Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive193

User:Jojhutton reported by User:Aprock (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: 17:23, 12 August 2012 [2] "removal of content a WP:OR"
• 2nd revert: 17:29, 12 August 2012‎ [3] "only one editors opinion that they do not follow them."
• 3rd revert: 17:31, 12 August 2012‎ [4]
• 4th revert: 17:42, 12 August 2012‎ [5] "Discuss removal of content per WP:BRD"
• 5th revert: 03:28, 13 August 2012‎ [6] "there's an ongoing discussion on this. Please join in."
• 6th revert: 04:56, 14 August 2012 [7] "Still an open discussion. Outside source is now used"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:40, 12 August 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion begins at 20:13, 12 August 2012

Comments:

At 5RR in 12 hours, continued reverts without talk page discussion. Despite repeated references to talk page discussion in edit summaries, jojhutton (talk · contribs) has yet to join the discussion and continues to revert. aprock (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It takes 2 to tango: let's not overlook user:Galestars participation in this edit war.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been more than two tangoing here. Page protected for a few days. Jojhutton is strongly cautioned that a return to the edit war following the protection will result in a lengthy block, other editors are also requested to hash it out on talk please. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Minotaurgirl and User:Wolfcho reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Both blocked for 24h)

Page: Belle (Disney) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
h User being reported: Minotaurgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wolfcho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [8] - 6:39, 14 Aug
• 2nd revert: [9] - 6:42, 14 Aug
• 3rd revert: [10] - 6:56, 14 Aug
• Warning of both users by Jim1138 at 7:02 / 7:03
• 4th revert: [11] - 7:11, 14 Aug
• 5th revert: [12] - 7:21, 14 Aug
• 6th revert: [13] - 7:25, 14 Aug
• 7th revert: [14] - 7:32, 14 Aug

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15] - Wolfcho, [16] - Minotaurgirl

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:

Apparently, the question of the exact color of Belle's hair and eyes is of the utmost importance, and MUST be settled TONIGHT or EXTREMELY HORRIBLE THINGS WILL HAPPEN.... well, if you listen to Minotaurgirl and Wolfcho, anyhow. They're accusing each other of lying, well, the whole thing is quite the amusing spectacle of a catfight... too bad they're too involved to find the humor in it.

Productive comments:

Apparently, the color of Belle's eyes is quite the controversy. In reading the talk page, ALL of the "Edit requests" are in regard to changing Belle's eye color in the article. These go back as far as 26 June 2012.

It seems that Wolfcho and Minotaurgirl each said their peace, writing fairly long epistles in the talk page, before today's little war really got going. After the edit warring began, the only talking was done in the edit summaries. Jsharpminor (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked both for 24h. Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know this is completely off topic, but this reminds me of the "something is wrong on the Internet" XKCD comic. I mean seriously? Large-scale edit warring over the color of a fictional character's eyes? David1217 ^{What I've done} 18:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm only aware of this thread because one of the parties filed a (completely premature) request for arbitration ... but as best I can tell, the page on which the edit-war was taking place was protected several hours before these blocks were imposed, and everyone has been telling these two editors to take it to the talkpage. Under these circumstances, it's conceivable to me that these blocks might not have been absolutely necessary.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Trasamundo reported by User:Santos30 (Result: 2-week protection)

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

Since the discovery of America (1492) the territories were granted to the crown of Castile by Papal bull Inter caetera (1493). Castile was incorporated into the development of Spain in the Iberian peninsula during Spanish empire. But the new Spanish state emerged from Peninsular War was rejected by Latin American countries that made ​​a retroversion of the sovereignty to the People of Americas from the heirs of the kings of Castile (not the modern Spain).

Trasamundo delete all information to try to explain the American Independence against Spanish Empire. kidnapped the article and impossed POV map and delete references and information. It is impossible put this references and explain it:

• The Cambridge History of Latin America Alexander VI's Inter Caetera of 1493 vested the government and jurisdiction of the newly found lands, not in the kings of Spain but in the kings of Castile and Leon.
• (El proceso de incorporación de Indias a Castilla). The Process of incorporation Indias to Castile.
• (De las Bulas Alejandrinas al nuevo orden político americano). From Alejandrins bulls to the new Americas political order.

It is impossible to upgrade the nationalistic map of Trasamundo of national Spain (Brown color. I only put the two crowns of Aragón and Castile (Brown and yellow color). And Trasamundo say it is "Agressive".

The 3RR:

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

Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

The sockpuppet Santos30 kicked out of Wikipedia in Spanish [22][23] due to the impossibility to impose his POV in Wikipedia in Spanish, arrived to wikipedia in English to impose their POV.

The lead map is consensuated since 2009. I explained to Santos30 why his changes are not valid.[24] But santos30 hides this information and he only accuses me of nationalistic.

This was the article [25] before Santos30 was trying to impose their changes product from his personal concept which it cannot be mentioned Spain, and without taking into consideration the probided references. I have respected, or modified, or undone several changes, and I wrote in the talk page Santos30' bias with respect to the policies[26] and he has accused to me about obssesion with "Spain"

Santos30 lies when he said that I impede to that references in the article, these references are yet included in the article. I have explained several times why they have to moved [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and his response has been to write this report. All my statements in the article are justified in the abstract and in the talk page. Trasamundo (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I have not lied. Trasamundo delete all what I try to explain about the relation between Discovery-Americas-Crown Of Castile-Spanish Empire-Independence. The references is only for verifiability. Those deletions not have valid reasons but excuses. The obsession of Trasamundo is with eternal Spain. You can see in the talk. And he not care about neutrality, importance or verifiability of the contribution of other people that he deletes.

I'm not a Puppet. But here Trasamundo not say that he talk about User Retired not expulsed before and not involved in the discussion, and Trasamundo not say that he gives and recive in Wp:es strong support by the person that kick me and said these ugly words about WP:en. But this is a problem of WP:es exclusively. But Trasamundo not say. Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:173.0.254.242 and User:Cresix reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result:Page protected )

Page: Mabel Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

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

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

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

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

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

Comments:

See my comments in my report below. I did not make 4 reverts, but as you can see in the links I provided, anon 173.0.254.242 made four reverts. He also did so in a previous edit war, which I have linked below. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected. I have locked the article for 3 days for you the editors to work out the content dispute on the article Talk page. I am not going to get into how many reverts each party has made, or whether there was a warning before the last revert. Both sides are edit-warring in the spirit of the rule, regardless of whether any technical breach of the 3-revert rule has been committed. Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:173.0.254.242 reported by User:Cresix (Result:Page protected )

Page: Mabel Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.0.254.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Article before reverts: [40]

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]
• 4th revert: [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mabel Simmons#Reversions

Comments:
173.0.254.242 has been reported previously for the very same edits. The admin took no action. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive189#User:173.0.254.242 reported by User:Cresix (Result: No action)

Cresix (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, these same two users seem to have gotten involved in another edit war in July. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected. I have locked the article for 3 days for you the editors to work out the content dispute on the article Talk page. I am not going to get into how many reverts each party has made, or whether there was a warning before the last revert. Both sides are edit-warring in the spirit of the rule, regardless of whether any technical breach of the 3-revert rule has been committed. Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Good call, Bbb23. Thanks. For my part, I'm taking the article off my watch list for a while to let the dust settle. Cresix (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Often a good idea to step back in these matters and take a deep breath. Thanks for understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Armbrust and User:66.199.245.66 reported by User:spc_21 (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page: Snooker season 2012/2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.199.245.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Both making it impossible to add a constructive edit to the page. Armbrust has broken the 3RR and the IP isn't helping matters at all. Spc 21 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Update: This is getting ridiculous. We have had 10 reverts by Armbrust and the IP is just adding it back.

Comment If you block both of us, than please also semi-protect the article to avoid the unregistered user returning under a different IP address. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 20:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Why are you behaving so odd Armbrust? Are we not supposed to talk things through constructively on talk pages instead of reverting 15 times? You know better than this and the article should also be protected from yourself. Look at the history of it now..... It looks ridiculous. Spc 21 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The edit warring continues. This is ridiculous. Ryan Vesey 20:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that's 16 reverts now I think - I thought 3 was really bad lol. Why have you moved it to the bottom of the page in the hope no one sees this Armbrust? For an experienced editor to revert 16 times is staggering. Spc 21 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

New requests go to the bottom, as a side note 2.100.234.199 (talk · contribs) also violated 3RR at some point, but then continued to use the talk page. Noom _talk ^stalk 20:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Just the 20-odd reverts then. I was blocked a few months ago for accidentally making 3! Go figure.... Spc 21 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While this is ridiculous and a block is easily appropriate, I suggest temporary full protection. I feel the problem could be resolved at that point and we could avoid blocking the editors. Ryan Vesey 21:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

But I want to add constructive edits to the page. Why should I and the countless other editors be punished for the actions of 2 people? Spc 21 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Both blocked, the IP for 72 hours and Armbrust for two weeks - his block log and past warnings on this are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:VictoriaR2020 reported by MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Lesley Arfin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: VictoriaR2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 06:01, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "This section includes verifiable sources and direct quotes that illustrate Arafin's writing "style".")
2. 15:51, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Information has to be *FALSE* to be slander. Furthermore, you don't decide what's relevant. Stick to indexing porn stars and transexuals.")
3. 18:32, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Quotes are accurate and verifiable.")
4. 19:32, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 19:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Significance is subjective. I've seen entire sections devoted to a writer's "controversial" work or positions. This is a verifiable pattern in her work. It's worth noting.")
6. 20:24, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 20:31, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Contribution deleted for no valid reason.")

• Diff of warning: here

—MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The formal edit-warring warning was not posted to the editor's Talk page until after her last revert. However, the discussion on the article Talk page clearly put the editor on notice of her conduct and she was clearly aware, despite being a newly registered account, of what edit-warring is, before her last revert. Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Embattled Grady and User:Fry1989 reported by Esoglou (talk) (Result: Fry1989 indeffed, Embattled Grady warned)

Page: Coats of arms of the Holy See and of the Vatican City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 19:54, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Removed Escutcheon")
2. 19:59, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Please provide a reference")
3. 20:04, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507426297 by Fry1989 (talk) I want a reference")
4. 20:12, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507427274 by Fry1989 (talk)")
5. 20:34, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Request citation")
6. 20:47, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "failed verification")
7. 20:52, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "You are attempting to give a escutcheon using heraldic notation. I want a source.")

• Diff of warning: here

User being reported: Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 19:41, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "no shield for Holy See")
2. 19:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507424998 by Embattled Grady (talk) not correct")
3. 19:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 20:04, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "It's not in the escutcheon section, it's in "other elements", there's no reason to remove the description")
5. 20:11, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "if you remove it again I will report you for vandalism, it has been explained to you that "other elements" section is for symbols that are non-heraldic, while the "escutcheon" section is for sumbols that are, you have been warned twice")
6. 20:39, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "the citattion is your eyes, it's clearly two keys crossed, one silver and one gold, with a silver papal crown lined in gold, that doesn't need a citation")
7. 20:42, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "There are already three citations in the introductory sentence which confirm this, how many do you need???")
8. 20:45, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "5 damn sources")
9. 20:49, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "use your damn eyes, it is beyond obviously a silver key and a gold key crossed in saltire, crowned with a papal crown, that doesn't need a citiation it's infront of yoru eyes!")
10. 20:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "FFS")

• Diff of warning: here

• Comment - Updated previously incomplete report, although EW appears to have slowed since warnings.

—Tgeairn (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually half of my supposed "warring edits" can be cut out if you actually look at the details of them. For example, #8 was after User:Embattled Grady added a "citation needed" tag, and that edit by myself was simply adding the requested citations, clearly not an warring edit. Or look at #1, that was a minor edit I made myself against my own previous edits to correct the description I had previously added to the infobox, removing part of it that belonged in one infobox but not the other one. Or look at #10, that one was me giving a simple English description in the infobox, after User:Embattled Grady kept removing the heraldic description. That edit wasn't reverted by him because it's what he wanted (a compromise) and it seems to please him. Almost every single edit listed includes a concession in it, an alteration from the previous one in an attempt at compromise with User:Embattled Grady, based on our "discussions" (if you can call them that) on his talk page and the article page. I'll be happy to lay out each concession in my edits, they're not blind forceful reverts as the term "edit war" suggests, and I've clearly been trying hard to compromise with the user. I would also like to know why I was not notified of this discussion? Isn't that one of the rules? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't cull the edits fully as some of the reverting was to combined edits, and it was in no way one sided (which I assume is why the original reporter reported both editors instead of just one) so I tried to keep in the edits that each editor was reverting that were made by the other. Yes, notification is mandatory. I checked your talk page history as you had already blanked the 3RR warning, and it looked like you had been notified and blanked it. I now see that I was mistaken, and I apologize. As the dispute has stayed on the article talk page for the last few hours, hopefully this will get resolved without this notice having to go any further. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's one-sided (I don't believe I have even inferred it), but I am saying that 80-90% of my edits on that page today include some sort of compromise in them, changing this and that which the user disliked about the the previous version of the page. His edits on the other hand, were completely unconstructive blind removals of content he didn't like. I tried telling him on his talk page several times that if you see a problem with something that can be fixed, fix it, don't just remove it all. He never did fix anything he didn't like. I did though, I fixed several things he didn't like, I've compromised very hard on this despite sources because of his "problems", and I'm still doing it now on the article talk page, and getting slapped on the hand despite my efforts. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It does look like you are working hard to find a compromise, and those efforts are appreciated. The only issue here is whether or not the involved editors are edit-warring, and particularly whether or not the WP:3RR bright line was crossed. No one is interested in slapping any hands that are doing productive work! Cheers --Tgeairn (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean anybody here is slapping my hands (including yourself), I mean I'm trying to lay out some options on the talk page of the article, and they are being overlooked/ignored. In all probability 3RR was broken by other one of us or both, but the issue is more complex then a simple revision rule. Looking at the big picture, I've tried hard to compromise, and fix things that my "opponent" (I use that term loosely) disliked, and the majority of my edits follow that purpose. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite as to Fry1989. Basis is a violation of the terms of an April 2012 unblock.Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Warned as to Embattled Grady. The formal warning of edit-warring came just shortly before EG's final revert. EG apologized for it on their Talk page and hasn't done anything since. Cutting the editor some slack.Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Churn and change reported by User:OliverTwisted (Result: stale)

Page: Paul Ryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Churn and change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's not the first, but it's a place to start: [46]

Diffs

• Time:
• 1:50 [47]
• 1:55 [48]
• 2:49 [49]
• 4:12 [50]
• 4:24 [51]

Warnings

• 1st warning at 4:02 by 1st editor: [52]
• 2nd warning at 4:03 by 2nd editor[53]
• My warning at 4:29 [54]

Talk Page

I suppose we should start here, rather than showing diffs: [55]

Comments:

This user does not seem interested in dispute resolution. The user and I do not have opposing viewpoints on the information being edited in the diffs above. This user is not the only editor involved in edit warring over the last 24 hours. I'm not sure what other steps can be taken. I have exhausted my abilities as a mediator at this point. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 07:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit numbers 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the remaining edits. The first two edits, in fact, have revealing edit summaries. As to the brown-noser issue, that is being actively discussed on the talk page and WP:BLP noticeboard, and I haven't put it back based on the ongoing discussion. The earlier reverts were because new information was added (a new source, The New Yorker), and there was further discussion on the Talk page and more editors wanting it in. Technically, there weren't three reverts; just two, and those were before the other user reverting got to the discussion page. After discussion started, I didn't revert. As to the warnings; after the last warning shown there, I didn't revert, so I have to question why this has been taken here. I am mostly not going to be around for a week to defend this (no, not because of this; will be back on August 23); I trust WP's admins to address this. I would actually ask the admins for page protection and routing everything through them. Churn and change (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Since 24 hours have already passed, we can dismiss this case, and move on. I'm not sure how to flag this for deletion. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing as Stale. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Mertface reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:24 hours )

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

Please note: Times are in UTC.

Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: Revision as of 20:13, 10 August 2012 (edit) (undo)Mertface (talk | contribs)(Undid revision 506771823 by Chipmunkdavis
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 03:49, 12 August 2012 Mertface (talk | contribs)(Turkey is a Regional Power. So is Germany, no one states Germany is a European regional power, or the US as an American regional power.
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 03:57, 12 August 2012 (edit) (undo)Mertface (talk | contribs)(Turkey is a Regional Power. So is Germany, no one states Germany is a European regional power, or the US as an American regional power.)
• 4th revert: Revision as of 04:01, 12 August 2012 (edit) (undo)Mertface (talk | contribs)(Undid revision 506987187 by Dr.K. (talk))
• 5th revert: Revision as of 23:41, 13 August 2012 (edit) (undo)Mertface (talk | contribs)(There have been claims that Turkey only has influence in the middle east. I have included articles that state otherwise.)
• 6th revert: Latest revision as of 23:49, 13 August 2012 (edit) (undo)Mertface (talk | contribs) [rollback 1 edit(Undid revision 507291108 by Dr.K. (talk) The president of BiH is saying Turkey has great influence on his country and you want more sources?)]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 03:59, 12 August 2012 (edit) (undo)Dr.K. (talk | contribs)(Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Turkey.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:
Keeps edit-warring days on end against multiple users, adding original research and accusing the other editors of racism multiple times. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I also took note of the personal attacks.Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Bbb23. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Almost as soon as Mertface's block expired he started the edit-warring again. Do I open a new report? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• And of course the personal attacks are not far behind. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• As is the edit-warring to restore them on my talk. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I am taking no action at this point. Mertface made one revert and then stopped. I warned the editor that they should discuss content on the article Talk page and should not accuse other editors of bullying or of bias. I also informed them that they don't have to technically violate the 3-revert rule to be reblocked if they recommence edit-warring after an EW block.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No problem. Thank you Bbb23. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:89.240.173.122 Reported by User:85.167.111.129 (Result: Page fully protected)

Page: Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.240.173.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [58]
• 2nd revert: [59]
• 3rd revert: [60]
• 4th revert: [61]
• 5th revert:[62]

I haven't bothered to list the ones not marked "undid revision of" as there is sufficient evidence.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:
Not sure I did everything correctly, but I have at least been able to provide sufficient diffs of reversions. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. Article fully protected by another admin. 89.240.173.122 not warned of edit-warring (only notified of this discussion).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DustyCoffin reported by User:Guerillero (Result: No violation)

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

Time reported: 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]
• 5th revert: [70]
• 6th revert: [71]
• 7th revert: [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

7 reverts over the last 3 days. I feel like this is a bit of overkill --Guerillero | My Talk 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. The 5th revert is not a revert. Thus, there are 6. If you don't count the first edit the user made, there are 5 - and, as you say, over a 3-day period. It's been over 12 hours since the user's last revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Belchfire (Result: both warned)

Page: Paul Ryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]
• 4th revert: [77]
• 5th revert: [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Link to one of several Talk discussions, purely for edification purposes. Talk:Paul_Ryan#Krugman

Comments: Due to Ryan's very recent VP nomination, this article is currently the favorite Silly Season hang-out for all political edit warriors. This particular user was just blocked for edit-warring a little over 2 weeks ago, but nevertheless has managed to rack up 5 reverts in well under 24 hours. I came in late and nobody else has thought to warn him, but remember... it's only been about 16 days since his last block. He visibly counts off his reverts for all to see ("1RR", "2RR", etc.), ostensibly so he can't be accused of going over his God-given 3-revert entitlement. Strangely, he openly admits to being at "5RR" in his last edit summary. What was he thinking?

• Still is well versed in the EW policy. He was actually a complainant 2 days ago [80]

• I'm taking the liberty of amending the report by adding the preemptive warning placed on the talk page 2 days ago --to which Still responded.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To put this in context, Lionelt is the editor who openly stated that he plans to get me permanently banned by reporting me as often as possible.[81] He's reported me here three times here, including this time. The first time, his report was not taken seriously. The second time, he got me blocked by lying about my edit count; he treated two adjacent edits as separate.

See below; it was Belchfire's turn.

I was asleep so I couldn't correct his error. I'm awake now, so let's see the play-by-play, in reverse chronological order:

1. Changed "the the" to "the". This could have been marked Minor. [82]
2. Restored Nobel prize mention; labeled as 2RR and last, as I'm keeping myself to 2RR voluntarily. [83]
3. Restored Nobel prize mention; labeled as 1RR [84]
4. Mistakenly restored cite, followed immediately by full self-revert [85]
5. Restored "conservative", labeled as 1RR [86]

Now, I'm guessing no sane person would imagine that #1 or #4 count. I've been trying very hard to stay at or below 2RR, but Paul Ryan is so active that #5 had scrolled out of sight, causing me to lose track of my count for the day. If I had seen it, I would not have performed #2. If I could revert it now, I would, but it's too late. So I accidentally hit 3RR but , as before, Lionelt Belchfire miscounted it to 5RR so as to make me look bad. How amusing.

As I said, I'm holding myself to 2RR and actively participating on the discussion page. I believe we have a consensus forming for "conservative", but it's not clear whether the Nobel prize mention will make it. I would suggest that this self-restraint and discussion is the exact opposite of edit-warring. On the other hand, given the "errors" in this 3RR report and Lionelt's history of "errors", I am rather unhappy with his behavior. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Self-correction: Belchfire filed the report, not Lionelt. In my defense, Belchfire and Lionelt work very closely together, backing each other up as part of a small group of conservative editors that generally does not like my edits. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see how I confused the two: Belchfire filed but I saw Liolelt's name right at the bottom. As I said, the two work closely together. Now that I redacted myself here, I have one more comment for now. It looks like Belchfire read my edit comment for the "the the" copyedit and missed the intentional irony. The comment reads:

"(5RR: MASSIVE REVERT to show the conservatives what for!!!!!)"

I would have thought that the 5 exclamation points, the over-the-top craziness of the comment, and the fact that it claims that removing "the" counts as a MASSIVE REVERT would all be obvious signs of humor. Guess not.

If you have any more questions, I'll try to keep an eye on this. If I don't respond promptly, please drop a note on my talk page. Otherwise, have a pleasant day. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The fact that this, which is clearly a fix of a typo is being claimed as a "revert" brings the rest of this report into doubt, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Right, that isn't a revert. But he is still edit warring, and he has violated 3RR, as shown here:

[87] re-added "Nobel Prize" which is a revert of Arzel's edit here [88]

[89] re-added "Nobel Prize", a revert of Kenatipo here [90]

[91] re-labelled Empower America as "conservative"--a revert of JournalScholar's edit here [92]

[93] re-labelled National Review as "conservative"--a revert of Journal Scholar here [94]

– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 09:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• If the 4RR at Ryan isn't bad enough, Still is currently at 3RR at Focus on the Family

[95] a revert of Littlegreenrosetta [96]

[97] this is a revert of Belchfire's edit here [98]

[99] this is a revert of NatGertler [100]

He seems to be prone to "3RR accidents." Based on his behavior, I have to wonder how committed he is to 2RR. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 10:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Lionelt is generating spurious claims faster than I can keep up. Please give me a minute to research this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How about 48 hours? – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 10:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's see the play-by-play for FotF:

1. I don't see what this is supposed to be a revert to. In fact, this looks like when I first came up with the phrase "Christian adoption", replacing the less accurate and contested "adoption by Christians". I also added a cite here and my edit comment reads "See talk", where there's a substantial discussion. [101]
2. My comment here was "1RR (there's probably a revert in there somewhere), see talk". In other words, I wasn't even sure that it was a revert, but I labeled it so as to err on the side of caution. [102]
3. The comment says "see talk", but I don't see what this supposed to be a revert to. [103]

At most, we've got one revert in here, and absolutely no hint of edit-warring. Is Lionelt going to keep this up all night? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I was about to post on that subject. Lionel/Belchfire, whilst not doubting your claims, can you give diffs as to which edits Still was reverting each time? Since they mainly aren't "obvious" reverts, like in an edit war, and there are something like 300 revisions in the last couple of days, it's not at all clear to me what I'm supposed to be looking at. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• @Black--I have added the specific details of Still's edit warring. It should be clear now who he is warring with, and what POV he is trying to force into the article. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Now the details for the reverting at FOTF have been added. This editor is at 4RR at Paul Ryan and 3RR at Focus on the Family. He is not observing his own voluntary 2RR, he is not complying with 3RR, he is edit warring across multiple articles with multiple editors. He was blocked 2 weeks ago. His disruption at these high traffic articles is intolerable. I'm not even gonna go into incessant incivility he engages in on talk pages. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 11:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The disrespect he shows veteran editors like Guy Macon and Arthur Rubin is disgusting. People who make positive contributions and are actively engaged in building an encyclopedia.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is 3RR, not ANI. If you wish to report me for how you imagine I treated Guy and Arthur, feel free to do so. But if you do, I'll bring up Guy's attempt to OUT me and Arthur's ongoing incivility and admission of stalking. So, really, you need to stop trying to poison my reputation. Stick to counting up reverts CORRECTLY. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping that if I stopped responding Still-24-45-42-125 would eventually get tired of accusing me of wrongdoing, but it is clear now that that is not going to be the case Still-24-45-42-125, put up or shut up. Either file a case against me for this alleged "outing" (which consisted of telling someone the result of clicking the geolocate link on a Wikipedia IP user contributions page) or stop accusing me. Admins, I would be quite happy if you were to impose an interaction ban here. I never edit the political pages this user typically edits and he never edits the engineering/technology pages I favor, so there should be no occasion for either editor to violate such a ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment And having wasted my time looking at Focus on the Family, Still is correct that he's not anywhere near 3RR there. I'm starting to get very unimpressed by all this, you know. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I first ran into this group of editors / pages when several of them started filing cases at WP:DRN where I volunteer. (otherwise I have no involvement) There were DRN cases at:

Political positions of Mitt Romney

Focus on the Family (twice)

Thomas Sowell

Chickfila

-- all highly visible political pages.

This looks like a liberal/conservative war between editors with POV issues, along with attempts to use various noticeboards as weapons. Are they here to improve the encyclopedia, or are they here to vanquish their opponents? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to wait for Lionelt to show what each "revert" is a revert to. Until he does his homework, I'm not wasting my time. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt is grasping at straws here. This edit is not a revert. Originally, it read "adoption for Christians" and was uncited. After the "for Christians" was questioned, I agreed that it wasn't the right phrase and needed citations, so I changed it to "Christian adoption" and cited it.

If you think the two are the same, you've obviously ignored all the discussion on the talk page. Anyhow, this isn't even technically a revert, and it's absolutely not any indication of edit-warring. In fact, when "Christian adoption" was reverted to "adoption", I left it alone. I'm still in the process of discussing it on the talk page, and may need to escalate, but I'm content with leaving it not quite right in the meantime. Does that sound like edit-warring?

At this point, I'm running very low on patience. Lionelt has a track record of "accidentally" miscounting my edits, and this is just more of the same. He's also on record as planning to get me blocked as often as possible until I give up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So, the basic conclusion is that, yes, this 3RR report is obviously bogus, but let's wait until they report another 3RR report that's obviously bogus. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is originally "adoption by Christians" and Littlegreenrosetta removes "by Christians" [104]. You add "Christian" to make the phrase "Christian adoption[105]. Normally we would give you the benefit of the doubt. But because of your history of past and present edit warring we are justified in counting this as the POV revert it is.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 11:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you're not the one who gets to decide what is and isn't a revert. When you try, you seem to always count it wrong. I don't think any admin who actually looks at the two will agree with you. Second, you're trying to establish that I'm edit-warring, so your argument can't be based on the assumption that I'm edit-warring. That would be circular logic, a fallacy. Frankly, it reeks of desperation on your part. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Now he's claiming that [106] is a revert of [107]. It's not. Look for yourself. This is just bullshit and I'm sick of it. I'm reporting Lionelt on ANI right now for this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the definition of a WP:REVERT to an article? Quote: "any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors". That means per article, not per specific content in the article. For example, if you revert something in the lede twice, and then something further down twice, that's 4 reverts. See edit war where it amplifies "3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". Indeed, you can be edit-warring with a single revert, period dangerouspanda 12:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you compared [108] with [109]? There are ZERO reverts in it. I think I can have as many non-reverting edits per day per article as I have time for. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You are here because you went to 4RR at Paul Ryan. The FOTF is merely offered to show that this is not an isolated incident, but a pattern of disruption. The EW at Paul Ryan is fully blockable.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 12:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

::::You are lying. I am here because Belchfire pretended I went 5RR. When that fell through, you pretended I went 4RR. And FotF failed to show any evidence of edit-warring. So, in conclusion, you are a liar. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And the above is blockable ... care to strike and rephrase the personal attack? dangerouspanda 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So very sorry. He's not continuously lying about my revert count to get me blocked. He just doesn't know what a revert is or how to count up to to 5. WP:AGF but not WP:COMPETENT. Better? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Still24 has been blocked before for EW very recently, made accusations in various places including Jimbo's talk page, been edit warring on ultiple articles, been called on it, used incivil language and makes personal attacks [110], implicit threats to edit war on other articles [111], accuses others of "coaching" editors to attack him [112] , responded with complaints of his own [113], [114] clueless as to why the EW rules exist, accuses others of "stalking" him [115] as nauseum. And the interesting colloquy at [116]. The editor does not only have EW as his problem on Wikipedia, alas. Collect (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a clear attempt to distract from the fact that there's no sign of me edit warring. As it's not relevant to this report, it gets the hat. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Read what "personal attack" means. I suggest your Stetsoning of all posts you dislike is likely to be found wanting. Collect (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment I haven't witnessed any 3RR violations by Still at FOTF. His POV pushing is a bit annoyning, because when challenged he seems to refuse substantive discussion by saying that the sources agree with his view without expounding, or drumming up specious arguments to support his POV. Is this edit warring? No, but its not helpful either. Little green rosetta (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's not edit warring, why are we talking about it on ANI/EW? I'll be glad to discuss POV issues on the article page, but not here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw some comments above which implied you were skirting with EW on FOTF. I was simply saying here, that while I see other issues with your editing that I don't see you EW at FOTF. Simple as that. Little green rosetta (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Noone said he violated 3RR at FOTF. The violation of 3RR occurred at Paul Ryan.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 12:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you said I edit-warred on FOTF, but you kept coming up with reverts that weren't reverts. It was pretty sad, really. And since none of this amounts to evidence of me edit warring, I'm going to hat. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I object to Still's hatting of my remarks. And have asked him to stop. I have every right to revert him. However I desire that this thread stay focused on the 4 reverts in the blue box above clearly establishing edit warring.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 12:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to request that Still stop hatting comments. This feature should never be used lightly, and seldom by involved parties. Little green rosetta (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see why I reverted Kenatipo's edit: he incorrectly marked it as minor while claiming WP:PEACOCK (which doesn't apply). My impression was that this edit was made under misleading circumstances; an attempt to sneak in a change. When I confronted him politely, he eventually admitted that he was wrong to mark it minor and then claimed that Paul Krugman was a clown, which supports my original hunch.[117] Gotta love neutrality. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that was reported today constitutes edit-warring, therefore I should not be blocked. The various attempt to prejudice this proceeding by bringing in false and irrelevant claims are despicable, which is why I hatted them. The fact that you won't leave them hatted means that there's no reason for me to continue. If you can't already see that none of the reported edits constitute warring or you're easily distracted by personal attacks, then that's that. I'm off to do real-life things. Feel free to close this one way or the other. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24-45-42-125, you were blocked about 2 weeks ago for edit warring and are here again. 3RR is not a right and you can still be blocked again for edit warring without going past 3RRs. --Mollskman (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Warned Still-24-45-42-125, comments like "to show the conservatives what for!!!!!", even when clearly meant in jest, give the impression that you are here to push your point of view more than to neutrally improve the encyclopedia. The rest of your edit history does not unambiguously refute this characterization. You would be well advised to follow WP:DR; the process can be slow and frustrating, but compare that to the editing experience you have now. Your comment elsewhere that you intend to restrict yourself to two or fewer reverts per article per day is a definite step in the right direction. I am not going to impose any editing restriction at the moment, but you are definitely looking at a topic ban if your editing continues in this vein.
• Warned Belchfire, you are being disruptive. Productively editing the articles with an eye to impeccable sourcing and neutral phrasing will get you what you want significantly more effectively and with less hassle than your current path.
• Warned Lionelt, you are still being disruptive. Knock it off.

I am not going to protect the article for now, as it is currently in the news and needs immediate updates. The calmer editing environment in the past few hours is instructive. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

On the advice of council, I'm not going to comment on the above action. However, I do want to add for the record that I recommend that anyone who imagines I might be edit-warring take a quick look at my edit history on the talk page of this article. Or just look at the Talk:Paul Ryan for my signature. I think you'll clearly see that, rather than try to force my edits down anyone's throats through warring, I'm actively participating in consensus-building discussion. That's all. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's not too late to comment, I'd like a ban from my talk page against Still-IP. I've told him to stay off my talk page and he refuses to do so because he has a clear intention of constantly harrasing me. You can clearly see the diff's here on the first page [118] ViriiK (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why?

A) He was browsing through my edit history of preventing vandalism and when he was the uninvolved party, he questioned why I made changes everytime I reverted a user other than him. [119] [120] [121] [122]. He went onto lecture me that he's free to post on my talk page despite my telling him not to post on my talk page whatsoever. See: [123]. He also posted fake warnings against me which were disregarded since they were not edit-warring and he was the user edit-warring. [124]. Also on my talk page, he accused me of supposedly violating POV when I deleted a POV that this user inserted in. [125] ViriiK (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard to deal with edit warring on noticeboards. That is all. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the diff's? He accused me multiple times of edit-warring when it was not the case at all and proceeded to harass me at my talk page. ViriiK (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tide rolls has taken care of this elsewhere. Please start a new section if there is new edit warring or follow dispute resolution for any other issues. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:88.104.26.6 reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: prot)

Page: British Freedom Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.104.26.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [126]

• 1st revert: [127]
• 2nd revert: [128]
• 3rd revert: [129]
• 4th revert: [130] or [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133], also Talk:British Freedom Party#Far right

Comments:
Editor is quite obviously the same as 88.104.30.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), responsible for the first revert. Revert 4 is either the removal of {{UK far right}} or the removal of "far right" from the lead, both are repeating changes from the first 3 edits. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected. Probably the same user as earlier this month, which gives far to broad a range of IPs for a range block. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel reported by User:I7laseral (Result: Declined)

Page: Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian Civil War (from May 2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• 1st revert: [134]
• 2nd revert: [135]
• 3rd revert: [136]
• 4th revert: [137]

Diff of 3RR warning: [138]

Diff of the user reported undoing by warning: [139]

Only 3 reverts. The first one reported as a revert was original content added by myself that L7laseral then started to remove without explanation. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was the one who added that paragraph and you kept on making unnecessary changes to it without explanation. Here is the diff that proves this. [140] I7laseral (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of what is a revert? I did not revert anything you did with my first edit, just added a word and bolded a part. Not a revert by any mean as I did not touch your addition. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. I'm going to repeat what I say here in the section below. Both of you have four reverts if the first change to the article is counted. I7laseral's first change is more of a revert than Daniel's, but no matter. Because some count the first change and some don't, I could either block you both or block neither of you. I'm choosing the latter in the hope (a) you will learn something from this without a block and (b) you will stop bickering and behave more maturely (I wanted to block you more for the bickering than for the edit-warring). Some words of advice. Assume your first change to the article is a revert. Don't hope the admin won't count it. Second, any change to the article of any material counts as a revert. It doesn't matter whether the content is "related". It doesn't matter how minor the change is. Read the policy. Now stop battling, stop bickering, and go do something useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:I7laseral reported by User:DanielUmel (Result: Declined)

Page: Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian Civil War (from May 2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: I7laseral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011%E2%80%932012_Syrian_Civil_War_%28from_May_2012%29&diff=507383047&oldid=507349727
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011%E2%80%932012_Syrian_Civil_War_%28from_May_2012%29&diff=507511270&oldid=507510799
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011%E2%80%932012_Syrian_Civil_War_%28from_May_2012%29&diff=507512320&oldid=507511625
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011%E2%80%932012_Syrian_Civil_War_%28from_May_2012%29&diff=507515982&oldid=507514361

Easy to see that it is four pure reverts in less than 24 hours. Two of these have the "undid" mark and the two other are reverting my additions. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? These four diffs you showed have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. Please re-read the rules. Your allowed to edit and revert, but you are not allowed to revert the same content more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I7laseral (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." --Onorem♠Dil 12:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously filing a tit-for-tat report? You're both edit-warring, and should both be blocked accordingly dangerouspanda 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not broken the 3RR rules, I7aseral did, that's the difference. And the Wikipedia rules is "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period."

So yes, I7aseral you broke the rule. And don't pretend you did know it. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretend that I don't know it? I7laseral (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you were to notice, we both stopped editing the page upon receiving the warnings. The only difference is that DanielUmel deleted my warning. If you check the first and second diffs that DanielUmel provided, you will see that both editors are different than DanielUmel, so I didn't revert an editor's content more than three times. I7laseral (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To break the 3RR rules, you don't need to reverse more than 3 time the same person. 4 reverts of 4 different editors in less than 24 hours in the same page is a break of 3RR rules. You broke it definitely.--DanielUmel (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I have a link to wikiguidelines page which specifically says that EatsShootsAndLeaves? 4 different editors of different content still counts? I7laseral (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. I'm going to repeat what I say here in the section above. Both of you have four reverts if the first change to the article is counted. I7laseral's first change is more of a revert than Daniel's, but no matter. Because some count the first change and some don't, I could either block you both or block neither of you. I'm choosing the latter in the hope (a) you will learn something from this without a block and (b) you will stop bickering and behave more maturely (I wanted to block you more for the bickering than for the edit-warring). Some words of advice. Assume your first change to the article is a revert. Don't hope the admin won't count it. Second, any change to the article of any material counts as a revert. It doesn't matter whether the content is "related". It doesn't matter how minor the change is. Read the policy. Now stop battling, stop bickering, and go do something useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:WBRSin reported by User:Vvarkey (Result: 24 hours for both)

Page: 2012 Mangalore Homestay attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WBRSin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

• 1st revert: [142]
• 2nd revert: [143]
• 3rd revert: [144]
• 4th revert: [145]
• 5th revert: [146]
• 6th revert: [147]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

Comments:

vvarkey (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page Talk:2012_Mangalore_Homestay_attack before commencing action. It shows the real nature of malicious and slanderous edits Vvarkey is indulging in and resorting to vandalism when the article was changed to a NPOV by me. And now he has the cheek to report me for vandalism. WBRSin (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. You are both well above 3 reverts. Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Hemmeband17 reported by 208.38.59.161 (talk) (Result: 24 h)

Page: Kaitlyn (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hemmeband17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaitlyn_%28wrestler%29&oldid=507327389

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

1. 03:03, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 05:49, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 10:59, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 19:01, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 00:45, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 03:06, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hemmeband17&oldid=507549014

Comments:
I've warned user before on talk page, and myself and others have commented in edit summaries about rules they've been breaking, even adding hidden text about not breaking these rules yet they continue. Is adding fansite as living person's official website, going against Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling by adding poorly sourced moves and week-by-week accounts (also a violation of WP:NOT) --208.38.59.161 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Yes, Hemmeband17's version is decidedly not policy compliant, but someone really should have started a real talkpage discussion in the month or however long this has been going on. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:LuckyWikipedian reported by User:Still-24-45-42-125 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Family Research Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LuckyWikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Different ones in different cases, so please see my parenthetical comment for each.

• 1st revert: [150] (Revert to this)
• 2nd revert: [151] (Revert to this)
• 3rd revert: [152] (Revert to this)
• 4th revert: [153] (Revert to this)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155]

Comments:
This is a brand new account that is a pure SPA: it has only edited this one article. We've managed to get them to come to the talk page, but they're not even slowing down with the reverts while we try to talk to them. I may have missed some, but they're on at least 4RR.

• Yes, please. This editor has finally posted on the talk page, but only to the tune of "You're all nuts, I'm right" and then right back to massively editing the article against consensus without discussion, removing sources, so rapid fire we cannot even follow what s/he's doing. A brief block to get them to slow down, and to allow the regular editors to assess the changes and impress upon this user the importance of working with others would be greatly appreciated, and will ensure the article isn't completely rewritten to a single pov by a newbie who does not understand our policies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Clearly an SPA and fairly disruptive, removing important content, using edit summaries to discredit the contributions of other editors and ignoring attempts by other editors to reach consensus on the talk page. I think some cooling off time may be in order. - MrX 21:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

...and using talk pages to assail the integrity of other editors. - MrX 22:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Still going [156]

• Blocked for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Eaglestorm reported by User:TiagoTiago (Result: no action)

Page: Talk:The 6th Day (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161] (I didn't explicitly mentioned any specific rules, but i did ask if we needed some thirdparty to help us settle things)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The reverts are being done in the talk page itself, i already tried having a conversation but User:Eaglestorm keeps reverting my comments as you can see above.

Comments: As i wrote in the reverted comments i consider adding information about those aircrafts to help with improving the article, and therefore a request for more information about them does belong in the talk page of the article about the movie.

--TiagoTiago (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am tempted to block the both of you for playing at silly buggers, but let us see how this works instead. TiagoTiago, when someone removes a comment per WP:FORUM and WP:TPO, please only replace it if you also add some explanatory text or refocusing on the discussion at hand; your most recent version probably just barely qualifies; please try explaining your point more plainly. Eaglestorm, when someone disagrees with your assessment of relevance to improving the article, please invite them to elaborate before hatting or removing the content again. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm commenting back. I believe this entire report is NOTHING MORE than some attempt by a bitter editor who cries "why are my edits not considered? wahwahwah" and wants to circumvent WP:FORUM to generate some discussion about a fictional piece of technology. Such talk is not allowed on any talk page, and he has the nerve to label observance and enforcement of policy "rude". I never saw any valid points about the guy's diatribes, anyway.--Eaglestorm (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Kkm010 reported by User:71.212.77.233 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Volkswagen Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [162]

• 1st revert: [163]
• 2nd revert: [164]
• 3rd revert: [165]
• 4th revert: [166]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]

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

Comments:Tried to engage the user on his talk page rather than the article talk page. The only feedback I got was unconstructive and non-specific. His edits introduce WP:ACCESS violations and are not aligned with the guideline on template:infobox company. I believe that I complied with WP:3RR, but I'm new to WP and could also be in error. Regardless, I tried to resolve the problem and Kkm010 would not engage in a helpful discussion.

71.212.77.233 (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're both equally at fault. We don't assume good faith only of the person who screams the loudest that the other editor is a vandal. Page is protected for 1 week while you two figure this out. Try to get some third opinions. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:174.48.32.232 (Result: Declined)

Page: PolitiFact.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [168]

• 1st revert: [169]
• 2nd revert: [170]
• 3rd revert: [171]
• 4th revert: [172]
• 5th revert: [173]
• 6th revert: [174]
• 7th revert: [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Did not break 3RR rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The editor refused, after much prodding on my part, to take his issues to the talk page.

Comments:
This editor continues attempting to remove a massive amount of sourced content on this page for reasons he refuses to clarify. He points back to his original "reason," given in a previous edit summary: "rem sentence not supported by source; (only says 'runs the risk of...' and 'sometimes do...')." Not understanding what sentence he was referring to, along with being only semi-fluent in Wikipedia edit summary speak, I asked him to translate what he meant into the Queen's English onto the talk page, and he smugly replies "ibid," before the page was locked by an administrator.

He is the only editor trying to remove this content, he hasn't even attempted to gain consensus on the talk page after I asked him to take his problems there, and he seems to not even be pretending to have a legitimate reason.--174.48.32.232 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing truthful in the above comment is that I "Did not break 3RR rule", whereas the reporting IP has. Boomerang?

The article is already protected, at my request. See this RFPP, and please note my reasoning.

I have left multiple requests on the article talk page for the IP to engage in discussion about his repeated edit. The IP has never responded.

The IP's problematic edits have been reverted by several editors, not just me, and he has several warnings on his personal talk page regarding this.

Please advise the IP to utilize the article Talk page and address the concerns raised there about his edits, instead of revert-warring. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. Article is fully protected. IP has been previously warned for disruptive editing from sequence of a couple of days ago. IP reverting too much more recently but not warned of edit-warring. Close call whether to block them but will warn them instead. Xenophrenic has been reverting too much but no technical violation of 3RR and appropriately requested article protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:76.189.121.5 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Protected)

Page: Hotel Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.189.121.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:02, 16 August 2012

1. 1st revert: 16:12, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507703270 by TBrandley (talk)Per previous edit comments, my version removes all unnecessary content/wordiness and corrects all grammar/usage/redundancies.")
2. 2nd revert: 16:49, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507708344 by AussieLegend (talk)edits clearly explained in orginal edit, totally unnecessary content removed, redundant wording in sentences, poor grammar, misordered content")
3. 3rd revert: 16:54, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507709580 by AussieLegend (talk)I did original rv so you are obligated to take to talk page, my edits were to improve content per previous comments, stop EW over good edits")
4. 4th revert: 17:02, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507710594 by AussieLegend (talk)I did the first rv, so no other editors should've done a rv (especially a complete rv) w/o going to talk page")
5. 5th revert: 17:20, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507712710 by Drmargi (talk)Collusion among editors is a violation that is cause for a block. I made the original rv and improvement edits, so others need to go to talk page.")
6. 6th revert: 17:49, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507716467 by Bihco (talk)There is a talk page discussion going on. I made the original edits/rv's of content, so no further rv's should have been done w/o talk page discussion.")
7. 7th revert: 18:01, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507717803 by TBrandley (talk)Stop rv my edits w/o discussing the legitimate concerns raised in the talk page discussion, these rv's are hurting, not helping article")
8. 8th revert: 18:07, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507718547 by TBrandley (talk)See talk page discussion. If anyone disagreed with the orginal rv of content (mine), it should have been taken to talk page then.

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

• Diff of attempt to engage editor on his talk page: [177][178][179][180]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:

The IP made some edits that condensed all of the article prose into the lead and remove cited, encyclopaedic content, claiming some of the content was redundant. This was reverted by an editor with an appropriate edit summary.[182] The IP reverted to his version. I then reverted, explaining in my edit summary that the content was not redundant and it was reasonable encyclopaedic content. The IP reverted that, so I reverted to the status quo, noting in my edit summary that he should stop edit-warring and discuss on the article's talk page.[183] I then posted a note on the IP's talk page.[184] However, by that time the IP had revrted again. Subsequently the IP has continued to revert, accusing editors of collusion in several edit summaries.[185][186][187] Other editors have reverted the IP,[188][189][190] but the IP continues to revert back to his preferred version of the article, despite having been warned that he has breached 3RR,[191] and even after it was suggested that by revrting back to the status quo he may avoid a block.[192] --AussieLegend (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not much better on the article talk page. The IP editor expected to be thanked for his/her edit, at least metaphorically, and has made a series of bad-faith assumptions, which have in turn driven his/her edit warring. Any sort of consensus building doesn't seem to be on the horizon; he/she wants the edits accepted, unchallenged and unchanged. --Drmargi (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice spin. You should be in politics. First, you and your group of editors have colluded to revert nine times. Second, I've presented clear explanations in the talk page discussion about the specific changes I made. But contrary to all the claims of wanting to build consensus, my points have gone ignored. This was a simple, appropriate rewrite of a few lines of inadequately-written content, plus the removal of a couple non-encylopedic items. Administrators can read the talk page discussion for themselves to see what's really going on. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter has fully protected the page, so blocking the IP now would not prevent the edit war. It seems that discussion was difficult because an edit war was happening at the same time; perhaps now the page is protected, they will be more willing to discuss. If not, and if edit warring continues tomorrow, a block may well be warranted. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Right now, all they're willing to do is finger-point and blame. I have no confidence that once the PP is lifted in 48 hours, the IP won't simply resume the edit war. --Drmargi (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend and Drmargi are among the editors who initiated the edit-warring, so it's disappointing that they have chosen to come here and completely misrepresent the situation. But fortunately, any administrator can read my original edit comments and, more importantly, my clearly outlined explanations in the article's talk page discussion. And it should be noted that Aussie has not even partipated in the talk page discussion, choosing instead to simply revert and ignore the issues meant to improve the article. And although Drmargi has participated in the discussion, he has failed to address any of the specific, substantive problems I outlined. If there were some minor tweaks that were necessary after my edits, that would have been fine. But to simply make a wholesale revert of my entire edit does not indicate an intention to improve the article's content, but rather a focus on simply preventing any changes to it, warranted or not. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Drmargi didn't even touch the article until after you had already breached 3RR. I reverted initially explaining that content that you have removed was not redundant and was in fact reasonable encyclopaedic content and your only response was to revert me with the excuse "edits clearly explained in orginal edit, totally unnecessary content removed, redundant wording in sentences, poor grammar, misordered content)", although two editors had clearly opposed your edits. When I subsequently asked you to discuss the matter on the talk page and pointed you to WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, you did exactly what you did when TBrandley pointed you the WP:LEDE, you ignored it. Then you reverted my edit and deleted what I had written from your talk page.[193] Your edit summary was somewhat ironic, as you accused me of doing exactly what you had already done to two editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@76. Nonsense! I made one revert and started the discussion. I did nothing like edit warring. The others stopped short of WP:3RR. Et tu? --Drmargi (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I would remind you to act in a civil manner, Drmargi ("Nonsense!"). Second, I never said that you, specifically, edit-warred. I said you were "among those" who initiated an edit war ("AussieLegend and Drmargi are among the editors who initiated the edit-warring"). Big difference. And of course none of you violated 3RR. That's because you cleverly colluded so that each of you could do one, two or three reverts, and have power in numbers so that you could avoid getting in trouble. But the edit history of the article proves what you did. As a colluding group of editors, you did nine reverts in two hours. In any case, I was the first edtior to do a revert of content when I made some good faith changes to improve the article. So none of you should have reverted; you should have taken it to the talk page. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@ItsZippy - Given that the IP reverted 8 times despite being told numerous times not to do that, why not to do it and what they should do, I'd say a block is warranted now. They can't say they weren't aware of what they were being told, because they replied to edit summaries and kept deleting what was posted to their talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Aussie. A block is preventative, not punitive, but what needs to be prevented at this point? The issue is not preventing this edit war from continuing; the PP did that. With eight reverts, there's no reason to believe this editor won't resume edit warring once the PP is lifted. We need a block that will prevent the edit war from resuming, or at the very least, an 1RR restriction on the editor until he/she discusses in good faith. So far, the latter isn't happening. --Drmargi (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected – 24 hours, by another admin. See the comment by ItsZippy above. If the war resumes in 24 hours, the IP will not be in good shape if they just continue with more of the same reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that the history of the editors making these claims shows blocks for edit-warring. And the editor who did the first revert of my revert (instead of taking it to the talk page) has been repeatedly blocked.[194]. Anyway, Ed can read the article's talk page discussion for himself to see what really happened, not a few partial versions of it. And he can also see the very specific reasoning behind my edits and how the other editors have failed to properly address any of them. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

None of which excuses or justifies assumptions of bath faith, your own edit warring, serial violation of 3RR and refusal to discuss until pretty much forced to do so. --Drmargi (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't assume bad faith. I merely pointed out what the actions of some editors seemed to indicate. If I assumed bad faith, I would've directly said I assumed bad faith. It's interesting how there were mulitiple editors involved in edit-warring, yet no one else was addressed about it. Just me. I was the editor who did the original revert of content. Therefore, it was the editor who reverted me that should've instead taken it to the talk page. But instead, that editor, plus the rest of you, decided it was perfectly fine to simply throw out the baby with the bathwater by reverting my entire edit, instead of just addressing any objections you had with anything specific within my overall edit. So if someone changes 10 different pieces of content on a single edit and eight of them are legitimate, all of you would simply revert the entire 10. That's exactly what you did. And that makes no sense. And now that I've explained on the talk page, in specific detail, what the problems were with the version I edited, none of you want to properly address them. You all claimed you wanted a discussion to hash out my the specific issues, yet when they're clearly presented, they go ignored and most of the editors complaining don't even participate. They simply want to revert. Anyone can read that discussion and see what the real story is. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see this conversation here. I tried to discuss some key policies with IP, and they just brought up my year-old block history for edit warring, and is making blatant personal attacks. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:79.138.3.117 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 24h)

Page: Talk:Jew Watch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 79.138.3.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 13:41, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "/* bias */")
2. 16:48, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507490644 by Walter Görlitz (talk)")
3. 16:55, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "/* bias */ talk pages are not for censoring either;)")
4. 16:59, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "i see. would you kindly explain why its not constructive?=) try debating why instead this should or should not be in the article")
5. 18:55, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "you never said why it wasnt constructive. if you have anything you want to add or discuss why it shouldnt be in the article, please do so. edit warring is indeed not allowed here")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: User is insisting on posting long rants about how "jews... lobby for media control". It's been removed and hatted, but the ip continues to edit war and post more in the same vein, even past his EW warning. —  — Jess· Δ♥ 03:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. The IP has been edit warring to restore his own comments to the article talk page after they were correctly removed by others per WP:FORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You dont seem to have talked on why it was not constructive. the explanation seems to be given. it seems more like your comment was about you doing Historical revisionism (negationism) and seem to give your own opinion about well constructed facts. instead of being a denier of history, you can try to talk about putting the things proposed in the article. as we can clearly see from previous sources about the CAMERA case about lobbying people like zay and jayjg was paid for. Anti-nonsemitic of denying a crime to a gentile will be taken as serious as anti-semitism here. denying in this case is indeed anti-nonsemitism due to hypocrisy

the source "According to Friedman, "CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don't want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants."

this, coupled with the campaign by camera on wikipedia is indeed RELAVENT to the issue jewwatch. jewwatch being anti-semetic, will rather be given the same things other articles have, in this case, it was proposed a Criticism/expansion of Controversy section that it was not as jewwatch claim that it was because of their jewishness that they did what they did on america or wikipedia, but because they were moraly bad people.

On a further note, it was proposed that the jewwatch be added further commentary about its talmudic section. contradicting its statement saying that the talmud is anti-nonsemitic with the phrases given out of context77.53.83.107 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather have a civil calm discourse instead and debate the content proposed to be put into the article. if you dont like it then comment and say why.

User:Djjamz340 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 24 h)

Page: Left-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Djjamz340 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 21:35, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507701800 by AndyTheGrump (talk)")
2. 00:07, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507750548 by AndyTheGrump (talk)")
3. 00:18, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507763780 by AndyTheGrump (talk) His personal opinions are not valid. All information is verified with sources")
4. 00:23, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507764603 by AndyTheGrump (talk) Your attempt based on opinion is a gross violation.")
5. 01:14, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507766811 by AndyTheGrump (talk) Opinion not valid")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: There may be at least one other party over the bright line here.

—Tgeairn (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment There is an ongoing discussion regarding this article at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Attempted_WP:BLP_violation_in_our_left-wing_terrorism_article. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this has also been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Violation of WP:BLP policies in our 'left wing terrorism' article. Please also note that as I have made perfectly clear (repeatedly, in both threads), I can see no reason whatsoever why a gross violation of WP:BLP policy should not be covered under the relevant WP:3RR exception: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption". I have reported this to WP:BLP. I have reported it to WP:ANI. To suggest that "There may be at least one other party over the bright line here" seems questionable at least. Or is an entirely unsourced claim that an individual as yet not convicted of anything is engaged in "a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes" not covered by the exception? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, my statement that there "may be others EWing as well" was NOT meant as a judgement on Andy or anyone else specifically. Only the reported editor was edit-warring without an apparent attempt to resolve. Andy claimed a BLP exemption in his edit summaries (and in other locations), and took this to BLP/N as well. I do not have an opinion as to whether or not the BLP exemption applied once the name of the alleged gunman was removed. As WP:NOT3RR says "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." <emphasis mine> --Tgeairn (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't merely consider it. I did it. Since this had no effect, I had little choice but to continue reverting until others responded. I can think of few more egregious violations of WP:BLP policy than one which states that an unconvicted suspect is a Marxist revolutionary out to overthrow the state. That his name was removed from the material was irrelevant - the sources cited named him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Georgewilliamherbert. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Stellabystarlight reported by User:Feline1 (Result: 24h)

Page: Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stellabystarlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [195]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [199]

Comments:

This user appears to have, and has already been warned about, a conflict of interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stellabystarlight#Conflict_of_interest

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, although technically this user did not violate 3RR. In the future, include a proper 3RR warning before reporting on this noticeboard, and before the editor violated 3RR, and make sure that there is actually a 3RR violation before reporting here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:SreejithInfo reported by User:JamesRoberts1949 (Result: page protected)

Page:Mata Amritanandamayi Mata Amritanandamayi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:Sreejithinfo SreejithInfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

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

Every time an editor tries to make any changes to the controversies section of the Mata Amritanandamyi page, the user Sreejithinfo reverts back to his chnages. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [205]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [206]

Comments:

The controversy section is now bigger than any other section in the article. People are trying to add libelous information to slander the living person. Most of the purported controversies are loosely related to the person in question. JamesRoberts1949 (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected. WP:SPI case opened for parties involved; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanceMurdock999. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:77.53.83.107 and (2nd account) User:77.53.83.46 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Protected)

Page: Talk:Jew Watch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

First Account: 77.53.83.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 14:18, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507635043 by Mann jess (talk)")
2. 14:23, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "")

Second account: 77.53.83.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 22:11, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "why is it nonsense? why are you hostile to jews? you seem unable to put yourself in their shoes.")

Comments: Fresh off a 24 hour block on 79.138.3.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user has hopped ips twice today to continue edit warring to add inappropriate content to the talk page. He's added similar content at AN3 just today, as well. A block on these two ips would be helpful so the issue doesn't spread. I'll also be asking the page to be semied at RfP. Thanks.

—  — Jess· Δ♥ 00:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The user mann jess seem to have sockpuppet and is having bad faith. user mann has refused to actual used TALK PAGE to discuss why or said content should be inside said article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.83.107 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

All vandals and should be blocked indef. Obtund^Talk 04:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected. Talk page protected by another admin. Note to Obtund: we cannot block IPs indefinitely. Any other admin is free to block any of the involved IPs if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:96.255.251.165 reported by User:Barayev (Result: Declined)

Page: Sumerian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.255.251.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [207]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]

Comments: Without a consensus, the unknown IP is removing the information and resources from the article. Also, he broke the 3RR. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That is three independent reverts same as Barayev. I would like to note the condenscending tone of Barayev in the talkpage: "You don't understand well what you read, so you need to improve your English a bit" and "Fourth, I'm fed up with you, and not struggle with you. " --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as you're prejudiced. Barayev (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why the talkpage is not working. The user supported the insertion of Kramer (when Kramer made no such statements). The user needs to assume good faith. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Note to the admins: I'm watching this page, as I was involved earlier. The IP is actually acting in line with Wikipedia policies on sourcing , as he is removing a falsification/misquotation of a source by Barayev who is a SPA/revert-only account with less than 100 edits, 80% of which are reverts to introduce WP:Fringe material and falsification of sources that compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. An admin, earlier confirmed another misquotation of the sources by Barayev on the same page.[213] Technically, neither side has broken 3RR. But Barayev has also made 3 reverts, against the Wikipedia policy on WP:RS. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

96.255.251.165 might be a sockpuppet of you? His recent edits target me anyway. Barayev (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

*Sigh* I'm watching the page, because earlier you reverted me there to re-introduce a misquotation of a source, the same thing you're doing now with the IP. Your conduct is the problem. Otherwise, I don't know who 96..nor is he related to me. You can request a check if you want. What I do know though, is that you're a WP:SPA/revert-only account who allegedly joined Wikipedia last week, and has since been causing disruption on various pages, pushing fringe Turkish nationalist theories that are against Wikipedia polices on WP:RS and WP:Fringe. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The IP never got an actual {{uw-3RR}} warning so this report is invalid. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined. Reporter has been indeffed at his request. Dispute between reporter and IP at WP:ANI. Contentious article. IP is strongly advised to be more careful in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Principal adjoint reported by User:Cyberpower678 (Result: Protected)

Page: List of Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! Season 2 episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 20:42, 18 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 508032191 by Ryulong (talk)")
2. 20:48, 18 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 508032520 by Ryulong (talk)")
3. 20:52, 18 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 508033556 by Cyberpower678 (talk)")
4. 20:56, 18 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 508033883 by Cyberpower678 (talk)")

User has been warned multiple times in various locations and also is engaged in move warring.——cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 21:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. Also discussion at WP:ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jglogau et al. reported by User:67.164.156.42 (Result: )

Page: Insight Venture Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jglogau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [214]
• 2nd revert: [215]
• 3rd revert: [216]
• 4th revert: [217]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Jglogau#Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Insight_Venture_Partners#Controversy

Comments:
The whole recent page history is a mess, with lots of IPs involved. Hgosher also has COI issues. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, whilst I realize removing unreliable sources does not exempt anyone from 3RR the IP's on the article have been using forum posts and other unreliable sources on that article. Facts, not fiction (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:2.122.93.187 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page: Insight Venture Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.122.93.187 (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]
• 5th revert: [223]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

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

I am not involed, I looked at the articles history after commenting on the case above. Facts, not fiction (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Arunsingh16

Arunsingh16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He's reverted three times at List of airlines of India

1[225] 2[226] 3[227]

The last edit was very much in bad faith. He wrote in the edit summary "Editor stated on my Talkpage & ANI that he wanted to step back till admins resolves the issue. He still reverted the change and hence" Yes I reverted(just once) but it was before saying I would step back and go to administrators. I went to an administrator. I went to an administrator[228], discussed what was going on at his talk page[229], plus replied to this editor writing at ANI[230], and am now reporting a possible 3RR....William 22:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Three reverts are acceptable. Four is a WP:3RR breach. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Warned - I've left a warning at the users' talk page, both about unacceptable use of rollback and also edit warring. Any further edit warring (even if it doesn't technically break 3RR, eg. if it continues tomorrow) may result in blocks for both that user and anyone else. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:58.168.23.166 reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: )

Realm of the Mad God's history will show you [231] this user has vandalized it repeatedly, adding in nonsense, and removing content. Their only contributions [232] are constant vandalism. Someone block them please. And please protect the article from IP edits for awhile. Dream Focus 17:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're looking for WP:AIV. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:‎84.10.160.34 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Simplified English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.10.160.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [233]

• 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] and [240] and [241] and [242]

Comments:

Nevermind, blocked while I was filling this out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked Mdann52 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Paul Marston reported by User:LiamFitzGilbert (Result: Declined)

Page: Heinrich Heine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paul Marston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [243]

• 1st revert: 08:25, 19 August 2012 (edit summary: "Revert. Phrasing as per source (esp. p.32). "Berg suffered severely, more than any other European country, from Napoleon's blockade of Europe against English economic power"")
• 2nd revert: 08:44, 19 August 2012 (edit summary: "No, read the whole of the passage in Sammons, which refers to the area being under "French occupation" at the time of Heine's birth and "conscription" under Napoleon")
• 3rd revert: 08:49, 19 August 2012 (edit summary: "Because Jeffrey Sammons mentions it in his definitive biography of Heinrich Heine, when referring to Heine's childhood and youth. Please stop blindly reverting and bring this to the talk page")
• 4th revert: 09:21, 19 August 2012 (edit summary: "added "in Berg" to clarify.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He told me about 3RR (i'm new), so I guessed it wasn't necessary! :-)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [244]

Comments:

NB: I have reverted my last edit in case it violates WP:3RR [245]. The page now violates several content policies and I have tagged it accordingly for the benefit of readers. Liam FitzGilbert has not followed policy and has not fully explained why he has interfered with reliably sourced information.

I don't know why this is still an "edit war" as the content issue has apparently been resolved. It's early on Sunday morning here. Maybe I could have handled it better, but give me a break. I even tried to give the "other guy" a break myself... My final edit came about because of the talk page discussion. My aim has been simply to prevent referenced material from being removed or altered arbitrarily by Liam FitzGilbert. I believe my last edit had clarified things sufficiently per the talk page discussion. Liam FitzGilbert seemed to understand.

The story: LiamFitzGilbert repeatedly removed sourced information, ignoring my edit summaries giving even more specific references [246]. I asked him to read the source [247] but he didn't. I asked him not to blindly revert [248] in this way but he did. His edits were effectively vandalism. He finally moved to discussion on the talk page where it appeared that he believed the section referred to Napoleon's effect on the whole of Europe rather than the state mentioned, Berg (a state in Germany). To clarify, in my final edit, I added "in Berg" [249] as well as re-adding sourced information he had removed without explanation. LiamFitzGilbert appeared to be reasonably satisfied with this ("Good work, mostly"), but he has now accused me of edit-warring although there is no longer an edit war. My actions were to protect sourced content from arbitrary removal and the substitution of inaccurate information. I could have reported LiamFitzGilbert much earlier, but I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt has not been reciprocated and I think it is unfair I have been reported here, especially as the content issue at stake has been resolved. (Liam FitzGilbert has not discussed the issue of his other removals of factual information for no valid reason, even though I raised the question on the talk page). Paul Marston (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your characterization of my actions is grossly distorted. I did not vandalize, nor "blindly revert", nor "remove sourced information". I made minor edits to the language used, and even added a sourced quote you volunteered yourself. The content issue has not been resolved. The only reason why I am not editing is because I don't want to breach 3RR as you have - and I thank you for informing me of this rule. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: "remove sourced information". You can clearly see this in Liam's final edit to the page: [250]. Notice he (again) alters "French occupation" to "French client state" (it wasn't a French client state until Napoleon) and he (again) removes references to heavy taxation and conscription. At no point has he explained why he repeatedly altered and/or removed this information. On the other hand, it is clear that Liam knew he was wrong to remove this information repeatedly because he himself has posted my second edit where I tell him not to on this very page (see 2nd revert in the evidence). That's why I ask him to stop "blindly reverting" in the next edit. Had Liam FitzGilbert read the source that was cited at the end of the paragraph (as I advised him to do) he would have found those things there. His edits distorted what the source says. I don't even understand the basis of his edits or why he is so insistent that his version of events should supersede that of published experts. In fact, I don't understand this situation at all. It seems like a storm in a teacup. I don't see what there is still left to resolve. Paul Marston (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined. Both of you violated 3RR. Paul, your self-reversion was a bit late, but even if it were accepted, you should have just self-reverted, not done anything else (including the addition of tags). Liam, you edited the article 4 times. Your first edit constitutes a revert. Read the policy. I also believe that Paul's 4th change to the article was done in good faith. Liam, you even commented on the article Talk page that it was "good work, mostly" but then said Paul had technically violated 3RR - maybe so, but you were the only two editors arguing about this, and you could have continued to work with each other without reporting it - it's almost as if you felt you had to "regretfully" report him, which is silly. Paul, stop calling Liam's edits vandalism. It's not accurate, it's offensive, and it only goads Liam. Both of you should take a break from editing the article and work out a wording on the talk page that you can both live with. If you can't, follow WP:DR.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:220.255.1.155, User:220.255.1.113, User:220.255.1.140 and User:220.255.1.143. reported by User:Blethering Scot (Result: Protected)

Page: Celtic F.C. supporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

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

• 1st revert: [251]
• 2nd revert: [252]
• 3rd revert: [253]
• 4th revert: [254]

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

See talk Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters three editors advised one user that including isn't valid on this as isn't relevant to article and as subject is relatively unknown and isn't even notable for an article. It also could fall foul on several points of WP:BLP. Editor advised there is no consensus for inclusion of controversial material. Ip is hoping but all geolocate to singapore and talks as same editor. There is consensus for now that shouldn't be included and as controversial information is being added i would suggest page is fully protected to allow further discussion to take place.Blethering Scot 16:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
There are other editors involved out with myself but im unsure whether i need to notify them as they haven't breached 3RR and nor do i have proof that they are involved or related.Blethering Scot 16:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Page has now been fully Page protected after i submitted it although i submitted for semi but full does the job better :), however i think this ip will start again and will not accept consensus so i think a topic ban might be required, i to have suspiciosn there related to a few users who have been opposing such information on teh rangers f.c. article but i dnt want to do a spi as i dnt have enough evidenceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

the insinuation that I'm ip hoping is false - I simply use a laptop, mobile phone and iPad, sometimes when I'm on the go. Not that unusual I would suggest. Likewise I'd like to see the evidence that I've been on the rangers page- it might be a long wait as I've never touched that page. The so called concencus here was reached after a blatant piece of canvassing:

"Hi could someone please take a look at this page. A user has taken it upon himself to 'clean up' Wikipedia by removing all the negative stuff about Rangers and adding negative stuff about Celtic. Far be it from a POV editor like me to stand in his way with my "policies". So if someone who isn't blinded by their devotion to Celtic could take a look at the page I'd be most grateful. Cheers. Adam4267 (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC) he heading for a ban he is pov pushing is all i can say i not goting to undo rather let someone not invovled do it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Assuming that it's Gefatane you're talking about, then I can't see what he's done wrong to be honest. Those latest additions are sourced and verifiable and seem to be taking the article towards a more NPOV to me. BigDom (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)"

Just for the record I am not getefane. I have seen no referenced evidence from BLP or notability guidelines that in a page on celtic fc supporters - sub section sectarianism the fact that reliable sources say the chairman of the club's supporters association has done something sectarian. Buy hey ho, I guess it's this sort of thing that causes Wikipedia's reputation as unreliable. 220.255.1.65 (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User:87.115.163.24 reported by User:Tmol42 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Slough plus others see below
User being reported: User:87.115.163.24

Previous version reverted to: [256]

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

The editor has been using a variety of IP addresses e.g.User talk:31.185.230.165, User talk:84.93.165.235 and User talk:87.115.56.207, User talk:87.113.45.147 over recent days for example here and here to edit Slough Edmonton, Abingdon Great Coxwell and Little Coxwell

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [261]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Slough#Slough's Historic location At least 3 other editors have been trying to persuade the IP to stop referring them to the policy guidance Wikipedia:UKCOUNTIES

Comments:This edit warring has been going on periodically for several days and was previously a problem with the editor who is using more than one IP address and has also been benefitting from having a dynamic IP address. Looking at the edit history and comments it is clear it is the same editor

This IP-hopping editor has broken 3RR today on all of these articles.

• Edmonton, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Slough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Great Coxwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Little Coxwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Abingdon-on-Thames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His edits go against the naming guidelines described at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties, which were arrived at after much discussion several years ago and have remained stable. Several editors have tried to reason with him, unsuccessfully so far. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

On 19th August between 1200 and 2130hrs the following reverts, exceeding the 3RR, were undertaken using one or more of the above IP addresses Slough 5 reverts, Abingdon-on-Thames 4 reverts, Great Coxwell 6 reverts, Little Coxwell 6 reverts, Edmonton 4 reverts. Tmol42 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protected the affected pages for two weeks. Hopefully this nudges the individual to discuss instead of edit warring. Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Working so far (in that the articles are not being reverted), but the same editor (as User:87.112.142.201) is still POV-pushing at Talk:Little Coxwell and Talk:Great Coxwell. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Casprings and User:JamesAM reported by User:Avanu (Result: Protected)

Page: Todd Akin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: JamesAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a biographical article about a living person, and involves material that is potentially contentious. Casprings has continued to push for this material to be added into the article without waiting for a consensus (via Talk) on what and how it should be included. The page history shows a series of edits from around 01:32, 20 August 2012‎ to the time of the filing of this report, in which Casprings continually ignores pleas to use the Talk page to arrive at a consensus wording.

JamesAM was previously warned to come to consensus via the Talk page, and has *generally* done so not done so. Casprings has *generally* not done that.

Diff of edit warring warning (Casprings): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Casprings&diff=508228358&oldid=508226094 and in the next couple of edits as well.

Diff of edit warring warning (JamesAM): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Akin&diff=508208705&oldid=508208483

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Todd Akin#Jaco Report Quote <-- this whole section

Comments:

Temporary semi-protection was requested by another editor earlier today to prevent this very sort of edit warring from taking place: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=508201137&oldid=508200845

I have not violated 3r and have tried to add relevant information to the article. I don't think any of my edits are an attempt to edit war and I am simply trying to help the article by WP:BOLD. I am both talking to this editor and talking on the talk page. Casprings (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring can simply be one edit, but you continue to post stuff again and again. I can't respond to your "BOLDness" without getting sucked into an edit war with you, so I have no choice but to bring it here. By the way, I don't wish for you to get blocked, but I do want you (and the others) to stop and work collaboratively on the Talk page rather than BOLDing over and over. -- Avanu (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs (Casprings):

1. [262]
2. [263]
3. [264]
4. [265]

Looks like an open-and-shut case to me. Belchfire-TALK 04:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And only to you. This is a complex and non-obvious case that requires looking more carefully at the details. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In particular, if we look at the timestamps, it's not a case of bright-line 4RR. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also seeing that Avanu hardly has clean hands, even though he's reporting. Logically, we should block everyone who's edit-warring, but if we did that, we'd have a massacre here. I think page protection is a better idea. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Only one problem with that theory, Still. I am not participating in this edit war. I dropped out because you guys were not listening. I took the steps necessary to warn and discuss and even plead, and am sitting on the sidelines now waiting for someone to take action. I'm not going to edit war. Blocks and such apply when a need for corrective action seems like the only option. I'm not going to be a part of this problem anymore. So your "clean hands" theory is bunk. I tried to get people to discuss immediately after my first revert, and I have tried to get you all to apply the WP:BLP and WP:DUE and WP:NPOV standards since that time, to mixed results. -- Avanu (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I've edited the article at all, though I've participated on the talk page, so I'm squeaky clean here. You're not. These two cannot be edit-warring against nothing.

The clean hands theory is quite real. The last time someone tried to report me for 3RR, they got warned. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how the edits you show prove your case. The study was added. I removed it once and went to the talk page. I reverted your edit when you deleted the whole section. I am at a loss as to how this shows an edit war. Casprings (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the diffs. 3 out of the 4 say "Undid revision by...". The fourth one is obviously a reversion as well, you just didn't use the "Undo" button to do that one. Of course, I have no way of knowing what will be decided here, but it ought to count for something that you were (1) asked politely at 1RR, (2) templated at 2RR, (3) asked pointedly at 3RR, then (4) you kept going on your merry way, reverting to your heart's content. What else were we supposed to do to slow your roll? Belchfire-TALK 04:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the problem, Casprings. None of you guys are stopping to really review why anyone is objecting or asking for care to be taken here. That's what makes it edit warring. A consensus occurs when material stays in the article without objection. People objected to the way the material was being presented. You guys keep re-adding it, and a consensus hasn't been reached. I'm not going to keep pulling the material out over and over, and get myself in trouble for edit warring, and I asked you and the other editors to pause and discuss. This has only barely halfheartedly taken place. My hands are tied because the only way to stop this is to bring it here, unless I want to end up blocked (alternatively the page could be locked, which was requested prior to all of this by another editor). -- Avanu (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And you guys are still just adding stuff without consideration of consensus. I'm at a loss for what to do at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop talking as if you have some sort of consensus on your side. That's highly doubtful. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at my comment below........ -- Avanu (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Amending my complaint to also include User:JamesAM. Pretty much has his edits interspersed alongside Casprings' edits. -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and I've seen a lot of activity, but not edit-warring. I've also noticed both Casprings and JamesAM discussing these issues on Talk, so it's not as if they're unresponsive. This page really should have been protected. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there *is* unequivocally edit warring, I would have reverted a lot of the material already, but I don't want to edit war. They have been dropping comments onto Talk, but that isn't stopping them from editing the material in the article at a furious pace. I'm not about to go tit-for-tat on reverting things and get myself in trouble, Still. All I can do right now is sit on the sidelines and ask for an admin to intervene to force these guys to actually discuss and get consensus. If I try to revert them I will fall afoul of the policies myself and I don't want to do that. -- Avanu (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, you're also edit-warring. Look at your edit comments. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Collaboration is completely impossible while this is going on. Belchfire-TALK 05:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty hard for someone to edit-war all by themselves. Looks to me like they're trying to collaborate while people like Avanu revert their changes. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs (JamesAM)

1. [266]
2. [267]
3. [268]

For the record, JamesAM is only at 3RR. Belchfire-TALK 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither Casprings nor JamesAM have passed the bright line. Then again, neither has Avanu. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, I didn't report either of these guys for 3RR. I reported them for Edit Warring. They have continued to re-insert the material over and over. No consensus has been determined and I'm not going to revert it and get blocked for it. For the love of Jimbo, just stop, please. -- Avanu (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Don't be claiming you've got consensus. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't claim that I have consensus, Still. You are still pretty new to Wikipedia in some ways. I suggest you go read WP:CONSENSUS and what it is and is not. -- Avanu (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What you said above was "without consideration of consensus". This simply isn't the case. The two of them were -- and still are -- discussing these issues on the Talk page in an attempt to build a clear consensus. It is not as if they're ignoring consensus and just editing as they like, which is what your quote makes it sound like. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So, meanwhile, what are all the edits they've been making? I don't see them making them in light of a consensus from the Talk page. I see them pushing in the material they like, while ignoring requests for a substantive discussion. That is textbook edit warring. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for three days. Let's discuss these issues on the talk page, please. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that's just great. Punish the innocent; protect the guilty. Just another day at Wikipedia. Belchfire-TALK 05:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the article, Ed. Incidentally, per this edit, I believe StillStanding-247 is not showing a competence to comment on Biographical Articles at this time. I have explained to him that the BLP policy does not grant us the right to have the article "wrong for a while". -- Avanu (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And I explained that you're mistaken. Some kinds of wrong are WP:BLP issues, some aren't. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If Ed's going to look at that, he should look at this as well: [269] It's a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Belchfire-TALK 05:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks more like you're taking an unrelated report and coatracking your problems with me. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. We had multiple editors agreeing that inclusion of the material was encyclopedic. One editor (Avanu) came along and simply deleted all mention of the abortion interview. There was no effort to fix what he/she perceived to be the problem. Avanu made 3 straight edits that simply deleted the content the rest of the editors had created. His/her view seems to be the repeated wholesale deletions weren't edit warring, but the response to his/her actions was? To me, Avanu was simply filibustering to keep the content out as long as possible. Many editors, including myself, engaged in concrete, specific discussions of content. Avanu said there were no reliable sources, when there were mutliple articles by well-regarded national media (Washington Post, AP, etc.). Avanu claimed including the quotes was a BLP violation, but wasn't showing anything that was actually violation of BLP. Verbatim quotations, with video, from major mainstream media is exactly what you want to pass muster regarding the BLP policy. The consensus seems pretty overwhelming to include the material. It doesn't sit well with me that someone's threatening to harm my standing on Wikipedia because I happen to be on the opposite side of a content dispute. I don't mind refraining from editing the Todd Akin article (though perhaps offering comments in the Talk Page) if Avanu will also refrain from editing the article. I'm confident we'll get a stable consensus once the personal dispute is removed. --JamesAM (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Solomeo8812 reported by User:FormerIP (Result: 24 h)

Page: Pussy Riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solomeo8812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [270]

• 1st revert: [271]
• 2nd revert: [272]
• 3rd revert: [273]
• 4th revert: [274]
• 5th revert: [275]
• 6th revert: [276]

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

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

Comments:

User is warring to include a local band in the international reactions section of the Pussy Riot article, which is currently linked from the frontpage. Formerip (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours De728631 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Note FormerIP, you should preferably warn other editors of the 3-reverts-rule before reporting them for edit-warring. Especially new users may not be familiar with the guidelines. For the record, The 3RR warning was issued by another editor after Solomeo8812 had been notified of this report, and still they went on edit warring. De728631 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Tkamanzi reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 24 hours)

Page: DotConnectAfrica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tkamanzi (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: [283] and [284]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285] and numerous invitations there for the editor to discuss the issue.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Programs22 reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: Closed without action)

Page: Talk:September 11 attacks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Programs22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [286]

• 1st revert: [287] Reverting my removal of his conspiratorial soapbox rant
• 2nd revert: [288] Reverting User:Tom harrison's removal of his conspiratorial soapbox rant
• 3rd revert: [289] Removing a talk page comment that I made

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

Comments:

User edit warring on the talk page for the September 11 attacks, a topic area under [sanction by ArbCom]. The user reverted my removal of a politicized conspiracy theorist rant that had nothing to do with the page, but instead pushing a fringe conspiracy viewpoint, and also served as a moderate personal attack on me. I removed this as talk pages are not discussion forums. He was then reverted by two other users, Tom harrison and TheTimesAreAChanging. Finally, he removed a comment I made in response to a CT editor, falsely claiming it was a personal attack. This edit was reverted by A Quest For Knowledge. While the user has not crossed the 3RR line, he is clearly edit warring and it needs to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you implied that people who disagree with you are "pseudoscientists"? Perhaps I overreacted? Programs22 (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

9/11 Truthers are pseudoscientists by any definition of the word. It isn't an attack, it is fact. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to disagree with you about that. But I am going to say that it was not my "conspiratorial soapbox rant." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programs22 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• The original post did contain some soapboxing, but also appeared to be an attempt to discuss potential sourcing for the article, which is appropriate talk page content. What followed were several editors attempting to revert war Programs22 comments from the talk page, including Toa Nidhiki05 (who added a personal attack to his edit summary), Tom harrison, and TheTimesAreAChanging. The 9/11 articles' talk pages contain a lot of acrimony by the articles' regulars directed at editors they perceive as promoting conspiracy theories. Tom harrison, in particular, and who was once indef topic banned from those articles, has been very open in his contempt for editors he perceives to fall into that camp [291] [292]. The talk page of the 9/11 article is one of the most toxic places I've ever seen in Wikipedia, and I think you're seeing an example of why with this behavior by everyone involved today. Deleting someone's talk page comments is rude and confrontational and should be avoided if someone is making an attempt to discuss improvements to the article, which Programs22 appeared to be trying to do. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Toa Nidhiki05, did you revert war Programs22's talk page comments in an attempt to bait him/her into behavior that you could then report to a board like this one? I know that if someone removed my comments from a talk page, especially after I took some time to look up and add links that I wanted to discuss, I would personally feel angry, unwelcome, and frustrated. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'll assume you didn't look at the talk history - I made a total of one revert on the page, on August 16, removing the rant posted by the IP. My edit was reverted by Programs22 on the 21st and I never reverted the editor in question on the page - it was three other users that did. Not sure how I can be involved in 'baiting' and a 'revert war' when I didn't actually revert anything the editor said (aside from what I assume to be a statement made by his IP). I didn't even notice he was doing anything on the page until he posted this obnoxious and inappropriate 'warning' for 'disruptive editing' on my talk page.
• As for you, this thread is about Programs22, not your beef with Tom harrison or your view of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The post was clearly aimed at pushing a conspiracist POV by repeating 9/11 denialist talking points and advertising 9/11 denialist literature, trying to pass it off as reliable when in fact it is the exact opposite. As it was not related to improving the article, and I was justified in removing it for that reason, as noted at the top of the page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of revert warring other editor's comments from article talk pages, while belittling their comments in your edit summaries, why don't you try to work with them in a collaborative and cooperative manner? I think you will find that it will work better in both the short and long runs. Cla68 (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I did not revert war, stop accusing me of things I did not do. I reverted once, on the 16th, and that was reverted days later, on the 21st, by the subject of this complaint, Programs22. If you go back in the talk history you will see that each of his three talk page reverts on the 21st was reverted by a different editor and that he was clearly edit warring on the talk page. Interestingly, you have not acknowledged that fact and have instead chosen to target myself and Tom harrison for supposed wrongs, in particular accusing me of edit warring and baiting (clearly untrue accusations that have no basis in fact), nor have you noted that the post I removed contained personal attacks on myself, albeit weak ones. The wrongs of the subject of this filing go unnoticed, but any infractions, past or imagined, by me or Tom are regurgitated. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you didn't have permission from Programs22 to delete his/her comments from the talk page, then you were revert warring. So, you revert-warred his/her comments from the talk page with insulting commentary in your edit summary. Furthermore, your edit summary appeared to indicate that you believe that there is a particular POV related to the topic that is not worthy of consideration, which could be a violation of WP's NPOV policy. Based on all that, are you sure that you hold the higher moral ground here? Cla68 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Stop leveling baseless accusations on me. You clearly do not understand what a revert war is:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.

• If you want to file an edit warring complaint against you can surely do so here, but I doubt it would go anywhere. Once again, this does not relate - at all - to this complaint, so I would suggest you either file a complaint against me here or stop baselessly accusing me of stuff. Toa Nidhiki05 15:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• I apologize to Toa Nidhiki05. My reversions to the IP's edit were more out of passion than logic. I don't intend to have a dispute now with anyone. And I think now that he has not made any personal attacks, there are non-arbitrary reasons one could think of another as a pseudoscientist. Programs22 (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK, that seems fine to me. Since the edit warring is over and there is no intention to continue again, I'd be fine with this being closed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Closed without action, per agreement of reporter and reportee above. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User:88.6.167.66/User:80.31.94.245 reported by User:N-HH (Result: Page semi-protected)

Page: Catalonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.6.167.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 80.31.94.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st edit: [293]
• 1st revert: [294]
• 2nd revert: [295]
• 3rd revert: [296]
• 4th revert: [297] - added 4.52pm BST

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [298].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [299]

Initially I relied on edit summaries, pointing them to the talk page and warning of the block risk.

Comments:

There is a longstanding and long-discussed debate about how to describe the Spanish region of Catalonia. IPs and sometimes named accounts turn up to edit-war in the term "country", often, as in this case, using barely literate English. We now have another one. Technically the first edit above is by a different IP and was the initial edit, hence not actually a revert (unless we go back to the last such eruption). However, WHOIS data suggests it's a related user, and even if we are not over 3RR, we do have edit warring. N-HH talk/edits 12:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
ps: the page is now stuck in the "wrong" version of course as well, as I don't want to go over 3RR, even if it is to prevent disruptive editing and borderline vandalism. There's enough - only just - of a content issue here to mean it falls short of that. As ever, someone trying to do the right thing has to jump through the hoops here and eventually back off making any further corrections, while leaving the page in question in a bit of a mess, when faced with presumed IP-hopping edit-warring ... N-HH talk/edits 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
pps: stable version now restored by another user, plus note added by me, hopefully to prevent further drive-by switch to "country". IPs seem to have gone quiet for now. N-HH talk/edits 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

ppps: we now have a definite 4th revert (including removal of the warning note) N-HH talk/edits 15:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given that the edits in question seem to be coming from dynamic IPs, I've semi-protected the page for 2 weeks in lieu of blocking the IPs. That should take care of the issue. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User:207.204.250.72 reported by User:Callanecc (Result: Page semi-protected)

Page: John Lundberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.204.250.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [300]

• Note: there were other reverts before these, this is just the most recent ones.
• 1st revert: [301] & [302]
• 2nd revert: [303]
• 3rd revert: [304]
• 4th revert: [305]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [306]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Sean.hoyland replied to a message on the article's talk page by the IP user reported: for example [307].

Comments:

There is also a request for full protection, by User:MelbourneStar, at WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

All three user's warnedmentioned have been notified: 207.204.250.72, Sean.hoyland & MelbourneStar. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue of problematic editing to the BLP was first raised at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Lundberg. Semi-protection may be sufficient. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why am I included in the "warned" users list? I am the user who warned the two edit warriors, however. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 14:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarified, sorry about that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, MelbourneStar warned Spectral Czar and 207.204.250.72. They are the only editors who made more than 3 reverts, and to be fair to Spectral Czar, they tried BLPN, which didn't help much. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• The page was semi-protected for a week by another admin. I would have a very low threshold to extend semi-protection indefinitely if the issues continue, so please let me know if they do. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User:William Jockusch reported by User:Casprings (Result: 24h block for Wm. Jockusch, 48h block for reporter)

Page: Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William Jockusch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[308]

Previous version reverted to: [309]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [314]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [315]

Comments:Has broken the 3rr rule with 4rr. Reasonable clear cut.Casprings (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From the article history, I think temporary full protection would be the most effective solution here, given the number of users involved.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI here, User:Casprings was brought here for many more than 3RR just a day or so ago for edit warring on the Todd Akin article and was only stopped by full protection of that article. Casprings then proceeded to create this content fork (Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy) as a way to avoid the full protection at the Todd Akin article, and has also created *another* content fork Rape and Pregnancy. My impression here is that the true 'edit warrior' has been Casprings who seems hellbent on tearing through Wikipedia to ensure a very high level of attention is given to this situation, and has been doing so in a very biased and POV fashion. -- Avanu (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Account has been blocked by MastCell. Minima© (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You beat me to it. I see an unambiguous 3RR violation here. I don't see a multilateral edit war; I see William Jokusch is repeatedly reverting numerous other editors, so I don't see a case for full protection. It's difficult to evaluate Avanu's complaint about Casprings without any diffs. If he was previously reported here and the case was handled with full protection, then it could be revisited with diffs of subsequent edit-warring. Either way, though, that doesn't excuse the 3RR violation by William Jokusch - hence the block. MastCell ^Talk 05:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Casprings is also at 4RR, having reverted 3 different editors, Samian, Toa and William.

1. [316] reverted this [317]
2. [318] is a revert of this [319]
3. [320]
4. [321]

– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's from yesterday, there is no clear sign that its edit warring (you seem to be putting in some legitimate editing in a diff), and there is no current edit warring on the article. You also didn't notify Casprings. Why are you bringing this here? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@MastCell, I'm not sure why diffs are needed. The original complaint is on this very page right now, the additional article links were provided in the comment I added above. What do you call it when an article is full-protected, primarily from one editor's edits, and that same editor proceeds to create several spinoff articles rather than honor a protection block? In my view, Casprings has been engaged in a very aggressive pattern of editing from the start here, and these additional articles simply show more evidence of that behavior. Other editors have not chosen to follow Casprings example and take the content war to the spinoffs, but have primarily stayed at the original article and worked on discussion, consensus, and improvement of it. Casprings hasn't. @IRWolfie, since Casprings opened this thread, does he really need to be notified it exists? One would assume he is aware of it, and would be interested in its outcome. In addition, the guidelines at the top of the page state "When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized". -- Avanu (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think someone is "engaged in a very aggressive pattern of editing" take it to ANI. This isn't the place for that. Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy is a new article about a current event. It's clear that there is going to be a lot of flux in the content as part of the normal editing cycle, but this shouldn't be characterised as edit warring like the first case with William Jockusch. Yes, he should also be notified because it's a response being added to a resolved ANEW case. Filers don't follow stuff on boards when the issue is dealt with. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It was taken to AN/I. It was completely overlooked. Maybe I misread the title of this page. I thought Edit Warring was part of the subject matter here, not just the 3-revert rule. -- Avanu (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Perceived aggressive behaviour isn't edit warring (as well, that it already went through ANI with no action is a good indicator that it shouldn't be brought up here). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• The diffs provided by Lionelt do appear to show a 3RR violation. I considered dismissing that 3RR violation as stale, given that the last edit to the article was approximately 18 hours ago. However, given that Casprings has a pattern of editing aggressively and edit-warring, and given that the diffs were reported expeditiously by Lionelt, I think it's appropriate to block Casprings for edit-warring as well. I've blocked him for 48 hours, given his previous 24-hour block for edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wanderer602 reported by User:YMB29 (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page: Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wanderer602 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [322] (blanked the result)
• 2nd revert: [323]
• 3rd revert: [324]
• 4th revert: [325] (reverted "Finnish surrender")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [326] (warned by an admin yesterday)

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

Comments:
The user broke 3RR in the same article less than a month ago and was warned.[329][330]
He also refuses dispute resolution.[331] -YMB29 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

First edit was done according to WP:3 recommendations which user YMB29 had personally requested and then refused to accept their recommendations. Furthermore i fail to see any place which i would have reverted with the said edit:

"As such, I'd suggest either going with 'Soviet victory' or, perhaps better still, leaving this field of the infobox blank, and explaining the results of the battle in more detail in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)"

"Yes indeed, even the infobox template documentation suggest the 'See the Aftermath section." as an alternative in complicated cases. I am even inclined to this now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)"

Last edit was not a revert, instead it only stated more specifically what the offensive had achieved since the actual formal state of war between Finland and the Soviet Union continued until 1947 Paris peace treaties. Only the cessation of hostilities began in September 1944.

User YMB29 had previously explicitly refused to continue the discussion on talk page for reasons unknown.

"There is no point in trying to explain this to you anymore. -YMB29 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)"

"What is there to explain? The third opinions favored leaving the result entry blank. You oppose this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)"

Also user YMB29 misrepresent my statements. All that i have stated is that i see no need to go for DR since we already have WP:3 which have its opinion. I have not stated anywhere that i would refused it. Whole refusal to accept DR statement is blatant lie based on user YBM29s personal opinion as can be seen from following.

Anyway, I see that you are not interested in DR, as you just want to repeat the same accusation over and over... -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And no, i fail to see the need for DR since we already have WP:3 which determined that there should not be any result at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you don't want to go to DR because it will prove you wrong again... -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, simply no need to go to DR since the matter has already been reviewed by WP:3 who recommended leaving the result entry empty. Only reason i can see for you to strive for that is a desire from your part to somehow game the system since WP:3 already disagrees with the result you insist on inserting to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just admit that you are afraid of DR. -YMB29 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And

The fact that you refuse to go to DR[22] speaks for itself... -YMB29 (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not refusal to go to DR. Only note that there is no need since the matter has already been reviewed by outside editors who recommended leaving the entry result blank. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are just continuing to manipulate facts... You do not want to go to DR because you will be proven wrong again. -YMB29 (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So despite that i specifically stated that i do not refuse to go to DR user YMB29 proclaims this as a truth. All i have said is that i see no need for it, not in any manner that i would refuse it. This is not the first time such events - blatant lying on what i have been saying - has been done by user YMB29. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to respond again to your false accusations and misinterpretations of third opinions and sources, especially here. Your reverts speak for themselves. -YMB29 (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

All i can count are 2 reverts. Rest are valid edits. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So you did not blank the result or revert surrender? -YMB29 (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware - and i still do not believe that is the case - that blanking a section as per what WP:3 had recommended constituted a revert especially when there had been no edits done which it would have actually reverted. Furthermore situation was improved since you refused to take any part in (constructive) discussion regarding the entry in the talk page after 8 August. As for the 4th edit: What i checked the section of the book you cited does not mention surrender (it is actually discusses the Courland Pocket). I only corrected the entry as per what the entries on the talk page are stating, that it lead to cessation of hostilities, again that is not reverting either.

Also again, inserting insults in the talk page is not any way valid method for having discussions:

"All of your edits to the result are false and you know it. -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)"

With your repeated insults (claiming some is spreading falsehoods knowingly is slander) it is very difficult to strive for constructive dialog with you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are complaining about supposed insults when you basically called me a liar above?

I can back up my statement that your edits today to the result are all false, but this is not the place for content dispute and you know it. -YMB29 (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, you did not blank the result per WP:3. It is a revert, one of the three for which you received the edit warring warning yesterday. -YMB29 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Showcase-R-liars: reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Bundaberg Rum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Showcase-R-liars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

aka Bundabergrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Spammy catalogue dump of an over-detailed product list: every variety of Bundaberg Rum, in every size vessel they sell it in. Originally posted by an account with username and COI issues, then blocked as a corporate account, I'm assuming that the new editor account is a simple sock.

The same dump has been pasted about nine times over the last week, and promptly removed by a series of editors. Warnings issued, but the editor is recalcitrant and not engaging in any attempt to communicate. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Let me know if any other socks pop up. Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Shia soldier reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Block, protection)

Page: Hola (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. 20:52, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508835355 by 94.129.50.114 (talk)")
2. 20:53, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508835520 by 94.129.50.114 (talk)")
3. 20:55, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508835822 by 94.129.50.114 (talk)")
4. 20:56, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508836018 by 94.129.50.114 (talk)")
5. 21:00, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508836327 by 94.129.50.114 (talk)")
6. 21:01, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508836572 by 94.129.50.114 (talk)")
7. 21:03, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508836716 by 94.129.50.114 (talk)")
8. 21:04, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Hola families */")
9. 21:06, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Hola families */")
10. 21:07, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Hola families */")
11. 21:08, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508837542 by 94.129.50.114 (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Two different admins have now blocked the IP and User:Shia soldier and protected the article. All completely justified, I think. The page itself, Hola (ethnic group) appears to be someone's imaginative creation. It has no reliable sources and has been proposed for deletion. Too bad I can't think of any speedy deletion criterion that would allow me to dispose of it without further ado. It is hard not to feel sympathetic to the IP who was trying to restore order, though he reached 15RR while doing so. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:94.129.50.114 reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Block, protection)

Page: Hola (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 94.129.50.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. 20:52, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 20:54, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508835576 by Shia soldier (talk)")
3. 20:56, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508835943 by Shia soldier (talk)")
4. 20:58, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508836070 by Shia soldier (talk)")
5. 21:00, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508836539 by Shia soldier (talk)")
6. 21:01, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508836643 by Shia soldier (talk)")
7. 21:06, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508837328 by Shia soldier (talk)")
8. 21:07, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "")
9. 21:08, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508837652 by Shia soldier (talk)")
10. 21:10, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508837794 by Shia soldier (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In defense of myself, I have repeatedly asked Shia soldier in the past couple of days to make his info on Hola ethnic group article uniform. Instead he is providing no citations and his citation of haplogroup was dubious to say the least. For that, I have added citation quotes in his article and requested the article's deletion due to spreading disinformation. Unfortunately instead of Shia soldier providing sources, he keeps removing my citation tags as though wikipedia is his little play thing. Wikipedia must maintain the truth and must fight to protect itself against disinformation campaigns.

Thank you.94.129.50.114 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Everything in the article is sourced Shia soldier (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sources or no sources, you both are flagrantly violating 3RR and EW. I think brief blocks would be entirely appropriate. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of your info isn't sourced, which is why I placed citation tags, which you so happened to ignore and undo.94.129.50.114 (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is sourced :) Shia soldier (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Who are you trying to kid? The admins can make a simple history check and find out that your info isn't sourced. Where's the source for each family and the Persian and Afro-Persian claims? None whatsoever.

Secondly to Jprg1966: 3 edit rule doesn't apply to me because I'm clearly reverting vandalism. 94.129.50.114 (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, 3RR only applies to obvious vandalism. Shia Soldier's edits are well-intentioned, even if you find them problematic. You are in a content dispute. There is no 3RR exemption for content disputes. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Quoting WP:Vandalism: "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• It should be noted that 94.129.50.114 and Shia soldier have also been edit warring on the Simple English Wikipedia too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Block, protection. This is the second report of the same dispute. See also Wikipedia:AN3#User:Shia soldier reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Block, protection). In my opinion the article which is the subject of this dispute, Hola (ethnic group), ought to be deleted per lack of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)