: [187]
• 3rd revert: [188]
• 4th revert: [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

Comments:
Altitude2010 appears to have ownership issues with this article, and has just come off a previous block for edit-warring over this exact same issue. See ANI discussions here and here for more. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike... below is a more detailed report showing how Altitude2010 has been reverting in the past week or so. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Edits at 15:03, 14:51, 14:37, and 11:40 are all simple reverts back to his previous version on 6/3 before his last edit warring block. This is fairly textbook. Kuru (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Altitude2010 reported by User:Erik (Result: duplicate report)

Page: Cowboys & Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altitude2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: May 28, 2011

• 1st revert: May 28, 2011 diff
• 2nd revert: May 28, 2011 diff
• 3rd revert: June 1, 2011 diff
• 4th revert: June 1, 2011 diff
• 5th revert: June 2, 2011 diff (was blocked for 48 hours afterward)
• 6th revert: June 7, 2011 diff
• 7th revert: June 7, 2011 diff
• 8th revert: June 7, 2011 diff
• 9th revert: June 7, 2011 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cowboys & Aliens (film)#Marketing

Comments:

Altitude2010 (talk · contribs) is the primary contributor of Cowboys & Aliens (film) with over 330 edits. The "Marketing" section was considered inadequate, and a new writeup was provided to revise the section. Altitude2010 disputed the writeup in its entirety, and despite consensus garnered for the replacement writeup, Altitude2010 continued to revert the "Marketing" section back to his draft. He has never commented at Talk:Cowboys & Aliens (film), denies a consensus for the replacement writeup, and has already been blocked once for edit warring. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:AllanEdwards999 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Blocked)

Page: Efficient-market hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AllanEdwards999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [192]

• 1st revert: [193]
• 2nd revert: [194]
• 3rd revert: [195]
• 4th revert: [196]
• 5th revert: [197]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [198]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (None on actual article talk page)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Elockid ^(Talk) 22:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Note:Block later extended to indefinite by another admin, w/o talk page or email access, due to personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Block was shortened to 1 week. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Changed back to indef again for socking.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:BelloWello (Result: Declined)

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

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

• 1st revert: [199]
• 2nd revert: [200]
• 3rd revert: [201]
• 4th revert: [202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well aware of 3RR, having come off a one week block for it.

Comments:
I have been working on trying to edit the Weimar page along with several other editors. The reporting editor and I have engaged in a little back and forth, though we've both been trying to positively make improvements to the article. I must first say however that the reporting editor never provided any warning of 3RR, something that is normally customarily given as at least a courtesy if not a policy. There are several other editors who have been working on this article as well and we're been making positive compromises. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But you violated 3RR, nobody else has. There is no reason to warn you, you are well aware of 3RR. bW 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If I violated 3 RR then so did you as you reverted my reverts. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You did this BW.

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

--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The last one is not a revert. It is an entirely novel edit that split it into two paragraphs and entered novel wording. But you made your case, let the responding admin figure it out. bW 03:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a revert because it modified wording and changed what other editors has previously done, especially in a way that was at least somewhat controversial. It was more than splitting into 2 paragraphs as you added wording that had potential "weasel words". Also I would remind you, you are also coming off a 1 week block. I would prefer we work out our differences on the Talk page of the article, but you want to drag this back to ANI so here we are. Hopefully this will be resolved fairly. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also add that with Revert 2 I was simply re-adding a section of text and modifying the wording (novel content) which BW then later modified into an acceptable compromise. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also this

• 5th revert: [207] which occurred "just" outside of the 24 hour limits and would be the first on this list. It's technically "outside" of the 24 hours but could be an attempt to "game the system". This is also a direct revert.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oh yes, 13 hours away from the closest revert is certainly "just" outside. bW 05:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You have since this discussion also made this revert [208] which purportedly is to be in line with the Talk page discussion, but changes the compromise wording of "college degrees". I personally see this edit as debatable and somewhat controversial, as well as certainly a revert.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The sole purpose of that edit was to clarify that the "high school" is also unaccredited. To my knowledge, that information was never included in the article previously, also making that a novel edit. bW 05:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You did it in a way that reverted a portion of the wording that had been worked on through consensus. To say the college is "unaccredited" is technically true, but doesn't tell the whole story. That's why saying "degrees" which are unaccredited was better as it was more accurate. Technically you weren't wrong in what you did, but it's still a revert from an accepted format that I believe is more truthful and verifiable. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversial≠revert. Please reference where Weimar is accredited, otherwise, they are an unaccredited degree mill. bW 06:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They have credits and classes that are accredited through Griggs. See the discussion on the Talk page. Even ElKevbo a scholar in higher education has noted the difference. Degree/Diploma Mills are often illegitimate or even counterfeit. Weimar by contrast is working on finishing it's accreditation and currently has some available through Griggs. It's more honest to say degrees from Weimar are unaccredited some those who transfer from there often receive at least some credit from doing so and don't have to be stuck in remedial classes.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that there was never much of an attempt to engage in discussion of resolving conflict before this 3RR/edit war began. 4 of us were making significant edits, back and forth working to improve the article. Yes there was "some" conflict but it was mostly being handled through compromise for example these 2 edits [209] and [210]. I seriously do not want to engage in an edit war, and would like to work constructively on the article under question, which seems to be somewhat of a content dispute. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment As noticeboards fill up with disputes over minor Seventh Day Adventist educational institutions, a solution that is beginning to look increasingy likely is that one or more editors are indefinitely topic-banned by the community from articles related to Seventh Day Adventism. Both editors here have recently received one week blocks for edit warring in a similar way. Mathsci (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be topic-banned though. This is my area of expertise and I want to positively contribute to it. I've been trying, though I admit there have been some failures. Is there a way we can just agree to not edit the same article and have another editor look into any questions we have? For example I've stayed from the the PUC based articles which I know are BW's favorites. Yes I stupidly made an edit there a while back, but I quickly left that behind. I believe both of us an contribute positively if we stay away and have an editor who can deal with our concerns to the other editor. Thoughts?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of you are a little too close to the subject; but this is not the appropriate place for a discussion on that. Perhaps if you both agreed to be mentored by a user like ElKevbo (talk · contribs) (if he is agreeable), that might be a way forward. Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Mathsci, I don't know if you're referring to Adventism in general or Weimar when you say subject. I hope you mean the former. If you are accusing me of being "close" to Weimar, I would definitely consider that a personal attack. I have no association whatsoever with that unaccredited diploma mill. bW 05:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack? Mathsci (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Weimar is not a diploma mill. It has some credits which are accredited and which can be transfered to other colleges, especially using Griggs accreditation. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I'm not sure being close to the subject is our inherent problem. Simba and others are just as close, but they know how to handle themselves. Sure I'd be happy to be mentored. It's been suggested for me, but to confess I've been too lazy to search for such a mentor. I'm not sure if ElKevbo is willing, but if you find someone (hopefully not someone I have a ton of disagreements with) I'm game. Having the same mentor would sure be interesting but I'm willing. Contrary to some assertions I do not live my life to edit war on SDA institution articles. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I am already under mentoring, and I like my mentor very well, thank you. Also, I note that unlike Fountainviewkid, I have written two Good Article worthy articles recently with many more on the way. I don't think its exactly fair to group me with an editor who seems to have done very little to add to the encyclopedia. Thanks. bW 05:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments BW. Perhaps you mentor suggest ways for us to edit peacefully? Sure you've done some good articles, but you also have a record that's certainly not any more glorious as mine. And actually I don't have the same history if we look at all the Usernames. I've been making constructive edits as ElKevbo and Donald can attest. Personally mentoring by either would be fine with me. Also Kenatipo, Lionel, and Simba would be able to note some of my positive contributions. I believe I have added through finding reliable sources and adding them in appropriate places. I admit I'm still learning... but I'm trying.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't deny that you've made a substantial number of edits. I've written or am in the process of writing four major articles (two of which are in mainspace, one of which is all but ready and another that should be very soon), I have many more planned. If you are interested, I would be happy to collaborate with you on an article on Lee Grismer for his amazing contributions to science that should be quite easy to take to good article status. bW 05:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would call them more than "edits". Many of them were positive contributions relating to sources and such. For example at Fountainview Academy, where you tried to stop me by pulling a COI attack but that's beside the point. As for Grismer, I'm going to stay away from him. He's a good scientist but has interesting relationship with the church, as you know. I'm not into creating a ton of articles as I am to finding sources and making small adjustments. Hopefully we can still contribute positively on here. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think in Bello's case we're beyond mentoring. He already has a mentor: Kubigula. And another admin, Will Beback, has been regularly advising Bello on how to work collaboratively. And Will is the first to admit that Bello doesn't take his advice. In the particular case, Bello is edit warring over an accredidation issue, and yes, he definitely did violate 3RR on the 4th edit as Fountain pointed out. Bello hasn't even been back 48 hours!!! Fountain hasn't had the benefit of mentoring, so for him it is an option. We can see how Fountain responds. However, nothing has worked with Bello. It's long past due for a topic ban. The previous proposal at ANI to topic ban him had considerable support before Bello was indef blocked. When was that--10 days ago?!?!?!? Lionel (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happens here (and what is about to happen is a pair of 1 week blocks) Fountain should be placed on probation and mandatory mentoring and Bello should be topic banned from SDA. This should go to ANI sooner than later. Lionel (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Lionelt is entirely misrepresenting the fourth edit. The first three edits consisted primarily of removing unnecessary information from the article and replacing it with the Template:Unaccredited boilerplate text, the fourth was editing the text (which I could not remove a fourth time!) to make it more closely reflect the source. It was a novel edit and does not count against 3RR. Either way, there are enough eyes on that article which should ensure that no edits will last that would give credibility to that unaccredited diploma mill, so I will be happy to refrain from editing that article for a week. bW 05:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Who's judging what is "unnecessary information"? Whatever BW doesn't like? That information was very necessary and has been modified through compromise and consensus. See the page history. ElKevbo, Donald, Kenatipo, and myself have worked on those modifications using sources and getting the right wording. This has nothing to do with "giving credibility" to a certain location. And Weimar is not an "unaccredited diploma mill". It's a small religous college working on it's accreditation issues. The fact it has applied for WASC and a nursing school shows it's trying to go beyond whatever negative reputation it has had. Yes I'll be happy to refrain from editing that article for a while. I'll only use the Talk page and let other editors handle it better. Editors who I was working collaboratively with. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Enough. This is ridiculous. Both of you have violated 3RR, and I am at liberty to block you both for edit warring. Rather than block the both of you, which would be purely unproductive, I'm going to give you both the opportunity to stop acting like children, and use the article's talk page. Both of you, last warning. I'm watching the article. Next person to make a revert before a compromise/agreement is reached will find themselves blocked. Capeache? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I second Fastily's comments.   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Fastily and Bebeck, your advice is appreciated on this. I have worked with both FVK and BW and would be disappointed if either of them have to be topic banned. If they could refrain from any personal comments about the other and focus on article development, the problem would mostly be solved, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you admins for the mercy. Yes I am willing to work on article development. I apologize for the wrongs.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Rc Cola Girl reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Removed disputed passage as the citation is a blog entry and no reliable citation can be found.)

Page: RC Cola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rc Cola Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [211]

• 1st revert: [212]
• 2nd revert: [213]
• 3rd revert: [214]
• 4th revert: [215]

User is continuing to insert material not supported by the given citation by replacing the cited mention of Sharon Stone with the uncited mention of Kelly Moran.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216]

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

Comments:

• Note Same edit was attempted earlier [217] as the sole contribution of a user Kelly Moran, who likely is the same person as RC Cola Girl. I found and added the cite supporting the mention of Sharon Stone in the article after the 1st revert mentioned above for RC Cola Girl. Carolina wren (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• The source for the Sharon Stone appearance is a blog. I've done some searching on this and there does not appear to be a definitive or reliable source for either Kelly Moran or Sharon Stone appearing in the commercial. As the information is contentious and poorly sourced, my suggestion is to remove the material altogether and discussion can take place on the talk page with regard to the quality and availability of sources. In the grand scheme of things, it is a relatively minor bit of trivia in the history of the product, and it's absence won't reflect on the quality of the article whatsoever.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Then the disputed edit should be entirely removed. I think I'll do that. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I received the following message from "Rc Cola Girl" who still does not get the point that verifiable reliable citations are required: Steelbeard1 In reference to you're repeat edits,of the Rc Cola page Me and My Rc. You use Vintagevending as your proof (citation) when they are using the incorrect posting from Wikipedia. It is a circle of inaccurate information. Also I have even suggested you to validate by notifying The Mary Grady Agency. Who have a photo of Kelly Moran (from that Rc Cola Shoot) hanging on their wall. You won't even go that far to validate your argument. Kelly has also graced the cover of Skateboard Magazine (coincidental) Also Imbd Posts Kelly Moran as the skateboarding nurse in Young Doctors in Love ( a cameo bases on her Rc COLA FAME). I believe Miss Moran has even posted A flyer from 1978 promo tour as the Rc Cola Girl which she toured the Country on a 4 year contract.Who ever posted Sharon Stone as the Rc girl on the Skateboard is doing so for publicity and attention it may attract, such as VintageVending who are using as your (citation). Who are using Wikipedia as their source (Are You Kidding Me). You seem like a smart individual, why don't you follow through.Skate Lab Skateboard Museum ( Simi Valley,CA) Has copy of the Skateboard Magazine with Kelly on the cover AS THE RC GIRL (NOT SHARON STONE)Hanging on their wall also. Amazingly enough you can't find a copy of the commercial anywhere on the web, I do have a copy, which was given to Kelly by Cott production,after the commercial was completed..Did you know that spot won CLIO AWARD? Do some homework then we talk again. (14:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)) (end of pasted message) I suggest that messages be sent to her stating why her postings were deleted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:RolandR reported by User:Harken zee (Result: Malformed)

Page: Steven Plaut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RolandR (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:

The entry on Steven Plaut is being vandalized by editor RolandR. The entry originally made reference to an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court. RolandR removed this to hid ethe fact that teh court case is undergoing Supreme Court Appeal. He then demanded sources that prove that such an appeal is underway. Sources were added, including the page on this from the Hebrew Wikipedia and also the primary page from the Israeli Supreme Court web site containing the court petition now under consideration. Again RolandR maliciously removed all such references. Wiki administration intervention is now needed!

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 09:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Both editors seem to have broken the 1RR restriction there, I will warn them rather than block however. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • What should RolandR have done ? It's a BLP, Harken zee does not understand policy requirements, he was contacted on his talk page, informative edit summaries were used, he would not stop. It's not an edit war, it's one inexperienced editor breaking policy repeatedly and another experienced editor enforcing policy in a BLP in an article in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, he should have made it clear it was a BLP violation, I'm going by the edit summaries which just comment on sources and say nothing about it being a BLP violation. I don't think we can allow breaks of 1RR in an argument about sources. BLP is a different issue but it wasn't raised. I'm not sure RolandR even realised there is a 1RR sanction as his message on Harken zee's talk page is the standard 3RR one. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY once the editor eventually supplied a court petition source but I'm not convinced saying that would have stopped them given their inexperience. I asked because I'm never quite sure what to do in these situations. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Harken Zee is a new editor. I am certain that he is a sock of Truthprofessor, who is like this account an SPI ediyting only to paint Steven Plaut in a favourable light.RolandR (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It may have been. I think the best course would have been to revert once and warn of the 1RR restriction, and if the editor reverts that reversion (so going back to their original edit) contact an Admin/noticeboard. If it clearly a BLP issue, then it can be reverted again, but the key thing is to deal with the 1RR as soon as possible. And if it's a BLP issue, label it as such! Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Great. That's clear. Many thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the reporting editor has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of serial puppeteer Truthprofessor. RolandR (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Stampspinsclips reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Agustín Carstens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Stampspinsclips (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 (removal of polemic article making unsubstantiated assertion.)
• 5th revert: diff (polemical article removed. Carstens has repeatedly described himself as pragmatic, not orthodox.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:
I do not know if this is a "polemical" article (Reuters qualify as a reliable source), not even as a BLP issue (this summary is a BLP issue on the other hand), but removing sourced content without a real reason is not the solution. I told him/her Reuters is a reliable source, feel free using the talkpage, then I give him/her a warn, and s/he preferred to revert me a fifth time. Something is needed here. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:BradfordPal1 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: 24h)

Bradford: Bradford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:BradfordPal1: BradfordPal1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [218]

• 1st revert: [219]
• 2nd revert: [220]
• 3rd revert: [221]
• 4th revert: [222]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [223] (amongst numerous previous discussions such as [[224])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [225]

Comments:It is covered on the Bradford talk page

• A little more background: apparently the user's son, editing through an IP address, was blocked about a week ago for repeatedly attempting to add the same content to the article, also without providing sources. The father had (kind of) been engaging in a discussion on the article talk page, although the entire focus of the "discussion" about how it was "unfair" and "stalinistic" to block his son for adding "obvious" information. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche reported by User:Medeis (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [226]
• 2nd revert: [227]
• 3rd revert: [228]
• 4th revert: [229]

Note that yet more edits reflect a sense of ownership. He has basically decided that he has unlimited reverts on Anthony Weiner photo scandal.:

• 6th revert [230]
• 7th revert [231]
• 8th revert [232]
• 9th revert [233]

And we have four reverts in 24 hours with Epeefleche returning to "blogger" at Anthony Weiner (a separate article) as well:

• 1st revert: [234]
• 2nd revert: [235]
• 3rd revert: [236]
• 4th revert: [237]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [238]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page [239][240]

Comments:

Most of the diffs you've provided look like edits, not reverts. If they're reverts, can you show more clearly what Epeefleche reverted to? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• I see TWO actual reverts, widely separated, with explanations in the Edit Summary. What I do not see is any apparent evidence of "edit warring" per se. Rather, Epeefleche is actively and constructively contributing to an article that is developing as a current event unfolds. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Declined I'm sorry, but this is just petty. This is what happens when an article gets a lot of traffic and edits. Someone may inadvertently technically make more than three reverts within twenty-four hours. But this is no war here. Most of these items are trivial changes to style. Seriously. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, nine reverts in one day is understandable. I'll stop paying attention to the rules too with your blessing. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Naef reported by User:Ohnoitsjamie (Result: 24h)

Page: Rock and roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Naef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [241]
• 2nd revert: [242]
• 3rd revert: [243]
• 4th revert: [244]
• 5th revert: [245]
• 6th revert: [246]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247] Has received multiple warnings: [248]

User has not responded to warnings or attempted to use the talk page to resolve issues: [249]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan reported by doncram (Result: 40 hours)

Page: Charles M. Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 18:16, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "moved to talk")
2. 20:31, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433445233 by Doncram (talk) no")
3. 21:06, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Doncram (talk) to last version by SarekOfVulcan")
4. 21:23, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "rm database dump, leave new item. "Lifelong architect of academic structures" would seem to indicate this is accurate")

Editor SarekOfVulcan and I were recently both blocked for going over 3RR at architect article List of George Franklin Barber works (see block notice at SarekOfVulcan's Talk (archived) and link to block notice and discussion at my Talk). It's an example of a typical architect list of works which includes addresses of buildings and other details. Today, SarekOfVulcan followed my edits to new article Charles M. Robinson and repeatedly, unreasonably removes similar detail, which I restored. I tried, some, to have discussion at talk, but that has rapidly failed. SarekOfVulcan exceeded 4RR. He has also followed me to other articles, and seems to be similarly engaging in removal of similar info at Marion M. Steen, where he is at 3RR at the moment. These removals, particularly in edit-warring mode, are unreasonable. --doncram 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

—doncram 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that every time Doncram reverted me, he included an item on that list that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article, despite the fact that I had specifically called it out on the talkpage. If he couldn't even perform that level of due diligence, why should we believe the rest of them are accurate? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which item you are referring to, you have not answered my request for you to identify any specific problem you might have. I take it you "know" one item is incorrect, but rather than explaining that, you withhold that and remove them all? That seems unreasonable and unhelpful. --doncram 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon reviewing, SarekOfVulcan may implicitly be questioning one South Carolina item, different than another SC item; i mentioned a question about a SC item meaning "Lutheran Theological Seminary Building: Beam Dormitory, 4201 Main St., Columbia, SC (Robinson,Charles M.), NRHP-listed[2]", when he may have interpreted i was recognizing and insisting upon return of a different SC item that I did not notice. SarekOfVulcan, whatever, you need to communicate clearly at a Talk page and it is unreasonable to wholesale remove all the works of the architect because you question one (which you did not even explain).

Its a clear case of 3RR violation, anyhow. --doncram 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. In other words, you're just now getting around to reading my talkpage post, after reverting three times. That works well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I read what you posted. You did not name a specific item; I take it you think i was supposed to understand a strikeout which just appeared to be a record of a removed item. As I said, I spoke of a SC item and I think you misunderstood what I referred to, i.e. you did not really absorb/read my posting either. It's flat out 3RR violation for you to remove the material. If you just removed one row you questioned, and explained, I wouldn't object, but it is unreasonable for you to remove everything else in the article. Even if i didn't read what you wrote, it is not justified to edit war like that. --doncram 22:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan exceeds 3rr also now at Marion M. Steen:

Page: Marion M. Steen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 17:12, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "cleanup")
2. 21:27, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "locations and attributions belong in the articles, they don't need to be duplicated here")
3. 21:31, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Doncram (talk) to last version by SarekOfVulcan")
4. 21:38, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433454401 by Doncram (talk) wasteful and duplicative")

Each removal removes address and attribution specifics that are useful, normal information in an architect list of works. --doncram 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Note discussion at WT:NRHP#Straw poll on inclusion of NRHP attribution in architect article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm, that seems like a distraction, that new "straw poll" is entirely unrelated to question of your edit warring. --doncram 22:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, but it's entirely relevant to the question of your edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not relevant that, at 21:34, 9 June 2011, after every one of my edits (and all but one of your offending edits itemized above), you open a different discussion elsewhere that is tangentially related to the content of the architect articles. It is not relevant to any assertion of edit warring on my part at all. How on earth can you even suggest that? --doncram 23:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, does SarekOfVulcan, because he is an administrator, get a free pass to edit war? I see he's now posted a "gone for 3 hours" note at his Talk page, which I presume is to dissuade any action here. And, the current articles are in the version he edited to in violation. This does not seem fair. --doncram 23:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of forty hours -- tariqabjotu 23:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but something seems really wrong here - on Marion M. Steen, Sarek has four edits total on the article - the first is not a revert, just an edit with a valid edit summary, so how has he exceeded 3RR, as Doncram claims? Same thing on Charles M. Robinson - yes, they're both edit-warring, but neither one of them has actually passed 3RR - and since Doncram is just as guilty, why was he not blocked as well? MikeWazowski (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That first edit on Marion M. Steen with summary "cleanup" removed material. I think u only looked at the top part of that diff, which was reasonable rewording, which i did not dispute. The bottom part of that diff removed a ton of info, same info as removed in the other edits. --doncram 00:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So he removed material - that's not a revert, that's just an edit. By simple math, it was impossible for him to break 3RR, even if he was right up to the edge of it - it takes four reverts to violate 3RR, and he had only three. Think about that over the next three weeks... MikeWazowski (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Doncram was edit warring just as much as Sarek. I've blocked him for 21 days, as the last two one week blocks apparently didn't take. Courcelles 00:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think this is a bit harsh in both cases. Both parties only actually reverted three times apiece, and stopped when they hit the limit. I thought blocks were meant to be preventative, so considering they did actually stop and didn't break the limit then I'm not really sure what the purpose of the blocks. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of blocking here is to discourage present and future edit warring. Both SarekOfVulcan and Doncram have been blocked more than once in the past year for edit warring (SoV twice, Doncram three times; Doncram's last block expired less than three weeks ago). While making more than three reverts is a bright-line guarantee of a block (with certain narrow, specific exceptions), three reverts per day is explicitly not an entitlement (see the full text of WP:3RR). Allowing editors to regularly revert up to the edge of 3RR doesn't discourage edit warring; it just teaches them how to count to three. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. But why does an admin who has just been barely reconfirmed and apparently takes that as a license to war get only 40 hours while the other guy gets 3 weeks? hm... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Courcelles answered that. -- Avanu (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really; Sarek's just off a block from last month. Curiously enough, the admin's blocks get upped by hours, the regular guy's get upped by weeks. If there really was equal treatment, Sarek should be blocked for a week... at least. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To make it clear: SoV's edits improved the encyclopaedia. DC's edits made it worse. Sanity would have probably meant SoV not getting blocked at all, on the grounds that improvement is good William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoever said that sanity has anything to do with the way we do things on Wikipedia? --B (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

concur with WMC's comment; what happened to IAR? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarek could easily have got more, or Docram should be reduced and a solution should be worked out for them - edit warring whether right or wrong is not the correct way to go and as we seem to expect a higher standard of editing from admins Sareks actions are disappointing, he was recently supported only just at RFA (I supported him) and since has continued in a messy dispute with TT and now this repeat situation carrying on a previous with Docram. I support a reduction for Docrum to compare with Sareks block and then some discussion and dispute resolution to sort the issue out. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a thread open at WP:AN on how to reform the editing of NRHP stubs going forward, if necessary with an editing restriction on one of the parties. I see no consensus at AN yet, but more discussion is surely possible. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tamajared and User:Vitashaomi reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Protected)

Page: Bon Iver, Bon Iver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vitashaomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Tamajared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Vitashaomi
• Tamajared

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [250] and [251]

Comments:Pretty much the same undos back and forth. There's some underlying dispute about article naming, and a discussion, but they've been edit warring back and forth a few times now. This needs to stop.

Hello, Please note I used talk three times within the 24 hours, though the page (article and talk) was redirected, so I can see why this was missed. Also note that 4 other users also rv the same edits. Thanks. Vitashaomi (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Fully protected until 22 June. A dispute has been raging over the album title for several weeks. Some think it will be 'Bon Iver' and others believe it's 'Bon Iver, Bon Iver.' The official release date is 21 June, and the actual title should be known by then. If agreement on the title is reached earlier, protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on which title is correct, but there was a recent RM discussion which resulted in the article being moved to Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Therefore I think the article at Bon Iver (album) needs to be returned to a redirect, as it is a copy-paste move. Those that want it move, are free to open a new requested move. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion at Talk:Bon Iver, Bon Iver#Album title but I don't perceive consensus there for the longer title. The sources appear to be in conflict. The move discussion that you cite is from 22 May and new press coverage has appeared since then. No objection if you or any other admin read the consensus as favoring the longer title and want to move it back. There was another suggestion for a compromise such as '2011 Bon Iver album.' The protection will probably need to stay in place whichever way the title goes. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:BottomDog reported by User: Brainsteinko (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [252]

• 1st revert by 93.233.102.27: diff
• 1st revert by Brainsteinko: diff
• 2nd revert by 93.233.122.72: diff
• 2nd revert by Brainsteinko diff
• 3rd revert by 93.233.122.72: diff
• 3rd revert by Brainsteinko diff
• 4th revert by 93.233.103.229: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [253]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [254]

Really sorry if I've done anything wrong while filling out the form

The deletion concerned is this passage from the introduction. It was roughly deleted 4 times and reverted by me 3 times within 8 June.

It is a long-standing leader as comes to the amount of supported text formats, though there do exist file converters. PB's open-source software is updated nearly every month and can boast arguably the fastest page flip in the market.

I can defend every word of this passage and I partially did on View History page (see all changes since 6 June) as well as refute *any* sweeping changes made by BottomDog. All German IPs and BottomDog is supposedly one person never participated earlier. He appears to be dissatisfied PB customer. I've invited twice him to Discussion Page to no avail. NONE of my arguments on View History page were refuted by BottomLog. And he continued making changes like adding Controversies section based on forum refs and topped all that with advert tag (for what reason now ?). I believe that dissatisfied customers need to be some majority to be reflected in Wikipedia which is not the case. See PocketBook on Amazon (picture for 902 model on that site was hacked yesterday). Even if there is only one dissatisfied customer he has the right to write to Wikipedia basing arguments on *reliable* sources. After I reverted his changes, he became personal, creating "Brainsteinko" section on Discussion page (changed by user Ronz to COI and reference concerns). Still none of my arguments about the passage above were addressed. I kindly ask the Administrator to tell him to stop. I will inform BottomDog of this report. Using this opportunity please stop Ronz from deleting "Services: Bookland.net" from the infobox which he did again on the quiet Ronz's deletion

--Brainsteinko (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Neither User:BottomDog nor any of his IPs have never been warned for edit warring. I've gone ahead and warned the most recent few. If edit warring continues, leave a message on my talk page and I'll range block the IP and BottomDog. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User: Brainsteinko reported by User:BottomDog (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&oldid=430983844

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=433126743&oldid=432837427
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=433181155&oldid=433173798
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=433290607&oldid=433274505
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=433617601&oldid=433352963

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PocketBook_eReader#COI_and_reference_concerns

Comments:

I hope I have filled out this part correctly. I'm curious as to why I have been warned for edit warring while it is Brainsteinko who has so far managed to revert all changes done by anyone besides him. Please look at the revision of the article and you will notice that in the end it has the same marketing speak that it started out with before I tried to add some more useful information. In the revisions he undos around 5-10 revisions in one go and then tells everyone to defend their additions to the article. I might be new here but I thought nobody owns a page like this.

He just goes and deleted whole blocks, reverts other parts and reads text that sounds more like marketing than anyone else. I have refrained from again undoing his undo to my additions and asking for advice / help here. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information on the issue.

BottomDog (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I presented a whole bunch of arguments against BottomDog changes both on View History page (since 8 June) and on Discussion page (the very last section). None were answered. I can refute any single change made by him. But let's start talking about change by change.--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: Discussion sections from this one--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

first you removed a big group of edits in one go without much explanation and also your discussion was more a statement in the revision by using 4 revisions to make your point and also more of the tone that you own the page and everyone else has to explain to you why the marketing info was removed.

Now we ended up with 2 or 3 peoples edits removed and back to what you wrote and that another admin now had to clean up because it truly was marketing speak. BottomDog (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we started talking on Discussion page. I repeat that only one other man's edit was removed (see my edit warring report just above this report).--Brainsteinko (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The editors are starting to use the talk page. I think we can work this out on the talk page. GB fan (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined #User:BottomDog reported by User: Brainsteinko (Result: Declined) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Dbpjmuf reported by User:DWC LR (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dbpjmuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [255]

• 1st revert: [256]
• 2nd revert: [257]
• 3rd revert: [258]
• 4th revert: [259]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [260]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [261]

Comments:

The first and 2nd "reverts" are not reverts. Also, It takes two to tango. Also, you did not "attempt to resolve the dispute". [262]. Dbpjmuf (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The block expires and you drag us both back to edit warring. You unjustly removed sources so I reverted, I didn't want another block so I initiated disscussion (got called "fucking illiterate" for the trouble) you continued to revert while discussion was going on. - dwc lr (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed unreliable sources. You also continued to revert while discussion was ongoing. I didn't "drag" you into anything. And you only got called illiterate after calling me "clearly very ignorant" [263] Dbpjmuf (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes because you are getting confused by the two Volumes (1 & 2).[264] So demonstrate you are not familiar with the book and are in fact removing acceptable sources. - dwc lr (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Schnget reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: 24h)

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

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

• 1st revert: [265]
• 2nd revert: [266]
• 3rd revert: [267]
• 4th revert: [268]
• 5th revert: [269]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [270]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [271]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [272]

• 1st revert: [273]
• 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurice_Duplessis&action=historysubmè

it&diff=433336020&oldid=433335905]

• 3rd revert: [274]
• 4th revert: [275]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [276]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [277]

Comments:
Roscelese has been ignoring WP:BRD for some time now. She makes appearances of engaging in discussion, but continues to edit war even as the discussion follows its natural progression. In the particular case, after my request to Talk it over, she opened discussion on the Talk page, and then reverted a fourth time before I was even able to join the discussion. On other articles she usually reverts right up to 3RR and stops. This time she was careless and did revert a 4th time. Lionel (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note that the fourth diff settles the edit warring with a scholarly source. No cited source was present until Roscelese introduced it. As well, Lionelt complains about Roscelese ignoring BRD but there is no talk page entry by him; no discussion at all. There was no "natural progression" of a discussion underway about the term "pro-family" used anachronistically to describe Duplessis. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Is a revert not a revert? Introducing another source on the 4th revert does not absolve an editor who should know better, she has been blocked for this before. - Haymaker (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You, too, did not take part in discussion, ignoring the 'D' part of BRD, and you reverted three times to return the anachronism to the article. In so reverting, you were guilty of tendentious editing and also of hounding Roscelese. You had never before edited that article, not as Haymaker or Schrandit, and it must be assumed you followed Roscelese to the article as you had done so many times before to other articles. There is an open noticeboard discussion about this hounding of yours at WP:ANI#Long-term harassment by Haymaker. Beware of the boomerang effect; your actions on this article can get you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question directly, I think that the last diff is building the article, not simply reverting. Nobody else was introducing sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Technically there was a 3RR vio since the fourth revert came just within the 24 hr period. However, the dispute was about an unsourced claim, so given that the fourth revert added a source you could say it moved the article to an improved state. It's would be very harsh intrepretation of 3rr if the edit that added a source was the edit that copped the ban. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the logic in that, but it did violate the letter, and spirit of WP:revert and it is from some one who has been blocked for it before. - Haymaker (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As a three-time reverter on that article, on the day in question, you have some brass talking about violating the spirit of 3RR. Your three edits were pure edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Please discuss changes on the talk page of the article instead of blindly reverting one another. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that page protection should allow us to get some discussion at the article's talk page. I'm surprised that Lionelt would so openly call attention to his tag-teaming with Haymaker, but maybe now that the page is protected, the two of them will choose to discuss instead. Cheers, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion? They must have changed that word since I got out of school. - Haymaker (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a discussion, it is one editor voicing their opinion. A discussion needs at least two editors that talk to each other and tell their side and work towards a consensus. GB fan (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is, even now, more than either of the users trying to restore the POV, unsourced term have done. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so cavalier about throwing unfounded accusations. I happen to watch Haymakers page, as I do yours, Ros, and when I saw the ANI notices I reviewed contribs to see if the hounding charge was sustainable. Then I saw your POV edit warring, reverted, and requested Discussion. To imply that I am tag-teaming, stalking or anything else is ludicrous. I have been on Wikipedia 3 years, am approaching 10,000 edits and have never been blocked, banned or any sanction whatsoever. Because of the controversial topics I choose to edit I am constantly belittled and ridiculed. Yet I am extremely civil and respected by many in spite of perceived differences. Note the new barnstar on my Talk. I even go out of my way to interject humor in the mundane walls of bickering I read on a regular basis. I find your insinuations insulting to the highest degree. Lionel (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of stalking. Tag-teaming ("working together to circumvent the three revert rule," to start) is an entirely separate thing. I figured you were there via Haymaker's contributions and not via mine - it's still gaming 3RR to force your favorite uncited, non-neutral terms into articles or otherwise for the apparent pleasure of reverting me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are accusing Lionel of tag-teaming? - Haymaker (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that should have been clear from my first comment, where I referred to his tag-teaming. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Weren't you just warned about making unfounded accusations? - Haymaker (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You say this as though I was "warned" in a different incident by a user other than one who is doing the tag-teaming, instead of just now by Lionelt. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? If you think that Lionel and I are actually violating the rules then write it up and take it to the proper venue. Short of that, stop trying to muddy his name and mine. - Haymaker (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of George W. Bush was the particularly egregious one, but there's also Category:Anti-pornography activists and Maurice Duplessis - coincidentally, I'm sure, all articles you stalked me to. I provide this information for your own edification - once you are banned from stalking and reverting me, I imagine the problem will go away, so there's no reason for me to take action against Lionelt. You, by the way, are the last person who should be pretending to be righteous about sullying others' names at noticeboards. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I can be more direct than "put up or shut up", but seriously, put up or shut up. - Haymaker (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of George W. Bush was the particularly egregious one, but there's also Category:Anti-pornography activists and Maurice Duplessis - coincidentally, I'm sure, all articles you stalked me to. I provide this information for your own edification - once you are banned from stalking and reverting me, I imagine the problem will go away, so there's no reason for me to take action against Lionelt. You, by the way, are the last person who should be pretending to be righteous about sullying others' names at noticeboards. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your examples don't hold up. I have been tagging Reagan & Bush articles for WPRight for months. When I made it to Political positions I was so distracted by your POV editing I forget to tag it. I went to Duplessis as the direct result of your ANI activity and found you there POV edit warring. And category anti-porn? Are you serious? I was there before any of you. Lionel (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not accusing you of stalking, how you got there is irrelevant. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 reported by User:Adelbrecht (Result: article protected)

Page: Coat of arms of Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [278]

• 1st revert: [279]
• 2nd revert: [280]
• 3rd revert: [281]
• 4th revert: [282]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit war

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [283]

Comments:
User Fry1989 keep reverting to versions of the page that feature coats of arms with clear and grave errors. When I said this to him, he ignored the arguments, saying that they can be fixed in the future (not taking any attempt to do so). Then, he attacks the heraldic rules, and saying that his "original research" (which lacks any research) is the only truth. After his last revert, he says I need consensus for correcting obvious mistakes, and calls all heraldists arrogant.

Adelbrecht (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First, Adelbrecht himself is the one who started this edit war. He proposed a change, and is now trying to force it without consensus. Second, he and other heraldists have this superiority complex (as you can see from his comments on the article's talk page) that just because they're well-versed in heraldry, they can down others and say things like "leave this to the people who know things", as if I'm some sort of idiot. Also note, he has violated the 3RR rule he is trying to use against me. I am the one maintaining consensus. The rule is that the one proposing the change must seek community consensus for his proposed change, but for some reason Adelbrecht seems to think he now has the right to force his proposed change surpassing the consensus rule. I will not allow him to do that. Fry1989 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it takes two to tango. If I need to blocked too, so be it. I have reported you for breaking the 3RR-rule, which I have not. Fry, please, not only read a bit about heraldry, but also about the 3RR rule. You are the one maintaining previously reported errors, and even adding more of them. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not bound by the ancient rules of heraldry, and neither are modern countries. I have already cited Kenya as an example, were heraldists such are youself thing you have the right to force your ancient rules no matter what. I have added no errors to any files, except making the sections that were once grey, now white proper. There are no other "errors" you can attribute to me on those files, only the silly "if you use white for Argent, you must use yellow for Or" heraldry rule, which as I've said, is not always followed. The consensus article always had the versions I have maintained, while users such are yourself have systematically replaced it without sources or consensus with the new versions, just because you "think it looks better, therefore is must be better". The rule is the rule, you proposed the change. When it is contested, you must wait out a discussion by the community for consensus. Using terms like "I must force this version on the article, because the old ones are flawed" doesn't help you. Fry1989 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg has a coat of arms that is completely compliant to the heraldic rules. I have corrected the article, clearly stating the mistakes. Yet to pretend to be ignorant of this. I will give of an example of a file that you've added an error to: you readded a double tail to this file, a serious heraldic mistake. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And therein lies the arrogance I am talking about: "The rules of heraldry must be always followed, and if the governments of countries don't follow them, THEY'RE the ones who are wrong, not me and my beloved rules". Can you provide a source that the Coat of Arms of Luxembourg's lions don't have a double-tail, OTHER than your "Rules of heraldry"? Rules aren't always followed, and unless you can prove, against current sources, that there shouldn't be a double-tail, YOU are the one who is mistaken, not me, and not the Luxembourg Government. Fry1989 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected 3RR applies to reverts within a 24 hours period. You're both at 3 from my count; I don't see the fourth that would put anyone over. Regardless, you're both edit warring. I've protected the article for a few day to perhaps encourage a discussion (on the article's talk page, not here), not that experienced editors should need such prompting. Kuru (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet, the obvious problems are still not solved. We are left with a version full of errors, by someone who has even admitted that he doesn't really know heraldry, yet still forces his misguided views on the article.

Fry, you still don't get it. The Luxembourg government isn't wrong, only you are. "Rules of heraldry" don't say anything abut Luxembourg, it is the Luxembourg tradition that says something about that. And I don't know if the government has said anything about the arms of the monarch. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If Luxembourh displays it with a double-tail (some sources do, some don't), you, and your rules are wrong. Luxembourg sets it's own stile, not the rules of heraldry, that you are pushing. You must show a Lux Gov't source, showing it with a single tail, as you are the one claiming it is that way. I have had enough of this, I have to go to work, but the situation remains, that you are pushing the changes, you must give sources and gain consensus. Fry1989 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me a source that displays the arms of the monarch with two tails on that supporter. You are talking nonsense. Here is a source that supports the thing Xavigivax, Katepanomegas and I know, but you seem to try and remain ignorant of. All versions on wikipedia have this correctly, as far as I know, except yours. Adelbrecht (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't the place to work our your dispute, though I think you are making some progress, perhaps take it to the talk page?Tirronan (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Avanu reported by User:Avanu (Result: Page Protected)

Editors continually removing timidly negative comments in Public image of Sarah Palin article

Page: Public image of Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Recent editors who won't consistently use Talk.

My fellow editors have been collectively reverting.

• Initially the request was "needs an attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV", which I quickly found and provided
• Then was reverted with "That opinion should be attributed in text", which it already was (the editor didn't read)
• Then I went and found 3 more sources for the editor since only one apparently would not do, waited for a response.
• A different editor simply said "it was quite clear what she was trying to say", but provided no sourcing.
• Then without addressing the Talk page as requested, an IP user comes along and reverts, to which I provided 6 *more* sources (total of 10 at that point)
• Finally The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted with "editorializing and not NPOV even if correct and BTW has no importance"

The problem here is that essentially the other editors are all saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that's about it. Meanwhile, I've been out gathering sources and providing the material on the Talk page for discussion, which seems to be a one-sided effort.

I'll stop editing this article for the time being if necessary, but considering the media only called Palin's Paul Revere comments a gaffe because they were poorly spoken, it seems more than fair to have two simple words of "somewhat inarticulate". (supported now by 10 sources)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin

Comments:

Thanks for advice, please recognize my willingness to refrain from editing on this further, not sure what else to do at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Avanu seems to have some wrong idea what this board is meant for. I advised him not to file any report since he is the one with 5 reverts in less than 24 h. But in light that the article in question is now protected there seems to be no reason to block them and instead given a warning and advise to make themselves familiar with wp:3RR.TMCk (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if this wasn't done correctly. I did go over 3RR, and yes, like many violators, I do have reasons and rationales. I don't think there's any ill-will at the moment, but I am not sure what to do in the face of a lack of discussion along with providing 10 sources that support the addition of the material. I appreciate your sentiment above, and I am looking for a positive solution here. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 3 days by SlimVirgin – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 21:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. -- Avanu (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussion seemed collegial and productive until one non-participant editor reverted Avanu. Rationale in the reverter's ed. comment included "not NPOV even if correct and BTW has no importance." Worrisome. Avanu's WP:IDONTLIKEIT accusation, aimed at unnamed editors on the other side of the discussion, is, I think, misplaced. And anyway this whole thing is a storm in a very, very tiny teacup. The drama is unnecessary. Writegeist (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I messed up and went over 3RR. Its proper to report such things. I think Slim is willing to acknowledge my mistake and let a commitment to stop be enough for now. -- Avanu (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already solved and no action is needed.TMCk (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that you must quote me please quote me in full to keep some context: "sourced or not, it is editorializing and not NPOV even if correct and BTW has no importance (undue comes into mind)" is what I wrote.TMCk (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my use of the word "included" failed to make it clear that I was not quoting the whole thing. Your pointing out the bookends does not ameliorate what stands between them, IMO. In future it would be a welcome courtesy if you were to use the talk page when you want to excise material whose removal is already under discussion there. Writegeist (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You made clear that you only quoted part of my editsummary to which I objected here as it was cherry picking out of context even so the quote in total was short enough to fit this page here easily. Don't know why you felt like providing only part of what I'd said. Further, there was no indication that there was already an ongoing discussion when I made a single revert that I explained pretty good in my opinion.TMCk (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) I provided only part of what you said because it was the part that was worrisome, and the parts before and after make no difference to that. (2) "No indication that there was already an ongoing discussion"? You removed the words "somewhat inarticulate" from the article well over 8 hours after Kelly, at the talk page, had opened a section under the title of "Somewhat inarticulate." The subsequent thread debating this wording was in full swing when you deleted the words under discussion. I don't know how much more clearly it could have been indicated to you that there was an ongoing discussion about the words "somewhat inarticulate" than by titling the discussion with the words "somewhat inarticulate". I have nothing more to add here. Writegeist (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion and guess what, I didn't look into the article's history so there was only one summary as reference. End for me too here as there is enough steering in the tiny little teapot already. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)