Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive192

Page: Ed Kosiski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.96.136.158 (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: [7]

Comments:
User 68.96.136.158 resumed edit war after previous temporary block expired. Please revert to [8] and extend protection.

Result: Semiprotected three months. The named IP seems to be POV pushing by inserting an unsourced defence of the subject of the article, who has been convicted in court according to reliable sources. The unsourced defence, though it is for the benefit of Kosiski, risks violating BLP by stating facts not in evidence. The four reverts listed are not timely -- only one of them is even in the last month. A long semi is used since a variety of IPs have been conducting the same dispute since April. Please try to reach consensus on the talk page. Normal editing by autoconfirmed editors should continue, assuming proper discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, There has only been 1 edit in the past month because the page has been locked as a result of the previous activity. Do we need to go through this 4x each month? Also, I did not revert prior to reporting (I thought this was the proper process) - Can you please revert the prior edit? Thanks 174.70.63.4 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The page was only semiprotected before. The page history shows the names of four registered accounts who are still able to edit. Consider making your proposal on the article talk page. If necessary use the {{editsemiprotect}} template on the article talk to get assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Mitt Romney dog incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arcandam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]
• 5th revert: [14]
• 6th revert: [15]
• 7th revert: [16]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:
I oppose this report and I personally believe this is a waste of time. ViriiK (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editor ViriiK says he will take retaliatory action if Arkandam Arcandam is blocked. That seems like a no-no to me.108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent my statement. You are trying to insert an WP:UNDUE sentence in that article and are in a current debate over it. I was simply saying that if you took advantage of any block imposed against Arcandam, I will revert until there is a consensus. Thank you for giving me that idea to go make that suggestion over there. ViriiK (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be a waste of time, but there is a clear 3RR violation. The only reason he should not be blocked would be if he was not aware of WP:3RR before his last revert; it is possible, as he states he is not a strong English-speaker. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you stating that you intend to edit-war? Please rephrase, if that is not your intention. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any edit-war. My point is that since the piece is an UNDUE, it is a 3RR exemption. ViriiK (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, where do you get the idea that removing undue content is an exemption? There are a few exemptions to 3RR but removing undue material is not one of them. Sædon^talk 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam has previously been blocked for edit-warring (on July 5), so he knows what it's about. My warnings at his user talk (and at article talk) linked to WP:3RR. His English sounds fine to me (unlike ViriiK's).108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaaaa okay. ViriiK (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember that. That was funny. Read the comments that followed, like this one and that one. I decided to be kind to that admin, he made a stupid mistake, in general he does good work. Arcandam (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@ViriiK: No worries mate. Admins have a brain. They'll read the diffs and the talkpage. The chance I get blocked is close to zero. That is why I don't even bother defending myself, it is just a waste of time. Arcandam (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check that. In that case, a 48-hour minimum block should be applied, probably to both parties, as the IP seems also to have reverted that many times. 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

Arthur Rubin, are you saying that I broke 3RR?108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think so. I could be wrong, though. I would expect the reviewing admin to check carefully, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

IMHO it is the "Mitt Romney dog incident" page that should be protected for a couple of days, I see a bit of stir there... Cavarrone (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as long as the tag remains. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Heaven forbid that anyone would ever protect the WP:WRONGVERSION. Arcandam (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, dispute tags can sometimes be added through protection, if it's clear to all concerned that there is a dispute, legitimate or not. As an involved admin, I wouldn't (intentionally) edit through protection, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur has been trouted, this can be closed. Arcandam (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment:. I find this humourous. It happened in 1983, the dog died in 1993, the interview was in 2007, and this is 2012. The dog is dust, the carrier was firewood, the car is probably part of my beer can now. They are finally locked in time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert: [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Example: [25]

Comments:
Previous report here --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

My defense: The 1st edit that Old Moonraker claims to be a revert is not a revert; it is the conclusion of a long discussion in both the talk page here and WP:RSN here. The evidence for it is that none of the folks on the opposite side who were involved in those discussions tried to revert it and the edit was untouched for one full day. Many users on the talk page under section "Lack of Sufficient Criticism" have seen this edit and stated their consent with it. That being said, the 3rd edit has tried to cover the new concerns brought up by Snalwibma while remaining faithful to the previous discussions. --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Many of those users that you speak of, oddly, have only ever edited that talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Side Note: If a group of users are dis-honoring the discussions of the talk page and trying to edit war in group -possibly to avoid individual 3RR- where should I complain to? Is there a rule that bans group edit warring?--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh I think we are all actually following that discussion, but that is beside the point. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I count at least six reverts on this article in the last few days against multiple editors. Using the talk page is not an excuse for edit-warring. Blocked for 48 hours. I would also consider opening an SPI about the brand new accounts on the talk page who appear to be very up-to-speed with Wikipedia policy in their first few edits. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hypnosifl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:51, 1 August 2012

• 1st revert: 15:26, 1 August 2012
• 2nd revert: 15:45, 1 August 2012
• 3rd revert: 16:56, 1 August 2012
• 4th revert: 17:59, 1 August 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:39, 1 August 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 17:59, 1 August 2012

Comments: WP:REDACT is not talking about removing an RfC in it's entirety despite the objections of another user, (as nominator, Hypnosifl should have removed the tag only, per WP:RfC#Ending RfCs). Clearly, WP:REDACT is talking about striking out the extant comments of another user. In any case, despite my objections, Hypnosifl removed the comment RfC summary a fifth time, (regardless of strikeout).

“[comment summarizing debate as part of a request for comment removed because Machine Elf has said I have misrepresented his position in the debate, so I want to try to get that cleared up first]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnosifl (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 August 2012”

does not suffice for:

“Summary of comment request: Question about the metaphysical view known as Eternalism (philosophy of time), namely, whether the given sources justify the statement "Eternalism, defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, is also known as the "block universe" theory", or whether this should be changed to a weaker statement that eternalism is only "sometimes known as" the block universe theory, because of the possibility that some philosophers define the meaning of the term "eternalism" differently from the meaning of the term "block universe". Hypnosifl (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)”

Also, please note there's currently a dispute resolution discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29.2C_Talk:Four-dimensionalism_discussion.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RfC#Ending RfCs does not indicate to me that there is anything wrong with removing an RfC (both tag and summary paragraph) an hour or two after adding it, before anyone has actually commented on the issue. I have already said to Machine Elf that my reason for removing it was that Machine Elf had said I misrepresented his/her position on the talk page, and since I wasn't sure what specific characterizations Machine Elf was referring to, I was worried that my RfC summary might contain an inadvertent misrepresentation of Machine Elf's side of the debate too, so I wanted to remove the whole thing until that was cleared up (I have also said that if Machine Elf approves the summary, I would be happy to put back both the RfC and the summary). WP:REDACT indicates that the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments is that others may have already responded to them, but no one had yet responded to the RfC or the summary; WP:REDACT also says it's OK to remove a comment and replace it with a "placeholder" summarizing the former comment in brackets, which is what I did with the summary paragraph after Machine Elf complained about my removing it. I don't see anything in the rules that requires that I leave the full paragraph up, if there is please point it out. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

None of the previous attempts to get that "cleared up" at the dispute resolution notice board, on the article talk page and on his talk page have altered his misrepresentation of the dispute. The fact is, he removed it an hour later, after it had already posted to everyone's watchlist. It's confusing and inconsistent for it to simply vanish, and replacing with a comment "placeholder" saying that I'm somehow responsible for it's removal is some kind of joke.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• User:RFC bot 08:01, 1 August 2012 (Added: Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time).)

Hypnosifl claims “WP:REDACT indicates that the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments is that others may have already responded to them”. However, what WP:REDACT actually says is: “It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement.” —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence starting "Other users may have already quoted you" is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about "the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments". Furthermore, the page then immediately goes on to list acceptable alternatives to total deletion, including the option of putting a "placeholder" in brackets which briefly summarizes what was in the comment. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments about "misrepresentation" on the talk page haven't told me what specific views you think I am attributing to you that you don't actually hold--see this request for clarification. And my placeholder doesn't say you are "responsible" for its removal, it says that I chose to remove it out of concern that the issue of misrepresentation needed to be clarified first: "[comment summarizing debate as part of a request for comment removed because Machine Elf has said I have misrepresented his position in the debate, so I want to try to get that cleared up first]". I'd be happy to change the wording of the bracketed placeholder in some way (as long as I feel the proposed change would still be accurate) if you have any suggestions. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, his "request for clarification" is ad nauseum and WP:TENDENTIOUS. What would give him the impression that I'm interested in negotiating the "the wording of the bracketed placeholder in some way"? Clearly I want the 100% accurate RfC summary to be restored.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's "ad nauseum", I'd say that's primarily because you refuse to ever actually answer these requests by clearly spelling out how I have misrepresented you (see Wikipedia:Etiquette, "Do not ignore reasonable questions.") If you think you have already done this adequately, perhaps it would help others to judge if you quoted one or more of your own previous comments that you think clearly states some specific way I have misrepresented you, and I can point out if I had any followup questions indicating I thought your statement was unclear, and whether you responded to those.

I offered to change the placeholder because you made a specific complaint about the content of the placeholder, 'replacing with a comment "placeholder" saying that I'm somehow responsible for it's removal is some kind of joke.' I wanted to defuse that as a possible issue, so the only remaining issue is whether it is broadly unacceptable to remove an RfC you just created (and which hadn't yet gotten any responses) and replace the summary paragraph with a bracketed placeholder.Hypnosifl (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypnosifl, see my responses. That's not true, but I refuse to continue to do so, ad nauseum. Perhaps no one cares because it's irrelevant to your 3RR violation? The basic issue is whether or not they'll block you for it.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that my "3RR violation" is the reason you're asking me to be blocked, rather than the basic issue that I deleted my own RfC summary and didn't go along with your attempts to replace it? I think the 3RR refers to reverting other editor's changes rather than your own (the statement of the rule says "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert"), so you initiated the back-and-forth of undoing my attempt to delete it and my re-deleting it, and you did so more than 3 times in a 24 hour period (here, here, here and here). Hypnosifl (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And of course I admit that I also undid your own attempts to put my summary back more than three times (I hadn't been thinking about the three-revert rule so I didn't keep track), although with the first one I was hoping that by adding a bracketed placeholder I would be satisfying your request that I not simply erase all record of the summary (likewise, the last of your four edits above was perhaps trying to satisfy my request that you not put a strike through my text without permission by replacing the summary but not putting the strike through it). Hypnosifl (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, since both of us did end up violating the 3RR (though in both cases, one of the four edits included an attempt to accommodate the other's complaints, as noted above), if either or both of us end up being temporarily blocked by the admins, can I request that the admin also give some comment on how to handle the issue of my having deleted my own RfC summary (which again, no one had responded to yet, and which I replaced by a placeholder to try to make sure I wasn't violating WP:REDACT) once the block ends? Is this or is this not in itself a violation of any wikipedia rules/guidelines? Hypnosifl (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No violation – Undoing your own edits is an explicit exception to WP:3RR, which is a policy. WP:REDACT is only a guideline. In my personal opinion, violations of 3RR on talk pages are blockable, but they have to be changes or removal of *others'* comments. There is an ongoing discussion of this topic at WP:DRN and hopefully the underlying dispute can be resolved there. As a mechanical matter, if you agree with the previous wording of the RfC and want it restored, you can add that to the talk page as your own comment. Rather than continuing to war over the RfC I recommend participating at DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Aleppo (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielUmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: No easy answer here; the editor has been reverting everyone else all day long.

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]
• 5th revert: [30]
• 6th revert: [31]
• 7th revert: [32]

Others can probably be found given this user's activity if necessary, but at least these seven were explicitly labelled as reverts.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor exceeded 3RR long before I arrived at the page tonight.

Khazar2 keeps removing something that has already been decided on the talk page. Another editor was removing the same content yesterday before I posted all the sources on talk page. Then, Khazar2, unaware of what happenned, and apparently unable to check the talk page start removing it again and again despite the information I gave to him. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Given his rage at my report, someone might speak to Daniel about WP:CIVIL as well.

"It is not my fault you are completely unable to read a talk page. You should maybe restrict yourself to you automatic tool helped citations fixing." [34]

"If only you was able to read." [35]

"You are butthurt from being unable to read a talk page and for making yourself look bad for editing out something that was discussed and sourced yesterday? I understand it" [36]

"It is quite unfortunate that you have to be babied so much just to find something obvious. And at the end you will be forced to agree with me because that's what written in the source. I find it amusing that you are losing your nerves so quickly for something you don't understand." [37]

Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Repeat offender, revert-warring on several articles in parallel, got away with a warning just a few days ago. Any further blocks should escalate in length very quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Report by block-evading vandal IP removed. 92.40.253.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is evidently the same as earlier vandals 92.40.254.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.40.254.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.40.254.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: previous version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: See the history of the article and history of the talk page of this user. This user also doesn't AGF and violated WP:NPA and was warned several times (which [s]he ignored).

(Non-administrator comment) - My opinion is that this is just inflaming the situation. On top of that there isn't technically a violation of 3RR as one of the edits was not an undo. Plus the fourth and last revert happened about 30 mins ago (sorry it was more than that - I was looking at the wrong edit) and was one minute after the user was given a level 4 vandalism warning (so there is no way to know if they had seen it before they reverted). As well the user has not edited for more than 30 minutes, I would advocate a wait and see approach. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours There was more edit warring than indicated in the above edits, and the edit warring was in any case just one dimension of a wider pattern of unacceptable editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: List of The Real Housewives of New Jersey episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.37.29.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]
• 3rd revert: [40]
• 4th revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on 3 user talk pages: [43] [44] [45]

Comments:
The IP editor continues to add copyrighted material to an article, (copy&pasted from a television network website) arguing that the text is not subject to copyright because it is promotional in nature and/or it qualifies as Non-Free-use, despite being told by 3 editors (myself and 2 others) that this is not the case. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [46] (first, unexplained revert)
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]

User claims (in second revert's summary) that the matter was fully explained on the article talk page; that's not correct--they made their case, but did not wait for any other input, let alone consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50], in edit summary--after user had warned me for edit-warring, here; note also that last message on their user talk page was a warning for edit warring and that they were blocked for edit warring last year. In other words, we can safely assume they know what it is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]. See also edit summaries of my reverts and comments on my talk page--and I take full responsibility for using the term "jackass" (in reference to their math: a templated 3R warning after my second revert).

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: North Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nguyen1310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60] actually from a few weeks ago, but involving the same page.

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

Article protected for 3 days, seems there were two editors guilty of 3rr violation here. Vsmith (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Hi, my concern is that why only myself is reported for edit warring, when the other user Zeraful has also engaged in edit warring, who has been deleting content from that article, and when I reinstated those deleted content items, that user kept undoing my edits, like around 5 times. It seems quite unfair that I'm being penalized for edit warring only, when clearly 2 editors are engaged in the same act. And, I was the one who actually made the compromise edits on the article, several of them, while Zeraful didn't, and after finding a compromise resolution on the article, with input by the other user, i'm the only one who gets reported for edit warring. The Battle of Khe Sanh article had the same problem involving the same user. I'm suspecting discrimination by the reporting user, because the reporting user has pointed only myself out for edit warring, but did not extend the same action to other parties involved in the dispute.Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not involved but just pointing out that neither you nor Zeraful have been penalized for the edit war, the page is just being protected until you guys sort it out on the article's talk page. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The administrator who chose to take action in this case[63] was involved with this editor in a non-administrative capacity, editing together on articles[64] and posting friendly user talk messages before[65] and after[66] I filed this case. This involvement might explain the lenient judgment, which is why I am requesting the attention of an uninvolved administrator.

To answer why I didn't report both users: that's a limitation in the template. The bad behavior of the other user was obvious in the diffs, anyway, and I'm not defending anyone's behavior. In many such cases on 3RRN, both users are sanctioned. However, I considered Nguyen the principle edit-warrior since the other user initiated the talk page discussion first. Also, I have noticed that Nguyen uses repeated reverting with uncivil edit summaries (e.g. [67][68][69][70][71]), rather than civil discussion, as a matter of solving editorial disputes. Since this user has been warned for edit-warring before, I don't think continued warnings and education about policy are much more useful here. Shrigley (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, for most of the examples that Shrigley pointed out of the "uncivil edit summaries", it was made in response of undoing POV edits and vandalism committed by the same user, who changed their IP 4 to 5 times to evade IP blocks sanctioned upon them. That IP user has been posting quite insulting, even sexual, comments when editing on various Vietnamese related articles, and when I started to undo the POV and vandalism they made, that user went on some vengeance attack on me, and made personal attacks on my user page, and I had to run to various admins to block the IPs used, and even semi-protect my user page temporarily. No one can possibly compromise with an editor whose only mission is to vandalise and put POV into articles, not to make constructive encyclopaedic contributions. Looking back, I did see that those edit summaries were quite uncivil, but I hope everyone understands that I was very frustrated, and felt seriously insulted, and at times even helpless, when I was making those reverts. Concerning my recent edit summaries over the North Vietnam article, I was quite annoyed when the user Zeraful who kept deleting quite significant amounts of content in the article, regarding that country's diplomatic isolation before the 1970s, and kept changing the words used in the article. Somehow, that user didn't want the article to mention that the North was largely isolated and unrecognized by many countries worldwide, esp. by non-communist and democratic nations, and only had foreign relations with other communist and some developing countries. I know for a fact that this is true, as I came from Vietnam myself, and it makes no sense that the North, a communist country, had diplomatic relations with numerous democratic nations before the 1970s. Even China (PRC), a powerful and prominent country, was isolated from the worldwide community because many non-communist countries refused to recognize China because of it's political system, and it only managed to establish relations with countries like the US until around 1972. As well, this whole section about North VN's diplomatic isolationism is long-standing info, it has been on the article for a long time now, even before I was a member of Wikipedia, and I believed that the info was correct, and there's nothing wrong with it as it has been there for a long time without any controversy or dispute, until now with Zeraful. I felt that I cannot accept something false to be true or right, that's why I kept reverting it. And, Zeraful was changing the terminology used in the article, like instead of calling communist countries "communist", which accurately described the political systems of those countries at the time, the user changed it to "Warsaw Pact" countries, which is grossly wrong because the North had relations with other communist countries outside the Pact, like Cuba or N Korea or P.R. China. Zeraful also changed the term "non-communist" and "anti-communist", to "Western", which is again wrong because not only did non-communist Western countries didn't Recognize the North and were only diplomatic with South VN, non-communist Asiatic countries also did the same thing, like S Korea, Japan, ROC Taiwan, Thailand, New Zealand etc. It seems like Zeraful is deleting the whole North VN diplomatic isolation thing, and changing up terminology, primarily out of their own POV and wanted to remove facts that are true but are negative about North VN, and wanted to censor those things out. One of Zeraful's disputes is that the North VN article lacked citations, so I suggested that Zeraful put citation needed templates beside content that didn't have enough sources, instead of just deleting some of the content outright, until enough sources are found, just like what I saw on many articles in Wiki, however, Zeraful kept deleting some of the content. But even through all the disputes I had , I still lead efforts to make compromised changes to the article to address Zeraful's problems with the article, which can be found on my last several edits on the North VN article. But regardless, and from now on, I'll continue to use the article talk page to discuss and develop compromised edits when an article dispute arises, and refrain from constant reverting, and as well try to contain my emotions when I find myself in difficult situations. So yes, lesson learnt, but I just felt I need to explain the whole situation out first. I wish to thank the admins involved for their understanding and efforts in this.Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

{{uninvolved|conduct|7 reverts in 24 hours in one article by one user, with a particularly egregious pattern of conduct. another user warring with him.}}

Nguyen1310, an admin has already taken action on this report and nothing more will be done here. Though the article is protected, nothing prevents you from trying to reach agreement on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for what to do in case of a stalemate. Brevity is desirable on any admin board. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: User talk:Coren (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: [72]

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

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

Comments:

Youreallycan has sought fit to add his own personal (although minor) addition of a wikilink to a comment I left on User talk:Coren. I told him in an edit summary that I did not give him permission to effectively edit my comment. After he reverted me, I left him a message on his talk page regarding the fact I did not want him to do this. After I reverted, again, he reverted me and I left him a sterner message (the one in the diff above), but he put back the content in the first place. I do not care if it is helpful. He is adding it to my message on Coren's talk page in a way that makes it appear that I put the link there. This is getting way too bothersome and pedantic, and it is edit warring plain and simple, particularly when I expressed my distaste in his actions in regards to the text I left for another editor.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh gosh someone please just ban YRC already for this crap. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Better yet, just create a permanent noticeboard for him like they have for long-term disruptive users. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) has offered to YRC to close this because he has effectively resolved the issue by reverting him, and adding the link in a way such that it does not appear to be from me. I do not find this satisfactory because it rewards him for his deleterious behavior.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've got to say you are both being ridiculous. YRC shouldn't have added the content and shouldn't have edit warred to keep it in Ryulong was correct in removing the comment, but shouldn't have edit warred once he realized YRC was. Instead, Ryulong should have moved the text and placed {{unsigned}} after it. We allow things to be escalated on this wiki that can easily be dropped. Let's please choose the latter in this case. Ryan Vesey 02:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that YRC's reverts were WP:LAME, but I had hoped to resolve this without a block since, as Ryan said, this was a fairly trivial issue. If a more experienced admin (someone who has been an admin for longer than three days, in other words) thinks that YRC should be blocked for this, I'll defer to their judgment. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I notified YRC multiple times to either not repeat his edit, but he ignored me completely. And this may be trivial, but this is just one of several repeated incidents in which YRC was unnecessarily disruptive.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I have seen his name coming up quite a bit on the admin boards lately, perhaps a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI would be better suited to deal with his overall conduct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
          • It was not just lame but combative of Youreallycan. He should have manned up and left an honest talk page entry with his signature. YRC is experienced enough to know what kind of needling he can apply without penalty. Still, this kind of disruptive editing should be firmly countered. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
            • @Mark Arsten: this issue just came up twice (edit warring on user talk pages), and it was bad enough that I brought it to WP:AN, where there was a substantial portion of the community that said YRC should receive a long block. If this were a first time offense, I'd say call it WP:LAME, but it is not. Didn't he just receive a 1RR sanction? If not, he needs to have one, like yesterday. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
              • A 1RR restriction would probably be a good idea, I agree. It would have to be proposed at WP:AN though, right? At this point I'm a bit out of my depth, having been an admin for less than four days. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Poppy Meadow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]. This was attempted but the user removed my warning and said: "Not interested". [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Poppy Meadow#Em dash vs en dash

Comments:

• There's no technical 3RR violation here, so I'm going to close this as such, with an encouragement to the involved parties to work this out on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, right...talking is the answer to everthing. Tommy Pinball (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should try it one day. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Bus Services in York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BickerstaffeC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [94]

Comments:

User has been edit warring to insert advertisements for Transdev York's prices and services, and is certainly another sock of Josh24B. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring; I haven't formally looked into the sockpuppetry case, although at a glance it looks convincing. I'll defer a longer block to the admin who reviews the WP:SPI case. Alternately, if this account resumes edit-warring after the 24-hour block, let me know and I'll block it indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Sean Combs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 05:46
• 2nd revert: 05:50
• 3rd revert: 05:57
• 4th revert: 06:06

A comment I made on the talk page was moved by User:GFHandel without my permission (see WP:TPO). I objected and tried to move it back, and then to delete it. User:Malleus Fatuorum has restored my comment in the moved location four times.

Diffs of warnings: 05:49 05:54 06:07

Comments:

• Someone really should look at the totality of Gimmie's disruption on talk:Sean Combs over the last some months. What happened in the last bit is that Gimme "cut in" above a comment of mine and Mally and GFHandel were restoring proper threading. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Gimmetoo has also violated WP:3RR,

• 05:31, 4 August 2012
• 05:35, 4 August 2012
• 05:52, 4 August 2012
• 07:06, 4 August 2012

Per WP:TALK and WP:TOPPOST Gimmetoo's comments should be placed in chronological order, and since they were responded to, struck if he wishes to retract them. ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I first tried to restore my comment to the place I had put it, and then tried to redact it in different ways. Editors kept undoing my attempts to resolve the inappropriate modification of my comments. Per WP:TPO, my comments should not have been moved over my objections, and the reverts by GFHancel and Malleus Fatuorum prevented resolution. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt, You've been trolling that talk page for more than two months. You cut in above my comment deliberately and inappropriately. No one modified your comments, they just moved them to where they belonged and restored your inappropriate removal of comments that had been replied to. You're the disrupting and baiting party here and are overdue for a block for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Malleus responded to the comment, and only then did GFHandel move it. As soon as I objected to the comment move, something else should have been done. Your repeated accusations are a behavior issue that I hope another admin or arbcom will take a look at. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm quaking in my bare feet ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm involved because I tried to restore the conventional chronological ordering of talk page comments, but please note that neither I, nor Malleus altered context in any way as it was possible at all times to see who was replying to whom. The talk page comment added by Gimmetoo today has been responded to by a number of editors now, and needs to remain to show context of the ongoing issues on the page (hence the reversions). Speaking of which: today's troubles are the natural consequence of the tendentious editing that Gimmetoo has been engaged in at the page for a number of months now, and I would please ask the admins here to judge this action in the light of what should have been a dead issue a long time ago. In that light, could an uninvolved admin here please assess and suggest a possible course of action in relation to Gimmetoo's recent editing behaviour—especially in the context that he is editing at odds to a number of other admins, and an editor (Diannaa) who has worked so hard to move the article to GA status despite the horrendous obstacles she has faced from Gimmetoo (and Gimmetoo alone)? I really do try to assume good faith at all times, but I'm being forced to conclude that Gimmetoo is engaging in baiting on the Sean Combs article talk page (how else does one explain his recent inability to edit the article to address what he claims are obvious problems?). GFHandel ♬  06:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• If "tendentious editing" is to be reviewed here, I can provide further evidence. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • GFHandel modified his comment above after I had commented. Again, I will provide further evidence concerning "tendentious editing" if that is to be reviewed here. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Nice try, but ... I'm entitled to modify my comment because you posted at the same indent level as mine, and I made sure that I didn't alter the claim of your tendentious editing (so as not to alter the context of your comment). I trust that's cleared things up for you (and given independent readers here a huge view into the trouble that so many editors have been faced with recently). GFHandel ♬  07:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Stale - The diffs supplied are now over 24 hours old. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.200.20.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

• 1st revert: [96]
• 2nd revert: [97]
• 3rd revert: [98]
• 4th revert: [99]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments:

User was warned about imminent breaking of 3RR on article history page in summary of revert. Yet he chose to continue with the revert, ignored the discussion in the talk, gave no rationale for his revert et cetera. Not really much to talk about here. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Syrian Civil War two weeks. The IP keeps adding a claim that Kosovo is supplying arms to a faction in the Syrian Civil War, but is unable to provide a reference. The IP feels that others should do the work of finding a source, but per WP:BURDEN the task falls on his shoulders. Reverts continued after the ones listed above. The same person uses multiple IPs, so a block is impractical. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: God Bless America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.231.38.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

• 1st revert: [103]
• 2nd revert: [104]
• 3rd revert: [105]
• 4th revert: [106]
• 5th revert: [107]
• 6th revert: [108]

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

Comments:
The user has been adding the same unsourced material to the article for weeks now, despite warnings. Instaurare (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Belle Grove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 18:56, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Madifrop moved page Battle of Belle Grove to Battle of Cedar Creek over redirect: Jerry you nuisance, the counterattack was the main aspect of the reason for this article's title. Moving back to Union name!")
2. 18:58, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Madifrop moved page Battle of Belle Grove to Battle of Cedar Creek over redirect: moving back, see my REASONABLE comments Jerry! :p")
3. 19:03, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "you're making me laugh at this ridiculous conflict")
4. 19:04, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "me too.")
5. 19:05, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "undo RIDICULOUS edit")
6. 19:06, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I'm British, Jerry!")
7. 19:07, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "undo YET ANOTHER ridiculous edit by colleague")
8. 19:09, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Madifrop moved page Battle of Belle Grove to Battle of Cedar Creek over redirect: I see how well you annoy me")
9. 19:11, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "undoing MORE RIDICULITY")
10. 19:13, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I WON'T stop, OK?")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Administrator note Both editors blocked for 24 hours. I hope that is enough to persuade them to stop edit warring, without the need for a longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Belle Grove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Phan Ni Mai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 18:55, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove: battle was a victory for the Confederacy, regardless of counterattack; rename to Belle Grove")
2. 18:57, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove over redirect: I disagree, see my last comments")
3. 19:02, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "OI I cna't move it so I'm going to change the text to the RIGHT information")
4. 19:03, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I STILL stand by my first comments. I've replied to your email")
5. 19:04, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I'll probably be doing this all day")
6. 19:05, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "you're so anti-South")
7. 19:07, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "i h8 r'guin wiv u <3")
8. 19:08, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I hope we don't bicker all day, ya know.")
9. 19:08, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove over redirect: STILL DISAGREE")
10. 19:09, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove over redirect: stop being ridiculous! <3")
11. 19:12, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "stop it")
12. 19:13, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "you make me sick")
13. 19:14, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy do we have to bicker")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Administrator note Both editors blocked for 24 hours. I hope that is enough to persuade them to stop edit warring, without the need for a longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On close examination of both editors' history, something fishy is going on: they were created at the same time and show simultaneous activity. I've left notes on both talkpages asking for explanations. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [110]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beanatascha&pe=1&

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:
The following user has been warned several times about reverting the birthdate on the article as per her talk page. In addition this user appears to be using ip sockpuppets to continually revert the date of birth when the consensus has been set on an appropriate date to cite as well as what constitutes reliable sources. May be a case of WP:BIOSELF Duhon (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given this person is claiming to be the subject and hasn't provided any confirmation it's her, I'm blocking until she can confirm who she is via OTRS. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Ankara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]
• 5th revert: [121]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123],[124],[125][126];Attempts by Antidiskriminator, [127],[128][129],[130],[131]

Comments:
User:71.178.108.23 has continually removed Stefan Lazarevic and the associated references from the Infobox, using the edit summary,"Removed irrelevant insertions based on references with no valid primary sources; numbers, as given, cannot explain anyhting for being arbitrary estimates".[132] Attempts by myself and Antidiskriminator to discuss this issue was met with these type of responses:

• "What was outdated and what is not, I do not want to discuss with you for seeing you as a person of no education and academic attitude."
• "You have to be capable of demonstrating clear knowledge of the subject you are trying to discuss. Calling upon Wikipedia rules does not support your insertion of the knowledge of tertiary importance here.".
• "It is my professional duty to point at ignorance. Neither of you are historians nor you have any academic attitude."
• ""I think that Moravian Serbia ..." is yet another nonsense and ignorance."

Here the IP can not even read the proper page and is quick to assert that Fine's book, "The Late Medieval Balkans", is a falsified source, "For example, The Late Medieval Balkans, page 449 is visible online here: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472082605-ch8.pdf The whole page did not ever mentioned Lazarevic".[133] When shown his error, replies, "*"So, what? You are caught cheating."[134]

Regardless, of the time(5 days) you have been reverted by 3 different editors. You have NOT proven the sources used for Stefan Lazarevic fail verifiability on Wikipedia. All you have done is respond in an aggressive attitude to my and Antidiskriminator's attempt at discussion. Wikipedia has its own rules regarding reliable sources and you making up your own rules(ie. requested from them to provide PRIMARY resources for the data they are promoting as a knowledge) means nothing here. You are edit warring, plain and simple, to push your POV. --Defensor Ursa 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has now reverted Vrok, for the 2nd time! Using the edit summary, "This user did not participate in discussion, no contribution to this article."

IP response

• My response: all reverts were done in the span of FIVE days. My the only reason is not to revert, rather to remove text that has no value. My article improvements are removed without a reason, which needs explanation here, too. So, this is a nonsensic accusation and attempt to promote irrelevant and tertiary data, data that vary in thousands, made by the rule of thumb, by different chroniclers - as the important ones. These two, Antidiskriminator and Kansas Bear, do not have any relevant knowledge of this subject, their use of Google search is highly particular, their responses, i.e. "discussion" is just an endless spamming of the talk page whose the only goal is to sidetrack discussion, invalidate serous approach to this battle. I requested from them to provide PRIMARY resources for the data they are promoting as a knowledge and never get any serious response. For more details, read my comments in full on the article talk page.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed closure: The latest 18 edits by the IP at Battle of Ankara are as follows. I present them here because this appears to be a case of long-term edit warring. This war is a surprisingly intense dispute as to the exact size and significance of the admitted participation of Serbian forces led by Stephen Lazarevich at the Battle of Ankara, which took place in 1402:

List of the IP's edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC 01:34, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Forces */ Not a relaible reference. He was just editor of that book. No confiration in any other reference for these numbers") 01:36, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Anzulovic is not historian") 01:44, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Falsely referenced sources. There is nothing from J. Antwerp Fine on page 449 of his book") 21:22, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504374200 by Kansas Bear (talk)Please, avoid falsely referencing sources!") 21:54, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504498383 by Kansas Bear (talk)Falsely referencing sources is a grave break of the Wikipedia's policy!") 22:33, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504499822 by Kansas Bear (talk)Frivolous playing with references, no effective knowledge of subject, use of pamphlets out of context") 19:39, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504550443 by Vrok (talk)Frivolous playing with references, no effective knowledge of subject, use of pamphlets out of context") 20:03, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "") 20:12, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "") 20:23, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "") 20:26, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "Nonsense removed. Serbia was a minor player") 00:10, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Forces */") 00:22, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Forces */") 06:37, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "Removed irrelevant insertions based on references with no valid primary sources; numbers, as given, cannot explain anyhting for being arbitrary estimates") 23:35, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "References without primary sources, rule of thumb data removed") 20:47, 3 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505179833 by GM83 Removed irrelevant insertions based on references with no valid primary sources; numbers, as given, cannot explain anyhting for being arbitrary estimates") 21:08, 3 August 2012 (edit summary: "/* Background */") 22:38, 3 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505643595 by [[Special:Contributions/Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]Removed irrelevant insertions based on references with no valid primary sources; numbers, as given, cannot explain anyhting for being arbitrary estimates")

My idea for closing this is to impose a long-term semiprotection, probably three months. I'll wait a bit to see if other admins object. The edits 1-5 above where the IP removes what appear to be sensible references to academic works previewed in Google Books don't inspire confidence. The IP's objections at Talk:Battle of Ankara#Falsely referenced sources are extremely indignant but also very hard to understand. In response to two editors who disagree with him, the IP states "It is my professional duty to point at ignorance. Neither of you are historians nor you have any academic attitude." My good faith is wearing thin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Big phrases like "My good faith is wearing thin." tell a lot about you, EdJohnston. Above I proposed reading and understanding completely all my comments on the article talk page, not just sentences showing my loss of patience in "discussion" where the opposite side demonstrated just rejection anything that goes above a plain Google search. Learn the simple thing: any academic reference must show us its primary source and the way it was validated. There are many other academic references, that can be located by the Google search engine, not accepting your "don't inspire confidence" phrase. If you want to attract people who are with strong academic background, then elevate yourself above strong-opinion-no-knowledge attitude, just supported by phrases I put under the quotes. The best way to do it is to keep yourself out of discussion and judgements about topics that are outside of your education and knowledge.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. Long-term edit warring by an IP against the talk page consensus. If you can't persuade your colleagues on the talk page that you have a valid point, you should not persist. Claims of expertise from a totally anonymous contributor are hard to evaluate. EdJohnston (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Civil_War_%282011%E2%80%93present%29&oldid=505709166

• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]
• 5th revert: [139]
• 6th revert: [140]

Comments:

This user made 6 reverts today on the same page. I was myself blocked for 48 hours for having reverted too many times on another page. But this user is also not respecting the rules and is edit warring. I restrained myself this time and respected the rules, but it is frustating to see that this user is not doing the same and is always deleting sourced content like he wants. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no one, including yourself, made any attempts to warn him about edit warring. Sopher99 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore I see that three of his edits were reverting vandalism by the 94. Ip. Sopher99 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not warn him but also he is aware of the rule as he has filled a report above about an IP. And nobody warned me before filling a report a few day ago (but really it is not about me). I was against the IP addition of Kosovo as belligerent but it was hardly vandalism as he had a source. It perfectly count as an opinion revert --DanielUmel (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is cute. Removal of Kosovo was after discussion and was also removal of unsourced content. IP ignoration of discussion was a clear vandalism, hence exception of 3RR (WP:NOT3RR) It is also mentioned above. The second one is also sourced, first diff was also not revert of user action and second two do not violate 3RR. Discussion about that has been ongoing for longer time than our fortunate period since you registered, as here Talk:Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)/Archive_9#Military_infobox_and_civil_infobox and here Talk:Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)#Al-Qaeda_now_listed_as_party_to_the_conflict, no one once has something against removal of Fatah al-Islam based on the source which makes itself very clear. But still, it´s cute that you try so hard. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not even mentioning that I was not warned, not even after Sopher99 pointed you have to do it. Not just warn about edit warring but warn about reporting myself on this very page. That is mentioned on the report template and it is also mentioned on the project page. Without it, the report is incomplete as you just tried to get this over without me even noticing that something is going on and giving my own opinion. Nice going there. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is amazing how little respect you have for other editors and their opinion. For you a talk ongoing mean that your opinion is validated, eventhough it is not at all the case as you are in clear minority for Fatah Al Islam, Al Qaeda and others. These talk show even more how much it is edit war. You don't listen to anybody else and just revert like you want. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard about this? WP:AGF. Had you, I expect that you would stick with arguments and not your baseless accusations. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is just a sloppy attempt for User:DanielUmel to 'get even' after being blocked (the user isn't even showing the diffs, let alone an actual example of 'edit warring'). These edits by EllsworthSK aren't even disruptive, which is really the point of posting something on the admin noticeboard. حرية (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the header of this report. This is a dispute about the Syrian Civil War article, not its talk page. Updated the page name to its new title. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Stale – The reverts listed above are from August 4. If there are ongoing disputes about this article, try to work out the problem on the talk page. If you are still deadlocked, consider making a request at WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The report was from 4 August but for some reasons was not noticed earlier. --DanielUmel (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Australian Cattle Dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 842U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dodo bird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff for first shot in this battle

• 1st revert: [141]
• 2nd revert: [142]
• 3rd revert: [143]
• 4th revert: [144]
• 5th revert: [145]
• 6th revert: [146]
• 7th revert: [147]

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

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

Comments:

This is a classic example of good editors behaving badly. I've included the last few reverts, but this edit war has been going on for more than a week now, with many more edits than the ones I have shown. Both parties involved in the dispute have made many, many wonderful contributions to Wikipedia and generally edit in a very responsible manner. However, they seem to have slipped over the edge on this one. I started an RfC in an attempt to resolve this issue, hoping that the edit warring would cool while the RfC was in process, but no luck. I requested page protection but was told that I should take the matter here. I do think that page protection would be the best way to end the disruptive editing at this point, and I sincerely hope that neither of these excellent editors will be blocked. Thank you very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's true that I've probably been a part of a war. It's a controversial area -- I will consider what I can do better to avoid warring. Because the subject involves controversy, I haven't just reverted content -- I've also done my best to participate heavily on the Talk page, to take input from the other editors, to bring more and more reliable sources to the discussion, to offer compromises that include not just deleting information from the article but to include opposing points of view with reliable sources, to reiterate that the sources I've introduced have been independently deemed reliable, to examine comparable articles to see how they handle the issue of a breed's associated human-directed aggression and I've reached out to the Manual of Style page to invite independent editors to offer direction on how the handle the primary issue of disagreement -- whether to have a sub-section devoted to the breed's aggression. I haven't once attacked another editor's reputation -- in the face of direct personal attacks. But again, I hear it. I get it. As I've said earlier today, I'm leaving for a week. I will have extremely limited access to WP in the interim. I'll use the time to cool off. I appreciate the mediation that Ebikeguy has offered the process. I'll accept what direction I'm offered here. Thanks.842U (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

842U's comment on the talk page that "the content is controlled by a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question, in other words, a fancruft article — clouded by bias, lacking balance or neutrality" is an attack of the reputation of the major contributors including Mdk572, Casliber, Elf, Sasata, Jimfbleak, Quadell and Cgoodwin.

• Result: No action. Per 842U's statement above, and Talk:Australian Cattle Dog#Edit Warring, it appears that 842U and Dodo bird have agreed to work toward a compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [150] before continous reversion

• 1st revert: [151] 20:29 3 Aug et seq
• 2nd revert: [152] 01:09 4 Aug et seq
• 3rd revert: [153] 01:49 4 Aug
• 4th revert: [154] 20:40 4 Aug et seq (4RR in 24:11 - actually 23:50 from end of sequence of reverts)
• 5th revert: [155] 01:35 5 Aug et seq
• 6th revert: [156] 19:26 5 Aug et seq (3RR in 23 hours after already having hit 4RR)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: pretty much entire talk page over 4 months including current RfC, etc.

Comments:

User created the Wiktionary entry for "Pink slime"m "Soylent pink" etc. He reverts use of quotes for the neologism on the grounds that Wiktionary incusion proves it is a normal word. He also wars about using "percent" or "%" which I find non-utile entirely. When he was at 3RR originally, I suggested he self-revert, and he not only did not do so, he continues to push his "word" etc. There is no doubt he is at edit war against every other editor at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, did they also create the roughly 400,000 results this gets on Google? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See [158] where the common usage for "Spam" is noted - while the connection to the beef product is not noted. The term defined as being about "pink slime" was removed by editors at Wiktionary as being unsourced for a long period of time. Unsourced "definitions" are wertlos. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're trying to suggest that "soylent pink" has nothing to do with "pink slime". A quick search for "soylent pink slime" brings back about 34,000 hits, refuting your claim. Cheers! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

First - "Googlehits" is not a reason for edit war. Second - excluding hits incuding "Wikipedia" etc. Google shows 797 hits (I paged through to see how many real hits wre there!) Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that you shouldn't edit war over Google hits. However, 797 is 796 more than we actually need. The part you're not really talking about is that we have some reliable sources that use "soylent pink" to refer to the same thing as "pink slime". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not my "word" soylent pink is the Los Angeles Times "word" for that matter. soylent pink was not removed from wiktionary, but the sense for pink slime was moved to the citations page because it is a neologism as it does not have "durably" archived usage spanning multiple years, there is citable usage beyond 2012 but it was not durable archived so it is being incubated until that time similar to "Tebowing" however the major media sources cite "soylent pink" and wikipedia reports on such usages even if they are new, for example we have an article on the Aurora shootings even though it is not exactly historical yet such is the Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine massacre, Penn state massacre etc. We in fact report on the Tebowing phenomena at Tim Tebow because it is notable and all the terms used to reflect pink slime that are cited in multiple non trivial third party sources should be included. Lastly the article suffers from constant pro industry single purpose accounts and anonymous IPs although they have become more sophisticated their efforts to only discredit anything negative about this slime product are patently obvious. Lastly here are the numerous sources for soylent pink meaning pink slime.^[1][2][3][4]LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the host of editors who dislike your reverts are industry shills of some sort? Everyone else is biassed? And that is a valid excuse for admitted edit war? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR, i.e., more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, has not been broken, and the reverts are not all the same. Collect has provided no link to a discussion about the reverts on the talk page. It might be better to lock the article or put it on a 1RR restriction while the issues are argued out. TFD (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"4RR in 24 hours and 11 minutes is generally considered passing the line. In fact, the final part of the first example was at 20:50 on 3 Aug, so 4RR was breached at the 23 hour and 50 minute mark - breaking the bright line. And the reverts do not need to be of the same material, nor does "the reverts are not all the same" even remotely relevant as an excuse for edit war. Collect (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know the reverts had to all be the same to breach the rule. In any case, if Collect has missed a step it will probably be because those of us who have come to this page have been pretty much exhausted by Lucifer's posts, reverting, personal attacks and general inability to cooperate with other editors. I am not optimistic about TFD's suggestion to try and resolve the issue, based on the article's history, but feel free to try. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No the edits do not have to be the same to break the rule and 4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule. However if an editor has not broken the 3RR rule then we need to look further before blocking for edit-warring. Is there any dispute about "per cent" vs. "%"? You have not even presented any evidence that there is a discussion about whether or not the article should mention "soylent pink". As an involved party, you are more familiar with the discussion than I and the presenter of this thread should have provided all the evidence necessary for a decision, but did not do so. TFD (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

4RR in under 24 hours is a clear and absolute bright line violation - sorry. And 4RR does not require discussion here of the content dispute unless the claim is that it is a BLP exemption. Cheers - but what you seem to think should be here, is actually barred from being here. And delaying on a clear bright-line violation ought not be considered "stale" because of such discussions. Collect (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I thought the whole point to a block is to protect Wikipedia. How exactly does it protect Wikipedia to block someone now for edits they did in the past? This just looks punitive to me. Is that the goal? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

By that standard we could shut this page down. What other behavior should it review & base action on other than what has already occurred? North8000 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for edit warring over the percentage sign and soylent pink. Please review WP:BRD and follow it, and work toward making the page a pleasant collaboration. Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: link

• 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: [diff] Warned, no talk by me or others.

Comments:
user talk:Danjel101 also involved. Exceeded 3RR, warned, has not edited article since warning. Jim1138 (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Please re-report if he continues after block expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  Given the username concerns here, I'm upping it to indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Samuel L. Mitchill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 10:46, 1 August 2012 undoing an IP removal of content
• 2nd revert: 18:19, 1 August 2012 reverting kraxler's removal of same content (~8hrs after above revert)
• 3rd revert: 20:30, 1 August 2012 reverting kraxler's 2nd removal of same content (~14hrs after previous revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mormon related footnote

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here
See also: John Foxe's 1RR restriction here and here

Comments:
User has had an extensive history of edit waring and has been warned/blocked a number of times. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. As a result John Foxe was placed on a 1RR restriction (see here and here) on Mormon-related articles for 2 years.

John Foxe is warring on Samuel L. Mitchill over text directly about Mormonism. He even start a thread on the talk page titled "Mormon related footnote" which puts it squarely within the bounds of the 1RR restriction by John's own admission. Therefore, John Foxe has violated his 1RR restriction . This is not the first time he has violated this restriction (see here and here). Please note, I have notified User:DeltaQuad (here), who placed the restriction.

Please read the talk page discussion. The reversion, five days ago, was to undo a removal of content, and Kraxler mistook me for a Mormon when I reverted. The whole matter was discussed fully on the talk page, and I think a reasonable compromise was reached. Furthermore, Samuel L. Mitchill is not a Mormon-related article by any stretch of the imagination. Remove the footnote material, and there would be no connection with Mormonism at all.--John Foxe (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If it was "there would be no connection with Mormonism at all" then why the title "Mormon related footnote"--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally the last change to the page involving this issues was two days ago not 5 (see here). The edit war is still active.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The connection to Mormonism was made in the article back in 2009 by one John Foxe. In light of that edit, it is a curious argument to make that John Foxe's reversions of another editor's removal of that Mormonism-related material do not fall under the 1RR restriction. Either the material originally added was relevant (and thus 1RR applies), or else it was a WP:COATRACK edit and John Foxe was edit warring to maintain it.

That said, I would (somewhat weakly) advise against a block for this breach of the restriction, because the edit war is now several days old, was brief, and was resolved through discussion on the article talk page. A block would therefore seem more punitive than preventative—at least as far as this edit war is concerned, though one could argue that it would help provide a disincentive to future edit warring by John Foxe.

And yet, it is troubling that John Foxe is still willing to edit war at all. I'm not sure what would induce him to abandon the practice entirely, but it does seem that Mormonism is the primary trigger for his behavior. alanyst 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Calling the footnote "Mormon related" was the best way to identify the footnote material, deleted without explanation after being included in the article for three years, because the article has nothing to do with Mormonism otherwise. There's no ongoing edit war. I first posted a reworked paragraph for comment at 18:08, 3 August 2012, and Kraxler either had no objection or simply did not choose to respond.--John Foxe (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The text involved in the edit war was related to Mormonism. Additionally, even if it wasn't, there was clearly an edit war going on. I went out of town over the weekend, or I would have done this on the 3rd. Despite this, what's the point of having restrictions if they are not going to be enforce.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If I had thought Samuel L. Mitchill was covered under my 1RR restriction, I wouldn't have touched it.--John Foxe (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the disputed material is, as John himself pointed out in the talk page heading, "Mormon related" should be enough of a clue that this falls under the broadly construed, Mormon-related article restriction. If John's argument is that without the footnote, the article is not Mormon related and therefore his reverts are not technically a violation of the restriction even though the reversion itself makes the article Mormon-related, then that is the best case of wikilawyering I've seen in a while. I'm inclined to agree with a lot that Alanyst points out, namely that this is either a clear violation of his restriction or a case of COATRACKing and that the consistent trigger for John's edit warring appears to be the topic of Mormonism. In light of that, rather than multi-month extended block, perhaps an indefinite topic ban is in order (with possible option for review in a year or so). --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, if I'd thought that protecting a long-standing Mormon-related footnote in a non-Mormon article was covered under my 1RR restriction, I wouldn't have touched it—especially because I got accused of being a Mormon in the bargain. I'm duly warned.--John Foxe (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if this had nothing to do with a Mormons 1RR restriction, which I disagree with, I feel that there is or was an edit war on Samuel L. Mitchill involving John Foxe.

Per WP:EDITWAR "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." While the 3RR rule is a "bright-line rule" just because a violation of the 3RR rule hasn't occurred, doesn't mean there isn't an edit war going on, see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.

While "Mormonism is the primary trigger for his behavior" he is involved in edit wars, albeit slow ones in order to avoid the 3RR rule, on other non-Mormon related on a regular basis. For example, Elizabeth Hope and Michael A. Bellesiles, to name just two.

It isn't hard to see that, if you disagree with John Foxe, he is more then willing to revert with you first, without discussion, and continue to revert you until you give up, no matter how many sources you can produce nor how many people come to a consensus on the matter.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

However, as I said in the first Paragraph in my last comments, I disagree with the idea that this edit war had nothing to do with Mormonism. The text in dispute was directly related to Mormonism. John Foxe said so himself, (i.e. "Mormon related footnote") which puts it squarely within the bounds of the 1RR restriction and a violation of his 1RR restriction. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a blanket 1RR restriction along with the Topic Ban FyzixFighter suggested, would prevent any confusion as to what is and isn't "Mormon Related", since by making all topics treated the same way, it wouldn't matter if it was "Mormon Related" or not.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 22:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe my restoration of footnote material on Samuel L. Mitchill, deleted without talk-page explanation, was completely appropriate; but I also subsequently discussed the disagreement on the talk page with the other editor. I even started the new discussion section. Furthermore, no one has suggested that the footnote at Samuel L. Mitchill is in any way biased or inappropriate. It's solid information, thoroughly sourced.

As I said above, if I'd thought that protecting a long-standing, noncontroversial Mormon-related footnote in a non-Mormon article was covered under my 1RR restriction, I wouldn't have touched it—especially because I got accused of being a Mormon in the bargain.--John Foxe (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I will admit I TL;DR'd the above comments. I am inclined to block John Foxe again as he knew that his violation covered Morman related articles broadly constructed (as in covering everything related to the topic), and that basically fits under this. The only thing i'm unsure about is the time...John, you've had many chances to try and try again...and here we are a year later and you *still* haven't figured it out. I'll wait for EdJohnston's comments as he helped deal with one of the previous cases. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand the 1RR restriction to include "everything related to the topic" of Mormonism. But, hey, if a noncontroversial footnote in an otherwise non-Mormon related article that's been untouched by any Mormon in three years is considered "a Mormon article broadly constructed," then so be it. With that understanding, I promise you won't have to deal with me again because there will be nothing to bring to the noticeboard. I've done a lot of constructive work on Wikipedia recently, including the dramatic expansion of Archibald G. Brown, and there are plenty of things for me to do here without discussing Mormonism.--John Foxe (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – Two months. The reverts listed above show a clear 1RR violation on the article, which contains Mormon-related material. I'm just doubling the previous block length. In my opinion, any admin might consider lifting the block if John Foxe will agree to (a) a complete ban from Mormon-related editing anywhere on Wikipedia, (b) a 1RR/day restriction anywhere in Wikipedia. I agree with DQ that we've been back here many times. By this point, the community's patience ought to be running low. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that any Mormonism topic ban be limited to content space (articles and media) only, and that John Foxe be free to contribute to talk pages and project space? There have not been problems with edit warring outside of content space, and he can help bring a balancing perspective in Mormon-related discussions that might otherwise lack a skeptical/critical voice. alanyst 17:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I second what Alanyst said. John Foxe is nice to have around if for no other reason than he knows the sources better than most. The two month block seems fairly punitive to me, and I hope somebody will consider shortening that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that there hasn't been issues "outside of content space". When it comes to any topic relating to Mormonism Foxe has had issues with Wikipedia:Civility, WP:BATTLE and Wikipedia:Assuming Good Faith. He has been blocked 8 out of 9 times over "Mormonism topic". "Knowing sources better than most" doesn't mean your exempt from the rules.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Per his talk page, User talk:John Foxe has agreed to the original unblock conditions, stated in my comment above. Since I had agreed that these conditions would suffice, I've lifted the block. Due to the conversation here, I reduced his ban from Mormon-related material to a ban from the articles only. He may still participate on their talk pages and discuss Mormon topics anywhere on Wikipedia. He is under a general 1RR on all topics, not just Mormonism. In my opinion he could appeal both of these restrictions in one year. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Court Bauer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: DigitalApe2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Larsonrick25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert (Larsonrick25): diff
• 1st revert (DigitalApe2000): diff
• 2nd revert (Larsonrick25): diff
• 2nd revert (DigitalApe2000): diff
• 3rd revert (Larsonrick25): diff
• 3rd revert (DigitalApe2000): diff
• 4th revert (Larsonrick25) : diff
• 4th revert (DigitalApe2000): diff
• 5th revert (Larsonrick25) : diff (latest as of report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Larsonrick25 and DigitalApe2000

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

Comments:

• I came across this while patrolling Recent Changes, so I am uninvolved.
• Larsonrick25 told me on my talk page that the other user was using multiple accounts to vandalize. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected by Fluffernutter. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elsebeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [167]

• 1st revert: [168]
• 2nd revert: [169]
• 3rd revert: [170]
• 4th revert: [171]
• 5th revert: [172]
• 6th revert: [173]

The Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse page has been a victim of Tile Join in the past. Its sole purpose on the page is to add in one single word that does not belong. This word was hashed out on Bethel's talk page (now archived), and Cirt, who was rewriting the article, decided against using the word. In context, the article describes a pastor's business, naming it "Sam Wibberly Tire". Tile Join/Elsebeen insists on adding that it is the pastor's tyre business.
Also, Elsebeen admitted to editing my userpage and talk page a number of times "in order to clock up 10 edits to be able to edit a semi-protected article." [174]

Both Elsebeen and myself have been warned by WikiPuppies about 3RR. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175] [176]

Comments:

I stopped undoing Elsebeen's vandalism edits, I do not wish to be blocked.

• o0pandora0o (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Friesland (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Triomio (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: link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: An initial discussion was started by Martinvl at Talk:Friesland after Triomio had moved that page. Triomio was notified that the move had been undone and agreed to join the discussion. They later opened a second discussion at Talk:Friesland about the two terms Frisia and Friesland as synonyms but did not wait for consensus while reinserting contested edits at Friesland (disambiguation). A pointer at the central discussion was inserted there by Martinvl, and even Triomio asked for explanations of his edits being reverted. I have tried to present arguments at both talk pages [177], [178] but Triomio went on editing and is now past 3RR.

I should also note that as an admin I am probably not impartial in this case since I'm a member of WikiProject Frisia that tries to coordinate these pages. De728631 (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

24 hour block for a pretty clear-cut violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Isle of Wight Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JOEWM2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [179]

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

There is a lot of material going back and forth, but the actual sentence that JOEWM2004 has reverted four times is this one, from the lead paragraph: " It was founded in 1967 as a segregation academy." He wants it out, I want it in.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [184]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: attempt to initiate discussion in November 2011 with no response; accusation against me of ownership of page; me opening an rfc; There have been occasions in the last 10 months when JOEWM2004 has engaged in productive discussion, and the whole talk page shows that we've managed to work collaboratively at times, but today is evidently not one of them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked There is a 3RR violation; however, it seems that JOEWM2004 has begun discussing the issue productively now, so a block doesn't seem necessary to prevent the edit war. If the behaviour continues, feel free to report again. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: List of African-American firsts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

• 1st revert: [186]
• 2nd revert: [187]
• 3rd revert: [188]
• 4th revert: [189]
• 5th revert: [190]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'm not involved in the edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in the edit warring.

I am not involved in the edit warring. I just discovered all the reverts by Tenebrae. I've never made any edits to this article, except for one time where I corrected the spelling of a word by adding a letter. I've only participated in some current talk page discussions.

Comments:

I noticed in the edit history of the article that Tenebrae had done the above five reverts in five hours. I also have looked at the entire talk page and the article's edit history and it appears he has been an editor who has primarily controlled this article for many years. He was the person who created the article in 2006. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 07:18, 8 August 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. Consecutive reverts count as one revert. He is now at 3RR. In addition, the warning was after his last edit. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: India and state sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

• 1st revert: [192]
• 2nd revert: [193]
• 3rd revert: [194]
• 4th revert: [195] He self reverts this one after being warned on his talk that he had violated 3RR
• 5th revert: [196] Reverts again once the time limit has expired.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [197]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [198][199][200]

This is clear and unambiguous edit warring, Mar4d has at least three times now reverted in SPS to this article in support of highly contentious content. It was pointed out to him on the RSN [201] board that the source was SPS yet he continues to revert it back. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another false report by Darkness Shines, the fourth diff is not a revert but rather a self-revert. And the fifth diff is on a different date, under no rules is this a violation of 3RR. Furthermore, the RSN thread DS keeps on citing has no comments by anyone who has called Globalsecurity.org an SPS source, see the comments at the bottom. This is disruptive editing by Darkness Shines in a content dispute and as such, I am going to hold him to account for his actions. Mar4d (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d, I already wrote that you had self reverted. The fact that you waited for the 24hr limit to expire and then reverting again is clearly editwarring. You have not cited Globalsecurity in the article, you have cited a self published book. And there is still the issue of Globalsecurity actually being a RS, it is still under discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Really, I can't see any discussion on Globalsecurity there, the only thing I see is a RSN thread on the book and two users commenting on that book's publisher. There have been *no* comments passed on content written by Globalsecurity.org there apart from your opinion. You have been removing content from that article while using the fake edit summary that the content is SPS. And what really takes the biscuit is that you use that RSN thread in your edit summary while removing the content [202] [203]. As I said, you are engaged in a slow edit war, and this is disruptive editing. Prove your claim, and also keep in mind that WP:BOOMERANG may apply. Mar4d (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you daft? [204] anyone can look at the revert and see the source you have cited India Foreign Policy and Government Guide, Volume 1 The content I have removed is cited to that or was uncited. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, so again you choose to avoid the question Yup, that diff says it all. There is nothing, and I repeat nothing, said by anyone at RSN that stuff written by Globalsecurity is SPS. Where are you bringing up your claims from, beats me. By the way, anyone is free to check that RSN thread (as of 8 August) and verify what Darkness Shines seems to be claiming. He seems to assume his own consensus sometimes, which can be a major problem. Is there a noticeboard for disruptive editing? I think this needs to be brought up somewhere appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Also, it beats me how the third diff is a revert. It was a general edit, so here's yet another proof that this report is dubious. This brings down 3RR to 2RR actually. Mar4d (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• No violation. There are not four reverts inside a 24 hour period here. I am sure I am not the only administrator that is heartily sick of dealing with a small number of editors on these topics. It cannot be long until someone drags you all along to WP:ANI where topic bans on Indian & Pakistan related subjects will undoubtedly be handed out; I'm almost tempted to do it myself now, except it's 1:15am here. The next time this group pops up here, I will do. Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Frank Marshall Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 02:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 01:49, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Adding very notable information")
2. 04:58, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505836635 by DD2K (talk) DD2K deleted the entire "Davis and Barack Obama" section, which is really the only notable thing about Davis.")
3. 22:57, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505924897 by TheRedPenOfDoom RedPenOfDoom, if you feel an item of sourced information isn't leadworthy, the proper response is to move it out of the lead, not to delete it altogether.")
4. 05:23, 7 August 2012 (edit summary: "That one of the President's mentors was a member of the CPUSA is hugely notable. SarekOfVulcan's claim to the contrary boggles the mind.")
5. 01:20, 9 August 2012 (edit summary: "RedPen, 1) First you said this item of sourced information wasn't leadworthy; then you asserted that it's a "coatrack fringe theory." Which is it? 2) Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Dr. Kengor fabricated this information?")

—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 9 August 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. No warning of (slow) edit war on editor's Talk page and and no discussion of content problem on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Two House theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teachingyeshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [205]

• 1st revert: [206]
• 2nd revert: [207]
• 3rd revert: [208]
• 4th revert: None yet.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [209]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (hope that's okay): I chose direct engagement on the user's talk page, rather than starting a thread on the article talk page, which would probably go unnoticed anyway. Let me know if that's a problem.

Comments:
On Torah, Shema Yisrael‎, and Hebrew Roots as well. No bright-line 3RR violation as of yet, but I think this needs administrator intervention as soon as possible. The user has reverted several times after receiving a level-four warning. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. Edit-warring, disruptive editing, spamming, user name violation. Evan, if you have a moment, it would be great if you could clean up the affected articles. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  Another admin point of view:

  • I see no edit warring, no reverts except on the part of the nominator. I see only attempts to re-try inserting progressively improved versions of the same edit into an article, ending with a version reasonably free of bias, and sourced.
  • The evidence above does not show more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period.
  • I see no spamming other than trying to reference a book. No link spamming.
  • There is no user name violation, as the username does not seem to represent a group, at least not in evidence by this user's edits.

  Therefore I consider an indef block a bit excessive. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it was promotional, either, and I'm unsure about the user name thing as well. There were definitely reverts, though, as you can see above. I made clear that there was no 3RR violation, however. I didn't even come here looking for the user to be blocked, anyway, but I don't particularly object, given that he continued edit warring well after a level four warning (given by another user, not me). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with blocking. I was considering blocking for shorter period to convince the user to use the talk pages to facilitate collaboration. Anyway, if this user wants to be unblocked, he has instructions on how to appeal. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The user was adding material sourced to this website in many articles. In my view, that alone violates WP:ORGNAME. The about us of that website begins with "We are believers in Yeshua, keepers of the Written Torah, and purchased by the redemptive work of the Body of YHWH, Yeshua." The material added essentially promotes the beliefs of the website. One of the "books" cited by the editor is here. The Eddie Chumney "book" is on videos and other websites - it is apparently a DVD. I saw no indication that the editor was responding to any warnings but simply kept stubbornly adding similar material. He can, if he wishes, request an unblock, but I saw no indication of him being a constructive contributor.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice those links. Full agree then, in that case. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I missed the COI link too. Never mind, all is well. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Freaknik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Dennis Bratland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

^[5]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] ^[6]

• 1st revert: [210]
• 2nd revert: [211]
• 3rd revert: [212]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:
User Dennis Bratland appears more motivated to defend the event's image than to present this topic objectively. Not requesting a block, necessarily, just editorial oversight, especially in light of the controversy surrounding the topic.

Comment - This is not the place for oversight requests - Please go to WP:Requests for oversight. Mdann52 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin

Declined. Putting aside the malformed report, Dennis has reverted only twice (your diffs abve are of your reversions). You should stop reverting and stop calling Dennis's actions "vandalism" as they are not. I suggest you take your content dispute to the article Talk page. As an aside, the IP does not really mean "oversight" in the WP-technical sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Kaitlyn (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.176.3.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [213]

1. 22:14, 9 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 00:14, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 00:44, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 03:15, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.176.3.213&diff=506746204&oldid=504060699

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

Comments:

--208.38.59.161 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: International Bank Account Number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Triomio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [214]

• 1st revert: [215]
• 2nd revert: [216]
• 3rd revert: [217]
• 4th revert: [218]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [219]

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

Comments:This warning is 3 days old. User:Triomio recevied a 24 hour block as a result of that warning, but this does not seem to have stopped their behaviour.

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Martin, please pay attention to your editing of the article. Reverts are not just "reverts". Read the policy. Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I note that the 2nd of the 4 reverts mentioned above was not performed by User:Triomio, but by another editor. That leaves 3 reverts. In the same period the filer, User:Martinvl had, despite complaining about similar actions by others previously, also performed 3 reverts to that article:

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

And has, since the block and warning to himself being applied, performed yet another:

• 4th revert: [223]

82.132.249.192 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I looked at the history myself, and Triomio was way past 3 reverts. This section is not the place to file a report about another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.169.68.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [224]

• 1st revert: [225]
• 2nd revert: [226]
• 3rd revert: [227]
• 4th revert: [228]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [230], [231]

Comments:

IP persistently adding (4 times) a paragraph about a computer virus to an article about a rock band, with no discernible connection other than the name, although the name has several meanings. I and another user have reverted the IP twice each, and the IP has refused to discuss it, preferring to use edit summaries to tell others to use google search. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I note the 3RR warning was placed after the 4th revert, and there have been none since then. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR warning was placed before the 4th revert. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something critical, the warning was at 22:22 and a subsequent revert at 23:11. I've blocked him per the report below. Kuru (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.169.68.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Added info about the Gauss state-nation-created trojan that uses 0xACDC as its encryption key

• 1st revert: Undid revision 506787047 by Bretonbanquet (talk) - AC/DC is the bands name, so how can you say it has nothing to do with the band?
• 2nd revert: Gauss was developed by the same team which developed Stuxnet which destroyed 1000+ nuclear centrifuges in Iran. There is only a 1 in 65535 (0xFFFF) chance that their use of ACDC as their encryption key is incidental
• 3rd revert: Perhaps u can word it better than I can, but pls google "Iran ACDC Thunderstruck" as only 2wks ago Iran's atomic agency reported their volumes were set to 100+ w/ ACDC Thunderstruck. This is a 2nd issue
• 4th revert: "Bretonbanquet" keeps deleting what is clearly an AC/DC reference made by this trojan (either that or a 1 in 65535 random chance), that is not just referenced my a virus, but one that has been developed by the USA and/or Israel. Please google.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article User talk page: explanation of deletion - two different attempts at communicating

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four reverts, was warned prior. Kuru (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kylethegreat098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [232]

• 1st revert: [233]
• 2nd revert: [234]
• 3rd revert: [235]
• 4th revert: [236]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [238][239]

Comments:
This is edit-warring, verging on vandalism, even if it's not 4RR in one day. He keeps making the exact same change -- from 2002 to 1999 -- which gets reverted with explanation. He doesn't respond on his talk page. He doesn't participate on the article talk page. This is a prominent WP:BLP article, so I'm requesting a short block to maybe force him to engage with us and explain himself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that he was actually at 3RR just as Still is at 3RR too. He warned the user at 4:21 and then made this report at 4:34 before the 4RR which was actually at 5:41. The first revert does not count because it was his change which was reverted afterwards. ViriiK (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Added more info

There is more to this whole story:

• Still is at 3RR at this same article: [240], [241], [242]
• Here [243] Still ironically accuses Kyle of "slow edit-warring" when Still is slow edit warring right along with him!!!
• Still was edit warring at Conservatism in the United States 2 days ago. Diffs: [244], [245], [246]. Arthur Rubin predicted that Still would be blocked for this violation of policy [247]. But he wasn't.
• Still just came off of a block for edit warring just 8 days ago for edit warring.
• Still's behavior is far, far worse than the editor he is reporting.

ViriiK (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

24 hours. Can't ignore the fact here that Still repeatedly attempted to initiate discussion, and was repeatedly ignored but the reverts continued. It's BRD, not BRRR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I consider ViriiK's attempt to make this all about me to be incredibly hostile and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Let's close this and move on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Still's "attempts to initiate discussion" were unsuccessful, because he was just making assertions. Still, we might as well close this. I don't think Still's actions on this article deserve a block. Other articles, perhaps. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's untrue.[248][249].

Please don't mislead administrators with false statements. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to hatting or removing Still's and my comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

How about retracting the statements you made that I've shown to be false? Not even asking for an apology. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, the second seems to be an attempt at discussion, although based on a false premise; a number of sources did report 1999. The first is not an attempt at discussion (at least, by your standards), because it doesn't state a potential reason why his edit was wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're batting 0 for 2. The first simply asked him to explain his edit. It didn't argue for or against. It just tried to engage him in discussion as opposed to edit-warring. Since it did not state disagreement, there was no obligation to support such a statement. The second does mention that our sources say 2002, but this is true. While there are sources that mistakenly say 1999, we considered the totality of sources, not just the ones that were corrected by others. So, in short, both were attempts at discussion, yet you're bending over backwards to deny this.

Why even bother? ViriiK's attempt to WP:BOOMERANG this at me has already failed because, to be frank, it was irrelevant. What you're doing is even more so. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring, infringement of 3RR, at Rona Nishliu's page. [250]. Majuru (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• [251]
• [252]
• [253]

There has been no infringement, the reverts stand at three apiece and I have not been involved in any activity on that article since this thread. Furthermore, an attempt at discussion by me has been launched hereso it is down to the other party to comply from this stage. Nothing more to add, the first admin to view this should close the case instantly. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also gross incivility (stupid idiot) - I think he is referring to me. [254]. Majuru (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicely contrived revision difference! But to find to whom I was being "grossly incivil", perhaps we should unmask the very contribution that my edit was addressing. So if the person I insulted senses the gravity of the affront, I sure he will report himself at some point. Click this link to get the full picture! ...and then end this pointless discussion. I'm not returning here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you, who were you referring to? Majuru (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To myself, examine the edit rather than the summary. Whilst typing the original draft, I had the incorrect text on my clipboard - I evidently misfired when attempting to copy the website address and so pasted the obsolete information but did not realise until after sending the post. To clarify, I was the idiot for ploughing ahead without checking my errors. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:06, 11 August 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. And apart from you both being engaged in this mediation request I see no attempts by Majuru to address the reverts at this particular page Rona Nishliu as Evlekis suggested. Majuru, this might actually bounce back at you since it looks like an attempt of retaliation for what you perceived as an insult [255]. Next time try to sort this kind of conflict via user talk before reporting anyone, and Majuru may receive a block when pulling another stunt like this. De728631 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• On an additional note: Evlekis, next time you make a mistake while editing please try to limit "idiotic" comments of this kind to talking to yourself or someone might in fact think you were up for violating other editors. De728631 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, no offence intended to anyone. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

With Bbb23 being an involved admin as being involved in another dispute at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto with me, also concerning Martinvl and Triomio, I do not accept that he brought the necessary level of neutrality to make this decision. There were 4 reverts in 24h, despite warnings. That much was clear-cut. 82.132.249.198 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin (but you seem to have problems with admins) but I would have to concur with the close. I don't think it was wise for Martinvl to revert the edit after Triomio was blocked. While it is undesirable for someone blocked for edit warring to get their version preserved simply because they violated 3RR, it's not a game and it would have been better to leave the reversion to someone else (when the editor is simply blocked for edit warring rather then, for example being a banned user). However the more complicating factor is that Bob K31416 only reverted Martinvl because of what was evidentally a mistake by Martinvl which Martinvl corrected and reinstated their earlier edits. So while I would urge Martinvl apply caution in the future (both in not reverting things that they don't have a good reason to revert, perhaps by accident, and also considering letting others clean up after an edit warrior if they themselves are already close to or at the limit); it seems that even if this was a technical brightline 3RR violation, given it's fairly stale by now it's best to just let be unless edit warring continues. As for the later edits, they would at best only count as one revert, as already mentioned, but I'm not sure there is any revert there. It looks like more normal editing to improve the article which was not disputed by anyone nor undoing someone else's work. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Big Brother 9 (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to: [272]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [278]

Comments: This user has abused the page and I've found it very annoying putting it back to how it was normally. Also, I put a warning on his page and he replied on MY talk page, so I have put a link of his reply to my talk page above. --RachelRice (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both editors blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Rumi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khodabandeh14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Though there is a consensus, User Khodabandeh14 is violating the WP:3RR in Rumi. The matter has been discussed on Talk page, and it has been decided that the claims related to the ethnicity of Rumi will be mentioned with references in a different section, the Origin. As the ethnicity of Rumi is a debated matter, we have decided so. Please check it here, Talk:Rumi#Let.27s_replace_POV_with_a_Neutral_Point_of_View. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Also, I couldn't inform Khodabandeh14 about his/her violation of WP:3RR as his talk page is protected. I hope one of the administrators can do this. Thanks for your understanding.

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

Comments:

• Comment I have notified Khodabandeh14 about this report on their talk page. De728631 (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is frivolous charge as the fourth one is a follow up edit and not a revert. Also the users refuse to go to mediation and a concensus has been on the page since August 11th for many years. Two/three users all of the sudden cameup with a new concensus without any input. It is notable that these users are just reverting now without participating in the talkpage. I will work with the current edit until these users use mediation. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note I have ask the user to enter mediation but he has not responded. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you have already ruined the article with your POV about Rumi. I'll not struggle with you, so I step back. Admins decide. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know what you mean by "the fourth one" as only three diffs are listed. However, the report is not "frivolous". You have made four changes to the article in less than 24 hours. The reporter just neglected to list the fourth. Some admins are not inclined to count the first change as a revert. Your attitude, though, is concerning. It doesn't matter what the consensus is. It doesn't matter whether you've invited another editor to participate in mediation. Neither exempts you from the dictates of 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked the editor Barayev (the filter of this report) for mediation in his talkpage.. he simply says he "doesn't have time". [283]. So what I am supposed to do when a user doesn't have time for mediation and upsets a concensus that has been there for five years? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There are other kinds of dispute resolution. Certainly edit-warring is not an appropriate response.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this issue has been RFC'ed to death, and the article is protected due to constant vandalism. I am opting for mediation to settle the issue once and for all. I have been the only one that has suggested mediation, because I know the issue is very clear. We need someone with some knowledge of the region to look at the arguments of both sides and then decide. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to get you to recognize that your frustration with the processes available to you does not entitle you to violate policy. Mediation is a voluntary process. You can't force others to mediate. Nor do you get to choose a mediator with specialized knowledge. Very little on Wikipedia gets "decided once and for all." Barring policy violations to the article or reportable user conduct, you are limited by what's available to achieve consensus and maintain that consensus in the article. If you become so frustrated that you feel compelled to edit-war, then you should stop editing the article entirely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, there has been a concensus for 5 years. All of the sudden two users comeup with a new concensus in two days (which is not enough time). I agree that I can not force someone to mediation. However, this shows my good will by asking for mediation. I am also not violating any laws and I only reverted three times to a concensus that has been there for 5+ years. You can see the talkpage. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Also my fourth edit is a justaxposition.. thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy mystics, Batman, that article is terrible as it stands, in the form preferred by Khodabandeh14. The introduction does not get one step out of the gate before it is defending itself from some Turkish scholars, insisting that other scholars are more correct. All of that material is suitable for the article body, with very short summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. After all of this discussion, Khodabandeh reverted another user.Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: British Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. 19:44, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "Ed Milliband is a living person that is not even in the catagory British Jew - is clearly not notable as a british Jew - open a RFC")
2. 19:50, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "As per my commentsd - living person that is not even in the BLP cat British JewUndid revision 507087743 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)")
3. 19:53, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "POv pushing BLP violator - Undid revision 507088197 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)")
4. 20:43, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "BLP - you open a discuasiohn - the subject is not even in the wiki cat British Jew so does not belong in the infobox here - Undid revision 507094282 by Viriditas (talk)")
5. 20:55, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "BLP - the subject is living and we have not even catagorised him as a British Jew - so there clearly needs discussion in regars to this disputed addion")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: User is using the excuse of WP:BLP to engage in edit warring, even though the subject self-identifies as a British Jew and there is consensus for inclusion. User has been asked to use the talk page but refuses. —Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we just get an admin to lock the page? Youreallycan is before ArbCom. It makes more sense to let them sort it out rather than handing out any blocks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. If you grant immunity from blocks to users before Arbcom, you give them an incentive to behave as badly as they like with impunity. That would be counter-productive. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I should note that if Youreallycan is blocked for this it will be his 8th block for edit-warring and his 20th block overall; the wider issue of his conduct is currently under review at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. It would be helpful if the administrator who deals with this matter could notify the arbitration page of the outcome so that arrangements can be made for YRC to participate in the arbitration while blocked. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, does it really have to be pointed out to you that your involvement in a case such as this makes it less likely that Youreallycan would be blocked for edit warring, if that was indeed the case here? I strongly suggest you restrict your vendetta, and stay out of such matters, especially if the only thing you can contribute are accusations that don't even involve this current case. Accusing you of violating WP:HOUND is easier than taking candy from a baby. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Unless Prioryman was himself involved in edit warring on that page, I don't see how his comments here would influence how the conduct of YRC regarding the edit warring on the page would have to be judged differently. All the PM is saying is that he has been blocked quite a few times before and that there is now a RFAR which may then complicate matters. This is something that NYB has also addressed below. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing who shows up here. WP:BLP was, IMO, properly invoked on this, and the history of those promoting conflict seems to be worth noting here. Wikipedia is not the arena of a MMORPG in which to get your foe in as many simultaneous battles as possible, and in the case at hand, I suggest this battle be dropped by simply protecting the article. BTW, some of the YRC blocks were, IMHO, of less than major import especially counting very short blocks which most people regard as pro forma only. And generally for civility issues, not for violation of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP was not properly followed. It is Off2riorob/Youreallycan's pet theory that the subject is not a British Jew, even though there is consensus for including the subject as a British Jew and the subject has self-identified as a British Jew. Off2riorob/Youreallycan has been blocked at least 10 times just for edit warring, and in each instance he's promised not to do it again. List follows. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your drive by escalating revert was not beneficial diff in any way - Your comments are simple content discussions - open a RFC on the talkpage - there are clearly disputes - Ed Miliband on his BLP is not Categorized as a British Jew - has not been presented a a notable such etc etc - go discuss - its disputed about a living person - Youreallycan 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your reply is disingenuous. You were the one who de-categorized Miliband and you are the one who disputes his categorization. The subject self-identifies as a British Jew and there is consensus for inclusion. I've discussed this already in another forum, only to discover that you were pushing original research and your pet theories about who can be Jewish. What's going on here and in other places, is that you use the cry of "BLP" as a cover to push your POV. You disrupt multiple articles with your behavior and you make a mockery of the policies and the community. There's no discussion about your edits on the talk page because you have no way of defending them. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just your POV and your drive by escalation of conflict - open the discussions rather than edit warring - this is a living person - Youreallycan 21:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Although being a party to a request for arbitration does not exempt an editor from 3RR or any other policies, it would obviously be quite awkward for Youreallycan to be blocked right as an arbitration case concerning him is about to open and an RfC concerning him is still pending. In lieu of continuing this AN3 report to a result, I instruct Youreallycan not to edit British Jews, List of British Jews, Ed Milliband, or any related page until the arbitration is resolved. I am not expressing an opinion here regarding whether a valid BLP issue has been raised, but if it has, it is not the sort of BLP issue that creates a risk of harm to the subject of the article such that it needs to be addressed immediately. If Viritidas were to step away from this issue temporarily as well, this would also be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This comment from Brad is one of the problems ,imo ow its not important - but it is also - there is a risk of harm - Youreallycan 21:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given the above and the fact that the page involved has been fully protected, I have closed this report. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Remember, multiple reverts to protect a BLP is not revert warring. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Only if at the BLP noticeboard a consensus is reached to keep some edit out and if you have other editors ignoring that consensus reached there. Count Iblis (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Where does it say that in policy? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see where that is in writing. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: many pages
User being reported: Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

The user is reverting editors across a dozen or more pages in the last few minutes, without edit summaries, mostly restoring edits they made again without edit summaries. A warning on their talk page was ignored and deleted [284].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [285] (not mine)

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

Comments:

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hold on--user is currently blocked, temporarily, a block which is likely to be extended. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Based on the ongoing confrontational style, history of rapid reverts & at best incompetent edits, and "I'm your boss" user name, is it really necessary to let the block expire and fix the inevitable round of disruptive edits before indef blocking this user? VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This polemic suggests that this user's introduction of errors to the encyclopedia was intentional and was designed to elicit first an editorial response and then an administrative response. On the other hand, his grammatical errors continue in his comments here, so those may merely reflect bad grammar overall. His reference to a "goal" of reaching "50 random case examples" suggests that this user intends to engage in a pattern of like behavior. bd2412 T 14:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Already indefinitely blocked; closing this. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=507214483

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• No violation Binksternet is at two reverts only. Malformed report (no diffs +). Watch out for your own conduct.Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 10:59, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "Edit was explained")
2. 13:31, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "Edit was explained. Do not call me a vandal just because I just know more about Irish heraldry than you do, dickhead. Family arms do not exist in Irish heraldry")
3. 08:05, 11 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 506737508 by Blackshod (talk). Read up on Irish heraldry.")
4. 11:57, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "Rm OR. Not in source given. Again, the arms referenced belong to individuals, not to names.")
5. 22:35, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "Per the Chief Herald of Ireland, that is entirely incorrect [286]")
6. 23:04, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507112325 by IRWolfie- (talk). That link is from over a century ago.")
7. 23:13, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "rm OR by IRWolfie- (talk)")

Comments: User is a consistent, problematic edit warrior. He's been warned repeatedly (at least once a month) for edit warring. Check his talk page history. Most recent is here.

—  — Jess· Δ♥ 16:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note the user's response to the EW warning "If someone repeatedly adds OR, I have to repeatedly remove it."   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Big Brother 13 (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Msalmon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [287]
• 2nd revert: [288]
• 3rd revert: [289]
• 4th revert: [290]
• 5th revert: [291]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [292]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [293]

Comments:
I have also spotted another user also involved in the edit wars with the reported user on the page Big Brother 13 (UK). User Msalmon keeps deleting the 3RR warning I put on his user talk page. --RachelRice (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. 86.137.180.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also been involved here but has ceased editing at 18:32, 13 August 2012‎. @RachelRice: People may remove content from their user talk page as they see fit, there's no need to restore any warning once it has been issued. De728631 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Colonia del Valle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseprzprz86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [294]

• 1st revert: [295]
• 2nd revert: [296]
• 3rd revert: [297]
• 4th revert: [298]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [300]

Comments:
In addition to posting to the article talk page I have twice previously approached this editor to explain the problem. The response did not acknowledge or address the problem. I think part of the problem is a language barrier but this editor appears to be intent on proceding without regard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Please note that the fourth diff above is not listed chronologically as the edit was execute by an IP and not the named account. It may be the named user or not, but the pattern is identical. Tiderolls 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Page protected Semiprotected due to numerous unconstructive edits by IP addresses apparently by the same editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.191.12.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sock account Paull_Barlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [301]

• 1st revert: [302] - Note that he's reverting Paul Barlow.
• 2nd revert: [303]
• 3rd revert: [304]
• 4th revert: [305]
• 5th revert: [306]

The IP started off on 96.231.119.38 originally, but is an obvious IP hopper from reposting the exact same misspelling-filled POV-pushing unsourced original research, and an obvious sock from imitating one of the people he's edit warring against.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [307]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Seeing how he's created an illegitimate sock account to imitate another editor to continue to insert his unsourced editorializing fringe POV-pushing, the only thing that's keeping me from dumping this at WP:AIV is the conviction of the edit-warrior. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• The imposter account has been blocked, so the article just needs semiprotection for a few days, unless someone wants to block 71.191.12.120. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected by LadyofShalott for three days. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Page: The Beano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.192.176.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beano&oldid=506856033
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beano&oldid=507060744
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beano&oldid=507076359
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beano&oldid=507196501
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beano&oldid=507222052

Full history here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:94.192.176.126&oldid=507302290 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:94.192.176.126&oldid=507302406

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not much point since it's an unregistered editor. Warnings posted on personal talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:94.192.176.126&pe=1&

Comments:

The only possible source for the information he/she keeps adding back in would be either message boards or Facebook. Those sources cannot be cited per WP:SPS. Digifiend (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)