Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive171

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Comments:
Massive edit war over a release date. The IP is trying to remove sourced content with their own unreferenced version. IP is also a possible sock of 216.6.232.238, who was just blocked as a sock of Brexx. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• IP was apparently a block evader. Blocked for a month, and page semi-protected for a month by Kww. Swarm ^X 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Mark Morrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.148.28.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

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

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

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

Comments:

IP has repeatedly added unsourced claim about a BLP. Warnings have been met with abuse on my talk page. Blockable either on BLP or edit-warring grounds - you decide. The same addition has also been made from IP 109.151.12.193 ([20]).

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [21] (Lozovaya) [22] (Sumy) [23] (Romny)

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27] (Here wikilawyering user switches to adding
  WP:POINTy
  citation tag
• 5th revert: [28]

Sumy

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32] (Here wikilawyering user switches to adding
  WP:POINTy
  citation tag
• 5th revert: [33]

Romny

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37] (Here wikilawyering user switches to adding
  WP:POINTy
  citation tag
• 5th revert: [38]

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

User has been told on his Talk Page that Russian variants are standard and useful Wikipedia information in eastern Ukrainian articles.

Comments:

This is another example of a common Ukrainian nationalistic edit war--removing Russian variants of place names in eastern Ukraine, where roughly half the population speaks Russian natively. Indeed, it is especially egregious in the case of

This edit warrior has also begun expanding his nationalistic edit war to other articles: Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Mykolaiv, Cherkasy, and Luhansk. --Taivo (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This anonymous IP is not just pushing his POV on these other articles, but edit warring besides. --Taivo (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours - systematic edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.52.212.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]
• 4th revert: [44]
• 5th revert: [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Edit summary of [46]
• Edit summary of [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Multiple appeals in edit summaries to IP
• IP's talk page where the editor is direct
• [48]

Comments:

The user is highly aware of WP policy see [49] where they are attempting to build consensus around their own position, editing with internal comments. They are not good at consensus, or listening to others, or restricting their own reverts. They are less good at building consensus when multiple article editors disagree with them, and they turn to political invective in edit summaries. 129.94.78.162 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IP has attacked me and accused me of going over 3 reverts (I currently am at three and have no intention of going over). IP has shown no respect for 3RR or consensus, and continues reverting. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked. Try giving actual warnings for 3RR and edit warring on the talk page in the future as well. Edit summaries don't count; neither do vague references to vandalism (see
  WP:DV), which will only enflame the situation. Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 02:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

1. 14:07, 19 October 2011 (edit summary: "per
   User:Malleus Fatuorum at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive2
   ")
2. 14:12, 19 October 2011 (edit summary: "per talk; Pedro II is linked both in the lead and the article body, so I'll do the same for Teresa Cristina")
3. 14:59, 19 October 2011 (edit summary: "It isn't a foreign word; it's used in english.")
4. 18:23, 20 October 2011 (edit summary: "That's just a dictionary of names; what you need is a source using the name for this individual.")
5. 18:25, 20 October 2011 (edit summary: "according to the sources given at FAC 1")
6. 18:26, 20 October 2011 (edit summary: "remove italics for an English word")
7. 07:04, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "failed verification: the source given does not mention Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil")
8. 16:11, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "As I said in my edit summary, the sources are given at the FAC 1 page.")
9. 16:12, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
10. 16:14, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
11. 16:20, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "Restore sourced information. The books are written in English.")
12. 19:12, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "if not suitable for the lead, put it somewhere else; tag original research")

Comment: DrK is an admin and well aware of the need to avoid this sort of edit warring. • Astynax ^talk 19:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first time he has got involved in edit warring and been blocked for doing so. There are four editors [50][51][52][53] opposing his actions in the article, nonetheless, he kept on:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

Astynax filled this complain and nothing happened to DrKiernan. Why? --Lecen (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• It doesn't actually look like he violated 3RR. Some of those edits are consecutive edits, which for the the purpose of 3RR only count as one edit. He only performed two reverts on the 19th, and one on the 20th. On the 22nd, his first five edits constitute three reverts (three of the edits are consecutive). The last edit was the relocation of information which was in specific response to an edit summary that stated the content was not appropriate for the lede. So there is not 3rr violation and no case for a mandatory block. However, on the subject of edit-warring then he is probably guilty of that, but if you are going to look at it in that context and impose sanctions, then I think we have to take a look at the actions of all the editors involved in the dispute becuase he clearly isn't the only editor who has been edit-warred. I recommend taking no action against any of the editors, but putting the article under full-protection for a week; there are discussions already underway on the talk page, and those need to be concluded before there is further editing. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What you're talking does not make any sense. Who else was edit warring? Each editor reverted a single time what DrKiernan did. --Lecen (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history no editor has violated 3rr. However, both you and Paulista01 along with DrKiernan have edit-warred. If blocks are deemed necessary then they should be applied equally, which means all three you should receive one. However, itt seems to me the discussion on the talk page could have a productive outcome so I don't think blocks for any editor involved would be conducive in this dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Betty Logan, you should be careful with what you say. I only reverted a single time DrKiernan's edit.[58] Do not accuse me of edit warring. Paulista01 reverted him two times because DrKiernan had removed sourced content for unsourced content.[59][60] That's not edit warring. --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Although the reporting tool lists edits over a couple of days, the specific 3RR (of the cited information which does indeed give the "Alphonso" spelling which DrK claims failed his source verification):

1. 00:04, 22 October 2011
2. 09:11, 22 October 2011
3. 09:20, 22 October 2011

There are indeed continuing disputes, even after the FAC process, over frustratingly minor points that in this case crossed the "bright line". • Astynax ^talk 18:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Stale DrKiernan was pretty clearly edit warring. It's been about 24 hours since his last revert, though, which would make this incident a bit stale for a block. If it continues (on either side), report it back here. The fact that this report went ignored by sysops up until now is concerning. Swarm ^X 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DrKiernan has just reverted for the fifth time in less than 24 hours.[61] Will someone do something about it? There are fours editors who are oposing him and still does it. No one in here seems to be taking this situation serious. Add: "It's been about 24 hours since his last revert, though, which would make this incident a bit stale for a block". It has been 24h because none of the four editors wants to be accused of edit warring, since since DrKiernan is allowed to revert as many times as he pleases. Now the article is stuck in DrKiernan's last revert. This is why there hasn't been "quiet" for the last 24h. --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been more than 24 hours since his last revert so his revert count has been reset, and he's entitled to revert an alteration to the article as per

WP:BRD. I suggest in accordance with BRD you propose your edit on the talk page and see if there is consensus for adding it. Betty Logan (talk

) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

His last revert here (the fifth in less than 24h) was at 19:37 on 23 October 2011. Unless you live in a different planet, that's not more than 24h. Since it's quite clear that you're not even trying to understand the problem and you're clearly biased and has shown no desire to help, I see no reason to continue talking to you. --Lecen (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You are mis-representing the issue: The "fifth" revert as you so call it is the only one in a 24 hour period. His last edit on the article was at 19:12 on the PREVIOUS DAY i.e. more than 24 hours earlier. Therefore the edit at 19:37 couldn't have been the fifth in in 24 hours could it? It is true he has edit-warred, but that was only in response to you violating

WP:BRD. You made an edit (as permitted), he reverted (as permitted), and instead of taking it to the discussion page (as advised) and getting support you reverted him (i.e. you edit-warred)! A clearly provocative action. Yes he broke the rules, but only in response to someone else doing so first. No-one is guilty of violating 3rr, but several editors have edit-warred. Betty Logan (talk

) 17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that isn't how

WP:BRD stipulates you must take it to the talk page and reach a consensus. You have a week to do that now so I suggest you propose your edits with sources on the talk page; if Dr Kiernan objects to them it is his job to come up with a policy/guideline based rationale as to why they aren't appropriate. Hopefully you can come to a compromise, but if you can't then an RFC should be posted on the appropriate Project page and then impartial editors can judge the proposed edits taking account of the respective policy based arguments for and against them. We don't allow groups of editors to out-gun a single editor since that is subsceptible to agenda pushing. In a dispute the edits and the rationales need to be clearly laid out so a decision can be made based on those rationales, not by editors using a majority to force through edits. Betty Logan (talk

) 17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the point that it I the one who brought the article to GA status and it was I the one who brought it to FA status. Not DrKiernan. He does not speak Portuguese, he does not know about Brazilian history and he never helped me in any form before. You talk like four different editors were bullying him. Now these four editors (three of whom are Brazilians) who have always contributed to Brazilian-history related articles are supposed to be taken hostage by the will of a single editor who does not speak Portuguese and never read a book about Brazilian history before? Are you kidding? Do you believe I brought eight articles about Brazilian history to FA standard by what? Luck? --Lecen (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Betty Logan, the way you accuse and yes, you are taking DrKiernan side, everything you have done favored him, very odd, have you seen the users connected to DrKiernan? One guy called Lecen a "dickhead", they are acting like a gang. Paulista01 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page protected by Fastily. Swarm ^X 21:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.160.126.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is edit warring. A detailed report was filed on this noticeboard a couple of days ago, and User:Swarm blocked the offending IP who was engaging in disruptive editing. But now the IP just went back and has continued edit-warring (DIFF). I have given another warning (DIFF). Seems to me like it's time for a block that is longer than 48 hours. -- Presearch (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know further details, here is the previous report, now archived HERE.

Previous version reverted to: diff COMMENT: I'm not sure how relevant this is. It should be clear from the change-log that the IP was introducing changes, or tying to keep them there. But this version does precede all the activity.

The IP (User:122.160.126.4) is repeatedly making changes to the page for Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, a deceased former president of India. The IP wants his name to be spelled as "Radhakrishna" (no final n), contrary to the name of the page itself, and contrary to Radhakrishnan's own usage in his byline in all of his English language books. I have made a posting on the talk page (DIFF) to this effect. However, the IP has simply reverted my edits without responding on the talk page. I warned the IP through a couple of vandalism templates -- perhaps edit warring warning would have been more appropriate?), but this also has not produced any effect. (The only discussion the IP has ever offered is an edit log claiming that because Radhakrishnan once signed his name w/o the final n, that form must be correct). Possibly these changes may be related to some sort of inter-ethnic identity conflict (Tamil vs Telugu?), but I am not an expert on this. Diffs of the IP's changes are:

• Earlier on same issue: DIFF DIFF (Also seeking name-change, although slightly different alt spelling: DIFF, DIFF)
  
  
• Reversion DIFF
• Reversion DIFF
• Reversion DIFF

User has been notified. Please suggest next steps. Could an administrator simply implement a block of the IP? (my warnings mentioned the possibility of blocking) (NB: I posted this earlier at

WP:ANI, but was told to come here) -- Presearch (talk

) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1-link 2-diff (comment: vandalism warnings, probably should have been edit-warring warnings)

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

Comments:

• (((BEGIN COPY OF ARCHIVED RESPONSE: Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Aside from the revert warring, the edits themselves are blatantly disruptive. Swarm ^X 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC) END COPY OF ARCHIVED RESPONSE)))

Blocked again for 3 days. Swarm ^X 16:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page:

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

As you can see on the talk page, this user refused to cooperate or at least to discuss before reverting my edits. I also warned him not to continue with the reverts, but my warnings had apparently no effect. Daizus (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Edit warring from all sides; a block based solely on technical grounds of 3RR violation will leave the IP unable to continue dispute resolution, and will leave Daizus unable to revert for 19 hours as well (thus completely stunting the process). Page protection accomplishes nothing, as it appears Daizus will stop at 3RR. If Daizus does in fact revert again, then both sides can be blocked for 3RR violation. Daizus is recommended to seek a third opinion at
  WP:NPOV/N; if further edit warring occurs before 13:09 UTC tomorrow, feel free to cross out the decision in the header above and reopen the case (although please don't secretly meatpuppet). Apologies to Daizus if his opinion is temporarily railroaded (whether it is legitimate or not). Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [68]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:

XLR8TRON made a fourth revert (linked above), and at the same time told me that "You're heading to your 3RR." I noted this on his talkpage and asked for a self-revert (the warning above), and they replied on my talkpage that "I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out...Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert." So not only did they break 3RR, they did so knowingly and then warned me not to break it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User [Chipmunk Davis] is an editorial hypocrite. Please note that on October 7th he edited this article [75] on and did not remove Turkey nor Cyprus from the list? Why not? The fact is that he's wrong. Cyprus is not Middle East! Alaska is near Russia. DOes that make it part of Asia? NO! Cyprus has had a Greek culture for centuries. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ASIA!

With regards to Turkey, Turkey is defined by the Wikipedia article on Europe as being part of that continent. Wikipedia articles on continents are NOT determined by the United Nations. The definition of Europe has remained unchanged for centuries. Turkey is part of Europe. Istanbul is in Europe. The Bosphurus is the mouth to the Black Sea. Russia's territory stretches out to Russia but that doesn't make Russia an Asian country. They are not part of ASEAN or any other regional Asian orginization. Take a step back and realize that you're wrong. It's ok to accept a mistake, but please put an end to this ridiculous edit war and accept the facts set forth in the Wikipedia article of Europe. Ihave use talk page discussions but he has reverted the article without using rational discussion. Please see the Wikipedia article on Europe and the list of states on that continent, and you can say that ChipmunkDavis is simply vandilizing the article due to stereotypes and ignornace.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• false attribution of vandalism does not address for one second the problem of edit warring, and fails to see that the ends do not justify the means when dealing with opposing points of view on Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 19:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Nickelback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseph201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]
• 5th revert: [81]
• 6th revert: [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ^X 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Increased to 72h, see below section. Swarm ^X 22:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Nickelback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseph201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85] -

First ongoing edit war

• 1st revert: [86] -16:35, October 21, 2011‎ October 21, 2011‎
• 2nd revert: [87] - 16:41, October 21, 2011‎
• 3rd revert: [88] - 17:17, October 21, 2011
• 4th revert: [89] - 22:57, October 21, 2011
• 5th revert: Restart of edit war on this matter - [90] - 17:20, October 24, 2011

Secondary edit war over album sales by same user on the same page - using different numbers at differ points

• 1st revert: [91] claim of almost 21m sold
• 2nd revert: [92] - now claiming 50m
• 3rd revert: [93] - now claiming 21m again
• 4th revert: [94] - now claiming 50m again
• 5th revert: [95] - claiming 50m again
• 6th revert: [96] - claiming 50m again
• 7th revert: [97] - claiming 50m again

3RR warning: [98] Copyright vio warning: [99]

• Resolve dispute on user talk page: [100] With no reply by User talk:Joseph201 to any inquiries.
• Resolve dispute on article talk page: A conversation did start at Talk:Nickelback#Copy and pasting and fan site but the editor in question has disengaged and continues to edit war and copy and past from other sites.

Comments:
We have more serious problem then just the "edit wars". We have copy right problem (copy and pasting) that is simply being ignored by the editor. Such as:
"Reviewer Erik Pedersen of the Hollywood Reporter seemed to grasp the essence of the band. Reporting on a Nickelback show in West Hollywood in October of 2001, Pedersen noted that the band had mixed the hard rock sound that had taken the airwaves back around the turn of the millennium with enough melody to appeal to a wide audience. They seemed equally familiar with late-1990s post-grunge, 1980s metal, and Led Zeppelin-style 1970s rock. Proud to be hard rockers, the band "shrugged at subtlety and hissed at trendiness," Pedersen wrote. He also noticed that Chad Kroeger, with his striking long hair and goatee, had become a charismatic rock frontman, noting that the lead singer easily got the crowd to scream when he wanted them to and that his performance of a more sensitive song, "Too Bad," addressed to Kroeger's father, "drew shrieks from the numerous females in the crowd." that is coped from Copyright © 2011 Net Industries and its Licensors – All Rights Reserved

• In addition to all of the above, he's broken 3RR at How You Remind Me. As you can see on his talk page, myself and several other users have informed, warned, and tried to help him change, but to no avail. His more recent edit warring tries to blame it on his brother, not him, who of course is doing the same exact reverting he was... Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ^X 22:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• After reviewing his edits, I've upped the block from one day to three days due to the addition of copyvios. Swarm ^X 22:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Stormfront (website) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiki101xyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

• 1st revert: [102]
• 2nd revert: [103]
• 3rd revert: [104]
• 4th revert: [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

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

Comments:
The talk page has not been used, the user is adding unsourced and non neutral content to the article The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Was warned; reverted again. Kuru (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Lupinus texensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Happyhubie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:
This was previously discussed last year [111], but apparently he's at it again and seems to be using an IP to do it as well.. I'm hoping to prevent another edit war. This guy is tiring.--Hourick (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 03:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Power ring (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 18:13, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Black Light's Power Ring */")
2. 18:15, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Similar devices */ Not related to the Green Lanterns")
3. 00:21, 25 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 456921129 by Alucardbarnivous (talk) They are not similiar devices. If you disagree, you can bring the matter up.")
4. 02:44, 25 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457254007 by Alucardbarnivous (talk) Vandalism is a large and vague term. You'll have to explain before you can accuse me of anything.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Alucardbarnivous (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Only two reverts. There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider
  dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 03:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Power ring (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bold Clone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [112]

• 1st revert: [113]
• 2nd revert: [114]
• 3rd revert: [115]
• 4th revert: [116]
• 5th revert: [117]
• 6th revert: [118] (Made after the user replied and was aware of this report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Power ring (DC Comics)#Removal of content

Comments:
User continues to edit war, reverting three four other users despite a rough talk page consensus against them, and any notification of

There is no consensus with me, therefore there is no consensus. I am waiting for you to respond to me on the TP. You are not doing so, and you so no indication os later doing so. User seems unwilling to try to reach consensus...--Bold Clone (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that the user removed diffs from the report to make it appear as though they did not violate

Ghost

15:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

They did not violate the 3RR! It has to be a whole reversion, right? There is no consensus with me. If you are trying to reach a consensus, then you need to include me in the discussion. --Bold Clone (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Media:Example.ogg

Again the user has removed diffs to make it seem as though they did not violate

Ghost

15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: WJRT-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TomCat4680 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [120]
• 2nd revert: [121]
• 3rd revert: [122]
• 4th revert: [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:

Several editors have added the same unsourced misinformation. I removed it and asked them to provide a

BLP policy applies to groups.^[1]

TomCat4680 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Responsible editors, such as myself, would simply add a 'citation needed' tag and wait a few days for the citation to appear. But TomCat4680 reverts even those edits without waiting for a citation. I can say at my end that a suitable citation has not been found yet. WJRT-TV's Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/#!/ABC12WJRT mentions the HD newscasts, but I do not think it qualifies as a citation for Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 Question: The third and fourth reverts are the same edit, and the edits above are not within 24 hours of each other. Is this a 3RR report, or a general edit warring report? Because unless I'm miscounting something, I'm not seeing four reversions within a 24 hour time period. If I'm mistaken in this, please clarify. -

This is a general edit warring report because it is one editor reverting the edits of about a half dozen editors without requesting a citation, just reverting instead of adding a 'citation needed' tag and wait a few days for the citation to appear. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Then please note that if this is the case, that you are as guilty of edit warring as the user you are reporting, as you reverted the content despite knowing there was a dispute regarding said content, without attempting to discuss it on the talk page beforehand. The number of editors involved is immaterial to this. However, there is now a discussion taking place on the article's talk page. -

Ghost

18:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I was simply following

reliable source. Also please be advised that Stealbeard1 started this report BEFORE he attempted to resolve the dispute on the article's talkgpage. TomCat4680 (talk

) 18:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

WJRT-TV hasn't been edited in over an hour. Myself and Stealbeard1 are attempting to resolve the dispute on Talk:WJRT-TV. I will not revert the article until the dispute is resolved. This report was unnecessary. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Question to TomCat4680 regarding "I was simply following...": Is there a specific exemption in this [126] section of the 3RR policies that you deem applies? If not, is there another place that lists the specific exemptions? I understand the section you quote is a summary explanation - but my understanding is that (as noted by the "For example" part) for each type of article, the specific exemptions must be met. I may be wrong. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have stopped reverting even though Stealbeard1 re-added the information in question WITHOUT a

WP:PROVEIT yet again (apparently this "rule" is not enforced though). TomCat4680 (talk

) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No violation - although I'm fairly close to blocking one party or the other (still not sure which it would be, as both edit warred). FYI, quoting BLP to apply to an organization for a completely non-controversial piece of material isn't going to cut it - that's
  WP:WIKILAWYERing. As I assume both parties are still watching this page, they are under notice that further edit warring may result in blocks. Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 00:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Herman Cain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 129.1.193.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127]

• 1st revert: [128]
• 2nd revert: [129]
• 3rd revert: [130]
• 4th revert: [131]
• 5th revert: [132]
• 6th revert: [133]
• 7th revert: [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135], [136], [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is simple vandalism so no resolution is possible.

Comments: I apologize if this is the incorrect forum for this, but the editor has added this vandalism to the article eight times in an hour.

User has been warned by a sysop and hasn't edited since that warning. It's no big deal that you reported this here, but just for future reference, vandalism such as this should be reported at

WP:AIV, so if this continues, just bring it there. It's much easier to make a report there, too ;). Swarm ^X

18:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was a more appropriate forum, I just couldn't remember what it was. Thanks!

talk

) 18:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep an eye on the article, too. Regards, Swarm ^X 18:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Viktor Yanukovych (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.67.181.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Please note this is BLP-violating long-term edit-warring by IPs bent on labelling Viktor Yanukovych as a criminal at the lead. See also: User:71.224.207.195 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month) on 16 October.

Previous version reverted to: [138]

• 1st revert: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140] Labelling my revert as vandalism. The MO is the same as the IP User:71.224.207.195 from the previous case on 16 October. Possible sock: [141]
• 3rd revert: [142]
• 4th revert: [143]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

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

• Warned Specifically about BLP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think however that they will resume, given their past record. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• I just added No. 4 revert. They are continuing unabated. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Both main accounts blocked and article protected for 3 months. Be sure to mention the rampant misbehavior if another report is necessary in 3 months. If the editor creates an account to evade the block, report to
  WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 02:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Magog. Both for the decisive action and for the advice. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Canadian2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [145]

• 1st revert: 22:15, 24 October 2011
• 2nd revert: 00:19, 25 October 2011
• 3rd revert: 16:28, 25 October 2011
• 4th revert: 18:44, 25 October 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]

Comments:

• Warned User is new and was never made aware of 3RR. If edit warring occurs again, please report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Ra.One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ashermadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

• 1st revert: [149] 00:54, October 26, 2011. Removing Rediff review. Changing "mixed reviews" to "generally positive reviews".
• 2nd revert: [150] 01:05, October 26, 2011. Removing Rediff review.
• 3rd revert: [151] 05:41, October 26, 2011. Revert of User:Monishrecords.
• 4th revert: [152] 08:43, October 26, 2011. Revert of User:Guru coolguy, changing "generally mixed reviews" to "generally positive reviews".
• 5th revert: [153] 08:49, October 26, 2011. Revert of User:Guru coolguy, removing Rediff review.
• 6th revert: [154] 10:15, October 26, 2011. Changing "generally mixed to positive reviews" to "mostly positive reviews".
• 7th revert: [155] 10:34, October 26, 2011. Changing "positive reviews" to "mostly positive reviews".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments:

Ashermadan appears to be overly concerned that the film be portrayed positively on the day it opens its main theatrical run. Many other editors are all over that film page, and edit warring is rife. This many reversions, however, stands above the other excitable article action. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Bink, I agree re:edit-warring, but since your warning they haven't been back. I've given them a level-3 warning for non-neutral editing, and subsequent "improvements" can be met with a final warning for vandalism, as far as I'm concerned. Since they weren't warned before, in my opinion we have no choice but to decline this; still, I feel they might be back, so perhaps we can leave this up for a day or so. And any time they're back, you are more than welcome to copy all of this and repost it with updates, and I'm sure the matter will be dealt with swiftly. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Gotcha. I will be away from Wikipedia for about 12 hours. I'll check on our friend after that. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Warned No edit warring since warning by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). As stated before, warnings for disruptive editing/vandalism do nothing to stop the behavior or inform the user of penalties for edit warring.Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: 27 Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: G90025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 15:13, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "undoing vandalism by Patyo1994")
2. 15:29, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "undoing destructive edit by TaalVerbeteraar. Winehouse not confirmed for 27 Club due to no historically significant contribution to music")
3. 15:31, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 15:50, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid vandalism by 12bigbrother12 (talk). Community must provide evidence and agreement that Winehouse be added to list")
5. 16:03, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457503809-- Unfortunately, the community never provided consencus or sufficient data to confirm her listing so it was invalid in the first place. There was a long discussion about this before.")
6. 16:06, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Musicians usually included in the 27 Club */")
7. 16:13, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Sorry, cannot stop because you're vandalizing the page, as stated on your user page")
8. 16:33, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457507543 by Escape Orbit (talk) Community must have concesus on talk page that Winehouse be added with reasonable data to support")
9. 16:39, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457510105 by Escape Orbit (talk): Edit had invalid summary tag/disruptive edit/edit warring")
10. 16:41, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
11. 16:43, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
12. 16:47, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457511732 by Escape Orbit (talk) PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING. SEE DISCUSSION PAGE TO SUGGEST WINEHOUSE BE ADDED TO THE LIST")
13. 16:54, October 26, 2011 (Undid revision 457512019 by Escape Orbit (talk) Misleading edit summary-- said it was a cite but actually was edit warring. Please see discussion page, thank you)
14. 16:56, October 26, 2011 (Undid revision 457512990 by Muboshgu (talk) PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION PAGE TO VOICE YOUR OPINION ON THE MATTER and stop edit war please. You have been warned)

• Page protected By
  Nev1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 19:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Time reported: 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 13:02, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457165101 by
   talk
   ) there were no Turks in Khorasan. Stop edit-warring.")
2. 13:32, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457481681 by Kafka Liz (talk) source is antiquated and CONTRADICTED by the other sources")
3. 19:45, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457513332 by
   talk
   )")
4. 20:22, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457540138 by Kafka Liz (talk) DON'T DELETE SOURCES!")

• Diff of warning: here

I was considering ANI as he is edit-warring in several articles, with some odd edit summaries, eg twice deleting well-sourced material saying it wasn't sourced, a little while ago deleting a source with an edit summary in caps saying don't delete sources, etc. He's had quite a few warnings which have been blanked (as is his right).

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: [158]
• 2nd revert: [159]

Comments:
John Foxe was placed on a 1RR restriction (see here and here) on Mormon-related articles for 2 years.

• Comment - this one is kind of complex; I'm notifying DeltaQuad, who placed the restriction. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• (t) (e)
  14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Ray Jefferson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3dhardway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 71.164.122.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 71.164.122.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 71.164.105.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [160]

• 1st revert: [161]
• 2nd revert: [162]
• 3rd revert: [163]
• 4th revert: [164]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [165]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [166]

Comments:
SPA account was close to 3RR when they started using Anon IP accounts. 14 reverts in the last hour.

Labor Watch (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Page now semi-protected by Brookie. That should take care of the anon-IP reversions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

re the user: stale now, report back if the edit warring continues. Swarm ^X 04:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Page:

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

• 1st revert: [167]
• 2nd revert: [168]
• 3rd revert: [169]
• 4th revert: [170]
• 5th revert: [171]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172] (Ghmyrtle's warning)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173] (my warning)

Attempt to start discussion: [174], ignored by user. User has now joined talkpage discussion, although he has continued to revert the article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175]

Comments:

User does not seem willing to open dialogue on this topic, despite being given the opportunity several times by myself and other editors. User also appears to have made no other edits outside this topic. Yunshui 雲水 13:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Yunshui - Nickswatman seems unwilling to recognise that his/her edits contravene

WP:NOR etc., and have so far attracted no support from other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: Israel ben Meir di Curiel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Chesdovi has recently returned to his old pattern of

In addition he uses the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Palestinian_rabbis as an argument that he can add the words "Palestinian rabbi" to all articles about rabbis who ever lived in that area of the world, ignoring repeated reminders that the existence of an article and the tagging of a person are two different issues. This was explicitly mentioned by several editors (myself being among the foremost) in a discussion at Talk:Palestine#Historic_designation_of_the_Palestine_region.

He has learned from past experience and doesn't make mass edits any more. Instead he edits 1-3 articles a day, but continues with the

Menahem Lonzano was created in 2008: [179], and was described as being a "Palestinian Masoretic and midrashic scholar".

In Nov 2010 an IP removed the word “Palestinian”: [180]

In April 11, I add category “Palestinian rabbis”: [181] and Debresser removed it: [182]

On May 1, Supreme Deliciousness re-adds this category: [183] and later on May 11, Debresser removes it again: [184]

In June 11, after a month and a half of debate in which it is obvious that such a designation is valid, I re-add the cat: [185], but Debresser immediately removes it again: [186]

Notwithstanding a successful Afd, I add the link “

Palestinian rabbi” to the text of the article [187] yet Debresser again reverts: [188]

10 days later after consensus is reached at wikiproject, I re-link: [189] and Debresser straight away reverts: [190].

I am not sure how to go about this when Debresser says adding "Palestinian rabbi" is against consensus, while there were 6 people involved with the word Palestinian on this page. Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, SD and I opted for the term, while an IP, a blocked sock and Debresser removed it. That is besides all the other editors who have edited the page in-between and have left the term, (Sbowers3, Attilios, FeanorStar7, מרכז מידע הר הזיתים, Davshul, Ulric1313, Dsp13.) So if I do my math right, that makes 10 against 1. Still no consensus? And you can forget about "consensus" here, when the fact of the matter is that it is only ever Debresser who is doing any reverting of the word "Palestinian" which only he unfortunatley finds offensive when used in conjunction with articles relating to Judaism. You see, Debresser thinks to call Lonzano Palestinian is "Quite preposterous" because it "singles out that he lived there." Well, he should take it up with the editors of the

Jewish Encylopedia first. They obviously had a different view. In a similar vein, he tries, ludicrously, to add Israel as the place where a 16th-centruy rabbi lived! [191]. When I counter that "Israel" was only established 373 years later, it is too much for him, and he resorts to using his all to common coarse quips: "You know damn well that this is being discussed". Quite frankley, I have no time for this user. As FormerIP said at Talk:Palestine#Historic_designation_of_the_Palestine_region

:

Well, like I say, I'm not sure I understand what the RfC is specifically about. But, in those cases, I don't think an RfC is needed. They are covered by COMMONNAME."

When I aksed him why he had not changed Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan, he said to wait and see if the 6 he changed "sticks". They did. So it is high time to change Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan to the accurate demonym. Chesdovi (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• BWilkins ←track
  ) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [192]

• 1st revert: [193]
• 2nd revert: [194]
• 3rd revert: [195]
• 4th revert: [196]
• 5th revert: [197]
• 6th revert: [198]
• 7th revert: [199]
• 8th revert: [200]
• 6th revert: [201] (most recent as of 15:37GMT 27 OCt)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (None at the moment because we are waiting for him to open the discussion.)

Comments:This user's edits on a certain number of articles on How I Met Your Mother have been reverted many times such as in Desperation Day, but yet refuses to discuss the matter in a talk page. All he does is to revert without any sufficient explanation. All of his edits do not have any summaries included at all. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC) (

• BWilkins ←track
  ) 23:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Page: C. S. Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

1. 15:12, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 15:58, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457499495 by Deor (talk) see Wikipedia: Neutral point of view")
3. 09:16, 27 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457569239 by Deor (talk) I already have, if you have a problem with ommitting British as a description for an Irish person who self described as Irish talk to an admin/mod.")
4. 15:16, 27 October 2011 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

  Note that though this was posted after the fourth revert, editor had been previously made aware of 3RR on 16 Nov 2010

  here

  and was subsequently blocked for edit warring on 30 Nov 2010, so they are not ignorant of the policy.

—

• The IP on the fifth revert is fairly obviously the same editor as well; given the previous blocks for the same reason I have blocked for longer this time.
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Black Kite (t) (c) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported: Indra1sen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 02:01, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 15:29, 27 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 20:11, 27 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457674052 by William M. Connolley (talk)")
4. 20:15, 27 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457712639 by Wiqi55 (talk)")
5. 21:02, 27 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457718056 by Wiqi55 (talk)")