Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive175

User:Abdul raja reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No action)

Page: Desi Boyz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abdul raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Comments:
User involved in an edit war with Somonlast on Desi Boyz. I am not sure user did the fourth reversion after the 3RR warning or at the same time as both have same time stamp. Reporting here so an admin may be able to decide better. SMS ^Talk 18:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The 3 edits that i did are obvious Vandalism. I guess According to 3RR rule, It is permissible. Thanks. Abdul rajaT 18:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted persistent vandalism in Desi Boyz page. I already reported here that the user Somonlast is a Vandal. Thanks. Abdul rajaT 18:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this exemplifies Somonlast (talk · contribs)'s edits. The "UniversityLeaks" website that he/she is linking to obviously does not meet our standards for reliable sourcing, and I concur with the removal of the charges. I think Abdul raja is well justified in removing the information as borderline vandalism. I would not have Abdul raja blocked, especially since Somonlast apparently engaged in an edit war with other users as well on another page as an IP as well. Somonlast also seems to meet the definition of WP:SPA considering that all his/her edits are about or related to advocating UniversityLeaks and its point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, but then unblocked per IAR, considering the disruptive editing he was reverting (to be clear, it wasn't vandalism and there's no 3RR exemption here). Abdul has been reminded to mind 3RR in the future, even when dealing with disruptive editing. Somonlast has been blocked indefinitely. In sum, no action. Swarm ^X 05:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your action. But i don't know why it was not considered as Vandalism. Can you explain me? Thanks.Abdul rajaT 07:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Raulseixas reported by User:Yk Yk Yk (Result: 1 week)

Page: Multiple; see Special:Contributions/Raulseixas
User being reported: Raulseixas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Mass edit warring over the names of Spanish footballers. Has been blocked for mass edits of the same nature before. I did not warn because the user never answers any queries in English. His lack of knowledge of how the English media covers footballers is probably the reason for his intransigence. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Swarm ^X 19:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Feldon23 (Result:No violation )

Page: List of changes in Star Wars re-releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]
• 5th revert: [11]
• 6th revert: [12]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:
User has refused to discuss or engage any communication warning him that mass reversions are unacceptable and that the article content is acceptible on Wikipedia, despite numerous examples provided.

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. AndyTheGrump's last edit to this was a week ago, and the one before that 2 months ago. Editor bringing this seems to have a content dispute with him but that can probably be worked out on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This has got to be about the most ridiculous misuse of this noticeboard I've seen. Evidently, having failed to explain how an article consisting almost entirely of original research can be justified, Feldon23 prefers to resort to falsification. It is an outright lie that I have "refused to discuss or engage any communication", as the article talk page demonstrates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems very odd that an account which hasn't been used in three years made this complaint. These accounts appear to be recently created/active who have made comments on the talk page: Special:Contributions/BridgeSpotter Special:Contributions/Feldon23 Special:Contributions/Syko_Conor Special:Contributions/Fernandosmission Special:Contributions/Stupendous_Man!. Is this grounds for a checkuser to be performed? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Feldon23 has apparently revived an inactive account solely for the purpose of making false assertions about 'vandalism' and violations of WP:3RR. You're right - the obvious question is whether he/she has been involved in the discussions under another account... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

feldon23 is an account I have used rarely on wikipedia but it is no less valid. I'd be happy to verify it by any means required. First, i have little interest in the article in question. I came upon it when someone linked me to it and i found it in the current dispicable state. So i headed to the Talk page to find that someone named AndyTheGrump who not only had no knowledge of the subject, and not only was advocating the speedy deletion of an article that had been built up over several years, but had REVERTED major parts of the article no less than SIX TIMES. All attempts at useful discussion have failed and Andy continues to promote the idea of deleting the article altogether on the basis that any list of deleted or changed scenes about a film is not encyclopedic and has no place on wikipedia despite hundreds of films on wikipedia having such annotations. Thus far Andy hasn't brought up the article for Deletion because he knows he will lose. I am dealing with AndyTheGrump as one deals with a bully. If I had simply reverted all his reversions, then I would stand accused. What Andy is doing is Vandalism plain and simple. Feldon23 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If "feldon23 is an account [you] have used rarely on wikipedia", can you please let us know which other accounts you have been using? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

feldon23 is my one and only Wikipedia account. When are you going to bring the article up for Deletion? That's what you've indicated you feel should happen.Feldon23 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of the process for creating a sock puppet investigation here as it seems there is something worth investigating here. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll pass any such test. Meanwhile the points I've raised go unanswered.Feldon23 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the board for your issues. This is the 3RR board and Andy clearly isn't guilty of 3RR as has been pointed out. I suggest you move to the talk page of the article in question and raise your points there. Perhaps you could raise a WP:RFC to get more neutral input? GimliDotNet (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a welcome message on your talk page, this contains many useful links, including how to help resolve dispute. Hope it's useful for you. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:82.41.22.244 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: PP)

Page: Chris Moyles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.41.22.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on related talk pages: [20] [21] [22]

Comments: This is one aspect of a running dispute over whether mock-awards presented by political advocacy organizations, intended to disparage/deride their "recipients", should be presented in BLP articles as though they were standard, legitimate awards, and whether such faux awards, characterizing the "recipient" as a "bigot" or a "bully", simply amount to abusive invective that should not be included in articles at all. The dispute is in places rather heated. In the last day or so, this IP-hopping user(with whom I've been involved in other disputes, where it has used multiple account names and IPs) has targeted the article for particular attention, repeatedly adding back contentious and disputed BLP content with the claim that no consensus has been established to remove it. (In the recent past, the disputed content has been removed has been removed by at least three different editors (myself, Noq and Osarius), while supported by Escape Orbit and the IP.) The IP's actions are clearly intended as disruption, attacking (usually in edit summaries) those on the opposite side of the dispute as "vandals" [23] [24] [25], removing comments from talk pages [26], and even suggesting that such repeatedly disputed content is not "contentious" [27].
Given both the evident BLP problems and the plainly disruptive intentions of the IP, I believe that, in accordance with the outcomes of multiple similar past disputes, my own editing is exempt from 3RR limits and requires no more extended discussion than I have already provided. I will, of course, conform future edits to whatever is determined here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 4 days. Please consider bringing this to WP:BLPN for further input. Swarm ^X 19:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank ou. There have been several related discussions recently on BLPN recently, with a more general discussion now on BLPN AT Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stonewall_Awards - Bigot of the year "award" where I've commented. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is the first time that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who is far more guilty of edit warring on this article than anyone, has bother to clarify his edits, and he still declines to join the discussion on the article talk page. The cause of this dispute lies completely at his feet. Why couldn't he have done this at the start? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Pseudo-Richard reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Reporter blocked 24h)

Page: Filioque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pseudo-Richard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

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

Comments:
Here's the output of 3rr.php for this dispute, counting just the edits of Pseudo-Richard:

1. 04:12, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "reverting rant which, even if sourced, is off-topic in this section which is titled "Recent attempts at reconciliation"; discuss on Talk Page")
2. 17:00, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466544018 by LoveMonkey (talk)")
3. 17:09, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ Moving text that discusses recent theological perspectives to a separate section; this section is about "attempts at reconciliation"")
4. 18:41, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "rv LoveMonkey's restoration; put history in the "historical" section and recent developments in the "recent" section")

Pseudo-Richard's edits numbers 2 and 3 are consecutive. So he has made only three reverts altogether.

For comparison, here are LoveMonkey's recent edits on the same article:

1. 01:43, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored ENTIRE SECTION THAT WAS SOURCED WHY DID ESOGLOU DELETE THIS MUCH MATERIAL WITHOUT TALKPAGE CONSENSUS?")
2. 16:48, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466460105 by Pseudo-Richard (talk)reverted editwarring by Roman Catholic editors whom are edit warring")
3. 18:26, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466547111 by Pseudo-Richard (talk)reverted POV blanket deletion of sourced material address on talkpage")
4. 18:28, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ added back in summary rename")
5. 18:29, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Joint statement in the United States in 2003 */ and this one")
6. 18:36, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ since revert failed readded conent and altered content to reflect talkpage comments by other editors")
7. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ clarification")
8. 18:39, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ change title to reflect what can be sourced by source agreed upon by editors")
9. 18:49, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ partial restore will restore other parts once I complete sourcing")
10. 18:50, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Adoption into the Nicene Creed */")
11. 18:51, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored sourcable summary")

Edits 3-8 and 9-11 of LoveMonkey are consecutive. So LoveMonkey has made at most four reverts altogether on December 18. Some of his edits may just be shuffling material around or adding new text, so they may not be reverts. Other users are invited to study the pattern of edits to see if there is an actual revert war. LoveMonkey is restricted from changing anything related to Catholic beliefs, though he may edit Eastern Orthodox material. See WP:RESTRICT for details. I won't be able to look further into this for several hours,so other admins are welcome to close this if they can figure it out. The Filioque has been the scene of furious edit wars in the past. A dispute about the Filioque is the source of the split between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On the part of Pseudo-Richard, No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. On the part of LoveMonkey, I do count four actual reverts; Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Harrumph... it looks like I just barely avoided crossing over the "bright line" of 3RR and I recognize that this is not a good thing. I normally try to observe WP:1RR and I confess that I was a bit more irritable than usual this morning and just didn't have the patience to follow WP:DR and issue a WP:RFC as I probably should have.

In recognition of the principle that "both sides are guilty in an edit war", I will refrain from editing this article until LoveMonkey's block has expired. I have made a fuller exposition of these points on the article's [Talk Page].

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a "like" button? That's truly good of you - I wish more people who involved themselves in edit-wars (whether intentionally or accidentally) would be so honourable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:50.16.108.39 reported by User:PassaMethod (Result: 1 month)

Page: Incest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Islamic schools and branches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.16.108.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38](edit summary: better in intro. don't hide the info. that rhymes)
• 4th revert: [39]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:

If you check the 3rd edit summary he rhymes and jokes. I want a page protection for both pages as he's just stalking me. Pass a Method talk 11:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month. Whois shows that this IP is coming from a range used by Amazon AWS. Web servers should not edit Wikipedia. I'm filing this case at WP:OP so that others can check my reasoning and see if a longer proxy block is appropriate. The neighboring IPs in the /16 range do not seem to be the source of any similar abuse so a range block appears unnecessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by Longwayround (talk) (Result: No vio)

Page: 1986 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 19:49, 18 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "where was this discussed?")
2. 08:40, 19 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 466598920 by Walter Görlitz (talk) per WP:BRD, yes it is")
3. 16:14, 19 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 466699002 by Walter Görlitz (talk) it's not up to me to discuss, per WP:BRD")

• Diff of warning: here

—Longwayround (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by Longwayround (talk) (Result:No vio )

Page: 1986 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]

• Diff of warning: here

Longwayround (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that I am at three reverts and plan to stay there. Thanks.

Fixing first diff while I'm in here. And correcting third as it was the same as the second. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I should have kept count better! Longwayround (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:RealCowboys reported by User:Longwayround (Result:12hr )

Page: Real Madrid C.F. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RealCowboys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

I'm really not trying to find edit wars! I notice from this diff that RealCowboys has, himself, recognised that he could be seen as edit warring and I had thought he had stopped. However, his attitude and that of another user at Talk:Real_Madrid_C.F. is also rather lacking in civility. Longwayround (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't block for 3 reverts and an uncivil comment :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I certainly am not looking for blocks in any case. Longwayround (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This editor and one other appear to be fans of Spanish rival football clubs and it's getting nasty. Longwayround has been helpful in addressing the issues and agree that he may have lost count between the two articles. If the edit wars continue, I may request complete lock on both for a few days so that cooler heads may prevail. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor has just made forth revert. Please block for a short period of time so as to not bite the newbie. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:El duderino reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: both editors warned)

Page: Talk:Mad Men (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: El duderino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]
• 4th revert: [56]
• 5th revert: [57]
• 6th revert: [58]
• 7th revert: [59]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No. Did not try to resolve on article talk page, rather, attempted to reason with him on my own talk page after he started a campaign of harassment there, directed at me two nights ago and as an unidentified IP. Please see the following links: [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]; [65]

Comments:

The article talk page in question contained a section that was started with the OP as a commentary/question as to whether or not the show's producers were attepting to make a statement about smoking. The OP and follow-up comments did not address anything related to the article, rather, only about the show itself. I, therefore, removed these comments per WP:NOTAFORUM. El duderino, not logged in with his account but editing unannounced with two different IPs, replaced the comments along with biting edit summaries numerous times on 12/16/11 (diffs/links listed above) and has continued doing so again today. I am reporting this not as 3RR, but edit warring behavior by the above-named editor in an effort to make a point - the edit warring behavior from this editor began on 12/16/11 as two different IPs. While edit warring at this article talk page, he then filed a frivolous 3RR report here against me - it was almost immediately removed by King of Hearts with the edit summary, "enough already". More of the story can be seen at these versions of the editor's talkpages (here and here) associated with the IPs he was using (in myopinion, using them intentionally to sock - thus, the SPI I filed as seen here: [66]) Based on all of the above, it is my opinion that this editor is being intentionally disruptive via WP:POINT and WP:EDITWAR and will continue to do so without hesitation (as evidenced by his continued edit warring behavior today). Lhb1239 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC) -->

User:Lhb1239 has also edit warred and this report is an abuse of the 3RR noticeboard. He has been attempting to remove legitimate discussion from the article talkpage. His various attempts to get me blocked all failed. The Vandalism report was denied. The SPI was denied. And the ANI was ignored. Three admins ruled against him and advised him to move along. Before he filed this frivolous report, I submitted this request for Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User_removing_article_talkpage_discussion. -El duderino (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding that the user being reported altered this report (see here); I believe doing so speaks further to his edit warring and disruptive editing behaviors. I have reverted the inappropriate changes. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why were they inappropriate? They were indeed, stale, and should not be part of this report to begin with. Both of you have been 100% involved with edit-warring on both the article, and the talkpage. IMHO, you should both be blocked to give you more than half a chance to read WP:DR. El duderino - your insistence that you're not violating WP:NOTAFORUM is pathetic - you're continuing to re-add just to piss off the other editor. Likewise, Lhb1239 is simply throwing the shotgun approach around above. How many hours of break would you both like ... 24? 48? 72? A week? You guys choose, and you both get exactly the same. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the edit to the report was inappropriate because when a report has been filed, the involved editor should not be altering the report. If it was inappropriate for me to add them initially you have my apologies, but let an administrator or uninvolved editor say so according to policy - the editor being reported should not remove them (correct?). I added them to show a history - as I stated clearly above, this report was filed for edit warring at a particular article talk page. Is it not true that edit warring can take place over a period of days? That's my understanding of edit warring behavior, anyway. I have no intention of removing the inappropriate content to the article talk page again; I'll just let the archive do it when the time comes. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

...and so, how many hours break from Wikipedia would the two of you like? Work it out and let me know: you'll both get the same (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you being serious? I've never heard of such a thing and, frankly, don't understand why I am being punished here. I know blocks are to be preventative not punative, so I don't see how blocking me is going prevent anything disruptive from happening. I've already said I'm not going to be removing the inappropriate content at the article talk page. Perhaps you could explain your thought process on this? Lhb1239 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Having just read WP:DR in its totality, I can see that even though El duderino acted inappropriately and harassed me on my talk page over a couple of hours on the 17th, I still shouldn't have been afraid to discuss this issue with him when he started up again today -- I especially should have done so before filing this report. At the time I shied away from discussion because I didn't see it would have made any difference and I didn't want to be on the receiving end of more harassment. Now I can see that in trying to discuss I would have been exercising WP:AGF and the effort may have encouraged a different course. Don't know if what I've said in this post will make any difference in your thoughts about blocking, but thought I would let you know anyway. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

All due respect to BWilkins, I am not re-adding the comments "just to piss off" User:Lhb1239. I sincerely believe it is a worthy point of discussion and his censorship tendencies here are way out of line. His confrontational tone from the beginning just made things worse. El duderino (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note — As Bwilkins said, neither editor should be edit warring on a talk page over non-vandalism. While the talk page guidelines do suggest that it might be ok to remove threads that don't relate to improving the article, they in no way suggest that those comments should be treated as vandalism. As such, there is no exception that allows for edit warring or violations of the three-revert rule. Keep in mind that talk pages are basically the only places that editors are able to raise concerns—they're the places that people can "have a voice" over a page's content—and if people believe that their voice is being taken away in any medium, they will typically react negatively. Wikipedia is no exception, and as such, edit wars over talk page threads are like edit wars over someone's ability to speak, so, in the future, please keep that in mind and try to avoid such battles.
For now, I'm marking this as Warned with the explicit understanding that if either or both editor(s) continue(s) this edit war from this point forward, they risk being blocked.
--slakr^\ talk / 03:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. Yet, for the record at least I must take issue with User:Lhb1239's continued claims of 'harassment' which are blatantly false and most likely disingenuous. From the very beginning [67] I attempted to discuss the issue on his talkpage to no avail [68]. Then I simply warned him about edit warring, as he did to me both pre-emptively and more recently. He doesn't seem to see his own actions as equivalent to what he complained about as 'harassment.' El duderino (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:65.9.226.65 reported by User:Hearfourmewesique (result:decline - user never warned)

Diffs: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] Tried to communicate with the IP on their user talk page (no diff since it was the only edit ever made to that page). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Not a single warning for 3RR on their page ... one bizarre comment about WP:NINJA, but no welcome, no rules, no "what is 3rr"...nothing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Add...I have semi'd the page for now. Work it out (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:JWULTRABLIZZARD and User:Gunmetal Angel reported by User:Abhijay (Result:both users blocked )

Page: Deathcore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Gunmetal Angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

• 1st revert: [76]
• 2nd revert: [77]
• 3rd revert: [78]
• 4th revert: [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

This is yet again another showdown between Gunmetal Angel and another editor, and it is not violating the 3RR rule in 24 hours, it appears to be more chronic, and I am concerned that the user Gunmetal still shows no signs of understanding of edit warring. I've tried to solve the issue by leaving a message on the talk page of the Article. However, Ironically, Gunmetal Angel appears to have gone into a good approach to dispute with another user. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 03:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours for JWULTRA and one week for Gunmetal as this is their fourth edit warring block Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Kellytang reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:page protected )

Page: Park Min-Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellytang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [82]
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3rd revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]
• 5th revert: [86]
• 6th revert: [87]

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

Comments:
User edit warring with another user and anons and violated 3RR before any warning was given. --SMS ^Talk 16:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

6th revert was done after 3RR warning. --SMS ^Talk 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I count at least four involved parties, some behaving worse than others but all edit warring. * Page protected Beeblebrox (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jsyun true reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:page protected )

Page: Lee Min Ho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jsyun true (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]
• 4th revert: [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Comments:
User Edit warring with other users on content issue. --SMS ^Talk 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See above. * Page protected Beeblebrox (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Khushi143 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:page protected )

Page: Lee Min Ho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khushi143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert: [96]

Page: Park Min-Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khushi143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [97]
• 2nd revert: [98]
• 3rd revert: [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Comments:
User as seen above is edit warring on two articles with two different users. And I think its important to consider the edits of IPs 42.104.103.170 and 112.79.183.77 on the above two pages which were probably used by the same user. --SMS ^Talk 17:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See above. * Page protected Beeblebrox (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Hanlon1755 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result:24 hour block )

Page: Strict conditional (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hanlon1755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 09:52, 19 Dec

• 1st revert:  11:11, 19 Dec / (diff to above)
• 2nd revert: 23:56, 19 Dec / (incl. minor alt.)
• 3rd revert: 05:26, 20 Dec / (with additional alt.)
• 4th revert: 10:08, 20 Dec / (incl. alt., +new section w/uncited "references")
• 5th revert: 17:00, 20 Dec / (incl. alt. + addt.)

Ongoing:

• 6th revert: 18:16, 20 Dec / (diff to 5th)
• 7th revert: 19:22, 20 Dec / (diff to 5th)

Updated:Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 21:04, 19 Dec (warned by Fences and windows)
• 17:18, 20 Dec (my editsum when reverting user's 1st rv at Material conditional)
• 17:27, 20 Dec (note user's edsum for 2nd rv was "BRD Process")
• 17:44, 20 Dec (redundant warning at user's talk)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing at Talk:Strict conditional (also at my talk page).

Comments: See also, 2 reverts at Material conditional… just a bit too caught up in a single purpose… (to be young again).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Dougweller (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Doncram reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: nv)

Page: William H. Allen (architect) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First addition of extended quote

• 1st revert: "restore highly relevant, fully cited and credited quote that would be hard to paraphrase, better to quote. If you don't like it, discuss at Talk."
• 2nd revert: "Restore Whitney Avenue HD mention, which specifically includes Allen house at Whitney & Lawrence, mentioned in suitable quote, also restored."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Undid revision 466760357 by Doncram (talk) Your use of verbatim quotes in stubs was determined to be unacceptable by an uninvolved admin. Stays out unless you get consensus for inclusion"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. Original uninvolved admin decision was quite clear.

Comments:

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs, "There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates WP:NFC (#Another question regarding consensus on article quality)."

Argh. I have had it with SarekOfVulcan following my edits and contending at every step. Today he put a speedy-delete tag on an article i was working on, which led to a DRV restoring the article (because the Speedy was wrong). He 4 times moved another article I was working on, article now at Charles E. Bell. Look at its edit history to see his actually exceeding 3RR. And this. And perhaps more. In each case I opened discussion sections and SarekOfVulcan has chosen not to discuss, but rather to escalate and confront. About the William H. Allen (architect) article, why the hell has he not deigned to comment at the Talk page item.

Something stronger is needed to address this pattern of following and warring. --doncram 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please consider recent, bizarre, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:SarekOfVulcan reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Move protected), about another spat of determined edit warring against me. Closed with no negative consequence for Sarek, oddly. I am working to develop articles; SarekOfVulcan is following, interrupting, actively choosing to combat. --doncram 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I see Orlady has also removed your extended quotations as "inappropriate". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, this is an Edit Warring noticeboard that you opened a discussion at. Whatever about your buddy Orlady's kneejerk opposition to me, about a matter not properly addressed here. Is it your intention to cause edit warring by your confrontationally fighting at the article, and raising it here? I fully get the idea that you are trying really hard to provoke me. Yes, I said "F u" in an edit summary earlier today. Great. Please do try to escalate further. --doncram 00:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation — consider dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 03:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is dispute resolution required when an uninvolved admin specifically ruled that Doncram's use of verbatim quotes from sources to pad out his stubs was unacceptable, and Doncram chose to edit war his verbatim quotes back in to the article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That uninvolved admin is free to take action himself. As far as my personal opinion, given the article and editor you reported, there was insufficient recent activity to meet the three-revert rule, and there was insufficient long-term activity (again, from what I was able to see) to consider it a protracted edit war. That said, another admin has since blocked Doncram (talk · contribs) for 1 week due to personal attacks/harassment. --slakr^\ talk / 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by User:Doncram (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: 12 different articles
User being reported: Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple contested redirects going on, implemented by Polaron by use of Twinkle, redirecting multiple articles to newly created List of historic sites preserved along Rochambeau's route.

Articles include (with recent Polaron edit summaries):

1. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Plainfield Pike ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800150 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
2. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Palmer Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800181 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
3. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Manship Road-Barstow Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800171 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
4. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Bailey Road ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Doncram (talk): All useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
5. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Old Canterbury Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800158 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
6. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Hutchinson Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800204 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
7. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Reservoir Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800210 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
8. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Scotland Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800194 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
9. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Ridgebury Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800217 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
10. Forty-Seventh Camp of Rochambeau's Army ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Doncram (talk): All useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
11. Fourth Camp of Rochambeau's Army ‎ (all useful content in target) (top)
12. Camps Nos. 10 and 41 of Rochambeau's Army ‎ (all useful content in target) (top)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please see User talk:Polaron#Rochambeau march route historic sites, at which I sought dialogue some time ago. His not responding, and proceeding with redirects now, plus re-reredirects using Twinkle after I restored many of the articles, is not constructive. --doncram 03:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mentioned above. --doncram 03:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See edit history for any of the above. At a minimum, i ask that Polaron's Twinkle privileges be revoked. --doncram 03:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Just to let everyone know that Doncram has been blocked for a week for personal attacks by Jayron32. Minima© (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User: 86.** IP reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 48h)

Page: Global warming conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.** IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101] (removes fringe and POV tag)

Note: this page is under 1RR (and probably ARBCC type stuff, too)

• 1st revert: [102] (restores POV and fringe tags)
• 2nd revert: [103] (ditto)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, you can see the article talk page if you like, also the warning above [105] was an attempt to help, though it didn't go down very well [106] [107].

Comments:
William's claims of trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page are laughable: he actually tried to escalate the dispute there. His reversion contains a personal attack,[108] and he has explicitly attempted to shut me up repeatedly surrounding this event [109] [110] [111]

His warning on my talk page was actually an attempt to blackmail me into stopping all discussion, in the entire area of global warming. [112]: "The usual procedure in this case would be to self-revert, but you can't. The usual fall back is to offer to leave the area alone for a while"

This is a blatant attempt to abuse process by William. He comes to my talk page, points out something, and then tells me that, because there's nothing I should do, I should stop all editing in the entire area - then comes here to get me blocked when I note that option as the attempt at abuse of process it is.

I think there's a problem with these articles. William doesn't. Instead of engaging in discussion, Williaam prefers to revert all attempts to discuss it.

Further, the first supposed reversion (it's at least ambiguous) was simply obeying a talk page request to wait to tag until after an AfD closed, and requires looking back a week, ignores the stated reasons for the reversion, which, however invalid I think they are, certainly don't apply now. William is attempting to use a technicality to get me censured, and is lying about his own escalating behaviours.

Surely one can't be given a warning, which tells you there's nothing can be done to undo the 1RR, and then be told to stop all edits in a field or have process be pulled down on you - especially when giving that warning is a requirement for use of that process? 86.** IP (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:86.** IP, WMC is correct in stating that an offer to leave the area alone might be accepted when it is too late to self-revert. Since you have broken the 1RR on this article, which is under WP:ARBCC, any offer from you would be carefully listened to. The alternative would seem to be a conventional block for breaking the WP:1RR, a restriction which is clearly marked on the article's talk page and is logged here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I seriously don't see how I could do anything, given that it was already reverted when the first warning about it came into play. I was actually attempting to follow 1RR, but was not aware the first edit would count, because of the changed circumstances and being a somewhat different edit, created de novo.

This was a simple misunderstanding, I cannot see how a topic ban - which is what William wanted me to agree to for this minor mistake - is justified. Had I been told that the first edit counted when there was something I could have done, I would have happily reverted. But to be told to stop all editing in an entire area because I made a minor mistake by putting up a variation of an edit I made, which edit is no longer on the page seems ridiculous.

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I fail to see how this discussion serves any purpose. It was an honest mistake, which William is using to troll me. 86.** IP (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want folks to give you the benefit of the doubt over a simple misunderstanding, perhaps you should treat them that way when they make mistakes of their own? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked — 48 hours. Noting that the user declined to make any offer to limit his future edits in this area, as an alternative to a block. A quick look indicates there is some dispute among the parties about when articles ought to be tagged. Tags fall under the revert rules like any other article content, so far as the WP:EW policy goes. Adding to the excitement, User:86.** IP made what looks like a third revert to the article within 24 hours, while this very discussion was in progress. I guess the 1RR wasn't already broken enough. The editor has already been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. He is urged to edit more carefully in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A welcome respite. However, the problem here is not an isolated, possibly accidental 1RR, but a broad pattern of disruptive editing. And, unfortunately, will only continue in full blast once the block expires. As this editor seems immune to correction, a permanent block may be necessary. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:AussieLegend (Result:not blocked )

Page: Russell Crowe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [113]

• 1st revert: 22:03, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466657383 by Bidgee (talk)it is normal ng releases to filmography. Please, before reverting again, take it up on the talk page.")
• 2nd revert: 03:09, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "i requested you bring this to the talk page before reverting again, i guess you didn't see that. It's common to add upcoming films to the fimography. If it's cancelled, remove it, date changed? change the date. No reason whatsoever why they can't be.")
• 3rd revert: 16:16, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466806484 by Bidgee (talk)please read your talk page AND my edit summaries")
• 4th revert: 22:05, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466882468 by AussieLegend (talk)Final time reverting. PLEASE take to talk page so we can discuss this. I'll even start it")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [114]

Comments:
I happened across this accidentally. Rusted AutoParts possted on Bidgee's talk page, claiming he had breached 3RR.[115] However, a review of the edit history of Russell Crowe showed this was not the case; at the time of the post Bidgee had reverted only twice on the article's page in the previous 24 hours.[116][117] Bidgee's previous revert was 18 hours prior to that.[118] However, Rusted AutoParts had made 3 reverts in under 18 hours, so I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page, noting the above.[119] I included a note that I believed the inclusion was WP:CRYSTAL, which I expanded upon later after realising that the article on the movie being added to Russell Crowe very clearly failed WP:NFF.[120] Despite being active for a 3-hour period after placing his warning on Bidgee's talk page, Rusted AutoParts waited until 2 minutes after the 24-hour mark had passed before making his fourth revert. While this doesn't breach the letter of WP:3RR, it does breach the spirit of it. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not blocked I take your point, but as his last revert's edit summary says "Final time reverting. PLEASE take to talk page so we can discuss this. I'll even start it" and I see he has started a discussion at the talk page, I believe a block at this point would be inappropriate. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Count Iblis reported by User:Beeblebrox (Result: warned)

Page: Wikipedia:Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [121]

• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [125]
• 5th revert: (really one revert over two edits, combined with above diff) [126]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• User talk:Count Iblis#Your recent edits at Wikipedia:Government and it's talk page
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 13#Wikipedia:Government
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government

Comments:

• Count Iblis has been engaging in a slow motion edit war to keep a "failed" tag off of a proposal he wrote that failed, and to keep the "proposed" tag on it despite the fact that he himself has re-written it to the point where the original proposal is long gone and was replaced with a descriptive page that clearly is not a proposal. Three users, including myself, restored the "failed tag" a total of four times. All four have been reverted by Count Iblis. The consensus at the mfd of the page heavily favors the position that this is a failed proposal. The Count is a long term active user and has been involved on the margins of many disputes and therefore is obviously well aware of the edit warring policy and has chosen to ignore not only that but common sense and the emergent consensus at the MFD for the page. (now overdue at 11 days in case anyone would care to close it and possibly render this whole thing moot.) Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The MfD debate has several well-reasoned 'Keep' votes by experienced editors, and more than one person says it it's logical to keep the proposal but mark it as Failed. In my opinion, if the deletion debate were closed now, Keep is the more likely outcome. I'll notify User:Count Iblis that he may be blocked for edit warring unless he will agree to wait for consensus about the Failed tag. Even though the Count has worked to stave off the 'failed' outcome by revising the proposal, both old and new versions still retain this nutshell, which appears to differ from current policy: "This page in a nutshell: A government is a group of editors who have the de-facto exclusive right to make certain types of edits to articles, policy pages, or administrative decisions for a limited time. Governments are always agreed to by consensus." EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Warned — marking as warned per EdJohnston; feel free to re-open / re-report if he continues --slakr^\ talk / 19:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, I don't have time for these stupid tactical games that are played here and on the proposal page. I was just in it for writing up something that would have cnsensus and the first iteration was just that, one to gauge the opnion the feedback of that would be used in the next version. But I forgot about this proposal for a while and was too busy with other things. But Beeblebrox and a few others are only in it to mark the original version as failed and don't want me to write up something that is acceptable to the community. Yesterday, I had some minutes to spare for Wikipedia and I though "let's write in the proposal itself that a formal government system is not acceptable to the community". But then that's acknowledging that the first version is not acceptable, so it would then not be appropriate to mark the latest version as failed. Of course, one can also say that this should be an essay or something else. I really don't care that much, except for the failed tag on any new text. If Beeblebrox wants to copy the original proposal and put a failed tag on that, then he can always go ahead and do that. Then one perhaps needs to discuss if the present version needs to be moved elsewhere. But no such constructive discussions are going on at all, all I hear is a few people shouting "Failed, Failed, Failed" and I can hardly edit here in the little time I have, all the time gets wasted on this and other boards where I basically need to defend the fact that the page was edited. Count Iblis (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Count Iblis, extensive discussion shows that WIkipedia:Government is a failed proposal. If you remove the 'failed' tag again you will most likely be blocked. Edit warring to keep that page looking like a live policy document in Wikipedia space is not acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This report is obviously not about the validity of the proposal but rather about the manifest fact that he has edit warred to retain his preffered version of a page that is in WP space, not user space. He's been warned to stop already, and has ignored those warnings. Logic and reason have been tried, he has ignored them as well. I'm kind of surprised nobody has done the block. It should be fairly clear that the Count has willingly ignored consensus repeatedly over the course of this incident. The adding of the "proposed" tag at this point is utter nonsense as, by his own admission, there is no proposal, yet he has continued to insist on, defying all logic along with consensus. Another warning is just another thing for him to ignore, by his own admission (see the header on his user and talk pages) he does not believe he is bound by WP policy, andf his actions in this affair reflect that. Another warning seems unlikely to assist in adjusting that perspective. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I'll make it an essay then. Also, I'm going to raise this issue of using strong arm tactics to prevent constructive editing on AN/I. These days, parts of Wikipedia have become a cesspool, better to stay away from there until someone cleans out this whole mess. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The editing history doesn't show that I've edit warred about the actual content of the proposal at all. It does show that Beeblebrox has been acting in a rather aggressive way there. The text now says that the community doesn't want a formal government system, so I really don't see the big deal about people wanting to have the current text marked as a failed proposal, because the original objection was against a formal government system. Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't insist on making this look like a real Wikipedia policy people might not be so irritated. You have had many months to elicit any support that you were ever going to get. A statements on your user page says "Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." It is hard not to see Wikipedia:Government as part of a crusade in which you are the only crusader. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the real issues with this at AN/I. Count Iblis (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You've raised the fact that you have lost all touch with reality as far as this issue is cncerned at ANI? That's just what we need, a fifth discussion of this fantasy realm of yours. Well done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:129.252.69.40 reported by User:LesPhilky (Result: blocked in report below)

Page: Carolina–Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) South Carolina Gamecocks football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 129.252.69.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [127]

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [132]

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

This IP, which is attributed to the University of South Carolina computer services division, has been edit warring these two pages to delete factual, relevant, and sourced information. I cannot attempt to discuss the issue because there could be hundreds or thousands of people at the university using this IP. This IP has been blocked in the past due to vandalism of pages. I request that this IP be further blocked from these two pages. The IP may also be used by GarnetAndBlack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also tried to delete the same information. Two weeks ago, GarnetAndBlack and I were temporarily blocked from one of the pages and asked to resolve the issue together. I have since avoided reverting his contributions and tried to work peacefully to make edits, but he has once again turned it into an effort to skew the contents of the page.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments:

Blocked in a later report. Kuru (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24h)

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

User being reported: Zenkai251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Creationism

1. 19:11, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466989498 by HiLo48 (talk)sorry, I meant the name of the linked article")
2. 21:29, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 467071493 by HiLo48 (talk)it does need to change. do you have a good reason for it not to?")

Genesis creation narrative

1. 06:38, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 06:47, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466822663 by Hrafn (talk)"A" is more grammatically correct than "The" when placed before "common"; therefore it's a minor edit")
3. 06:50, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "proper grammer")
4. 06:54, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466823527 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk)yes, I realized my typo when it was too late. it needs "most" added in to be grammatically correct")

Link to diff of warning:

• Aug 6 on Genesis Creation narrative
• Nov 9 on Adam
• Dec 16 on Genesis Creation narrative
• Dec 16 on Talk:Genesis Creation narrative
• Dec 20
• Dec 20 on Genesis Creation narrative
• Dec 21 on Creationism

Comments: User is consistently violating WP:EW (but not 3rr) on a range of articles. He's been consistently warned by a variety of users, both with templates and personal messages, on his talk and article talk pages. His response has always been to remove the warning without comment, often citing claims of "atheist bias" in his edit summary. 5 EW warnings in one month is over the line. See his comment here, for instance, where he indicates that since he's "right", the EW warning is invalid. User has received plenty of chances, and needs a block to indicate this is not acceptable behavior and to prevent further disruption.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: And after this report was filed... another warning by an admin, and subsequent removal by Zenkai without comment.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what those who were asking for "one more chance for Zenkai" in 2 different ANI-threads will get. He was given a free pass to continue his behavior by community consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — I normally check for it, but I was a little distracted and accidentally duplicated an edit warring warning from another user that he removed. I double checked his talk page history for other recent warnings, and it turns out it definitely wasn't the first (e.g. [137][138]). --slakr^\ talk / 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: no action)

Page: Susan B. Anthony List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [139]

• 1st revert: [140] 17:37, December 21, 2011. Removed the word "scholars".
• 2nd revert: [141] 19:06, December 21, 2011. Removed the word "scholars".
• No 3rd diff needed, article is under 1RR for abortion topics.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [143]
Also, previous discussion about the word "scholars" at Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List#Interpreting_WP:SAY, Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List/Archive_1#Pro-choicers_vs_academic_history_experts and Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List/Archive_1#Scholars. Related discussion at Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_abortion_dispute#Scholars

Comments:

NYyankees51 has for more than a year been intent on removing the word scholar or scholars from the related articles Susan B. Anthony List and Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. This removal of the word scholars on October 29, 2010, shows how long the dispute has been running.(Note that NYyankees51 was operating a sockpuppet at the time: User:BS24.) This string of edits in March 2011 shows an instance of NYyankees51 removing information about "Anthony scholar Ann Dexter Gordon" providing a solid rebuttal to an SBA List assertion. Again in May 2011 he removed the phrase "scholars of 19th-century feminism pointing out that Anthony did not work against abortion". Much of NYyankees51 work on the article has been to advance the causes of SBA List and to diminish as much as possible the scholarship of those who have spoken out against the organization or against its assertions. Included among the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NYyankees51 is one that is owned by SBA List: 70.21.119.84. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NYyankees51/Archive, another SBA List-owned IP address was listed as a sockpuppet: 75.103.237.18. This shows that NYyankees51 has a close connection to SBA List, and may explain his longterm effort to weaken any scholarly rebuttal. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is more of a technical error than edit warring. I was making many edits to the page and saved one when the edit conflict screen came up because of Binksternet's edit here. I saved my edit to replace it and inserted the {{inuse}} template, finished my editing, and removed the template. I should have been more careful and actually looked at the edit conflict before replacing it, but I was working hard and I didn't. Had I put the {{inuse}} template in from the start, the issue could have been avoided, and that's my fault. But this isn't blatant edit warring as much as a technical error. Also, the conflict of interest allegation was addressed months ago, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An edit conflict on a 1RR article is a big red flag. It should bring your new contribution to a complete halt so you can determine whether your continued editing is in violation. I gave you plenty of opportunity to revert yourself, and you did not. You still have not as of this moment. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not solely a 1RR issue. The information about your past editing is there to show that the issue is also longterm edit warring, despite multiple talk page discussions. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We both have engaged in long-term edit warring. In a dispute between two editors, there cannot be just one editor edit-warring. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51, is there a reason you have not self-reverted the contested material as requested? Kuru (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired. [144] NYyankees51 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note An accidental overwrite seems to make sense given the string of edits; presuming that the self revert covered the contested material, this seems resolved. If that didn't cover it, let me know what the problem is and I'll make the edit. Kuru (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:LesPhilky reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Les and IP blocked)

Page: Carolina–Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LesPhilky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [145]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well aware of 3RR policy, having been warned about it on more than one occasion by myself[150] and others[151], and told to cease edit warring by an admin[152].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User refuses to seek consensus or discuss changes on article Talk page[153], and is very dismissive of established Wikipedia policies and process for doing so. 3RR warnings are summarily removed by this user from their Talk page and ignored[154][155].

Comments: This is the second edit war in this article by this user and an anonymous IP user[156]. Both have been warned previously[157][158], article was temporarily full protected[159], and here we are again with these two, right back at it several days later. I would have filed a report on both of these dedicated edit warriors, but I see LesPhilky beat me to it on filing against the IP[160]. Ironic, since LesPhilky was edit warring right along with the IP. Even more ironic, the IP apparently pointed out this fact in a comment to that report, but LesPhilky decided to delete that user's comment from the noticeboard[161]. I've basically given up hope that this user will ever decide to abide by the policies of this project, and sought help from an admin involved with the previous edit war[162], but so far to no avail. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked This appears to be an ongoing issue; I've blocked both the IP and Les. Kuru (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Israelite1 reported by User:DePiep (Result:Declined)

Page: Israelis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Israelite1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

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

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

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

Comments:

-DePiep (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment User has not broken 3RR yet, does seem a bit odd that a user has only made 4 edits and 3 of them are all reverts. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Those kind of edits are clearly covered by 1RR under WP:ARBPIA and the use of Joan Peters as a source doesn't suggest the editor belongs here at all. I've added 1RR/sanctions headers. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, how does one know that an article is under 1RR restriction?, surely we can't just assume a new (or even an experienced) editor knows about WP:ARBPIA. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, just seen the warning on the talk page. Never seen that before, would be very easy to miss. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Declined but only because the warnings were put on the editor's talk page after their last edit. They now should be clear about the 1RR restriction and if they break it or take other actions which appear to be edit warring should then be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this. I did not refer to 1RR. I know is might be I/P related (and so ARBPIA), but I did not claim 1RR transgression. (The 1RR has only been notified after my notification here [168]). And all together: no 1RR was in scope (except for the accused user).

I am here for a 3RR. Factual: R1=10:36 (Dec 17), R2=04:44 (Dec18), R3=09:35 (Dec18). The user did 3 reverts withing 23h. All were show "undo" as by automate (btw User did mark all as "minor", which requires a personal action).

You could have killed me here for "not engaging in dispute solving".

Oh, and by the way: I posted here (1st time I guess), but I did not read that I was writing a request that could be "denied" (exactly what was denied?). Just wanted to note a 3RR user. -DePiep (talk)

3RR was not broken, since it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the WP:3RR rule. The editor was forgiven for their 1RR violation but is warned not to repeat it. I have notified User:Israelite1 about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, so that's the way to read it. I learned 3RR-counting was a maximum, not a right (which is a good idea). IMO, the "just three" reverts looked suspicious enough to warrant a note here (new user, no es, no talking). Well, thanks anyway to take care. Consider matter closed. -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what was said, and you know it. If you'd warned properly in the first place, a block might have occurred ...but right now it's simply punishment. After all, discussion is the intent of the entire thing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is what EdJohnston said [169].

New to me is, that a "warning" counts as a "discussion". I actually added the warning as was advised on this page in the Listing instructions (and in the preload) as part of the reporting here. Both BWilkins and the declining editor (!) think different.

Also in the Listing Instructions block, actually above it in red, is the main line on this page worth reading. As I did earlier.

If one wants to improve from what was said, one could revisit my note that the wording of this page & its reporting preload does not make sense logically.

Straight from WP:3RR I dare quoting: any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

Now what do I supposedly know? -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

re BWilkins: To me, your reply is a non-AGF [170]. I think I responded extensively and sincerely [171]. I might expect a response, don't you think? -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, never mind Bwilkins. While I was expecting a response on my first report here, and while you were contemplating your post here (without AGF, as I pointed out), the User I reported here got SPI'ed, CUéd, banned, recreated an account for the same edits, ranted my talkpage twice with libels before getting banned again. Now if I only had a AN-page where I could report such suspicious behaviour. This page is not working. I do have diffs, but since no one is interested, I will provide then by request. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry ... I thought this thread was um, over? I hadn't look at it until I politely suggested you re-read what was originally said. Now, please stop the tantrum and go back to what I always thought was your normal reasonable and respectable behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding and you know it was not polite; you opened 'closed' thread; you keep skipping that this page is unintelligible. Sorry for posting here, if I knew it was by invitation only I'd have asked you beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:198.1.37.220 and other IPS reported by User:Eldamorie (Result: no action)

Page: Evil clown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.1.37.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP, as well as several others, have been repeatedly adding a lengthy list at Evil clown (as seen in [version] of the article, without using any sort of edit summaries or attempts to justify the content. The majority of this article is already a list of pop culture occurrences.

I brought it up at the talk page today, although the IP/s have made no attempt to justify the changes in any way. Additional eyes would be helpful. eldamorie (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

There appear to be more eyes on the article at the moment. Kuru (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Falconclaw5000 reported by TFD (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Falconclaw5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 01:05, 21 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Reagan, the icon of today's Right, was anti-elitist. This is a fact that you cannot reasonably dispute. Undid revision 466926587 by DanielRigal (talk)")
2. 17:26, 21 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Please reach a consensus on the discussion page before removing entire sections.")
3. 22:21, 21 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Actually, it does: "The so-called neoliberal right, popularized by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher..."")
4. 23:51, 21 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—TFD (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed "terminology" to "term." I did not change the controversial part about elitism. I believe the user TFD has a personal vendetta against me because he wants to preserve the bias of the article. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You reversed DanielRigal's 22:52 edit where he changed "term" to "terminology".[172] You also made an edit at 23:52 (not included above) which changed other wording in the article.[173] TFD (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DanielRigal's main edit was to insert the part about elitism; he only changed the "terminology" thing back because he reverted my edit in a lazy way. The other edits I made were NOT reverts. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The editor was given an opportunity to self-revert to avoid 3RR but declined. Clear reverts at 23:51,22:21,17:26,01:05; previous edit warring on same article. Kuru (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Rast5 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Tamara Toumanova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 15:56, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "rv sock of blocked Biographyspot")
2. 16:00, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
3. 16:01, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ unreliable and in georgian language without translation")
4. 16:01, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ rv original research")
5. 14:10, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "sockpuppet of Bographyspot")
6. 19:30, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "rv sockpuppet")
7. 20:11, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ both are unreliable. the grave is not a reliable source, a journal in georgian too")
8. 20:12, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ a personal site is not a reliable source")
9. 20:15, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ a personal site")
10. 20:17, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Vassiliev's book in English")

—Antique Rose — Drop me a line 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several attempts have been made to solve this conflict, please see Talk:Tamara Toumanova.

Comments: User Rast5 is conducting an edit war (although not 3RR yet), in the same manner as a previously blocked and sanctioned IP user. The article in question is Tamara Toumanova. I suspect that Rast5, strongly promoting Toumanova's Armenian descent and dismissing references citing her Georgian descent, is closely related to or identical with 85.141.14.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who hectically promoted the Armenian cause, before being blocked and put on the "List of editors warned about possible discretionary sanctions" at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 [175]. If Rast5 indeed is 85.141.14.195, the user is trying to evade the sanction. Please note that Rast5 is accusing other users of sockpuppetry. (FYI: The diffs above are generated from the 3RR tool.)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. File a report at WP:SPI if you suspect this user to be a sockpuppet. Swarm ^X 22:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:98.165.115.152 reported by User:TopGun (Result: 24h)

Page: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.165.115.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [176]

• 1st revert: [177]
• 2nd revert: [178]
• 3rd revert: [179]
• 4th revert: [180]
• 5th revert: [181]

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

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

Semi protection declined, recommending in favour of AN3: For reference-- [184]

Comments: IP warring with 3 different users, gone upto five reverts. Blatantly obvious WP:DUCK of 202.3.77.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who was warring on the same content in November, made personal attacks and got blocked thrice on this IP, another and then on the range for multiple reasons. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Gclrnewyork reported by User:SGMD1 (Result: Blocked)

Page: American University of Antigua College of Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gclrnewyork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [190]

Comments:
The user is repeatedly removing referenced material and appears to be advertising for the school (the username is that of the school's corporate owner) and has ignored warnings about WP:OR and WP:3RR SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked. Technically, 3RR hasn't been broken. But the username combined with the disruptive editing are clear pointers. Wifione ^Message 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User:POVbrigand reported by User:128.59.171.184 (Result: Declined)

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

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

• 1st revert: [191]
• 2nd revert: [192]
• 3rd revert: [193]
• 4th revert: [194]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196][197]

Comments:

As his name implies, a clear POV-pusher for advocating various cold fusion research and pseudoscience. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

3RR not applicable - IP sock for banned user VanishedUser314159 [198] --POVbrigand (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really the policy of Wikipedia to encourage edit warring as long as you suspect the other person is a banned user? I have tried to engage this person in discussion, but he seems to steadfastly refuse and instead is content to simply act as judge/jury/executioner. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Declined POVbrigand, take the ip issue to SPI noticeboard. If you can't, you may have to immediately stop accusing the ip of being a sock of a banned user. Yes, the duck theory applies here quite strongly - so use it and take it to SPI noticeboard. I'll leave this as a decline, because it's quite clear there's lot of smoke on the ip end... Wifione ^Message 18:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Submitter is now blocked as a sock, per the rationale at User talk:128.59.171.184. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

User:69.225.21.51 and User:Gunmetal Angel reported by User:Abhijay (Result: Stale)

Page: The Emptiness (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.225.21.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gunmetal Angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [199]

• 1st revert: [200]
• 2nd revert: [201]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:69.225.21.51

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [202]

Comments:
This is yet another edit war of Gunmetal Angel, this time against an IP. This happened on 18 December, and I am bringing it up now. It's apparent that Gunmetal Angel, despite his thorough knowledge of Wikipedia Policy, it's apparent that his edit wars will never seem to stop and neither party (either editor or IP address he comes into dispute with) appears much more innocent than the other. He has reverted three times within a 24 hour period. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 11:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Gunmetal has was banned for edit warring on the 21st Dec, and has made 3 reverts already on this article today. Doesn't look they they care about 3RR. Perhaps a longer ban is required. User: GimliDotNet

• Stale Also of note, two of your diffs are the same edit. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Two of the diffs are not the same edit. They are of the same nature, but note how one diff shows that 2 reverts were made in the 24 hours. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 04:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As you are well aware, Gumetal was already blocked for edit warring in the time between when these edits were made and when you reported them. The terms of that unblock specified that he would limit himself to 1RR and avoid genre-warring in the future. Therefore this report will not lead to any further administrative action as the situation has already been addressed. Now go find something else to do. Something useful preferably. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: )

Page: Natalie Wood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiwatcher1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [207] (if you can wade through it) and this is the latest communication on my part. This issue has been ongoing and discussed to death for over a month. User:Carolmooredc proposed a reasonable compromise with a draft of a new death section (the section in dispute) and there was consensus that it was the best solution. The only dissenting voice was that of the edit warrior being reported. This was the version I put on the page tonight, only to have it completely reverted by the editor I am reporting here.

Comments:

I am not reporting 3rr but edit warring behavior that is essentially locking the article through ownership behavior. This editor has tried to patience of more than one of us at this article. Everytime either Carolmooredc or I make a change to the Death section, this editor reverts it. Every time we have tried to discuss the section, this editor stonewalls and refuses to work cooperatively. Carolmooredc and I have been trying to make reasonable changes to this article for over a month, the editor being reported is demonstrating stron ownership issues. As stated above, Carolmooredc proposed a compromise that would put the death section to a point that would eliminate all trivia, be well referenced, and remove as much POV as possible. Both she and I agreed this was the best version yet. The editor being reported was the only dissenting voice. Tonight, I implemented the proposed changes, they were summarily reverted by the editor I am reporting saying there was no consensus. When I explained on both the talk page and in the edit summary that there had been consensus, Wikiwatcher1 claimed there was no consensus and that I have ownership issues. I say enough is enough - Wikiwatcher has essentially hijacked this article and won't allow anything to be done to the death section. It defies logic - even to the point of where she has added unreferenced WP:SYNTH content that is trivial (what she said over a month ago had to go) and when either of us try to take it out, she starts edit warring over it. I've had it and hope that someone will make it stop. I am reporting edit warring behavior, not 3RR - guaranteed that if I reverted she would revert it back - but I'm not going to edit war over this. She knows that and is gaming the system, in my opinion. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 07:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Rast5 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: Protected)

Page: Tamara Toumanova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 17:28, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 17:29, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
3. 17:32, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 17:36, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "not neutral source")
5. 17:37, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
6. 17:42, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
7. 17:45, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
8. 17:49, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
9. 17:54, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
10. 18:56, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "rv deletion of sourced info, georgian nationalist pov-pushing")

—Antique Rose — Drop me a line 23:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [208]

Comments: User, recently blocked, is at it again, reverting without explaining why, calling other users POV pushers [209]. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rast5 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: 24 hours).

Page protected - Three days, by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:50.46.237.146 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:31 hours )

Page: Template:Mario franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.46.237.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [210]

• 1st revert: [211]
• 2nd revert: [212]
• 3rd revert: [213]
• 4th revert: [214]
• 5th revert: [215]
• 6th revert: [216]

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

Comments: Anon IP has been changing the template against consensus, reverted by multiple editors.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours given their history, it was tempting to block for longer, and a longer block will be appropriate if this continues. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User:ChronicalUsual reported by User:EllsworthSK (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Siege of Homs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ChronicalUsual (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]
• 6th revert: [224]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [225]

Comments:
Clear POV pushing. First addition of unsourced material (source redirected on Reuters article which said nothing like the edit), when warned he continued with edit war. After that he simply removed sourced material because he found haaratez and NOW Lebanon as not reliable enough for whatever reason. As for me I don´t find it smart to feed the troll and believe that simple admin intervention ought to be enough without any blocking. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Oddly, he has continued to revert even after being notified of this discussion. Reverts at 13:57, 10:29, 22:35, 19:52 break 3RR - he was warned about 3RR and notified of this discussion. Kuru (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Graziella888 reported by User:Noformation (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Iridology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Graziella888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [226]

• 1st revert: [227]
• 2nd revert: [228]
• 3rd revert: [229]
• 4th revert: [230]
• 5th revert: [231]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233]

Comments: Editor not responding on talk, appears to be a standard POV pusher of alternative medicine N^oformation ^Talk 01:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 01:08, 01:12, 01:13, 01:14, 01:21. Was warned. Kuru (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Azlan Iqbal reported by User:Bubba73 (Result: 24 hours )

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

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

Time reported: 02:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 00:21, 26 December 2011 (edit summary: "Updated info and additional reference.")
2. 00:10, 27 December 2011 (edit summary: "It may look that way but it isn't. As an expert in the field, I am merely updating the page on the subject. Or would you prefer it remain out of date?")
3. 06:59, 27 December 2011 (edit summary: "Changed format of reference to match the rest.")
4. 07:07, 27 December 2011 (edit summary: "Added link and publisher info to reference.")
5. 00:19, 28 December 2011 (edit summary: "Not notable enough according to whom? What are your credentials? The information on the page mentions only about chess *playing* when work into chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition has also been done.")
6. 00:22, 28 December 2011 (edit summary: "LNCS by Springer is a perfectly respectable publication (better, in fact, than many on the page). Or do you have something against articles published by "minorities"?")
7. 00:32, 28 December 2011 (edit summary: "If you are going to do this (COI), then I insist you also delete the entire entry on chess aesthetics. Or keep both. Be consistent.")
8. 00:38, 28 December 2011 (edit summary: "What, exactly, is the "COI with the editor"? Explain.")
9. 01:22, 28 December 2011 (edit summary: "Updating the information but without the latest and most comprehensive reference due to vehement opposition from others.")
10. 02:08, 28 December 2011 (edit summary: "Bringing the page up-to-date.")

• Diff of warning: here

The edits have been reverted by at least four different editors, several of which have posted on the editor's talk page.

—Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 00:19(from previous previous day),00:32,00:38, and

05:26. Was warned. Kuru (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Prashantkharat reported by User:Mkdw (Result: blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [234]

• 1st revert: [235] Prashantkharat
• 2nd revert: [236] Prashantkharat
• 3rd revert: [237] Prashantkharat
• 4th revert: [238] Prashantkharat
• 5th revert: [239] Prashantkharat
• 6th revert: [240] Single Purpose IP
• 7th revert: [241] Single Purpose IP
• 8th revert: [242] Prashantkharat

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]

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

Comments:

I suspect this user of IP socket puppetry. He was warned about using sock puppets and continued edit warring.

Several other editors reverted his initial changes. The user was warned about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT.

I also suspect this editor to be hiding behind a second account. The very first edits were to a sandbox and moved to this article P. R. Patil Group of Educational Institutes. The article uses sections, infoboxes, reference templates, logos, tables, internal links, and most interesting applied for rollback status. All signs of a highly knowledgeable editor. One who would certain understand policies, edit warring, and socket puppetry.

I have done some more investigation and found that User:Karthikndr was the initial editor who added the Mumbai content to the flash mob article. Even more interestingly Karthikndr and Prashantkharat share the same interest in creating articles about English schools in Mumbai. Mkdw^talk 08:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation I don't see a 3RR violation here at all. If you feel there is a socking problem, file something at WP:SPI. Kuru (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain how you came to that conclusion... Edits 1-4 are all the same changes with no variation and made by Prashantkharat. Then he reverted again with a few more edits to add more info. He then reverted it on edits 5 and 7 if you don't include the single purpose IP's from Mumbai. The only difference was a citation at the end of it. For all I care label it vandalism since its in violation of WP:EFFECT and WP:NOTNEWS not to mention its in the wrong section and factually incorrect since there are hundreds of cases of other flash mobs occurring in India well before. Mkdw^talk 18:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits 1-4 are from three weeks ago. I'm not going to block someone for a 3RR that far back. I would have been happy to block for just general edit warring, since it's clear that there's a mess there, but there are two people edit warring there now. I don't see any vandalism; you've linked to two content guidelines which do not in any way makes something 'vandalism'. I'll look into the socking thing in a little more detail and see if I can understand your position on the original sockmaster. Kuru (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh okay, I see your original point Kuru. I've opened the sock puppet investigation and will be interested to see if this provides any fruitful answers to this dilemma. I'll be more diligent in using the correct warnings of disruptive edits. I haven't had a lot of experience with ANI. Mkdw^talk 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours With all due respect, Kuru, I've looked at the situation, and I see the editor is not using any discussion pages (but is just removing warnings from his/her page), and has been editing against two different people. Mkdw did exactly the wrong thing by placing a vandalism message on the user's page (WP:DV, WP:NOTVAND), which made this much more difficult to decide for us, but I still think the behavior was disruptive (especially in light of the likely sockpuppetry). Thus I've blocked the editor on the similar but not the same count of disruptive editing (not edit warring). I don't think it's a problem, but if it is, just let me know or just revert the block (seeing as I don't really care). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just finished digging through all of the edits there for the last few months and I can see Mkdw's position now; it's a gone from a 3RR to a slow edit war over a nonsense addition. No objection to the block or the semi-protection. In fact, since I've now taken no administrative action, I've reverted the content. Kuru (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 (aka LesHB) reported by User:El duderino (Result: Stale)

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

Page: Wikipedia:ANI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lhb1239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [253]

• 1st revert: [254]
• 2nd revert: [255]
• 3rd revert: [256]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [257]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [258]

Comments:

As I said at the ANI report, User:Lhb1239 (aka LesHB) has attempted to refactor the order of responses there -- apparently in an attempt to crowd out my first reply. He doesn't seem to see what's wrong with this. I've attempted to restore the order and point out his behavior there but no one else is stepping in. El duderino (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The above user was reported by me for keeping attack content on his talk page. An administrator subsequently removed the attack content from the user's talk page. The user restored the content. He then reordered my comments at the AN/I report. I replaced them per talk page guidelines regarding refactoring. He moved my comments again, and then refactored the original header of the report by changing it. I reordered the comments and restored the section header as it was originally written. He refactored again. He's now calling the refactoring he started and continued an edit war, with me as the offending party. I never would have had to replace my comments and the original header at the AN/I report if he hadn't pursued refactoring more than once. This report (and his continued policy-violating behavior at his own talk page and the AN/I report) is all beyond ridiculous and frivolous. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start the refactoring. I replied to the report. You interjected, out of order, and then stuck to that as your 'original' order. Everything else you said is irrelevant here, including the non-neutral header which I'm happy to let someone else change. El duderino (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"I didn't start the refactoring" -- this is, quite simply, untrue. The diffs of the edit history for the AN/I report confirm it to be untrue. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 22:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No they do not. You keep interjecting with unnecessary outdents, like you do here, at the ANI and at article talkpages -- and they're misleadingly used, I think, to make your posts seem more important. It disrupts the order of posts and not only makes it confusing for the reader to follow the thread of discussion, but in the case of the ANI pushes my first reply further down at the expense of you getting another few words. That behavior needs to stop. And by the way, since you don't seem to know ([259]), adding indents to show proper placement of responses is not refactoring. El duderino (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - the user making the report - gave a talkpage warning to the other user and then with his next edit made the report -there was no reverting after the warning - the warning was in this case a worthless technicality the reporter though he was obliged to make - this report is un-actionable imo - 3RR has not been violated and the warning was not issued correctly. If the admin choses to block for general edit warring then they both should be blocked. Personally, I would block the reporter for unnecessary escalation and attempting to use this report in an out of process manner to win a dispute.Youreallycan (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization offered by User:Youreallycan. The 3RR report guidelines & template clearly allow for the simultaneous warning & report: "Warn the user if you have not already done so." User:Lhb1239 is well aware of 3RR as we were both warned against doing it at Talk:Mad Men. And the issue here is him refactoring the order of my first reply. He kept doing it until I submitted this report. 3RR violation is not a prerequisite for filing this report, as the top header mentions active edit warring. El duderino (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Despite the fact that there does not appear to have been a fourth revert, it's not cool to edit war on another editor's own talk page. An editor may remove comments and refactor their own talk page as they will. Yworo (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read this report and view the diffs again. No one's edit warring on an editor talk page, the reporter in this case was edit warring by continuing to refactor comments and a header at AN/I. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 22:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) - Please see - the diffs are reverting of refactoring at ANI noticeboard not on a userpage. Youreallycan (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - These two editors were warned to stay away from each other just a few days ago on this page.User:El duderino reported by User:Lhb1239 Result: both editors warned: Recommend that they do just that. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Stale — This report is complaining about edit warring at ANI. That revert war appears to be finished since the original ANI thread has now been archived. If you are not satisfied with the admin discussion of the original complaint (attack content in user space) why not ask User:TParis for suggestions as to what to do next. You have also posted at AN about this but your request does not seem to have found any support. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin or other uninvolved party close this out so that no more comments be added or modified? Thank you, (talk→ LesHB ←track) 23:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unclear why that would be necessary. This board has an archive bot that works well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Struck my comment. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Dave7777777 reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Warned)

Page: Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dave7777777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [260]

This is a report of sustained edit warring (and POV pushing) over the last two weeks, and not a 3RR violation

• 1st revert: [261] (19 December)
• 2nd revert: [262] (20 December)
• 3rd revert: [263] (22 December)
• 4th revert: [264] (22 December)
• 5th revert: [265] (26 December)
• 6th revert: [266] (28 December)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [268] (asked to provide a source and discuss this on the article's talk page), the editor has posted several times at Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel and has not attracted any support for their position, and keeps on edit warring. Several editors (including myself) have reverted his changes. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Edits were to remove bias from the article, I simply qualify the facts presented by Iranian news were alleged, not yet known to be true or false. This is corroborated by news articles cited further down in which the facts of the matter are in dispute and have not been resolved by anyone in a position to do so. I clearly stated my reasoning several times in the article discussion. I feel the haste to establish Iranian government news reports as facts shows bias by editors who are using the article to push their political viewpoints. Dave7777777 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Note the complaining editors put forth a FARS article as beyond question, when FARS is the official news agency of the Iranian regime, known to be deceptive. On the other hand, here is Voice of America, a well respected news source, note the appropriate use of "alleged" and "appeared to be" etc.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Iranian-Video-Displays-Alleged-US-Drone-135363998.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave7777777 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Warned — Long term edit warring to restore 'alleged' to the article or to weaken the claim this is an actual US drone. Dave7777777 has now been reverted by at least four different editors. This looks to be be a single-purpose account created only to work on this one article. Any further reverts may lead to a substantial block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User: Semitransgenic reported by User:Matsuiny2004 (Result: declined)

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

• [269]
• [270]
• [271]

warning is at this link [272]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [273]

Comments:

I have explained my reasons on the discussion page and at least once when reverting. The user has not even participiated in the discussion and given no explanation of why they keep reverting. The citations that supposedly backup this part of the article are not relevant to what is written in the brostep section. The quotes in that section have no basis and it is misleading.

Matsuiny2004 (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Declined — given several editors are reverting Matsuiny2004 (talk · contribs), it's rather the reporting user who is currently closest to disruptive editing and edit warring. Please take your dispute to the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 06:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 reported by User:Luciferwildcat (Result: declined )

Page: Metro Walk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [274]

• 1st revert: [275]
• 2nd revert: [276]
• 3rd revert: [277]

Comments:

I have really tried to resolve this amicably and through some sort of compromise. This user has a pattern of targeting articles related to Richmond, California for content removal, reference removal, deletion, mergers, etc but never actually productively editing or collaborating on them. Turning every AfD into a bitter and very combative battleground. He is edit warring here and making it hard to expand the article. I have added the references in a different manner at this point but I could have just slowly incorporated them as well and this is making it hard on me to improve this article. LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No violation 3 reverts does not break 3RR. Your link to the talk page was 100% wrong--we never link to talk space in an article--not even "temporarily". I would go so far as to say that even if he had reverted you 5 or 6 times, your edit is so 100% wrong that it would be justified under WP:IAR. Purplebackpack89 may have problems regarding this topic, but there's absolutely no violation here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the heck was this thread started? I don't have "problems regarding the topic", just problems with Lucifer starting meaningless threads, making clueless edits, and voting without regard to guidelines. So I'm apparently the bad guy here. These edits and this thread perfectly illustrate Lucifer's clueless and disruptive nature (especially the fact that he can't go more than 2 seconds without mentioning that I nominated some Richmond City Councilmen for deletion and this for merger). Furthermore, why wasn't I notified of this? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, I know things have been stressful around here for you recently, but please relax. Note that I explicitly said that you were not the bad guy, and that Luciferwildcat was completely at fault. As for notification, there is no actual requirement to notify people when they've been reported to AN3--only ANI, AN, and I think DRN have that requirement. But, again, in this case, you not only didn't break 3RR, if you had, I'd be tempted to have let you slide because what you were reverting was so self-evidently inappropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Rejedef reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked for 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 02:58, 20 December 2011

• Revision as of 04:16, 28 December 2011
• Revision as of 21:27, 28 December 2011
• Revision as of 11:55, 29 December 2011
• Revision as of 12:54, 29 December 2011

Warning at this link: 12:18, 29 December 2011

Notice that a report has been made to this page: 14:53, 29 December 2011

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:17, 20 December 2011

• Revision as of 04:13, 28 December 2011
• Revision as of 21:39, 28 December 2011
• Revision as of 11:59, 29 December 2011
• Revision as of 12:53, 29 December 2011

Warning at this link: 12:27, 29 December 2011

Notice that a report has been made to this page: 14:53, 29 December 2011

Have warned both User:Rejedef and User:Arcillaroja over edit warring over these pages. This report was made after User:Rejedef made reverts on both contested pages after being warned not to make more reverts. --Toddy1 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Rejedef for 24 hours, and given a stern warning to Arcillaroja. I'll note that while Rejedef didn't cross 3RR, he did 4 reverts in about 32 hours, which is close enough to still count as general edit warring. I also took into account the fact that Rejedef called Arcillaroja's legitimate concerns and reverts as vandalism, which the definitely are not. However, I note that other editors agree with Rejedef that it is likely that some form of this information needs to be in the article, if well sourced, so Arcillaroja's claim that the entire thing is POV and cannot be there in any form is also wrong. So I hope that when Rejedef comes back in a day, everyone can carefully discuss the issue and work (slowly--I note that some editors have said that it may not be until the new year that they can help) towards a consensus version. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Andriabenia reported by User:Rast5 (Result:Both blocked 48 hrs )

Page: Tbilisi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andriabenia (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]
• 5th revert: [283]
• 6th revert: [284]
• 7th revert: [285]
• etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [286]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [287]

Comments:
The user Andriabenia deletes sourced material from the article, never explains his behaviour, do not discuss at talk and make false statements. Rast5 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note this is a continuation of a dispute currently at ANI Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Both have been given 48 hours to think about how to stop this childish tit-for-tat and ethnically-based crap. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:rast5 reported by User:Andriabenia (Result:Both blocked 48 hrs )

Page: George Balanchine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [288]
• 2nd revert: [289]
• 3rd revert: [290]
• 4th revert: [291]

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

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

PREVIOUS WARNINGS: warned by me, warned by user:Antique Rose, warned by user:Bwilkins. He responded by deleting the warning. He was previously blocked and there is a separate administrative noticeboard case on his name[297]

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Both have been given 48 hours to think about how to stop this childish tit-for-tat and ethnically-based crap. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [298]

• 1st revert: 06:57 reverted 05:48
• 2nd revert: 06:59 reverted 06:51

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

Comments:

I brought this up on the editor's talk and she blew it off. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No violation — Roscelese's three edits were consecutive. This counts as only one revert. See the WP:3RR page for the detailed rules and search for 'consecutive.' EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:170.148.215.157 (Result:No violation)

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

You can check User Collect's page revision history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&action=history to see him whitewashing his own page and deleting evidence of him violating Wikipedia Deletion policy, edit warring, and whitewashing Boris Berezovsky article. After I warned him on his talkpage he repeatedly deleted my warnings, thereby edit-warring and whitewashing his own page as well. Please take some action against him, as well as restore deleted materials on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman) page. Thanks a lot 170.148.198.157 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation But I'm tempted to apply WP:BOOMERANG... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Jim Sukwutput (Result: not blocked)

Page: Kinmen Daily News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [300]

• 1st revert: [301] 22:39, 26 December 2011‎
• 2nd revert: [302] 19:59, 27 December 2011‎
• 3rd revert: [303] 17:38, 28 December 2011‎
• 4th revert: [304] 18:14, 28 December 2011‎
• 5th revert: [305] 19:01, 28 December 2011‎
• 6th revert: [306] 19:16, 28 December 2011‎
• 7th revert: [307] 19:26, 28 December 2011‎

The last six are in a 24-hour period. I have provided the first revert for context. He has also made three other reverts in the page previously (history)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well aware of 3RR policies, having been blocked for it several times.

Comments:
I noticed that the IP were making several changes in line with current naming conventions WP:NC-TW on the article, and also fixed an obvious typo (Jiangsi->Jiangxi), but he was consistently reverted without comment by the user in question (including one revert using Twinkle). While it may disputed whether NC-TW applies in this case, it is clear that the IP's edits were made in good faith and cannot be considered vandalism. Hence, 3RR applies. JimSukwutput 21:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a sock of User:Instantnood. Once determined I just reverted it wholesale. And for these "good faith" edits, what he started doing was replacing perfectly valid stub types with non-existent or non-specific ones. That's disruptive, not good faith. Adding good edits (spelling) to bad (disruption) doesn't change the dynamic. 3RR doesn't apply to disruption, vandalism, and banned users. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Pointing out that Kinmen is not on the island of Taiwan is not disruptive. According to current naming conventions WP:NC-TW, the word Taiwan is used only "when identifying a geographic location on the island of Taiwan". Kinmen is off the coast of Fujian and not on the island of Taiwan; hence we do not use "Taiwanese" to describe articles pertaining to Kinmen. You seem to have an inability of regarding genuine disagreements as anything other than vandalism, even if they are completely in line with Wikipedia policies. Such is not an excuse for a blatant violation of 3RR.

As for your sockpuppet accusation, that might or might not be valid, but 3RR clearly states "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." You did not claim such an exemption or make any comment regarding your suspicion, even when you reported the IP for "vandalism" on AIV (and was told that the IP was not a vandal and many of his edits were valid). Then you proceeded to revert all of the IP's edits, many of which are legitimate and/or talk page comments, using a tool that is designed specifically for anti-vandalism. This is something that you seem to have been doing for a while. 1 2 3 4. While you may have been correct that some of these edits originated from sockpuppets, there is no telling how many potential new users you scared away from Wikipedia through your constant abuse of anti-vandalism tools and 3RR to revert every single edit that you disagree with, based on your unconfirmed suspicions. JimSukwutput 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He didn't point out that Kinmen is not on Taiwan, he used a stub type that does not exist and that is disruptive.

The view that we only use Taiwan to refer to the island is not what NC-TW says. There are specific instances to use ROC, and specific instances to use Taiwan, but otherwise it was long ago agreed that ROC/Taiwan was interchangable, and like english variations, not to change it because it always explodes into revert warring by various parties. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Instantnood has been socking through a ban for a long-time, and I am prepared to accept that SchmuckyTheCat was acting in good faith here and should not be blocked. That being said, the concerns expressed by Jim Sukwutput about the potential downsides to assuming that a potential new, good-faith editor is Instantnood may have some merit (in other words, there are false positives—even checkuser can't decide these things for certain). So, I will urge that SchmuckyTheCat be very sure of his grounds for suspicion in the future, and reflect the grounds for reverting in his edit summaries where appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well taken, and I have discussed this with Deryck C as well. In fact, other editors have marked IPs as Instantnood socks that I wasn't sure of. No real complaint though, because they were still disruptive. The area of Chinese editing has become a landmine of disruptive new users and IPs recently because of the controversial move of China.

Checkuser can't confirm anything because the 'named' accounts are long gone. But linking edits on one page from one IP and then seeing them repeated later by another IP are as close as we can. Then combined with edit warring behavior and specific language quirks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that you would have reverted the IP 6 times in 24 hours, even if he is not in fact a sockpuppet ("they were still disruptive"). And you justify this on the basis that there was consensus "not to change it because it always explodes into revert warring by various parties." Are you aware that "preventing another revert warring" is not an excuse for revert warring?

@Newyorkbrad SchmuckyTheCat filed an AIV report without mentioning any suspicions about sockpuppetry, and only when he was told that the user's actions were not vandalism, did he bring up his accusation of sockpuppetry and proceed to revert every edit. I do not see any good faith here; I see a deliberate attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policies using fabricated allegations that he employs only when he needs to. While his accusation may or may not have merit (and we will never know because he has made no effort to pursue it), let us not forget that the edit war began before such an allegation was made, and this allegation was only used when he had no other means of obstructing the user in what is essentially a content dispute. His comments here clearly indicate that he would have reverted the user's edits and knowingly broken 3RR even if the user was not a sockpuppet, based on ideological disagreements he had with these IPs; this alone should earn him a long block. JimSukwutput 23:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) Reversions of banned users are exempt from 3RR, but that doesn't mean that if you suspect (or are sure of) sockpuppetry, edit warring with them indefinitely and telling them to "go away" is the appropriate course of action. Tag the suspected sock, file an SPI, only revert if you're very sure, or if not, iff the user's blocked. This is how we deal with sockpuppetry while simultaneously preventing things from deteriorating into a free-for-all. "I thought he was a sock" isn't a helpful explanation for edit warring if you've done absolutely nothing to pursue your suspicions. Swarm ^X 23:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not blocked / Warned for now. Consider making sure there's an SPI or reference to a past one—especially when the IP address hasn't changed over the same period of time that an SPI could be run. --slakr^\ talk / 06:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Seems like admins here are determined to provide a great arsenal of weapons for every ideological warrior on Wikipedia. Whenever you find an IP with whom you have a content dispute, you can report him for vandalism in an attempt to scare him off, and when that fails you can simply cry "sockpuppet" and use an anti-vandalism tool to revert every single one of the IP's edits - including completely innocuous ones such as fixing typos and talk page comments. And you can do this repeatedly against every IP who you disagree with, with insulting comments such as "go away", without doing anything to pursue a sockpuppet investigation, and even claim that you'd knowingly violate 3RR over a content dispute if you have to, and still not get blocked. JimSukwutput 08:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I noticed that my name has been mentioned in this discussion. I share the concerns of Jim Sukwutput: SchmuckyTheCat is clearly abusing the fact that Instantnood is a blocked sockpuppeteer to advance his position (eg. [308] vs [309]). There are many valid methods, for example requesting the intervention of other editors, to defend his edit against the alleged sockpuppet without violating the 3RR rule. From my perspective, SchmuckyTheCat is clearly violating 3RR willfully, and merely "citing" his own allegation that the IP is a sockpuppet as a scapegoat. I can but say I share the sentiment Jim expressed in the last sentence of his comment above. Deryck C. 11:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Svnpenn reported by User:Perene (Result: Declined)

Page: Comparison of file hosting services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Svnpenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [310]

• 1st revert: [311]
• 2nd revert: [312]
• 3rd revert: [313]
• 4th revert: [314]
• 5th revert: [315]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [316]

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

Comments:
The user is practicing vandalism by reverting a valid edition from a service and inserting data that is not properly formatted or coherent, since what I wrote is an explanation and what he is inserting is a statement. Perene (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Have you made any attempt to discuss this with the editor? Unless I'm miscounting something, you have made 5 reversions to the page in the past 24 hours, which would make you as likely to be blocked as the editor you're reporting. - SudoGhost 17:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I don't see anywhere that the editor has been warned of 3RR, and was likely unaware of it. I've gone ahead and placed a 3RR template on Svnpenn's talk page. Perene, however, was obviously aware of 3RR when they made this report (and when they violated 3RR), so I don't think any template is necessary on their talk page. - SudoGhost 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

---

"I don't see anywhere that the editor has been warned of 3RR" = He was (I didn't used a template so it was a mistake, I simply wrote the same text he left in my talk page on his). The user contacted me in my talk page willing to settle the dispute, and according to him it was only a matter of inserting a Tos (Terms of Service) link from Microsoft in the article, but he could have done that from the start in the < ref > field. There was no need to revert what could be just fixed with a WP:MINOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perene (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Marking an edit as minor does not mean it is not a revert, you still made 5 reverts to the article, and violated 3RR. Where did you warn Svnpenn of 3RR? I'm not seeing it. The only edit you made to their talk page was this, placing a uw-vandalism1 template to their talk page. - SudoGhost 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

---

00:18	Svnpenn adds link to Microsoft Service Agreement for WP:NOTE	[317]
00:29	Perene reverts	[318]
01:09	Svnpenn reverts	[319]
04:33	Perene reverts	[320]
07:00	Svnpenn reverts	[321]
12:48	Perene reverts	[322]
14:44	Svnpenn puts vandalism warning on Perene talk page	[323]
14:48	Svnpenn reverts	[324]
17:22	Perene reverts	[325]
17:23	Perene copys Svnpenn warning to Svnpenn's talk page	[326]
17:24	Perene deletes Svnpenn's warning	[327]
17:36	Perene files admin notice for edit warring	[328]
17:42	Svnpenn reverts	[329]
17:42	Perene reverts	[330]
18:05	Svnpenn tries to resolve the dispute on Perene talk page	[331]
18:12	Perene edits	[332]
18:13	Perene resolves the matter on the talk page	[333]

Svnpenn (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Declined — No action. It is hard for an outsider to get any idea of what this is about. There is a huge number of reverts but hardly any discussion on the article talk page. After this moment, if editors continue to revert without discussion, blocks may be issued. Perene's use of the term 'vandalism' is incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:Biker Biker (Result: Page protected)

Page: Association of Global Automakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

• 1st revert: [334]
• 2nd revert: [335]
• 3rd revert: [336]
• 4th revert: [337]
• 5th revert: [338]
• 6th revert: [339]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [340]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Also, if you take a look the contributions for Scheinwerfermann (talk · contribs) - both talk page postings and edit histories - you will see that he too tried to resolve this to no avail. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
This editor was requested by a paid-for editor to try to resolve a number of tags on the article. This editor came to the talk page, posted some questions and then remove the tags (before waiting for others to reply to the discussions). The tags were reinstated (and reasons were given) yet the editor repeated removed them despite the attempted discussion by others on the talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• - Biker biker is also over the 3rr - its a template dispute - I have requested him to add explanations to the talkpage for his reason to add the templates but he has added nothing - as such if he won't explain the reasons for them, I am in my right to remove them. Youreallycan (talk)
  • Page protected By the way, you were both edit warring... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I will still be there when he wakes up waiting for his explanations for his template additions - my questions are already there unanswered on the article talkpage. Youreallycan (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I hope that page protection and removing some of Biker Biker's editing powers are not the only result of this notice. Youreallycan clearly and flagrantly violated 3RR in removing material that was clearly supported by editor consensus. Youreallycan really should be punished for his flagrant edit warring. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  Aside from the obvious edit-warring on both sides, if an editor has the time to template an article he should make time to expand on the issues on the talk page that these issues relate to. I agree that once a discussion exists the template relating to the discussion shouldn't be removed until the problem is resolved, but drive by templating with no further elucidation isn't particularly helpful. If someone removes the template, it is best to address your concerns on the talk page and then re-add the template, and then the editors developing the article can at least see where you are coming from. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, the items you bring up do not serve as valid reasons for an editor to violate 3RR. Youreallycan's flagrant edit warring with multiple editors in this matter should result in a block. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, they are meant to stop continued disruption. This has been achieved by protecting the page, so I don't see what a block would achieve at this point. A block would mean the editor would not be able to participate in the discussion on the talk page, and would likely hinder the resolution of the dispute. I can't see that being a good thing. - SudoGhost 03:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The page protection, in this case, puzzles me. Youreallycan was reverting multiple editors far in excess of 3 times. Consensus clearly opposed his/her edits, and the matter was discussed at length on the talk page. Yet "the disruption" is now deemed to be over because the page was frozen in the form opposed by consensus. I do understand that blocks are not punitive (although they often seem to be used as punishment, despite this policy), but I also think a more elegant way to end the disruption in this case would have been to block the editor who was removing material against consensus. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that SudoGhost expresses my feelings precisely. However, Ebikeguy, there is no 3-rr exception for being right; so, BikerBiker was violating 3-rr too. It doesn't matter if he was reverting to a version consensus supported. He just should have stopped reverting and followed WP:DR. He didn't. However, instead of blocking them both, as I could have done, which would have removed two editors from the ongoing discussion, I stopped the edit war, and the disruption it caused, by protecting the page; thereby allowing everyone to express his opinion in the discussion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - SIX fast reverts by OfftoRioRob (a serial offender) and not so much as a tsk tsk, let alone the one-month-plus block he deserves!?!?! Shameful. Carrite (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Night w reported by User:Danlaycock (Result: Warned)

Page: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Night w (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Night w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [341]

• 1st revert: [342]
• 2nd revert: [343]
• 3rd revert: [344]
• 4th revert: [345]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [346]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [347],

Comments:

A few days ago I fixed a couple copyvios by this user and notated it on the users CCI page. Shortly thereafter, the user demanded that I no longer edit their CCI, which I readily agreed to. The editor also requested that I "adjust" my comments on the CCI. I asked the user how they would like me to adjust my comments, but never received a response. Instead, the used decided to delete my comments all together without my consent, violating the 3RR in the process.

I pointed the user to WP:TALKO and requested that the user stop deleting my comments in my edit summaries as well as on the users talk page but this was ignored. I attempted to address the users concerns by restoring my comments in a hidden state (using {{hat}} and {{hab}}), but this was also quickly reverted.

The user has a history of editing my comments ([348], [349], [350]) in spite of my requests not to do so.

My comments might be terse, but certainly nothing egregious, especially given the context of an active CCI of the users editing history. If an uninvolved admin requests that I remove my comments then I will, but I don't think the use should be removing them.

The editor has received many previous warnings for edit warring: (ie. 1, 2, 3). TDL (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In your edit summaries, you cite talk page guidelines—assuming you're familiar with the very guidelines you cite, you're surely aware that I'm within my right to remove personal attacks from any page (let alone a standard cleanup page). Though that doesn't excuse edit-warring, it takes two to make one; don't pretend that your behaviour is better than mine. I'll happily respond to your "attempt to resolve the dispute"—which you posted half-an-hour after my last edit and your own third revert—now that I'm online... You were quite obviously aware that I hadn't read the comment, since you altered it outright moments before filing this report, yet casually claim to administrators that I "ignored" it. If that's an actual attempt at resolving the dispute, then let's do it. But from here it looks like you waited until I was obviously offline.

1. You added personal attacks and comments that were blatantly intended to be condescending to a page where the idea is simply to check off that a contribution has been reviewed.
2. You didn't "readily" agree to anything I asked of you—only after the consulting administrator encouraged you to back off did you relent.
3. You admitted to keeping a record of content still present in the mainspace that might contain infringements, yet you refuse to make it public when I ask you to.

Your entire ethos seems bent on trying to get back at me for some ancient grievances by slandering my username wherever the opportunity presents itself (e.g., "editor has received many previous warnings for edit warring", diffs from way back included). Nightw 05:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you Ed, for notifying me.

Questioning another editors understanding of copyright violations, when said editor has clearly demonstrated to the community a lack of such comprehension (therefore the CCI investigation) and an inability to WP:HEAR others trying to explain it to them, is certainly not a personal attack. (However, you calling me "pathetic" is.) WP:RPA clearly explains why only in clear cut cases should a user remove other editors personal attacks. As I've said previously, I'll happily remove them if an uninvolved admin requests me to.

I waited 8 hours before filling the report as a good faith effort to give you an opportunity to self revert as requested on your talk page. But, now that you are online, why not self revert and make this issue go away? TDL (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Warned Only warning as user thought they were removing a personal attack, other issues at play also. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Zenanarh and User:Silvio1973 reported by User:Whenaxis (Result: Final warning)

Page: Luciano Laurana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) AND Zadar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zenanarh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Silvio1973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Luciano Laurana

Previous version reverted to for Luciano Laurana: [351]

Edit 1: [352] Revert 1: [353] Edit 2: [354] Revert 2: [355] Revert 3: [356] Revert 4: [357] Revert 5: [358] Revert 6: [359] Revert 7: [360]

For Luciano Laurana because there are personal attacks within the reversion comments between the editors, I think it would be ideal for a full page protection on this page.

Zadar

Previous version reverted to for Zadar: [361]

Edit 1: [362] Revert 1: [363] Revert 2: [364] Revert 3: [365] Revert 4: [366] Revert 5: [367] Revert 6: [368] Revert 7: [369] Revert 8: [370] Edit 9: [371] Revert 10: [372] Revert 11: [373] Revert 12: [374] Revert 13: [375] Revert 14: [376] Revert 15: [377] Revert 16: [378] Revert 17: [379] Revert 18: [380] Revert 19: [381] Revert 20: [382] Revert 21: [383] Revert 22: [384] Revert 23: [385] Revert 24: [386] Revert 25: [387]

Because of numerous IPs also involved in between edits and because of personal attacks within the reversion comments and on the talk page, I would like to request for full page protection on this page also.

User notice

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning for Silvio1973: [388]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning for Zenanarh: [389]

Talk page discussions

Talk page for Luciano Laurana: Talk:Luciano Laurana
Talk page for Zadar: Talk:Zadar

Comments

Please note: This is a major problem on Zadar - mediation has been requested before but has been [390] rejected. At least one of the users has been banned before. [391]. Arbitrary sanctions have been placed against one of the users before because of their affliation with another edit warring on the page Dalmatia here: [392]

Unfortunately, the next step will have to be sanctions through arbitration because every dispute resolution process is not helping with these users. I just merely came in for a request for a third opinion and I realized that it has spirrled out of control. Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC) (Uninvolved, third party - tried resolving dispute for WP:3O)

• Warned Since the warnings about edit warring were given, I don't see any further edit warring, but am not hesitant to block if this continues. I'll be watching the two pages. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Thank you! Cheers and happy new year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Demdem reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [393]

• 1st revert: [394]
• 2nd revert: [395]
• 3rd revert: [396]
• 4th revert: [397]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [398]

Comments:
I tried to argue in the description of the changes, I tried to argue in the discussion - no response. 4 reverts exist, I see no chance for stop the edit war in the near future. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 19:22, 20:13,20;27,20:34. Was warned previously. Kuru (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:TopGun (Result: Articles protected)

Page: Anti-Pakistan sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Separatist movements of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Inter-Services Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [399]

• Too many diffs check history you'll see. (But please note that some of my edits are just adding citations or after BRD... so don't count them... Esp. in the top article where I only reverted twice). Ok I've decided to add some but there are more.

Diffs for ISI (excluding old ones): [400] [401]

Diffs for article Anti-Pakistan sentiment: [402] [403] [404]

Diffs for Taliban: [405] [406]

Separatist movements of India: Has 2 days old history of 3 reverts favouring a now blocked user for multiple reasons.

Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965: Broken 3RR here with IP and a final edit on me just out side 3RR zone. Clearly visible in history. Even while this report was filed the user has now made a 5th revert of another tag addition [407] with a 3RR cross a day ago.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [408]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [409] [410] [411]

Comments: I've only reverted this user twice on 2 pages today once BRD revert on the ISI page. He has been editwaring with 5-6 users in the very recent history of these pages. Also note that he has been asked to turn on email feature (which he might have turned off now) by an editor who recently got blocked for filing a wrongful report against me. He is POV pushing on a range of articles and editwarring with everyone. The article on the top is the current issue along with the ISI article on number three. He was adding verification failed tags to citations deliberately even when the citations clearly supported the content. I quoted the exact sentence from the citation to him on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment where he outrightly denied to listen. Then he was reverted by another editor for the same after which I assumed the BRD cycle to be complete and started other maintainance of the article (which was not reverted by this editor) he instead made a third WP:POINT edit against the consensus to add a dispute tag to the article to use it as a tag of shame. He further made a tit-for-tat edit addition to the ISI article where a previous discussion had taken place at length and I had added his contributions myself (the current content duplicates that and adds some more POV). All these articles are subject to his edit war esp on 30th december he edit warred on 3 of the above mentioned articles in a go. He was also warned at ANI not to make personal attacks against me which he still made after the warning at Talk:Separatist movements of India (he also continued the blanking of an editwarring blocked user:Ashok4himself on this article. This is too obvious now.. he also tried to malign me at User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#TopGun where he was rebutted by Magog. Further more he was in a battle edit war with an IP recently which was blocked and he was warned. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've not reported you for violating 3RR but for editwarring upto 3RR at so many articles with atleast 5 users that I count, Mar4d, Ambelland, an IP, Ashlin (he reverted your edited and you tagged dispute tag on a third edit) and me... may be more? He is again trying to deceive the admins since the page he mentioned has already been reported for at RFPP and the page for protected for the purpose (since there too he was editwarring with 2 editors atleast). He's also misleading here about the Separatist movement page where I reverted a user who was not explaining and simply blanking the page (and he got blocked). And this showing of diffs of actioned pages is clearly another attempt to malign me like the one at Magog's talk page. Also note that he clearly tried to push in against me in a report where user JCAla wrongfully reported me and got blocked [412]. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• He has been specifically and categorically told by the administrator Magog not to make personal attacks against me and not to hound me, both at ANI [413] and at my talk page [414]. His diffs below are misleading representations of either old and already actioned cases or BRD reverts / citation additions only. He is now desperately pointing all fingers at me to either save him self from a block or get me blocked with him (take in to notice JCAla's recent block as relevant to this). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've only informed Magog per the rules he set at Talk:Taliban at a content dispute which required me to do so, and he has also given administrative warnings to him at ANI and my talk page as shown above. So he is an already aware administrator and should not be considered as canvassing at all. Also Darkness Shines 'disagreement' with Magog was over flooding his talk page with a mal report against me which has some what evolved here. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by accused

• I have not broken 3RR once on any article, which explains why TG has failed to supply any difs. I have acted in accordance with policy at all times, all content remove or added adheres to WP:V & WP:NPOV. I have never enabled the e-mail function, and I fail to see what this has to do with anything either? This is an obvious case of an editor trying to gain the upper hand by looking for a block of a perceived opponent. The edit warrior here is in fact TG. [415][416][417]. Edit wars uncited content into an article. [418] Reverets in unsourced content. Other states of India:- Citation needed. Various editors arguing with TG over his edit warring uncited content into an article. When pointed out on his talk page his habit of reverting unsourced content into articles[419] he says "Blah"[420] More to follow Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Please provide a dff were I have made PA against you since I was asked not to Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given the talk page and admins can see it since it's full of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you need to provide a diff were I have made a PA against you since I was asked not to. Please write only in your own section above. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 Has only two reverts by myself since 15:38, 30 December 2011 Which was explained on the talk page [421] TG has also has two reverts to this article in the same time period.[422][423]
• Separatist movements of India Has two reverts by myself since 16:11, 30 December 2011 Which was explained on the article talk page Unexplained removal TG has also two reverts in the same time period. [424][425] Note, the majority of this content was not sourced.
• Inter-Services Intelligence has one revert by myself since 23:05, 11 December 2011‎ Which was also brought to the talk page [426] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Taliban has exactly one revert by myself ever. [427] Also brought to the talk page [428] TG on the other hand has two reverts on this article today. [429] [430] Please note, my edit fixed a misrepresentation of a source. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Anti-Pakistan sentiment I did reach 3RR on this article, due to an IP editor misrepresenting a source [431] I also brought this to the talk page [432] were my view was supported by another editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I also do not appreciate TG canvassing an administrator [433] whom I have had a personal disagreement with[434].
• I have asked TG to amend his new statements [435] As the two article he says I reached and broke 3r on are not correct. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• TG seems to think that my adding of a tag[436] to an article is a revert? [437] Does adding a tag really count as a revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by the Also-Involved

I was also involved on the Separatist movements of India article. User:TopGun was trying to insert unsourced information, while I removed it, twice. To my mind, he has a clear misunderstanding about WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing Sources with regards to where the burden lies for inserting material in the article (see the talk page). I have no comment on user:Darkness Shines, nor on any of the other pages listed. Buddy431 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I only made one revert there when you blanked content which was being done by Ashok who was blocked for the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's quite untrue. Ashock was blocked for maybe implying that you shouldn't edit this article because of your nationality. I'm saying that you shouldn't edit any article until you learn to cite sources when you add information. Buddy431 (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

'Additional comment by other user:'

Topgun's disruptive editing extends to other pages and users as well. Please see his bullying behaviour on the 1971 war article page (particularly the very end where he fails to, like here, provide evidence for his accusations-- just a "see history" or an occasional/uncontexted link with no pt for pt rebuttal). For a full summation of his harassment of other editors through baseless warnings, report/ban harassment, and bullying, please see this post by me. Here is a quick summation of his harassing behaviour which is severely impacting the quality of wikipages and the collegiality among editors:

1. either makes accusations or counteraccusations without providing any evidence (see how he still didn't fulfill Darkness' request for diffs). he'll even outright accuse others of lying when he himself is attempting to deceive by not providing evidence.
2. When users provide clear links and quotes, he just states "cherrypicks" without explaining how. Topgun has a long track record of non-evidence based accusations and poorly sourced or uncited edits. Then screams "vandalism" when poor edit removed or replaced.
3. edit wars with goodfaith users, then warns or reports them for blocks when he himself is editwarring
4. openly povpushes, but escapes by preemptively reporting users to admins and then reverts on the basis of his blocking them.
5. My own talk page is filled with topgun's threats to have me blocked or banned if I don't let him have his way.

As such, please be cautioned that topgun's reporting of darkness shines is likely not in good faith and is a result of topgun's multiple concurrent/unrelated edit wars and recent admin scrutiny of tg's own disruptive editing and bullying of editors. It is not an accident (or some insidious offline campaign) that so many editors and admins have been rebuking topgun's behaviour of their own volition. TopGun has become a wikipedia community problem and we hope given the outpouring of frustration with his actions (and his, frankly, rather uncanny ability to pull a fast one on admins), that this bullying behaviour be taken into consideration. Even a mccarthy couldn't fool all of the people all of the time...98.165.115.152 (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protected — Four articles are protected for two weeks. These articles must be of little current value to our readers because they are in many cases disappearing under a forest of dispute and citation-needed tags. Taliban is left unprotected but any continued warring there may receive admin attention. Since disputes have been raging for quite a while and involving many of the same editors, I foresee the need for some community topic bans if things don't settle down. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)