Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive156

User:LevenBoy reported by User:Armbrust (Result: Protected )

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

---

Page: Peter Edwards (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 16:54, 12 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423690701 by HighKing (talk)POV removal of disputed term")
2. 18:24, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423854197 by HighKing (talk)")
3. 16:18, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424599137 by Eliaspalmer (talk)Revert obvious sock")
4. 16:11, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424731315 by HighKing (talk)nope, definitely a sock, and a POV pushing one at that")
5. 16:30, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424877474 by Snowded (talk)Revert. I thought you'd given up on this, but clearly you like the disruption")

• Diff of warning: here

---

Page: Neil Robertson (snooker player) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Time reported: 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 20:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424911661 by SmackBot (talk)")
2. 20:41, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424910621 by Domer48 (talk)See Talk")
3. 20:51, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424913340 by Armbrust (talk)It doesn't match the surce - do I need to spell it out in words of one syllable? see Talk (and UK & I is not better)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: LemonMonday another SPA account who edits in tandem with LevenBoy is now up to six reverts on the same article, three within in the last 24 hours together with some failures of WP:AGF on the talk page. The behaviour of these two really needs some admin attention--Snowded ^TALK 06:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: User:Snowded also appears to be a battling warrior on this matter, having several reverts under his belt on this article but carefully avoiding 4 reverts in 24 hours. LemonMonday Talk 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't it weird what a small wiki-world it is? No offense about the autopatrolled mess, Armbrust, seriously :> LevenBoy has only one goal: to insert the term British Isles in as many articles as possible. I'm quite familiar with this editor, and this is a SPA account if there ever was one. I suspect there are others involved, and this goes back a long way. Even if there isn't a technical 3RR violation (I see only 3 reverts vs. the usual 4 required to file a report), LevenBoy is acting disruptively as usual. Doc talk 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptively eh! I suggest you check the facts here - carefully, like none of the anti British Isles POV pushers have done. I mean it! Check the edit history of that article, check the text in the article and how it matches the reference that I'm proposing, and check how the other reference being offfered does not match the text of the article, but do it carefully, it's a bit unclear in parts. However, you will see I'm tyotally correct in my assertions and the other editors are simply desparate to do anything not to include the term "British Isles". LevenBoy (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot rightly call other editors "POV pushers" when you engage in the exact same behavior. There are two sides to this coin and you know it. Why can you simply not move beyond this narrowest of topics and edit constructively? I have always wondered that... Doc talk 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant, but did you study the detail of this case, including the article Talk page? If so, what is your conclusion, because I'm getting to the point of thinking that some of the contributiors at that page are being less than sincere. LevenBoy (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Serial edit warrior and SPA account, works in tandem with another SPA LemonMonday (see edit history of the pages referenced above. Issues appear minor but consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour, rarely engages with content. Aggressive comments and accusations against other editors are also par for the course. --Snowded ^TALK 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please address the issue of the discussion rather than proffering your opinions as per the above. I would also welocme your view on the facts of this matter as described at the Talk page, where, I'm sure you know I'm right. LevenBoy (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's about the "bigger picture" LevenBoy. You are an edit-warrior, you are a SPA, and any specifics of any case with you inevitably boil down to your reverting other editors on the British Isles issue. No matter how much time you take off. I am shocked you have lasted as long as you have. Seriously. Doc talk 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on! You're just miffed because you were blown out on that stupid sock report you filed where you thought me and TritonRocker were the same person. LevenBoy (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really: we all make mistakes. But you continue to make the same ones time and again. You cannot get beyond edit-warring to make your point, and it's disruptive. Doc talk 22:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And your comments on the facts of the matter - the real matter that is, concerning the bastardisation of a source text? LevenBoy (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The issue here is a behavioral one. In general you edit war rather than use the talk page. It was behavioral evidence that resulted in the sock report on Triton Rocker and also on Lemon Monday. OK it was shown that you were not using the same IP address but there was more than enough justification for the report. While the immediate issue is 3rr, there is a strong argument for a topic ban--Snowded ^TALK 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well actually no, it's 2RR if you look at the facts (yes, try it some time). Two of the "reverts" were actaully a single one due to the intended revert having been superseded by a bot. LevenBoy (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's called "gaming the system". I think your disruption far exceeds your constructive content, and your guerrilla warfare tactics are tiresome and predictable. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Doc talk 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Gaming the system includes things like PRODing articles simply because they contain the words "British Isles". One could, perhaps, level the same accusation against you - you're more concerned with admin stuff like this. Anyway, what about the discussion in hand. What is your view on the assertiong being made at the talk page? LevenBoy (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with this thread. Hopefully the closing admin will see this for what it is and make the correct decision. This has gone on for far too long. Doc talk 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that an SPI be done on the LevenBoy & LemonMonday accounts as possible socks of User:MidnightBlueMan. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you crawl back under your slimey little stone. Every time there's any issue such as this up you pop with your stupid suggestions about SPI or whatever other idiotic thing comes into your mind. Why not try addressing the matter in hand for a change? Try commenting on my assertions at the Talk page in question, since no-one else has bothered to do so yet, merely being content, like you, to bang on about SPIs, SPAs and other such irrelevances. LevenBoy (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this lame fight over inclusion/exclusion of British Isles across Wikipedia, should be ended with blocks to accounts that begin adding or deleting BI in articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I agree. There are few, if any, editors trying to add it, but a veritable army, well a platoon at least, of them trying to get rid of it. And sorry about the slimey stone stuff, but you can be most annoying at times. LevenBoy (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I'v suggseted a compromise to the above issue at User talk:Ged UK#No personal attacks ? Maybe we wait to see what he thinks. If the compromise is accepted we can all move on unscathed. LemonMonday Talk 19:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's very creative. It defies logic that LevenBoy would have gone to that much trouble to trace that edit before he inserted the phrase for his very first edit to the article. You should bring it up on the article's talk page where others who have edited the article beyond inserting the term can see it and consensus will form, instead of the admin's. This is strictly about the edit-warring issue on this board, and it seems that nothing is going to be done about it anyway. Doc talk 23:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note Neil Robertson (snooker player) was protected due to a content dispute by admin Ged UK. (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:DeadSend4 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Semi )

Page: Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DeadSend4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: last of 8 straight revisions (02:17, 19 April 2011) to [[User:Tenebrae]
• 2nd revert: revised (19:06, 19 April 2011) User:Crohnie
• 3rd revert: last of 25 straight revisions (21:45, 19 April 2011) to [[User:Tenebrae]
• 4th revert: revised (00:07, 20 April 2011) [[User:Tenebrae]

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

See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above

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

See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
User:DeadSend4, aside from being uncivil, indeed borderline abusive, at his latest talk-page comments here, is apparently attempting to evade his block (See Nicole Kidman history here) through anon IP 24.92.19.152, which, despite this being its one-and-only edit, makes the same wholesale reversion that DeadSend4 has been making.

Another of the multiple editors he is warring with, User:Crohnie, also noted this at the above talk-page post. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note Article semiprotected by admin Courcelles (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:68.99.91.135 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 48h )

Page: Nanuet, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.99.91.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See contribs. TwoThree (third added since posting this) edits today, but this same edit pattern goes back to November and has been reverted by a number of independent editors.

The IP editor persistently adds the same para of text to the same article. It's not an unreasonable edit at first sight, but it makes three claims that should be, but aren't, referenced. As it has been regularly reverted by others, it needs a reference before it can be added, per standard policy.

I came to this editor's contribs through POV statements (similarly repetitive) on an unrelated article. As it's an IP, then it may not be the same editor.

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

There has been no communication from this editor, by either edit summary, response to warning templates, or through talk pages.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note Blocked for 48 hours by admin Nyttend.[1] (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Sam Degelia reported by User:Nkgal (Result: 72h )

Page: Charles Harrelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sam Degelia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

• 1st revert: 19:34, 16 April 2011
• 2nd revert: 17:51, 19 April 2011
• 3rd revert: 14:02, 20 April 2011
• 4th revert: 15:39, 20 April 2011

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:28, 20 April 2011

Comments:

This user has had a periodic edit war on this article since February 2009, and was blocked for it in April 2009, but returned in 2010 and again this month. User:Kww, an admin, semi-protected the page since the user was switching between their login and their IP address, though they've continued to edit the talk page using their IP address. The user has been trying to refocus a section on a tertiary character by citing a file they uploaded to the Commons. I've been trying to remove that citation, explaining Wikipedia can't be used to cite itself. The file they uploaded has been already deleted twice for copyright violations. The user has had no edits on other articles, or even in other sections of this one article. Given their username, there's also a strong possibility that they have a conflict of interest. Looking for a little help!--Nkgal (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note Blocked for 72 hours by admin JamesBWatson.[4] (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Tgandz reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: User indef blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [5]

• 1st revert: [6]
• 2nd revert: [7]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Palestinian people, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction.

Please read this editor's edit summaries to get a sense of where her/his head is. Consideration should be given to a long-term, possible indef, block. Frankly, I would have done it myself were I not involved. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that User:Tgandz was indef-blocked while I typed this notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dimestore reported by User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]
• 5th revert: [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments: Editor has been warned about edit warring, but has continued. No attempt has been made to reach a consensus. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Further comment Editor claims not to have read the 3RR warning before making final revert. Inexperienced editor, so is probably unaware of WP policies. A block may not be necessary, a note from an admin may be sufficient. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE: This was my reply to Catfish Jim's message to me regarding the edit war:

'"Hi,

thanks for your e-mail. I just saw it. I changed the sentence again but if it is reverted, I'll avoid the edit war. I already put the explanation in the talk page, otherwise I'll just appeal to place a POV tag on the article. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimestore (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)"'

If the understanding was that I changed it AFTER reading the message, then it is wrong. I had changed it PRIOR to reading his message, which is why I had wrote "I just saw it," meaning I had just seen the warning AFTER I made the final edit to correct the POV sentence that is threatening the neutrality of the Kent Hovind article. A warning is not necessary. A consensus has not been reached because nobody has made any replies to my explanations in the talk page. I am willing to reach consensus. Those, however, who wish to push a POV statement and present it as fact are not. I have presented my case to both WP:RSN and WP:NPOV to dispute the contentious sentence.Dimestore (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note Page was previously protected (currently unprotected) by admin DMacks. (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Interferometrist reported by User:86.183.175.94 (Result: Already protected)

Interferometometrist keeps reverting the article Vacuum Tube to incude an invalid definitionn of a term.

Last reversion here: here

I have requested a citation that the term is as he claims here

His reaction is to simply delete the tag here

I am perfectly entitled to challenge material added where it is incorrect. I am also perfectly entitled to remove unsourced material. Interferometrist has sought to effectively prevent my challenging his inaccurate information by getting the article protected so that I can't challenge him. This seems to be an abuse of the protection of articles. It isn't there to prevent invalid information being challenged. 86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And the citation neded tag has once more been deleted here claiming that no citation is needed. This goes against WP:VERIFY

86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the article's talk page that Interferometrist has been referring to. Instead of trying to get Interferometrist sanctioned for edit warring (which you're also guilty of if they are), you should keep on discussing it on the article's talk page. Also, Interferometrist, by what I see, did not protect the page or request its protection. It was done by another editor. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the user/pagelinks for convenience, by the way.

• 86.183.175.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Interferometrist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vacuum tube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Zakhalesh (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. But I was just about to request the page protection (actually I should have done so a while back when we had another edit war over terminology) when someone with less patience for this crap went ahead and did the obvious thing. As far as no {CN} being needed, I invited reactions on the talk page. Anyone can thus reinstate it (but if it's done by DieSwartzPunkt I will revert that too, as he well knows). Interferometrist (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw your intent to request page protection and was prepared to decline it if it was a request for semi. Content disputes need to be worked out on the talk page, not in edit summaries, not in revert wars, and not here on this ANI page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I surely agree with you about settling content disputes on the talk page. I did adress the content there when this initially arose, but it went way beyond content when this person continued to waste our time rather than seriously listening to what he was being told. This case was more clear-cut, by the way, than the previous case where you DID (briefly) grant semi-protection to this page when he was also wasting our time over a different linguistic concern (this person has been on a long crusade to rid WP of American English in favor of British English, but automatically assumes that any term he hasn't heard must be "American" -- as I've disproved -- and begins an edit war with that petty motivation).

He even admits that he didn't understand the issue initially but then invents a different and PURELY LINGUISTIC issue: that two words which are synonyms (in the context) are not to be interchanged because HE had never heard of one. There are 134 editors watching this page and none of them felt that his {CN} was needed when I invited anyone else to revert my removal of the tag if they felt it was needed (although someone did finally add references at that position to shut him up, but those actually detract from the article where the use of the term was incidental to the purpose of the discussion). The wording he felt so strongly about removing as "unsourced" had been in the article since 2005 as "high-gain" until some time ago when I overhauled portions of the article I made it more precise: "high voltage gain," both of which meant "high mu," a more technical (and obscure) term which is synonymous with "voltage gain" (and I include both terms in the recent versions).

I'm not interested in this particular issue so much as being able to edit without defining every little term that one person fails to have heard of. A NORMAL person (who isn't out to pick an edit war) will go educate themselves or at least discuss their concerns on the talk page (constructively) rather than spending one minute adding a tag just to waste other people's time (the purpose of adding citations is to back up FACTS, not language usage when the article isn't about linguistics). If I spend an hour (or 2 or 3) editing an article to make Wikipedia better, then I'm happy with what I have done and feel my time was well spent. If I spend an hour (or more!) dealing with disruptive behaviour by this or other anonymous editors trying to pick a fight, my time has been wasted. For the sake of Wikipedia, editing good content shouldn't have to involve this sort of hassle and I'd be happier if every editor were forced to take responsibility for their entire history of edits, not just the ones that you can trace to the IP address they've been using for the last week :-( Interferometrist (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note Page was already protected by admin EncMstr before this report was filed. (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:68.194.239.60 reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: 2 weeks)

Anonymous user (IP address of 68.194.239.60) is causing problems on several articles including Puerto Rican people, Dominican immigration to Puerto Rico‎, and Puerto Ricans in the United States‎. User is apparent sockpuppet of banned editor User:Afrodr. Others editors such as User:SamEV have reverted edits and and have pointed the fact that user is posting unbased claims with no concrete evidence. I require some help here on what to do as I have reverted an article three times, but do not want to cross the 3RR rule. Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note Blocked for two weeks by admin Elockid.[17] (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have reverted all his unconstructive edits. he apparently cursed me out on my talk page, but that was removed by an administrator keeping an eye on the situation/--XLR8TION (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Traditha reported by User:SQGibbon (Result: Discussion moved to ANI)

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

• 1st revert: [19]
• 2nd revert: [20]
• 3rd revert: [21]
• 4th revert: [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
In addition to the 3RR warning and the article's Talk page I made the following attempts to engage the editor in discussion: 1 2 3 4

I also sought help from the WP:SOAPS community here

The edits this person is making are entirely unsourced, made up of original research, completely in-universe, and notability hasn't been established. Not only are Wikipedia guidelines not being followed but even the soap opera project's guidelines are being ignored (here).

I've also left messages in my edit summaries: 1 2 3

It was a different editor who initially trimmed the article down here

I know that I'm guilty of edit-warring myself but I was really trying to get the editor to engage in discussion and honestly trying keep the article from being unencyclopedic. Thus far the editor has refused to even acknowledge my attempts at discussion or even leave any kind of edit summary. SQGibbon (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note Looks like admin intervention is needed, as you've got multiple issues going on here, with possible tag teaming/sock puppetry at work from Big BLA (talk · contribs). According to the talk page of User talk:Traditha and the article talk page, you've tried to engage this user in discussion since February 2011 with no success. More to the point, the user has made 205 edits to articles and zero edits to user or talk pages.[25] Based on the evidence, I think User:Traditha requires a block for failing to respond to repeated queries, for refusing to work collaboratively with other editors, and for edit warring and introducing OR to Wikipedia. I also recommend an SPI on Big BLA and Traditha. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Should this be closed and then I report it to ANI? SQGibbon (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe report it to ANI first? Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've basically copied my report here over to ANI. Thanks for the advice. SQGibbon (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:212.124.170.220 reported by User:John (Result: 24h)

Page: 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.124.170.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Adds material

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:212.124.170.220

No recent talk page discussion, but the article has long been subject to shall we say nationalistic editing. I just added this to try to resolve the situation but I am reluctant to get involved in a discussion if this user is just going to revert their preferred version ad infinitum. I'd like this anon editor to get a block or a stern warning about edit-warring. Obviously I am not able to do it as I reverted the addition once. --John (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment As far as I can tell from the diffs, the IP was warned about edit warring at 19:20 on their talk page just after making their third revert. However, they ignored the warning and made a fourth revert at 20:20. The IP has been edit warring with two other users. Although Wikipedia culture frowns upon commenting on content, I don't subscribe to that POV. Looking at the edits in question, it appears that a compromise is possible, such that both edits can be combined. I say this, because the IP's source (BBC News) mentions an "Italian defence ministry" report which may also be included in the UNEP report. A compromise is therefore possible such that both POV can be presented. The NGO in question, "l'Association nationale des familles des victimes des Forces armées" (ANAVAFAF) may or may not be notable, I don't know. But the fact remains, the IP is using a secondary source from 2007 to make their claims while the competing editors are using a primary from 2002. Granted, a pressure group isn't the best source for medical claims, but the BBC News report mentions at least one other study. I think the IP's point can be preserved if it is rewritten to adhere closer to the source and attribute the claim to "Anavafaf". If this is not possible, then use the talk page to explain why not. However, it is clear that the IP was wrong to attribute the claim to a nebulous entity referred to as "European non-governmental groups" when the source clearly says "Anavafaf", and to specifically claim that the use of weapons with cancer-causing depleted uranium was the cause of their deaths when that is not known or actually claimed by the source in question. If these speculative claims rise to the level of significant source coverage, then they should be added in a neutral manner. If not, they should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 3RR violation, and this edit summary is unacceptable - even if POVs can be combined. Administrator John is reminded not to use the rollback tool is a dispute. If the IP evades the block, feel free to request protection on my talk page or at RFPP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Financeguy222 reported by User:Insider201283 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Amway Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Financeguy222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:1. It would be appreciated if you could revert the page to the version with my hard work if any blocks are added! 2. I placed a 3RR warning on FG222's page, he removed it[37].

--Insider201283 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Charges of conflict of interest aside, the user is engaging in little constructive talk and blanket reverting. The way to handle a conflict of interest this is surely not, especially after requests to do otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:AndresHerutJaim reported by User:Owain the Ist (Result: 1 week)

This editor has continually reverted well sourced information without any discussion or excuse.He has done it again and again in the following articles and others.

[38]1

[39]2

[40]3

[41]4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike: :Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Owain the 1st Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cannot see that they do actually as you never reported the guy responsible for vandalism and I did.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Others have complained about him reverting/editing stuff without reason as well. [42]1 [43]2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Andres has been blocked for a week I believeOwain the 1st (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Adotrde reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: PP)

Page: Robb Thompson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 09:06, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Speaking and networking */ restoring info with citation")
2. 10:20, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424832589 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) What? Read about Streaming Faith -- most definitely relaible and notable")
3. 10:37, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424835602 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) "Revert-wars do not help build consensus" Before reverting, please post on the talk page...sthg I have been doing.")
4. 14:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "added two new refs from City News Singapore (one refs him as speaking to business group, one includes info on talking to govs) / added one new ref from The Christian Post")

• Diff of warning: here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44], [45]

Comments:

• These edits amount to an on-going effort to peddle the notion that Thompson is an advisor to business and government leaders. I have added {{fv}} to the source originally provided for this claim and have made a case that alternatives provided do not satisfy WP:RS. The fourth removal of {{fv}} subsequent to a 3RR notice today puts this editor into >3RR territory, and a block is warranted to reinforce the message that the talk page -- not repeated edits -- should be used to form consensus for this sort of change.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I changed the sources; I didn't believe I was reverting. Just because one editor disagrees with me on whether a source is reliable or not (one of which is KTBN-TV and the other Streaming Faith (the world's largest online faith based broadcasting portal)). OK, the editor disagreed on both of those sources, so to save ourselves from ongoing back and forth, I researched and found new sources and instead of "no citation given" which Nomoskedasticity added, I replaced them with the new citations. I've been referencing everything I was doing on the talk page. I really don't see what I did wrong? If I was simply reverting him, I understand, but I wasn't. I only undid him once (without editing the article) because I felt my sources were genuine and he didn't discuss it on the talk page (I asked him to discuss it on the talk page in my edit summary when reverting). Adotrde (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Adotrde, I get the sense, as a fairly new user, you aren't familiar with the WP:BLP policy. Is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected The fourth edit isn't really a revert. However, there is definitely a dispute on the article, so I am protecting it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Stale Unfortunately, this report is three days old (although it was reported at the time of the edit warring), and I see edit warring on both sides. However, if you wish to report a user for tendentious editing (e.g., improperly removing {{fv}} tags), by all means I recommend taking the issue to WP:ANI. However, I highly recommend to both sides to be wary of a) edit warring, b) the WP:BRD cycle, and c) WP:BLP. Editors are warned that blocks may be placed in the future for violation of any of these principles, even if 3RR is not specifically broached. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:3456truth reported by User:GabrielF (Result: Protected)

Page: American Israel Public Affairs Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3456truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 13:43 April 20th [46]

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]
• 5th revert: [51]
• 6th revert: [52]
• 7th revert: [53]
• 8th revert: [54]
• 9th revert: [55]
• 10th revert: [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57] I should have gone to the talk page earlier in this process, but I referred to 3RR when I did.[58]. Additionally, I brought the situation up at the NPOV noticeboard.[59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60][61][62]

Comments:

• Page protected Editors on both sides breached WP:3RR here, but I believe page protection will facilitate the discussion that has started here more than handing out blocks will. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by Pi (Talk to me! ) (Result: 24 h)

Page: Passover Seder Plate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 19:47, 21 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by 99.32.190.213")
2. 19:59, 21 April 2011 (edit summary: "you don't get to inject your own opinions here")
3. 20:46, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "rv again")
4. 20:47, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie")
5. 20:51, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie")

Note, User:Ohnoitsjamie, being an admin has blocked the IP who made the edits he was reverting

—Pi (Talk to me! ) 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a clear cut case of repeat NPOV editing. I gave him plenty of warnings, which were ignored. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The way I interpreted the edits (yesterday and today) is that firstly 69... removed a paragraph and put a POV edit summary in, and rightfully you restored it. However, it's the 4 times that you removed the word minority without going to the talk page, or going to the user talk page with an attempt to find mutually satisfying wording (for example specifying specific Jewish groups which do or don't use the orange) which I think is poor form for an experienced admin. In my opinion, just because an editor has a POV and is changing the meaning of a paragraph it doesn't mean that the original paragraph was neutral, or even more neutral than the IP's edits. Pi (Talk to me! ) 21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I find the edit warring entirely unacceptable. ONJ only left boilerplate messages on the IP talk page, didn't bother to use the real talk page, and used the rollback tool. If I am to treat ONJamie as any other user, I would block him for 24 hours, and reduce the block time on the IP (the IP is using such language as "arbitration" which clearly shows the IP is aware of Wikipedia policies, and thus 3RR). But frankly, I don't feel like dealing with another shitfest on my talk page, so I'll just leave my comment and recommendation for a few hours and wait to see if another administrator responds. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• I am somewhat suspicious with the IPs first edit here, removing the whole section that was later warred over with the edit summary "(This is an abomination and a disgrace to Jewish culture.)". If someone started a long dispute with that and I was an uninvolved admin I might react as Jamie did here. However, I don't know if he was uninvolved or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• If we're going to assume that this was the administrator mistaking the edits for POV pushing to the point of disruption, then a) we should reprimand the administrator for not paying attention, as the last 4 changes were not outright POV pushing, and frankly the behavior wasn't bad at all, and b) either block both of them or unblock the IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that while the initial edit by the IP that blanked the paragraph was unacceptable POV, subsequent edits were more reasonable (as far as I know making a rash POV edit doesn't mean you can't subsequently make an edit in a better way, as the IP did). ONJ made 5 revisions, with the last 4 being to basically remove the term "minority", which may be more accurate than the original text (I don't feel I know enough about the issue to say which version I prefer). Although ONJ says he gave warnings, all these warnings were simply the template warnings, and I'd have thought he could just as easily have tried to discuss the wording on the talkpage. I'm also not convinced that removing the word "minority" is less POV than putting it in. It would appear to me that two editors who disputed whether or not the word "minority" should appear in the sentence repeatedly reverted each other until the one who was an admin blocked the other for 3RR (while making 4 reverts himself). Pi (Talk to me! ) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jamie seems to be mistaken in his edits here. This is not POV pushing as a quick check online and in the source quoted in the article shows the oranges are not really catching on. It is not vandalism either. I think they should both be blocked for edit warring, or the IP should be unblocked. Since no 3RR warnings were issued to the IP and they did not discuss on the talk page, I would suggest unblocking the IP. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops there is a wee conversation on the talk page; Jamie says if you continue to remove it you'll be blocked. But the IP did not continue to remove it. He changed the wording. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jamie has not edited for three hours so this might have to wait till morning to be resolved. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered this before from an admin, who I locked an article on. It's entirely unacceptable to act this way. It's either negligence in not bothering to read any of the four diffs while fighting vandalism, or it's intentionally disregarding the rules. i stlll think that a) a block on the IP was appropriate, and b) a block on the admin would also be appropriate, unless ONJ comes clean and can admit fault where it lies. Self-criticism is a vitally important tool in all of life . And meting out justice blindly, without regard for someone's title, is also important (thus, if the IP also were to come clean, I would say an unblock be appropriate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought "being right" (in the absence of reverting vandalism) wasn't a defense to edit-warring. Is that not right? Regardless of Jamie's reason for the revert (if it wasn't reverting vandalism) and whether or not he engaged in talk or left appropriate messages... didn't he break 3RR? If so, why wouldn't he being treated like any other editor breaking 3RR? DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This is after consideration that

• the evidence shows that Ohnoitsjamie has edit-warred,
• the preceding discussion shows that other editors agree about this,
• Ohnoitsjamie as an administrator is presumed not to need warnings about the edit-warring policy,
• of the five edits Ohnoitsjamie reverted, only the first was vandalism (removing lots of sourced text for no clear reason) and thus exempt from the prohibition against edit-warring, while the subsequent four ([63], [64], [65] and [66]) were not vandalism but reflected a content disagreement,
• Ohnoitsjamie did not avail themselves of the opportunity presented by this report to revert themselves, and
• Ohnoitsjamie's blocking of the IP editor they edit-warred with is a clear abuse of administrator tools, which were used to win the content dispute and the edit war.

I am not unblocking the IP because they edit-warred as well and have not made an unblock request. Because blocks of administrators tend to be controversial, I am submitting this block for review at WP:ANI#WP:AN3.  Sandstein  13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein, for taking on this potentially controversial work. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think Jamie bit a newbie (69.116.44.219 (talk · contribs)) pretty badly, in addition to the edit warring. I left a note on 69.116's talk page. It also seemed excessive that Jamie used a block template that doesn't explain how to request an unblock. The person had no clue about how to act in a content dispute, but was IMHO not a vandal. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Opinion I posted this here because I thought it should be brought to the attention of the admin community for discussion (and because they know rules/procedures/consensus better than I do). Although I agree (and proposed) that ONJ was out of order breaking 3RR and blocking a newbie he was in an edit war with without trying to resolve the issue through appropriate methods, I want to voice some general criticism of the block. I agree that in principle the rules on 3RR should apply equally whether the user is an anonymous newcomer or an admin with 100,000 edits as ONJ is, however I question the logic of imposing a 24h ban on an admin in ONJ's position. My understanding of the block policy is that it is not supposed to be punitive but rather to prevent disruption/vandalism of the encyclopaedia. I don't really see how blocking ONJ for a day is going to improve the encyclopaedia since a) The edit war is over b) ONJ will be aware of 3RR and having a reprimand or warning from other admins would probably serve to remind him to be more careful in the future about identifying POV pushing. I think that we as a community should either trust someone with admin tools and accept that they are a reasonable and beneficial editor or we shouldn't (I am not calling into question ONJ's general ability or conduct) and find it a bit of a contradiction that the result of this incident is to say that we don't think ONJ would make useful contributions in the next day but we think that tomorrow he'll be a highly trusted member of the community again, worthy of admin tools. I would also like to make clear to ONJ that I didn't report the incident here so as to grind an axe or call for him to be blocked, rather I wanted to note my objection to his conduct and have some other admins comment and decide the appropriate outcome. Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

  It's all well and good to say a block shouldn't be applied for bad behavior, but any horse and buggy driver without the bite of a whip is going nowhere. The same applies in human circles; if the law is not enforced, it is almost always ignored. ONJ has been asked before to stop things (as shown at the corresponding WP:ANI thread), without effect. My universal experience on Wikipedia has been that endless warnings for behavior do nothing if not eventually enforced with a block. Otherwise people don't get the idea that they're not above the rules. A block is thus most certainly preventative, IMHO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:216.120.248.83 (Result: User:216.120.248.83 blocked for 24 hours; reverting multiple editors )

Page: List of The Glades episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.120.248.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74] Editor has thus far ignored the discussion, and prefers to discuss via edit summary

Comments:
I may be starting this too soon, but it seems to me we're pretty clear-cut here: this IP editor popped up roughly 24 hours ago to install one particular edit on a small number of television list articles where it had recently been removed. His editing style is aggressive, and until he met with some resistance on the article in question, did not provide an edit summary for any of his edits. He ignored the discussion on the article's talk page on his last revert, and appears unwilling to work to consensus. He has four warnings on his talk page, to which he has not responded, and which have no effect except to possibly make him more aggressive in his editing (he's subsequently reverted comparable edits on a number of other pages). Some stronger action is needed to get his attention and get his editing on track.

The basis for the reverts of his edits is straightforward: MOS:HASH is unequivocal that the № symbol should never be used to replace the word number in text, and that # should be used under limited conditions. There has been widespread recent addition of №/# to separate columns in television article lists that contain the episode number and life-of-series number of episodes. Aside from the MOS issue, their use is nonsensical: they simply tell the reader that each column contains numbers, but not what the numbers mean. Use of this numbering style has consistently been removed in GA and FA articles, and I along with a couple other editors, have attempted to replace them with meaningful labels as we encounter them, brooking resistance from two editors more concerned with how the lists appear on their particular monitors than with a label that is meaningful to an encyclopedic standard. (See discussion at Talk:List of Covert Affairs episodes)

I have concerns this may be a sockpuppet of a registered editor, but no foundation to pursue it beyond a suspicion. However, this IP is far to knowledgeable about reference articles, FA and other elements of Wikipedia for an editor on board for barely 24 hours. Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bradford Guitar Boy reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result:Blocked 72 hours )

Page: Bradford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bradford Guitar Boy (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]

Comments:This is the third time this editor has been referred here for inserting this piece of text. He utterly refuses to go with talk page consensus which has included an RfC. This follows the Bradford page being locked for two weeks(on his version).--Charles (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 72 hours - 3rd tme = 3 days to think about it. Should there be further addition against consensus, then a page ban may be in order, such page ban being logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:76.232.253.45 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: already semi-protected)

Page: Armenian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.232.253.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [82]
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3rd revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]
• Edit that he keeps reverting [86]

--Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected by Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Avanu (Result:No action; 3RR was not violated)

Page: Pauline mysticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pauline_mysticism&diff=425610901&oldid=425533937
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pauline_mysticism&diff=425671697&oldid=425665619
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pauline_mysticism&diff=425707612&oldid=425692980

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Edit_Warring_at_Pauline_mysticism

(The other editor, Crews Giles, has also been notified to be careful not to edit war.)

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

Comments:
Looks like editor Crews Giles was trying to PROD the article and Richard decided to remove the tag without comment. Crews seems to be providing lots of discussion on the Talk page, and Richard provided no explanation for initial revert, then proceeded to use his original revert as justification for later 2 reverts. Also appears that Crews has asked Richard to provide some discussion on why he is making these changes and Richard is not responsive. -- Avanu (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: A PROD can be removed at any time by any editor, and should not be reverted. It would be nice if there were a discussion, but it's not required. I've re-removed the PROD since an editor objects. The next step should be in filing an WP:AFD. Dayewalker (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't need three reverts to 'edit war'. And additionally, its kind of poor sportsmanship to mess with the content in favor of one side or another when this is being discussed here. -- Avanu (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Three reverts does not cross the line. (Dayewalker, we must have edit conflicted, because actually I re-removed the PROD. :) I've explained the policy to the tagger.) Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No editor "objected". Simply removing an edit without explanation doesn't signify what the edit is for. That is the problem here. An editor making pushy changes over and over without explaining himself, while the other editor is asking for comment in the Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy does not require an explanation; it says "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, you understand that the page you refer to is not "policy", but a guideline. And in line with overall guidelines on Wikipedia, there is 'community' and 'consensus'. Anyone is allowed to object to the PROD, but we end up in silly territory if we say that people *SHOULD NOT* explain their actions to other editors. In fact, the majority of community guidelines say we *SHOULD* explain when we do things, that is what the Edit Summary is for. So, despite it being 'approvable', it is not at all in line with community/collaborative editing. -- Avanu (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're mistaken. The page is appropriately tagged "policy" at the top: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Whether it is in line with community/collaborative editing or not, it is not required to give an explanation for removing a PROD tag (although it is recommended); it is, however, forbidden to restore the tag when it is removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Did I somehow ask this to be a 3RR review? Because I thought it said 'edit warring'. Hmmm. -- Avanu (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to take it up at WP:ANI if you disagree with my administrative decision. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not possible for me to disagree, because I never claimed that RAN violated 3RR. You closed this after continually arguing that with me, when that wasn't even my assertion in the first place. -- Avanu (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a peculiar perspective on events. I'm an uninvolved administrator declining to take action on a noticeboard. I am not arguing with you and have not been arguing with you, unless you count pointing out your obvious error in describing WP:PROD as a "guideline" as arguing. Nobody crossed the 3RR threshold, and there is no edit war on this article...now. Richard should not have removed the PROD notice repeatedly, but should have explained to the other contributor that he was in good faith violating policy by restoring it. The PROD notice is appropriately removed, and there is nothing to do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

By 'argue', I was meaning debate, although argue does express a more acrimonious situation. My mistake there. My reason for bringing this here was to encourage Mr. Norton to communicate with other editors, as he has a bad habit of making sometimes controversial or unexplained edits and moving on. You framed it as a 3RR (which it was not), rather than as an Edit War (which it was), and then summarily dismissed it (correctly, if one assumed it was 3RR, which it wasn't). Since you dealt with it this way, it is hard to say that anything positive was accomplished beyond letting Crews Giles know not to edit war also. But since I already notified him, and he was communicating and looking for answers already, it doesn't solve the other side of this problem. -- Avanu (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I note that it was not a 3RR is because a 3RR is the bright line for blocking, unless the reversion is exempted. Nobody crossed that threshhold. A block to prevent disruption at this article might be appropriate if edit warring were ongoing or, even if not, in some other circumstances, but the fact is that Richard Norton was right that he is entitled to remove the PROD notice without explanation and that, once it is removed, it is not to be restored. Blocking him for not communicating when policy is behind him is not likely to encourage him to engage more collegially in the future. I spoke to him about communication at the time I addressed this listing. If you think that more is needed, your best bet is probably to pursue other means of dispute resolution, such as WP:RfC/U. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would hope that blocking isn't the only (or even advisable) option in such a situation. I don't care to see anyone blocked if we can help it. I just want editors to take a moment to communicate if the situation needs it. -- Avanu (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:76.67.18.192 reported by User:Aditya Kabir (Result: No violation)

Page: South Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:76.67.18.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [87]
• 2nd revert: [88]
• 3rd revert: [89]
• 4th revert: [90]
• 5th revert: [91]
• 6th revert: [92]

Comment This anon keeps reverting a simple sentence from the lead of the article. When asked for reasons this person goes on to very complicated logic fogging and starts serious personal attacks. This person is so immune to discussion that on the article talk page his/her most reply so far was pure bullying, which is further enhanced by edit summaries. in a bit more than two days time the same thing was reverted 6 times, four in less than 24 hours. No use warning this person, as the anon is threatening me with the three revert rule on the article talk page. A a very stupid wheel war and a very nasty stance, if I may say so. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see four reversions within 24 hours, maybe I'm just missing it. I see both of you sitting at three reverts in that period. If it continues, we can fully protect the page, or we can block both of you. It might be wise to seek other opinions or at least limit yourselves to the talk page. Kuru (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir reported by User:76.67.18.192 (Result: no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Also note:

• Additional revert: [97]

Please note that the links provided by AK demonstrate edits over a multiday period, amidst discussion, regarding a content dispute: namely, a point regarding the undue weight of indicating that South Asia and Indian subcontinent are unequivocally the same, which is already dealt with in a lower section of the article ('sometimes'). Another editor first discarded them as 'ip nonsense'.[98] This editor, in his revert warring, removed mine and other's edits in the 1st revert noted, and has not otherwise addressed points discussed on the talk page, comments obtusely, and simply proceeds to belittle, call names (referring me to a 'brain' essay, and mockingly referring to me as 'dear', and 'gurudeva' on talk page), level accusations, and babble with less-than-par English fluency. I suspect the editor is a South Asian (directly or indirectly) who is attempting to insinuate a political stance about the propriety and equivalency of using 'South Asia' instead of 'Indian subcontinent'. No matter -- the droning passive-aggression of this editor is vexing. This editor has apparently also morphed and POV-pushed these notions at 'Indian subcontinent' in a similar manner over months, advocating the merging of the articles and doing so long ago without consensus or process[99]; observe article history. And, so, further discussion with this editor seems futile. It is also ironic (but unsurprising) that the editor indicates I was warningthreatening him about 3RR, and then reports me for doing so. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See that thing flying in your vicinity? Could be a boomerang... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Two reverts without an intervening edit from another user count as one. Your "bonus" revert is out of the time window. Please see my note above and consider this a final warning for both of you. Kuru (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly did you post the same link twice? To make it look like different edits? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Box2112 (Result: stale)

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

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

• 1st revert: [100]
• 2nd revert: [101]
• 3rd revert: [102]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:

I'm not an American, so I don't really understand your politics. But I was reading a political blog last week (I didn't save the url - sorry) and found an attack on Wikipedia for bias, instancing the "political" section of the Astroturfing article. A quick look at the section indicated only Republican party was mentioned, which looked dodgy. A look at the talk page revealed long-term concerns by various editors. So I added the POV-section tag, and added a suggestion as to how to move forward. I can't fix the section, of course -- don't know enough about US politics! --; but marking it with the tag will defuse criticism.

The tag was reverted three times by Xenophrenic, without any attempt at discussion. It looks from the talk page as if he is the person responsible for the bias, and there might be a violation of WP:OWN as well. Can someone please deal with him? A POV tag encouraging people to address a perceived issue is probably the right approach. Deleting the tag does not sound right. Box2112 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The tag was inappropriate, if you know of instances of "the other side" engaging in astroturf, please add it! Otherwise, the POV tag is mute as you're asking to add information which nobody can verify exists. I've removed the tag. Also, this is not a 3rr violation, and no warning was left on the user talk page. BelloWello (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is the tag inappropriate? Whether something is POV is not dependent on whether I try to resolve the POV.

Not sure where the other stuff comes from: I didn't assert that it was a 3rr violation, but editwarring. And if you look at the bottom of the user talk page, you will see the warning. :-) Box2112 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with BelloWello's reasoning. Tags can be a topic to discuss, but you don't say that they invalid simply because the tagger did not fix the imbalance.North8000 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Why is the tag inappropriate?" Please see NPOV dispute "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Mojoworker (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry mate, but I need to correct the misinformation in your report here. I haven't reverted more than 3 times. I haven't reverted "without any attempt at discussion"; you'll note the instructions to "see talk" in my edit summaries, as well as the lengthy discussion on the talk page. You'll also note that I haven't edited that article in 2 days, and your edit warring has resumed against other editors. You folks can take it up with them. (This is an interesting turn of events from Box2112, who has fewer than a couple dozen edits over just a few days, and claims to have been directed here by a Wikipedia attack-site). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the situation at the article in question but have been engaged in gentle friendly arm wrestling with Xenophrenic with similar issues for months at a similar article, where "astroturfing" has been a hot topic. (Tea Party movement) But since it usually involving them using the rules to POV the article (a common tactic that works due to poorly written rules)(Unsubstantiated comment struck.) there probably aren't any explicit wp:violations (except IMO one 1RR vio. that I didn't report) because I am more interested in building a consensus to fix that mess of an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Struck a part of my comment. It was it was taken as being overly harsh which means that it was overly harsh. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment struck by North8000 for being completely unsubstantiated, not "overly harsh", per WP:WQA resolution. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact what is the point of a tag, if it can only be added when someone fixes the problem? (after which it is unnecessary). I think perhaps BelloWello was addressing which side of the argument he felt was wrong, not whether an editwar was in progress? It's curious to see how the rules are used on wikipedia. Even when they are clear. Box2112 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating to see Xenophrenic, Mojoworker and BelloWello working in tandem. It seems that some people have a pretty desperate need to keep this section saying what it says, it seems. I think we've established WP:POV pretty clearly; and who the guilty parties are... :) Box2112 (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR, obviously, and no evidence of an imminent continuation of edit-warring. This seems stale at this point as the conversation and editing of that page have moved well past that spat. Kuru (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic has carried this to my talk page, saying that my posts in this section are a "personal attack". This may not be over yet. North8000 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:75.64.77.105 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: page protected)

Page: Alvin Plantinga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.64.77.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 18:03, 15 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* External links */ added link to paper")
2. 03:57, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424245523 by Hrafn (talk)")
3. 03:57, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424245412 by Hrafn (talk)")
4. 01:38, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424638844 by Hrafn (talk)")
5. 15:49, 25 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424245523 by Hrafn (talk) this is noteworthy Plantinga")

• Diff of warning: here
• Additional warning on WP:EL: here

Comments: Not a 3rr, but a clear edit war. This doesn't seem to be letting up, and it would be good to handle before a PP if possible. Thanks.

—  — Jess· Δ♥ 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Probably not the version you wanted, but that's the horse you're given. Please see if you can draw the IP on to the discussion page; or at least sort it out with NBeale who reverted to the IP's edit. Kuru (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:217.39.85.243 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Derry City F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.39.85.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]
• 4th revert: [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Derry City F.C.#Ulster Banner

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Pretty textbook. Kuru (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:188.138.72.121 reported by Nableezy (Result: Range block)

Page: Palestinian nationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 188.138.72.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 17:48, 25 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 17:59, 25 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 425858728 by Nableezy (talk)")
3. 18:58, 25 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

All articles in Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are subject to a 1 revert rule (the rule does not apply to reverts of edits made by IPs, see here. This IP has now reverted 3 times. The IP is also the subject of an open SPI. nableezy - 19:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This back and forth is fun and all, but surely one should be made aware of here before they are sanctioned for it?! Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.138.72.121 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You were told of the restriction prior to your 3rd revert, and the template says "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense." nableezy - 19:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Told by who? You? I had no idea what you were blabbering on about. Not evyerone has been here for 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.138.72.121 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP's range got blocked as an anonymising proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Box2112 reported by User:BelloWello (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Astroturfing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Box2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

• 1st revert: [111]
• 2nd revert: [112]
• 3rd revert: [113]
• 4th revert: [114]

Update: 5th revert [115] and 6th revert [116] both added in the last hour.

Reverts after this report was already made:

• 5th revert: [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a, user is well aware of 3RR limitations as is evident by his reporting another editor above.

Comments:

User reported had reported another user for "edit waring" above, which currently has "no action," however, the user had not reverted more than three times. Seeing the editor's report above, I made my first (and only edit to the page) removing the unnecessary tag. User:Box2112 made his fifth edit adding the tag, the fourth such revert following my action. As evident by his reprot, User:Box2112 knows our edit warring policy and brazenly ignored it. BelloWello (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the tag is unnecessary, and feel it should stay there until the situation is resolved, or at least for now. A tag is not a big deal. Tags are supposed to be on articles to draw people to discuss issues on the talk page, which is exactly what Box2112 is doing now, so please assume good faith. Will leave this open for a second opinion. - filelakeshoe 19:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I already removed it again after adding the information that Box2112 requested and because WP:NPOVD says "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." You can put it back in if you'd like. I did an extensive search for any reliable source representing an opposing view and came up empty. Then did another extensive search and found an Indiana University study of astroturfing (that has several published papers based upon it) citing several egregious examples of astroturfing on Twitter and all of them are promoting the same political side. There may be a reason the article seems to have a POV, since counter-examples seem to be scarce or non-existent. I've spent far too many hours on that article today and I need to get some real work done... But, I find it a bit strange that for someone who's been here only four days and has just 20 article edits, User:Box2112 seems to be a pretty good Wikilawyer. Mojoworker (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mojoworker, that sounds like the right sort of thing to be doing (and the sort of thing I had in mind originally -- I'm not a Yank, you know, so I *can't* actually do it myself, and don't care about your politics anyway). I think we have to face it -- the article DOES look POV. So what can be done? What I felt (and suggested) was that, if so, we need to come right out and say "this is something only done by (whoever ... you tell me the right wording)" and reference it reliably. Or perhaps say "the study by XYZ could only find examples of astroturfing by ABC". The great thing about that is that the latter is a fact. It can't be POV to say that. Wouldn't that cover the issue? Box2112 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe, that's fine if you disagree with me, however, you are not supposed to violate 3RR even if you are right. Hence, regardless of WHAT he was edit warring over and who was right, the fact remains that knowingly he crossed the bright red line called 3RR. BelloWello (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very nasty. I have not reverted anyone's edit. I have merely readded mine. And isn't [[WP:3RR] three reverts in 24 hours? Even then I have not done this (and nor has Xenophrenic, which is why I didn't say it). And Xenophrenic deleted the link to this page from the talk page.... Now BelloWello attacks me -- not the edit-warrers! Nasty. But I think BelloWello must be a sockpuppet. WHy would anyone care enough to attack a stranger otherwise? Box2112 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and stop making accusations of sock puppetry. BelloWello (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How cute. Perhaps if you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA you might be spending less time harassing me with false accusations -- you HAVE been a busy boy this evening! --, and more on fixing the article? Box2112 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

retracted, terribly sorry. Monty₈₄₅ 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• That is not me. That is more violations by the person I reported. I have only edited that article once. BelloWello (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours As noted above, editor was not warned but seems to be well aware of 3RR evidenced by his report above. Kuru (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:BelloWello (Result: page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: Varies.

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

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

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

Comments:

Fairly clear cut case. BelloWello (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello (talk) would be in violation as well as the user has made the same amount of reverts. 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Fountainviewkid 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits were not reversions. I made actual edits and changed them each time you tried to take it to your preferred version. Sorry! BelloWello (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you keep moving away from his version, it still counts, even if you make different changes each time. WP:BOOMERANG Monty₈₄₅ 22:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen that in policy, I was under the impression that anything anyone wrote could be edited further, a reversion would imply going back to a previous version which my edits did not. BelloWello (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." By changing the content away from the version the other editor is trying to push, you are undoing their work. Monty₈₄₅ 22:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Undoing is defined as "To reverse the effects of an action," so I guess it depends how you define "reverse," when I think reverse, I think take back to a previous version, but if that's not wikipedia's interpretation, then I apologize and would appreciate an explanation. BelloWello (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

By your own definition, undoing is to reverse the effect of an action. When another editor removed your masturbation language from the article, and you added it again elsewhere, you are reversing the action of it being removed from the article. Monty₈₄₅ 22:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reversing its practical effect, but I don't think I am technically reversing it under 3RR. Plus, the way I added it was different each time. The editors had not expressed concern with the mention of masturbation, just with the way it was done so I was trying to find a workable solution while trying to discuss the issue on the talk page. BelloWello (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you see four actual reversions, please bring them forward. BelloWello (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) As I was trying to post before you deleted this entire report in an attempt to dodge a boomerang, ::::12345 reverts. Monty₈₄₅ 22:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The last three are not reverts, in that the language used had never been used before. If I am wrong in this interpretation, I would appreciate having an admin explain to me.. Does this then mean, that once you have edited three times on a page (which would be editing someone else's work), you may not edit anymore? In other words, if you edit after another user, but don't return to any previous text, how do you know if its a revert or just an edit? BelloWello (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe one of those doesn't count, but once the first addition of the masturbation language was reverted, your repeated addition of it, even if in other places in the article, looks like edit warring to me. Monty₈₄₅ 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The last three don't count as reverts. I counted my reverts and was careful not to make any more (of what I considered) reverts after I hit three. If my interpretation of "revert" is wrong, then please tell me how I can tell between a "reverting edit" and just a plain edit, when editing something someone added. :) BelloWello (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that they do, and even if you intended to not violate the 3rr rule, it is clear you were intentionally edit warring. The above comment makes it clear you were attempting to game the 3rr rule without getting a block. Monty₈₄₅ 22:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it gaming, just being conscientious to not violate a policy, that is all. Nobody has answered my question though, what's the difference between a "reverting edit" and a just plain edit that happens to touch someone else's content? BelloWello (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected After reviewing this mess, I share Monty's position. Fountainviewkid has clearly broken 3rr; and BelloWello has broken the intent by repeatedly inserting similar language. Since there's a robust discussion on the talk page, it seems like a better idea to protect the article for a short period instead of blocking multiple parties. It can be lifted if a consensus arises early. Kuru (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nevandc98 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24 hours block)

Page: Sonny with a Chance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nevandc98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 00:04, 26 April 2011

• 1st revert: 00:34, 26 April 2011
• 2nd revert: 02:36, 26 April 2011
• 3rd revert: 03:09, 26 April 2011
• 4th revert: 03:23, 26 April 2011
• 5th revert: 12:11, 26 April 2011 (edit summary: "Once again updated the page")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

• [124] by Kww
• [125] by AussieLegend

Comments:

It was recently announced that Demi Lovato, who plays "Sonny Munroe", would not be returning for a third season of Sonny with a Chance and the program would now focus on the "show within a show" called "So Random!". However, no episodes of "So Random!" have aired discussion about changing the article's name has raised the point that the convention is to retain the original name) Today Nevandc98 changed several instances of "Sonny with a Chance" to "So Random!" The edits also included addition of unsourced content, partial removal of a citation (giving the appearance of random content in the infobox), replacing valid links with redlinks and original research. This was reverted by Kww.[126] The content was then restored by Nevandc98 and again reverted by Kww, who also posted a note to Nevandc98's talk page. Nevandc98 again restored the content. Twenty minutes later I reverted it, posted a warning on his talk page and then expanded that with a further explanation as to why the content was inappropriate.[127] During the time that I was editing his talk page (I'm not a quick typer) he restored the content again.[128] I then left a 3RR warning on his talk page. Nevandc98 responded with this and then proceded to restore some of the content that had previously been removed in the reversion of his edits. This included partial removal of the citation and addition of unsourced content and original research.[129] After this I notified him of his 3RR breach, explained other aspects of his edits that made them inappropriate, and suggested he should revert as a possible way of avoiding a 3RR block.[130] Although he was still online, he made no attempt to revert. This was subsequently done by another editor.[131] Nevandc98 made no further edits to the page and I assumed that he had finally gotten the message. However, he then chose to make a 5th revert several hours later.[132] This has also been reverted.[133] --AussieLegend (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to pass on acting on this one for fear of tripping over WP:INVOLVED (it's a bit sad that people use that to keep administrators from watching over an area for a long period of time, BTW ... I certainly have no emotional stake in Disney creations). My concern is this: that comment makes it clear that Nevandc98 is an experienced editor, which makes it pretty likely that this four-day-old edit-warrior is evading a previous block of some kind.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Calvindixon related to this topic.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Hearfourmewesique reported by User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (Result: 3 days)

Page: Weeds (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
: Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [134]
• 2nd revert: [135]
• 3rd revert: [136]
• 4th revert: [137]
• 5th revert: [138]

• 6th revert: [139]

Added 6th revert after user had replied. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Diff 1: [141]
• Diff 2: [142]

Comments:
Editor has reinstated a allusion removed in 2009, so prev version reverted to is a little difficult. Essentially the editor insists the title "Weeds" means widows clothing, and has also restored a WP article ref to make this point, after being told it is not a RS.

• Comment by the "plaintiff": First and foremost, the "warning" came only after this report has been filed... a bit of an unfair game if you ask me. Also, I have been a bit more active in the dispute resolution: [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153]. Finally, another user has agreed that the secondary source is reliable, we still have a small misunderstanding but it's all good spirited. The editor that made the complaint only responded on the talk page after reverting me several times, then called my source "an Australian hack", made a completely bogus conclusion that the newspaper used WP as a source, removed my attempt to communicate on his talk page, and otherwise refused to remain civil after being asked to. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You've done it a sixth time after replying to this thread and getting the warning, which pretty much throws out any defense you may have had... BelloWello (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If only to somewhat mitigate the perception that my actions may have been underhanded, I did announce that I would file an ANI notice. [154] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by me: Agree with BelloWello. None of that justifies edit warring to 3R past 3RR. This is a waste of keystrokes per WP:SNOWBALL. This weak fight over a tiny, weak bit of nothing isn't worth defending and fighting for. Now it's ended up here sucking up precious human resources. If you end being complained about here, you're not helping the project. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Third brush with edit warring inside half a year. Courcelles 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:DeusExa reported by User:Msnicki (Result: Warning, Semi)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155]

• 1st revert: [156], reverting a sentence that has been in the article since Aug 7 2008, under what appears to be an alias, 169.229.82.172.
• 2nd revert: [157], as 136.152.209.246.
• 3rd revert: [158].
• 4th revert: [159].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160], [161], [162]

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

Comments:Numerous attempts have been made to request discussion, in edit summaries by me("Once again restoring a useful sentence that's been here over 1000 edits. Before undoing, please discuss on talk page.") and 66.59.249.107 ("It was here before; if you want it removed, discuss it first in the talk page."), on the article talk page and on the editor(s)' talk pages. The editor is simply refusing to discuss his edits and not even providing useful edit summaries. Moreover, there's reason to doubt the editor is acting in good faith, given that he's added a statement to the UC Berkeley that's remarkably similar to the one he insists on deleting from the Stanford article.

Msnicki (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is one big difference: the material removed from the Stanford article is without sources, and the material added to the Berkeley article has a source for each claim. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) There are no sources there, but if you follow the links to the articles for the companies listed, you will find the sources. (b) That would be a lot more interesting argument if it was was DeusExa, not you, making it. (c) There appears to be a consensus supporting having the sentence. That matters on WP. (d) I didn't write it. Msnicki (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It was just reverted again, this time by User:169.229.82.172 who reverted it once before. We are either looking at sockpuppets or else a concerted, organized effort by Cal students to sabotage the Stanford article. Sorry for not assuming good faith but the repeated ignoring of requests to discuss it make good faith unlikely. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored the sentence in question and added a source. There is now no justification for removing it, since it is sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing didn't help - DeusExa deleted the sentence again [164], without explanation, and in defiance of multiple requests to discuss or explain his/her persistent deletion of this (now sourced) sentence. I suggest this person now needs to be dealt with administratively. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that a block of DeusExa for long-term edit warring is justified. At least one of the IPs who is also reverting this material geolocates to UC Berkeley. A good-natured college rivalry at Wikipedia's expense? Time for semiprotection, I think. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: DeusExa has been warned by two different admins. The article has been semiprotected for a month, due to the problems reported above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Pmachnick reported by User:RL0919 (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [165]

• 1st revert: [166]
• 2nd revert: [167]
• 3rd revert: [168]
• 4th revert: [169]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170]

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

Comments:

Editor has added the same unsourced inflammatory material five times, and been reverted by five different editors, two of whom asked for talk page discussion in their edit summaries ([171], [172]), to no avail.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the edits were of good quality, they should have been improved, not deleted. There's no excuse to completely ignore Hickman in this article -- it is clearly deliberate whitewashing. See the WP Hickman article, ALL SOURCED: "In 1928, the writer Ayn Rand began planning a novel called The Little Street, whose hero named Danny Renahan, was to be based on "what Hickman suggested to [her]." The novel was never finished, but Rand wrote notes for it which were published after her death in the book Journals of Ayn Rand. Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."[3] Rand scholars Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Jennifer Burns both interpret Rand's interest in Hickman as a sign of her early admiration of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche, especially since she several times referred to Hickman as a "Superman" (in the Nietzschean sense).[4][5] Rand also wrote, "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."[6]"63.17.61.86 (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Silence (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [173]

• 1st revert: [174]
• 2nd revert: [175]
• 3rd revert: [176]
• 4th revert: [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (editor is well aware of WP:3RR, though regrettably less so of WP:SUBST)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178] – to be fair, Medeis (talk · contribs) has been participating in the discussion, but has since decided to revert some of the controversial material back into the article.

Comments: I think that just about covers all the bases. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the "fourth revert" is not a revert, and reflects TreasuryTag's very own suggestion: "Far be it for me to suggest a compromise, but if you are unhappy ... then you could simply add that fact in without embellishment? For instance, "The Silence appeared in The Impossible Astronaut in 2011," perhaps?" on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To be "fair" I am the one who started the relevant discussion on the talk page. What the complainant has done is wage a one man quest to have the article deleted and resorted to threats Revision as of 12:07, 25 April 2011 before making any suggestions Revision as of 12:58, 25 April 2011 on the article's talk page - an argument which he obviously didn't mean seriously, since he filed this AN3 when I followed his very suggestion. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For your information, it is a revert, because it yet again adds into the article the material which was removed four times by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) and myself between us. Nor did I suggest that you insert material stating that that was the Silence's first on-screen appearance. My compromise suggestion was simply to note that it was an appearance. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And also, I'm not sure why, because I've "waged a one-man quest to have the article deleted" (or, "started a deletion discussion about the article," as normal people say) that entitles you to violate the 3RR? ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours No objections to unblocking if Medeis indicates understanding of why that last edit was still a revert. Kuru (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note for the record that this block was graciously reversed by the blocking admin, and that neither the complaining editor nor any other party reverted the supposed "fourth reversion" which occasioned this bad faith report. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The report was accurate, you were correctly blocked, you apologized and agreed to stop editing the article [179], and you were unblocked. Please don't try and make it anything other than an application of policy. Dayewalker (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A person has a right to defend herself on the record, does she not?

In the interest of accuracy I neither apologized, nor complained that the block was not correct on technicality. Nor did I agree to stop editing the article, only quite happily not to edit it for 24 hours, during which neither the complaining editor nor any of the other dozen active edits reverted my invited fourth edit. Let me repeat that point. Neither the still active editor who invited the edit and then reported me for making it nor anyone else reverted the "offending" "reversion."

The subsequent history of the article shows the admin's faith in removing the block was fully justified. There is no need to defend administrative prerogative, it includes the decision to unblock me, and I have not questioned it.

My difficulty is only with the complaining editor, who has shown a distinct lack of ability to collaborate or engage in discussion. Rather than make such a comment on the complaining editor's talk space, I felt it best to document the relevant facts here in a neutral impersonal forum.

A person has a right to defend herself. This document will be associated with my username forever. I think what I have said is perfectly reasonable and clear, and I am not looking to engage in some sort of debate, so I will now unwatch this page and refrain from further comment.μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat that point. Neither the still active editor who invited the edit and then reported me for making it nor anyone else reverted the "offending" reversion. I hope you're not repeating the point because you think it's in any way germane or relevant. Read carefully: you may not revert more than three times on any one page within 24 hours – that's what the policy says. It doesn't say, "You may not revert more than three times on one page, unless the revert is good." So, yes, you broke the policy, it's a bright-line rule, and your argument of innocence above is completely irrelevant. Just saying. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and accusing the reportr of bad faith is a borderline personal attack unless you can substantiate the allegation. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 08:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Historiographer reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: 72 hrs)

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

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

• 1st revert: [180]
• 2nd revert: [181]
• 3rd revert: [182]
• 4th revert: [183]

By remarkable coincidence, the reverts of both Joseon Dynasty and a number of other Korea-related hot potato topics were also continued by new user [184] and new anon IP [185].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

This is an age-old dispute that has flared up again, and User:Historiographer is very well aware of its history, see looooooooong discussion at [187]. But anyway, I've raised the specific sections being disputed again on the Talk page, although my hopes of finding consensus after 6+ years of edit warring aren't too high.

Comments:

While I find the sheer intractability of this dispute and the way a few users can blatantly stonewall any progress and drive away all less obsessed parties for years highly annoying on a personal level, I will insert some ice into my hat and stop reverting. Jpatokal (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. Length of block is due to (a) the fact that Historiographer is a repeat offender with several prior 24 hr blocks for edit warring; (b) the fact that Korea-related conflicts of this sort are a perennial hotspot and should be treated as a zero-tolerance area when it comes to edit warring; (c) the fact that his reverts were indistinct blanket reverts of several intervening edits, made without comment as to what in these edits he found objectionable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Konguboy reported by User:Wiki Raja (Result:Nuked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [188]

• 1st revert: [189]
• 2nd revert: [190]
• 3rd revert: [191]
• 4th revert: [192]

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

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

Comments:

He appears to have been nuked as a sock for now. If this is overturned, we can re-open this report. Kuru (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:ThaneHeins reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [193] 22 April

• 1st revert: [194] 26 April
• 2nd revert: [195] 26 April
• 3rd revert: [196] 26 April
• 4th revert: [197] 28 April
• 5th revert: [198] 28 April
• 6th revert: [199] 28 April
• reverts done as an IP [200][201][202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203][204]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [205] (I haven't replied to his comments for obvious reasons, I have only replied in his talk page)

Comments:

He is the inventor of the machine, so he has a clear conflict of interest (WP:COI). Makes personal attack against critics in general (a section renamed to "criticism by dunces"), reveals the real life name of an anonymous critic, promotes a fringe theory, rejects mainstream assessment of the workings of his invention (claiming that he is "loading" instead of "overloading", this is important when explaining why the machine doesn't work), wants to control content of article (WP:OWN). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24hrs as the usual first-offense block, but noting this will quickly escalate to longer blocks if the same type of conduct continues afterwards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [206]

• 1st revert: [207] 12:27, 27 April 2011
• 2nd revert: [208] 9:43, 28 April 2011
• 3rd revert: [209] 9:52, 28 April 2011
• 4th revert: [210] 9:57, 28 April 2011

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Fanny_Alger and Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#.22Nature_of_reliable_sources.22 (attempts by other editors)

Comments:
John Foxe is well aware of 3RR and has been warned about it before. Giving John the benefit of the doubt, I included a warning in the edit summary when I reverted John Foxe's 3RR violation yesterday (the 1st revert above is also the 4th revert of the previous 24 hr period - [212],[213],[214],[215]). His comments on the talk page, particularly [216] [217] [218] [219], would indicate an edit warring mindset, calling editors he disagrees with "opponents", and editing with an agenda to push a particular POV and side of the debate ("that Smith's unconventional behavior, which reflects on his character and suggests his general untrustworthiness, is clearly delineated in the article") rather than reporting the debate. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see two clear instances of 3RR, but Tedder has protected the page which means there is no edit warring to prevent. If this pattern repeats after the protection expires, or if there is edit warring on another page, please report again. Kuru (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:168.103.127.39 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Song (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 168.103.127.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [220]

• 1st revert: [221]
• 2nd revert: [222]
• 3rd revert: [223]
• 4th revert: [224]
• 5th revert: [225] (note: this was under a different IP address, but both IPs have edited the same two articles with the exact same edits

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [226]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [227]

Comments: User has been adding a sentence that does not match the definition, and accusing anyone who removes it of vandalism. User has also broken 3RR at Istanbul (Not Constantinople), and is continuing to revert back to his changes (although he reworded it the last time, it is still a reversion), despite being informed of this 3RR report. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Textbook. Kuru (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Butterfly2011 reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Butterfly2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [228]

• 1st revert: [229]
• 2nd revert: [230]
• 3rd revert: [231]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233] [234]

Comments: I immediately posted a message on the user's own Talk page after the first revert, asking why he/she replaced the entire contents of the page with a much older version without explanation. I received no response. I requested semi-protection (received it) and figured the issue wouldn't recur. The user then made the same edit, leading to considerable confusion while I was away several hours ago. I reverted it again, again posted on the user's Talk page asking more sternly for him/her to stop doing this without explanation or discussion, and opened a topic on the article's discussion page asking for the user and another vandal to stop editing and discuss their proposed changes on the Talk page. This was ignored and the user again replaced the article with the outdated version, once more providing no explanation. I reverted the edit again. I'd like for admin assistance to resolve this dispute.

-Kudzu1 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudzu, I can't seem to locate a specific warning about edit warring or 3RR. Your link above simply links back to one of your reverts. Since this rule is a little non-intuitive, we need to at least inform users about it somehow before enforcing it. I agree that the editor's pattern is problematic, and the non-communication on his end is especially troubling. I've left him a warning about edit warring for now - if he does it again I will be happy to enforce. Please let another user revert him. Kuru (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The user has again done a blanket replace and continues to refuse to provide his/her rationale or contribute to discussion. I will not revert the edit myself, though I am concerned that many of the fellow editors and visitors to that page are not familiar with protocol for reverting vandalism. I have attempted to provide an explanation on the Talk page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Thank you for your patience and restraint. Kuru (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Fyrdbird reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: declined)

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fyrdbird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [235]

• 1st revert: [236]
• 2nd revert: [237]
• 3rd revert: [238]
• 4th revert: [239]
• 5th revert: [240]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [241]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [242]

Comments:
Editor is trying to insert COATRACK material about apparently obscure political figure into this article (and also doing the same at Marriage) using what seems to be primary sources of this figure's website. Warned him on his page, but he's still reverting at both articles in spite of being reverted by multiple editors. Dayewalker (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The editor being reported is a new editor. Let's not push the guy to a block. I see that you've managed to get him/her to the discussion page; you've also warned him of 3RR. Yes, he has broken 3RR already, but most probably didn't know the rule till now. The reason you reverted (correctly) was because of lack of RS. The editor in question has done a fourth revert with another source (which I will refrain from commenting on). My call would be to re-emphasize the warning, and then give the editor another chance rather than block. What say Daye? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I had left him a message at the same time you wrote this, asking him to at least self revert. He was warned about 3RR before his last edit, but may not have understood that even a modified revert is still a revert. I'd like to see if he responds. Kuru (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you. Take care. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'll always favor discussion and understanding over blocking, especially when it comes to new editors. I've got no problem with him starting to discuss, although I would appreciate him reverting his last edit so it can be discussed on the talk page. It still appears to be primary sources of questionable notability. As I've reverted twice, I won't do so again but it certainly seems to be something that should be discussed before adding. Thanks to all for the discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to have moved on, and he has not edited in a while. Objections to closing this as stale? If he re-appears and starts reverting without engaging on the talk page first, we can re-visit. Kuru (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Declined See discussion above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dighapet reported by User:MarshallBagramyan (Result: 1RR imposed per WP:ARBAA2)

Page Capture of Shusha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dighapet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [243]

• 1st revert: [244]
• 2nd revert: [245]
• 3rd revert: [246]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247]

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

Comments:
I would like to provide a reason as to why I have not initiated a talk page discussion on this page, which I would have more than liked to have done were I not convinced that user Dighapet is in fact a possible sock (see here) of a user by the name of User:Tuscumbia, who has been blocked from editing articles regarding articles about Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh. The investigation admittedly was inconclusive, although at least one administrator noted that Dighapet's activity was "suspicious". The reverts themselves seemed very bait-like: he was adding information which not only was clearly irrelevant to the article itself, but also overturning obvious formatting, spelling and grammar mistakes which I had corrected. There's something fishy going around and just Dighapet's behavior and blatant violation of 3RR, even after he was told not to engage in revert wars on his talk page, seems to fuel suspicions that this is an attempt to bait established users.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The information in question had nothing to do with the battle and had been added long ago with no explanation. And I am not adding my POV to anything. The changes you made to the names of the towns would have matter little to me had it not been for the fact that you were replacing the wording found in a quoted text. If we are directly quoting the wording of someone else, we do not distort his own words. And the rule is a more guideline if anything else: generally, we don't make three full reverts and pretend that we are not edit warring. And enough users have expressed their belief that there are reasons to suspect that you are not a new account and most signs (your behavior, your grammar and writing style, your excellent editing skills on Wikipedia and knowledge of it rules) indicate that you are sockpuppeting. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The question below seems to be rhetorical but how does one legitimately work out a dispute on an article when there are so many indications that the editor he is dealing with is a sock? It's certainly doable, yes, but with the sudden emergence of new accounts and with so much evidence of off-Wiki coordination going on in these articles and with seeming attempts to bait established editors with reverts which have brief, unhelpful explanations and comments or none at all, it becomes much more difficult to accomplish.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not rhetorical. I realize that particular segment of articles is a hotbed of fairly suspicious behavior, but you're going to need to avoid taking the bait as readily as you do. It makes it quite a bit harder to ferret out the real problems. Kuru (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Answer from User Dighapet

So much false information you post MarshallBagramian. Firstly, I did NOT "adding information which is irrelevant", but was restoring the information YOU removed bringing NO REASON on the talk page. See your [248] first edit after which I restored the information. By adding your POV text especially with wrong names of towns, and deleting a relevant picture substituting it with your picture, you just prove to everyone you take POV position. Secondly, I did not do anything wrong when I reverted you 3 times. Please become familiar with WP:3RR rule after reading it. Three reverts are permited during one day. What sockpupet are you talking about? The sockpuppet investigation showed there is not anything between me and Brandmeister and Tuscumbia. You only try to defame other users who come revert you. When will your edit warring stop? Btw, don't post a link of a blocked user Vidovler as warning of 3RR. A big edit warrer Vidovler is probably someone you master. Administrator Helloannyoung also said it: [249] and reply from Helloannyong: [250]. So is this your revenge? Dighapet (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2011

Yes, the information that you deleted has very much to do with this article because it gives background information, just like many other portions of the article that has information on background. So, you delete one thing and insert Pov. I am sorry but when you say "quoted" text, what do you mean? Attack plan of Armenians on Shusha? Certainly, the Armenian plan will include Armenian names instead of factual names, but does it mean you can find articles written by Armenian military and include in articles and then just say "it was a quoted text"? No. You can't. I am not pretending. I know what 3RR is now and if you know what 3RR is then why do YOU keep edit warring and stop when YOU reach 3 reverts? Speak about your own actions. Also stop defaming. At least one administrator thinks you are sock puppet master, so is this a sign? User Vidovler shows same signs and behavior of your edits. Dighapet (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No one has broken 3RR yet. Since you're both gaming the rule, would you prefer discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBAA2, or can you two work this out on the article's talk page? Kuru (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am speaking for myself and I can say that I am not gaming rules. I just watch how Marshall Bagramian will end gaming. He reverts when he knows he can, instead of working out differences, as Kuru said. Firstly, he does this removing [251] on information because HE thinks it does not belong there (he does it without discussion), then when I revert [252], he undoes my revert which I restored the information [253] and does not even try to discuss, then I make corrections to town names (because they were wrong) with linking them to articles and change POV to neutral version ("liberation" to capture) [254], he does one more revert now making defamation of user [255]. He knows his limitation of reverts and prefers to report a user. Marshall Bagramian, your defamation accusations reach a limit now. I will report you for incivil action if you do it one more time. Interesting to see how you talk about "socks", when you were said to look like sock master yourself [256] by admin. Why? Because you jumping to protect a new user who was blocked [257] by administrator for being sockpuppet and who came to edit with professional knowledge of Wikipedia and straight to a talk page. [258]. So why are you protecting a sock who as everybody sees is a suspicious user who edited only pages in support of you and instead of defaming him you come to defame me? It is all suspicious. Dighapet (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Denial and more personal attacks was not the response I was seeking. I'll get the pageantry together for restrictions and notify you on your talk page. Kuru (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:BelloWello (Result: 24 hours)

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

• 1st revert: [259], removing in part this edit.
• 2nd revert: [260] - straight revert
• 3rd revert: [261] - reverting [262]
• 4th revert: [263] - reverting [264]
• 5th revert: [265] - reverting [266]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See extensive discussion on various topics on talk page from when page was protected.

Comments:
BelloWello (talk) has done the exact same thing. If I am to be blocked then BelloWello (talk) should be as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountainviewkid (talk • contribs) 03:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe I have. If I have, please provide difs. Keep in mind consecutive reverts count as one. BelloWello (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You have edited and engaged in consecutive reverts. [User:Fountainviewkid|Fountainviewkid]] (talk 03:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Again, provide difs. You need four non-consecutive reverts. BelloWello (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try if I can figure out how to post those kind of things. I might just led the administrators see for themselves. Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'll post them below. BelloWello (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello edits to the article in the past 24 hours:

1. [268] - No revert there (bot edit in between, don't think that counts?)
2. [269] - reverts there
3. [270] - no revert
4. [271] - no revert
5. [272] - no revert
6. [273] - Removed sentence, self revert. Doesn't count.
7. [274] - Removed spaces, not a revert.

(Note that consecutive edits are grouped above.) Total of one set of edits with reverts. The others were original edits. BelloWello (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. there were far more edits that you made than that. I believe I count about 10 or more in the last 24 hours. Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Consecutive edits are handled as one edit for purposes of 3RR. BelloWello (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Those weren't exactly "consecutive" edits in the sense that you were undoing what had already been written. It's basically doing the same thing as you accused me of doing. Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, please provide difs. My reverts were consecutive, yours weren't. BelloWello (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, they were both. Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I made edits in between EVERY SINGLE ONE of the five I posted above, that's two above 3RR, you did not do the same for mine. If you think otherwise, PROVIDE DIFS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelloWello (talk • contribs)

• Comment I am an uninvolved editor. BelloWello is a new user who has been aggressively editing several Adventist articles. While I know nothing of these articles, Bello appears to be focusing on removing or adding labels such as "conservative" and "progressive." I don't know how these terms apply to Adventism, but this editing is causing edit warring on these articles. Due to Bello's violation of 3RR and edit warring on 4/25/11, the article was fully protected. I placed a warning for 3RR on his Talk page, which he summarily removed. In retaliation, he placed "junk" on my Talk page. Now that the page is unprotected, he has engaged in a not-so-slow edit war. Bello is clearly the instigator here and should be blocked for edit warring. Lionel (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Please provide difs of my edit warring on the article within the past 24 hours. BelloWello (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The edit history of the page is very confusing, with lots of little edits. I did go through and check, in his multiple edits on the subject today, BelloWello has three edits [275] [276] [277] that all remove material directly added by Fountainviewkid. There may be more, but I counted at least these three. Dayewalker (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• • The first one did undo his changing it from "terminated" to "suspended" by changing it to "discontinued" with the caveat that the school was working to restart the program. I don't believe that's a revert, the word was never used before, and the edit clarified that it was temporary as suspended did, so it, in effect, said the same thing in a different way. The second one is not a revert, the label was never in the article before (that I know of...). The third one is in the group of reverts I listed. I'm being very careful since the past incident. BelloWello (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello is clearly being careful to avoid the bright line 3RR, but it is less clear whether the editor understands the intent of the rule or the difference between 3RR and edit warring. The use of misleading edit summaries is not helpful either. In my opinion, with the recent warnings and discussion at the last posting by the user at this noticeboard, a block of BelloWello is appropriate here. VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How is that a misleading edit summary? I was adding a pertinent label that is sourced fully later on in the article. I think I understand the intent of 3RR, it is to prevent edit warring, which I have been careful to avoid. Again, please provide difs of where I edits that should be counted as reversions (as the previous thread did...). This is different, I was careful to insure the areas I made edits in the article were new and not overlapping previous sections. The previous discussion was over a title, which I admit, I simply varied the wording but added the same thing over and over.. that is not the case this time. BelloWello (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I re-read the diff and see I misinterpreted it; I added a strikethrough on my post above since my incorrect interpretation of the edit summary was a factor in forming my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand it is easy to pile on when the first uninvolved editor (who I would argue has something against me) has set the tone. I appreciate your honesty. BelloWello (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Clarification: My apologies, the second revert doesn't appear to be a direct revert of FVK. The link added there is added in other places, and I got confused. It does appear from the edit summary here [278] that you readded that label in another spot as a direct revert of FVK tonight. Dayewalker (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• • No problem, I note that the difference you now show is one of the three in the group of reverts I listed above as containing reverts. BelloWello (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment BelloWello made a similar report on 25 April. Mathsci (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A third editor on this article, user:Simbagraphix, has been reported to ANI by Bello. While assuming good faith, will these multiple 3RRs and the ANI report have the effect of wearing down the editors on the article? Lionel (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I am so sorry for asking for comment on an editor who kept making edits while refusing to respond to messages for the past couple of days. Fortunately, the ANI did what I was hoping it would do and the editor has agreed to collaborate. That's all I wanted, which is why I closed the thread. BelloWello (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• With all the accusations that I'm violating WP:3RR above, I don't think I'm out of line to ask that difs be provided? BelloWello (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would also like to note the fact that I am the most active editor on the talk page fo the editor. Any accusation that I don't seek consensus is out of place. BelloWello (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hating soapbox.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are the most active because you are adding or deleting words or phrases that cause controversy. Lionel (talk) said it best when he noted that it may have had the effect of wearing down the editors. Others such as user:Simbagraphix, DonaldRichardSands (talk), and Quixar (talk • contribs) it seems have been somewhat chased away from the whole editing process, at least for a while. I have kept up, but it's been difficult with my username, edits, and any other action dragged through the "wiki-mud" so to speak. Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'm still asking for copies of diffs to prove the claim of my violating 3RR. DonaldRichardSands was never active in the article, Simbagraphix is still active, and Quixar, just look at his contributions. He hasn't been active in months. Please don't blame that on me. BelloWello (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Quixar hadn't edited for over two years until I made a few changes to the article. DonaldRichardSands and I are currently collaborating on WP:SDA/Larry Geraty and making good progress. We also recently completed Heather Knight (educator) which is in the DYK lineup and up for a Good Article review. Simbagraphix stated he would reply in the morning. Your accusations that I caused three other editors to shy away from editing are groundless. BelloWello (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC) BelloWello (talk) has been harassing those of us who try to engage in more neutral editing. I encourage anyone looking this up to check out the last 250 edits on Southern Adventist University. Quixar was active a week ago (which is a lot more recent than "months"). In fact he WAS involved in the previous editing controversies before he possibly got scared off. He challenged BelloWello (talk)'s edits trying to make masturbation a focal point of debate at Southern which it never was. Of course they could have been scared away by me, but that it more doubtful since it appears they are more in line with my edits than BelloWello (talk).Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) User Quixar (who appears to be a WP:SPA) made his first edit in over two years earlier this month in response to some of my edits on the Southern Adventist University. You said I have been "harassing" those that engage in "neutral" editing (which I take exception to, I think I have been neutral). Since you clearly believe that DonaldRichardSands engages in neutral editing, care to provide an instance of my harassing him? BelloWello (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I would argue that your aggressive editing, especially from a certain ideological perspective has kept other editors from engaging in their normal practices as fearing you might have an WP:AGENDA. DonaldRichardSands has largely stayed out of the controversy, however on the Talk page, expressed his desires to see "a full balanced history" of Southern, implying that the current edits are not balanced, something I strongly agree with.Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You have not provided an example of me harassing DonaldRichardSands which you implied in your statement above. I agree with his urge for a balanced history of the school. Would you mind clarifying what you think my WP:AGENDA is? I would also still like a example of me harassing DonaldRichardSands as you claimed. Quixar's normal editing practice seems to be to show up every two years or so. Simbagraphix seems to not discuss his edits. Are these the normal practices you are referring to? DonaldRichardSands and I are collaborating on two articles now, and probably more. If you want to continue this, may I suggest one of our talk pages? BelloWello (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC) What might be your WP:AGENDA? How about to delete any reference to Progressive Adventist towards those you seem favorable towards and add any Historic Adventist towards those you are less favorable towards.Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC) As far as I remember, I removed the progressive label from Raymond Cottrell as it did not have a reliable source. I later went looking for a source and found one I had earlier missed and readded it. However, I still think the WP:LABEL is inappropriate anywhere except his article. Anywhere I listed someone as conservative, I had sources, except for Ted N.C. Wilson (which I assumed would be easy to find sources for, but didn't.) BelloWello (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC) And the additions of Historic Adventist to an article about a mainstream SDA university? As well as adding largely negative information about the university? And harassing those of us who try to respond to your edits? Fountainviewkid (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I repeat my request for diffs to substantiate claims that I violated 3RR on this article. BelloWello (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No option to protect the page here; I tried that. I've dug through every edit on that page in the last day or so. I count six reversions for FVK, and I can get to three two for BW (I count the initial 'per talk' reversion as a revert, regardless of consensus). I have blocked FVK for 24 hours. Since we're going to play counting games, please note that I will block from here on out based on edit warring, not on 3RR. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be: stop reverting editors instead of discussing your changes and coming to a consensus on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Brettxiv reported by User:RL0919 (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [279]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285]

Comments:

Editor inserting material rejected by recent talk page consensus (talk archives here and Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 41#Removing Social Security benefits mention). Removed by four different editors (including myself once) but reverted every time by Brettxiv. Note: The article was recently semi-protected due to other edit-warring (discussed at ANI), and Bettxiv is not auto-confirmed, but emailed OTRS to get an admin to grant "confirmed user" status. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four reverts in a 24 hour period with an extra one tacked on right outside the window after an explicit warning. Edit warring if nothing else. The auto-confirmed thing is interesting; he would have become auto-confirmed soon enough, it seems. Kuru (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Chuteboxestomps reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24 hours)

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

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

• 1st revert: [286]
• 2nd revert: [287]
• 3rd revert: [288]
• 4th revert: [289]
• 5th revert: [290]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user was already warned

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see edit summaries, and user talk page (comments by other editors).

Comments:
Drmies (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles appears to have blocked him for this specific set of edits shortly after your report here. Kuru (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Pacomartin reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [291]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [296]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:DrKiernan#Read the letters patent & Talk:House of Windsor#Relinquished Arms and Titles & Restrictions of Princes and Princesses

I have made a number of comments complete with references disputing DrKiernan's personal interpretation of history. I don't respect words like rubbish, when my comments are backed by historical documents and his are not. As to DeCausa we disagree on what constitutes trivial with regard to history. I think it is significant and he disagrees. Although I disagree with him I respect his right to have this opinion. I have proposed a solution that meets his principal objection of taking too much space in the article. I hope that he responds.Pacomartin (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

You didn't notify Pacomartin of this thread (as is required - see above). I've done it for you. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the charge of edit warring. The first comment was valid about not enough references and was taken to heart and references were added that supported the section. Then DrKiernan began undoing work without making any notes in the talk page.Pacomartin (talk)

I can see clear reverts at 21:30 and 21:06. The other edits are complex, and I cannot quickly see what they're actually reverting. Is this part of an older conflict? Kuru (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I can explain (I think):

28 April

04:16 Pacomartin added a new section about certain members of the royal family loosing their titles in 1917 with a list of the individuals concerned here.

07:54DrKiernan reverted Pacomartin

DIFF 1 above: 23:14 . Pacomartin restored it at with an added source (albeit not a good one as it is primary).

29 April

07:06 DrKiernan partially reverted and modified it (significantly reducing the list)

DIFF 2 above: 13:36 Pacomartin made a further modification of the same text. It's not really a revert, I think, more of just building up the new section.

19:15 Pacomartin restored the list that had been taken out by DrKiernan at 07:06.

21:06 DrKiernan reverted everything (i.e. back to pre-28 April) position at 19:56.

DIFF 3 above : 21:06 Pacomartin restored it.

21:09 DrKiernan reverted.

DIFF 4 above: 21:30 Pacomartin restored it

21:34 I reverted Pacomartin.

After Pacomartin was notified of this thread, he put in a much shorter version of waht was in his new section here at 02:55 30 April but covering the same ground, which I reverted.

Pacomartin has been confrontational the article Talk page on this and shows a lack of understanding of WP policies. DrKiernan has used the page very little on this. DeCausa (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DeCausa; that was very helpful and nicely laid out. I can see the original addition of the material I missed which started this series of reverts. I can also see he is still adding versions of that to the article. Based on 23:14, 19:15, 21:09, and 21:34, I have blocked Pacomartin for 24 hours. Kuru (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Epiros reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Stale)

Page: Famous Greek Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epiros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [297]

• 1st revert: [298]
• 2nd revert: [299]
• 3rd revert: [300]
• 4th revert: [301]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [302]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [303]

Comments:

Someone please intervene here: The user Epiros is making some very aggressive and non-cooperative edits to attempt and force his concept of how "Famous Greek Americans" is somehow different than the "Greek Americans" page. I discovered this while doing some cleanup of his edits based on a page I watch. Multiple warnings on his talk page and no sign of letting up. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Stale The 4/28 3RR violation is stale. As for the 4/30 revert, it came two days later and the way the warning is worded it is not clear that one can be blocked for edit warring that doesn't violate 3RR. As they have been warned a second time, I would block if they made another revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the answer and information. Hopefully no further action will need to be taken. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:50.37.198.232 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Pokémon (anime) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.37.198.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [304]

• 1st revert: [305]
• 2nd revert: [306]
• 3rd revert: [307]
• 4th revert: [308]
• 5th revert: [309]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [310]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [311] (Note: this is the user's talk page)

Comments: User is adding unsourced content that is being reverted. Nothing fancy, just restoring it whenever it is removed. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• No violation No reverts after warning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I blocked him apparently at the same time you added this. I see two reverts after the warning at 22:10; what am I missing here? Open to unblocking if I've mis-read that. Kuru (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, there were two reverts that occurred after the user was warned. The warning[312] was posted at 22:10. This revert[313] occurred at 22:13, and this revert[314] occurred at 22:16. I think User:King of Hearts's confusion was due to this diff[315] where I informed the user of this 3RR report, which occured at 22:21 (but I placed it right under the 3RR warning, hence the possible confusion) - SudoGhost (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Chafis reported by User:Tenmei (Result: 1 month)

Page: G8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) + G-20 major economies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See also BRICS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) +

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

Previous version reverted to: G8 here and G-20 major economies here

G8

• 1st revert: [316]
• 2nd revert: [317]
• 3rd revert: [318]
• 4th revert: [319]

Non-responsive:
 • No edit summaries
 • No talk page explanation

G-20 major economies

• 1st revert: [320]
• 2nd revert: [321]
• 3rd revert: [322]

Non-responsive:
 • No edit summaries
 • No talk page explanation

BRICS

• 1st revert: [323]
• 2nd revert: [324]
• 3rd revert: [325]
• 4th revert: [326]
• 5th revert: [327]

Non-responsive:
 • No edit summaries
 • No talk page explanation

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [328] + [329]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: G8 here and G-20 major economies here

Comments: A block may be the only way to convey the reasonable necessity for Chafis to adopt a different editing strategy. A similar pattern of non-responsive and disruptive edits is replicated in three corollary articles. The serial reverts which Chafis makes are problematic because (a) they are accompanied by NO edit summaries; and (b) there is NO willingness to engage in talk page discussion -- even when it has been explicitly invited at User talk:Chafis.

• In part bcause of Chafis, the article about BRICS is locked.
• In G8 and in G-20 major economies, Chafis is removing/reverting {{flagicon}} in tables. This MOS issue was discussed and resolved in 2008 following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#G8. The {{flagicon}} is justified because of its utility in navigation. The mirrored table formats of the G8 and G-20 are consistent with the relationship between them.

Chafis was notified about this complaint here; and a hyperlink was provided. --Tenmei (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2011

For the record: Chafis was blocked for 1 month by Elockid here --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Meliniki reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Demographics of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and several other articles)
User being reported: Meliniki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka 94.209.255.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Parallel rv-warring on multiple articles:

1. [330] (8R/3 days)
2. [331] (7R/3 days)
3. [332] (4R/3 days)
4. [333] (4R/3 days)
5. [334] (8R/48hrs)
6. [335] (9R/48hrs)
7. [336] (6R/48hrs)

Several 3RR and Arbmac warnings on User talk:Meliniki. Related content discussion ongoing on Commons.

Comments:
Filed yesterday also at WP:AE as an Arbmac issue, re-filing here for faster response (still also recommending Arbmac topic ban as part of the response). Editor is now continuing the edit-war through an anon IP; identity is self-confirmed [337]. Multiple forms of disruptive editing also on Commons (personal attacks, WP:POINT deletion nominations etc.). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record: Blocked 24 hrs by Mike Rosoft. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:PeRshGo reported by User:Roscelese (Result: warned)

Page: Pro-life feminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PeRshGo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [338]

• 1st revert: [339] 10:46
• 2nd revert: [340] 18:08

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [341] ([342] [343])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [344]

Comments:
Abortion-related articles are subject to general sanctions which include 1RR on all articles. (PeRshGo believes that they do not apply to this article, but I obviously disagree.)

User claims that I have also violated 1RR, but I invite anyone to check if this is indeed the case.

Response: Just to note, the first revert was to one editors edit, the other was to another. The reverts involved editors attempting to remove sourced material. No usage of the talk page took place until after the second revert. There is no listing on the talk page that the General sanctions apply to this particular article so one would assume it is subject to the standard 3RR and the discussion is now ongoing. PeRshGo (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: PRG had not been warned about 1RR, while I think that the page should fall under general sanctions it was not and has not yet been tagged as such. The warning was only issued after the fact. The attempt at resolution on talk only took place after and is not as much an attempt at resolution as it is the prosecution restating their argument in a somewhat belligerent tone. - Haymaker (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pershgo was warned about edit warring right before the violation of 1RR. In that light, the 1RR violation is clearly a continuation of edit warring with or without knowledge of 1RR restriction on abortion-related subjects. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, Pershgo had seen the sanctions note applied to a related article a few days ago. Pershgo edited Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute for the first time on April 27, then on April 28 I added the sanctions note. Pershgo edited that same talk page the next day, and is assumed to have seen the note. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Warned The sanctions clearly apply to this article, as it's hard to claim that "pro-life feminism" isn't an abortion-related article. However, I'm willing to assume PeRshGo's good faith. Please keep this in mind when editing untagged articles in the future. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin reported by User:Ludwigs2 (Result: Protected)

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

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

• 1st revert: [345]
• 2nd revert: [346]
• 3rd revert: [347]
• 4th revert: [348]
• 5th revert: [349]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [350]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Middle 8 raising the issue: [351] My suggestion that we wait for administrative input: [352] Orangemarlin's response (he wp:TLDRed it):[353] Raised again by Middle 8, 25 minutes prior to OM's last revert: [354]

Comments:

I'll add that all of Orangemarlin's edits to this article in the month of April were reverts (with the exception of the removal of a dispute tag, which probably counts as a revert as well). He's added no content, and his talk page discussion is uninformative (simple declarations of POV violations, false dichotomies, and etc, which he explicitly refuses to explain using comments such as this and this. --Ludwigs2 08:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

comment by uninvolved Collect

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Orangemarlin_at_acupuncture is a concurrent complaint by same editor about same editor. Simultaneous noticeboard complaines do not tend to be productive in the best of times. Collect (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• 4:55-5:00: Ludwigs2 starts a WQA discussion and notifies Orangemarlin. OM makes it clear that he is not interested in cooperating.
• 7:03: OM reverts for the 5th time in 24 hours and for the 10th time in a month, with 0 non-revert edits since he returned from his 2-year breaks and no meaningful participation in talk page discussions. (8 of his 10 last consecutive blocks of edits before his break were reverts of non-vandalism edits. They spanned more than a year, and the two non-revert edits were addition of a citation needed tag and removal of content.)
• 8:22: L2 makes this report.

Does an open WQA report with which he is not cooperating make a seasoned edit warrior immune from a 4RR report about an infraction that occurred after the WQA report was opened? Hans Adler 05:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see it as two separate issues, though obviously there's an interrelation. OM's editing practices are certainly WQA-worthy for a long-term discussion, but five reverts in a day without significant talk page interaction was an immediate problem that needed looking into. I'm a little saddened that the decision seems to have been to lock the page (as though we were all at fault for this problem) rather than block Orangemarlin. The result, I suspect, will be that we all sit around for three days accomplishing nothing - OM certainly has shown no inclination to discuss content - and as soon as the protection is lifted OM will return to reverting material without discussion. <shrug> we'll see. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see you have a couple of editors attempting to make changes to the page which were opposed by OM. Neither group really used the talk page, and we also have forum shopping going on here (agree with Collect). When I tried to restore the prior stable position to allow discussion to take place both Ludwig2 and Adler reimposed their position. Ludwig jumped to my talk page to say that he would have to name me at an ANI case in consequence and then we have complaints by Ludwig that other editors are not responding to a woefully inadequate summary of the issue within two hours. Two much game playing with different forums here. Nothing justifies breaking the 3rr rule, but we seem to have a personal dispute being played out here which goes beyond the article itself. Best people lay off the personal stuff and focus on getting the content issues defined and resolved while the article is frozen. --Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a personal dispute, and I have no position on the content (yet). You inadvertently supported one of the most reckless (and unfortunately generally successful, due to his special technique) edit warriors I have ever seen on this project. It was an error in judgement. Maybe you even believed that OM would actually take part in a content discussion. By now you should have understood that that is not going to happen and should understand that I was right to undo your revert. So far you have not made any concrete objections to the edits reverted by OM either, nor has anybody else. BRD doesn't mean: Bold edit, unexplained revert, discussion among those editors who don't see the problem. Hans Adler 07:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Plus, saying that I did not use the talk page is ridiculous on the face of it. any one who even glances at it will see that I have been trying extensively to get people to explain this set of reverts, and anyone who has even a mild exposure to my editing style knows that I have an unfortunately hard time keeping my mouth shut about anything. Accusing me of not using the talk page is a bit like accusing Paris Hilton of being demure. --Ludwigs2 07:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are ya'll still needling each other? GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well... Welcome to Wikipetula! --Ludwigs2 14:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, who has been blocked 14 times for various personal attacks and edit warring, has personal issues with me. This is an embarrassing use of bandwidth. It's sad that someone is so angry at my editing that they need to resort to bogosity. I can help you Ludwigs, I really can. Maybe I can mentor you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a very silly argument from someone who has 6 blocks himself. Hans Adler 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Add in the he didn't get blocked for this 5-revert rampage and I'd estimate OM's blockable offenses up in the 20's or 30's. You know I'd have gotten blocked for doing what he did. It's good to have friends in high places, apparently... --Ludwigs2 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected by Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). 2over0 public (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Crusio reported by User:Snek01 (Result: no violation)

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

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

• 1st revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Nautilus_%28journal%29&action=historysubmit&diff=425628554&oldid=425082460
• 2nd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Nautilus_%28journal%29&action=historysubmit&diff=425795221&oldid=425795077
• 3rd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Nautilus_%28journal%29&action=historysubmit&diff=426886092&oldid=426872437
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion: Talk:The Nautilus (journal). Comments: Crusio broke the spirit of the 3RR. He should also know, that when he make the same revert after three days, this also 3RR apply and that such behavior is not appropriate and can be also considered as a gaming of the system. I would like to avoid this (also for the future cases) and then I am reporting this (otherwise helpful) user. By the way, he is arguing that there is no consensus on that this and that gives him the permission to making his reverts. Unilaterally ignoring other views (such as that notable people associated with the article can be normally mentioned) is not good. Thank you for your help. --Snek01 (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The three diffs provided date from 24 April, 25 April and 1 May. 3RR does not apply here. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 3RR does not luckily apply here. But edit warring yes. This page is named "Edit warring & 3RR". --Snek01 (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please could you supply the diff(s) where you warned Crusio about edit-warring? The discussion on the article talk page seems quite orderly. Mathsci (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, I am arguing that there is a long-standing consensus within the WikiProject Academic Journals that editorial board members should not normally be listed in articles on journals. There may be exceptions, for instance if there are reliable sources that document some actions of board members relating directly to the journal in question -such as the case a few years ago where complete boards resigned from some Elsevier journals. Even there, not the whole board should be listed, but only the leaders of that movement. There are large discussions about this archived on the talk page of the WikiProject. --Crusio (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty mild edit war, with a fairly productive and polite conversation progressing on the talk page after the last revert. I'm not seeing any administrative action that needs to take place. Kuru (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)