Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive176

Page: Tumanishvili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:
He refuses to explain himself and keeps reverting, even after being informed by an administrator - whom he berated - that the Armenian side of the family in question was not princely. He left a comment on my page that talked about Joseph Stalin of all things he could have explained in the time he wasted writing nonsense.

User clearly hasn't taken a hint. Has been blocked twice for EW, I suggest a indef block. (Uninvolved) PaoloNapolitano 21:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ARBAA2. Kuru (talk)
  22:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Sean30405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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

• First edit
  • 19:07, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
  • 19:08, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Internet */")
  • 19:10, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Internet */")
  • 19:12, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Internet */")
  • 19:13, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Internet */")
  • 19:14, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Internet */")
• Second edit
  • 19:20, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "I have made these changes to let readers be more aware or the prices of Comcast internet. The content is still the same in telling the speed of certain packages and modem types. Please leave this change and don't correct. Please email me.")
• Third edit
  • 19:25, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "Please email me at (redacted text) to tell me why you constantly revert my change.")
• Fourth edit
  • 19:30, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Internet */")
• Fifth edit
  • 19:32, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "Leave the Change!!!!!!")
  • 19:35, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "Changes UP to Up in Economy Internet where the speed is described")
• Sixth edit
  • 19:44, 2 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Internet */")

• Diff of warning: 19:34, 2 January 2012

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked — 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

User:Plot Spoiler has broken the 3RR on this page.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• No he has not, he is on 3RR though. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors Warned — Neither side gets much credit for trying to create a neutral article. If the topic is going to be so contentious you might consider an RfC to bring in other opinions. I see that Kermanshahi and Plot Spoiler are continuing the same fight at another article,
  WP:ANI in which both he restates his position and one at WP:AN. Each of you has been blocked previously for edit warring, so please try to use your diplomacy on this one. Admins will not decide who is right about the content, you need to persuade the other editors. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 22:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]
• 5th revert: [17]
• 6th revert: [18]

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

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

Comments:

The user Screwball continues to remove the notable candidate Stewart Greenleaf ahead of the New Hampshire Primary. He is the one that should be blocked for disruption. Please read the talk page of the article for more information. Three editors have tried to explain to him that he is wrong--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation Screwball, you're fortunate that the
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 18:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. He is not a declared candidate. Did you look at the talk page discussion or did you side with Saturn within the first 10 seconds? Because I don't see any rationale that supports the idea that he is a national candidate. If anything, he belongs on the NH primary page and that's it. There is no reason to put him on the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 page because he is not a national figure for president of the United States running a national campaign. He is not significant or notable to the page in question. I want an unbiased editor, because you clearly have not taken enough time to get both sides here.--Screwball23 talk 16:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more "unbiased" I can be. We go by

BWilkins ←track

) 11:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I want an admin that is not sarcastic and actually understands both sides. You quoting WP:Consensus with wikilinks around it is not responsible due diligence; I want an admin who will read and understand both sides here. Where can I request a second hearing on this?--Screwball23 talk 02:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Mmann1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. 15:22, 1 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Restored paragraph to one appropriate for a lead. All that demographic info and intense detail is unnecessary. One sentence summarizing demographics is sufficient.")
2. 15:34, 1 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Race and ethnicity */ Added intense detail from lead into the demographics section (may even want to add all this detail to the Demographics of Atlanta page).")
3. 01:57, 2 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Cleaned up and removed POV, made it more encylopedic.")
4. 14:33, 2 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Cleaned up and removed POV, made it more encylopedic.")

• Diff of warning: here

Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments

He was blocked for 72 hours in December already for the same reverts. He refuses to allow the well-sourced phrase "Black Mecca" to be used in the lead at Atlanta, and has removed it four more times in the last day. There is a huge string of sources backing up "Black Mecca", which I recently removed from the lead where they were very distracting; they are still cited in the body of the article.

—Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The first two diffs are sequential, which to my understanding makes it a single "revert", in which they moved content from one section and placed it in another. -

Ghost

21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but can we agree that his edit warring over this must stop, under penalty of another block, even if it's not technically a 3RR violation? Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon is confusing consensus-building with edit-warring. Just because I take out a particular word as I edit to reach consensus does not mean that it's automatically a revert. It's not edit-warring.--Mmann1988 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Revert comparison ("compare"): [20]

1. [21] (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Mmann1988 (talk): M, your repeated removal of "black mecca" from the lead needs to stop NOW.")
2. [22] (edit summary: "put back "Black Mecca" that only one editor seems to have an objection to.")

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

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

Comments: This user is simply trying to get me in trouble as I try to reach consensus with another editor.

--Mmann1988 (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sock alert – RodewayInn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now taking Mmann1988's side in this. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• CheckUser shows that it is "likely" the same editor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Mmann1988. That's more than enough abuse and reverts to deserve a good block now, isn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked — Two weeks for abuse of multiple accounts in an edit war, indef for RodewayInn. This is the third block for Mmann1988. His last block was for warring on this same article on 22 December. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Nominative determinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.150.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry if this isn't formatted correctly, I have a problem reading Courier and just can't understand everything between the <>s (Seriously.) I know I am to blame for not stopping, but this IP has been abusive to other editors (as seen in the edit history). I have misunderstood the rule, because I thought they were only for literal same reversions three times. Some of these in the history were for different versions of the article, which this IP just kept reverting on principle. Also notice how many other different editors had reverted this IP's edits, yet they still continue to stick to their guns and edit war with everyone for this article. Maybe a warning will let them know this is serious. Again, I acknowledge my part, but out of misunderstanding the rule. JesseRafe (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not been abusive to other editors. I was abusive to you after you were abusive to me. I did not revert anything "on principle". I merely reverted the OR that you continually added to the article. 2 Other editors reverted me (once each) after you lied in an edit summary and identified my edits as vandalism. I assume they believed that you were telling the truth about my "vandalism", and reverted me because of this. If I was edit warring, so were you, and I was only removing the OR you insisted on adding into the article claiming that it didn't need to be referenced. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• 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:

• - note - I have requested full protection of this article at
  WP:RFPP - this issue is at WP:ANI also - both users have been edit warring. Suggest closing as page protected and retire to your corners to have a cup of tea and start a discussion. Youreallycan (talk
  ) 01:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW I agree with Youreallycan, and am about to post at the ANI discussion that JesseRafe needs to stop following 89.100.150.198 because the IP's edits are fine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq, are you serious? I need to stop following the IP? I have YEARS of edit history on these articles and have been watching them ever since, and the IP wikistalks me and you think I need to stop following him? Absurd.JesseRafe (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protected — One week by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

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

Comments:

User:JesseRafe continually re-adds OR material that has been removed, claiming that it does not require a reference because it's "self-evident" that his edits are correct. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protected — One week by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 86.162.251.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 15:33, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 15:38, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "yes it is")
3. 16:26, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Early career */ is not Original Research, the article says 'he was taken through, page by page, drill by drill, How I Play Snooker by Joe Davis'")
4. 16:32, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "No,but it does reflect that he taught him using that book")
5. 16:37, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "it is in the reference")
6. 16:42, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 16:48, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "no its not")

• Diff of warning: here

—

) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment He also edit warred on

WP:BLANKING. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?}

17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked — 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Gallows (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.240.69.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

• Note: 89.240.69.24 first removed the content on 12/25, was reverted, and removed it again on 12/26. The rest of the edit-warring has occurred today.
• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since the IP is static, I have engaged them directly on their talk page [35]. The IP has not responded there nor taken the topic to the article's talk page as requested.

Comments:

The issue at hand is the IP's continued removal of a sourced music video from Gallows (band)#Music videos. The video is sourced to the band's official Youtube channel [36] (which is linked to from their official website [37]) and premiered the same day as the song, yet the IP insists it is a "viral video" and not actually one of the band's music videos (despite all evidence to the contrary). In any case, the IP's decision to edit-war rather than discuss the issue, even when specifically asked to do so on their talk page, is the central issue. The only responses I've gotten are a couple of terse edit summaries [38]. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Catholic Church and abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (Other changes in the article make it difficult to see what reverts were made; explained below.)

• 1st revert: [39] removes material added in this edit two days previous by Pseudo-Richard, citing (on talk page) various unreliable partisan sources
• 2nd revert: [40] removes it again
• 3rd revert: n/a, article is under 1RR per ArbCom and per previously existing community sanctions
• 4th revert: n/a

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] This is a link to a warning about abortion general sanctions given to the user one day after he started editing, for the exact same reason: edit-warring in favor of an unreliable agenda source (the same one) for historical statements, and claiming that an imprimatur of doctrinal accuracy is an acceptable substitute for reliable-source, historical accuracy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42], [43], [44]

Comments:
I'm not sure what, if any, productive edits the user has made on other topics, but every edit I've come across by him has been dedicated to pushing an agenda. At any rate, edit-warring is not acceptable even if one is right.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't edit here much and am not very clear as to how this all works. I'll certainty be reading up on things, but as of right now I do not know what I've done that is wrong. As I see it I made an edit that I supported with what I deemed to be an acceptable source. A user (Roscelese) undid my edit because she thought that my source was biased because it was from a somewhat religious source. I responded on the talk page, and ultimately provided a secular source that supported my edit, and thusly reverted back to my original edit. Roscelese has not taken issue with this new source, so I thought everything was alright.

I don't have anything against Roscelese, and thought that we were working things through on the talk page, and was given no warning of this. Again, if I've violated a rule it was due to my ignorance and I will be reading up on how often you can edit, etc. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I do take issue with the claim that I push an agenda. I do not push an agenda. I happen to know a fair amount about the Catholic Church and try to expand Wikipedia by adding to and editing articles about it. I don't think this should constitute pushing an agenda. I have encountered Roscelese before about sources. She thinks that some sources that I have used are biased and I (along with other users here) don't. I have always tried to talk to her on the talk page and have no idea why this has wound up here. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, from what I've gathered, I got reported her because I edited a page twice in 24 hours that you should only edit once in the that time frame. I didn't know that at the time, but now I do, so I have undone my edit and will continue to work things out with the other user on the talk page. I would have appreciated it if the user had simply told me about this edit policy before reporting me as I was happy to undo my edit once I realized what I did that was in violation of a Wikipedia rule. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You did know that at the time. That's why you've been reported, instead of simply warned. The link to the warning is right up above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, I must have missed that. As I said above, I'm not on often so I had completely forgotten about that as it was nearly a year ago. I'm still learning here, please remind me on the talk page in the future. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Considering this Warned due to the self revert --slakr^\ talk / 05:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Montebello, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DocOfSoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

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

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

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

Comments:

After doing a lot of clean-up at the article, I left a note on the article talk page regarding the edits made (see here). When the editor being reported continued to revert a particular section, I attempted to start a discussion on why I felt the section being added back in repeatedly did not belong in the article (see here). Even when I placed the 3RR warning template on the editor's talk page, I added the following message as an attempt to encourage her to discuss: "I don't like to template the regulars, but you've been around long enough to know better than to edit war. Please stop, take a breath, go to the article's talk page, and discuss - don't edit war." The editor responded by saying essentially that she wasn't edit warring, rather, I was (response can be seen here). It was after this that the editor being reported went back to the article and reverted more of what had been removed previously (as seen in the 4th diff listed above). Even after her fourth revert, the editor did not try to discuss the changes on the article talk page or why she felt what she restored needed to be restored. (

) 05:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Update: Nearly a half-hour after making the last revert (#4 diff listed above), the editor being reported has responded to my attempts at getting a discussion going at the article talk page with a scathing post here. For some reason, the editor seems to be taking my copyediting and changes to the article rather personally (based the talk page entry); I'm not seeing a whole lot of objectivity there. (
  talk→ LesHB ←track
  ) 05:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  Those diffs don't look like a 3RR breach to me. And that last post was hardly scathing. No violation, IMO. Doc talk 07:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe the above edits qualify for edit warring. And this is Lhb's attempt to "start a discussion" on the Montebello talk page:

This article is/was an unbelieveable mess. I have done a good amount of ce on it, removed a bunch of blah-blah that really didn't belong in the article to begin with along with plenty of undue weight, and some WP:CRYSTAL. Also moved some sections/subsections around, created some subsections, and removed a whole bunch of unnecessary WP:NOTNEWS. Not to mention there was also way too much verbatim stealing of wording directly from online sources. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Unfriendly, unfounded and highly insulting. Have attempted to communicate with Lhb previously to no avail. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 13:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Have attempted to communicate with Lhb previously to no avail". When? Where? Diffs? My talk page communication as quoted above was directed at no one in particular. Saying it was "unfriendly" and "highly insulting" only proves my point above that DOS is personalizing my edits there. Unless her choice to personalize my edits has something to do with her choosing to edit war and breach 3RR at the article, I don't see how what I wrote originally at the talk page has any bearing on this report. I asked the editor on her talk page to discuss rather than edit war AFTER I tried to started still another discussion on the article talk page (diff is listed above). With the warning I placed on her talk page, she knew she was in danger of 3RR, yet chose to make that 4th revert anyway (diff also listed above). (

talk→ LesHB ←track

) 16:51, 4 January 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. v/r - TP
  18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Additive synthesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.109.177.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A70.109.177.113&action=history

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Additive_synthesis&diff=prev&oldid=469460499
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Additive_synthesis&diff=prev&oldid=469463003
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Additive_synthesis&diff=469464710&oldid=469464318
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Additive_synthesis&diff=469465416&oldid=469465165

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A70.109.177.113&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAdditive_synthesis&action=historysubmit&diff=469464622&oldid=469268650

Comments:
On one years ago, this article had completely lacked any sources, therefore, since then, I've added almost all citations for verification. Especially one of the most important problem of this article is lack of notion of "realtime additive synthesis" (time-varying timbre by realtime processing), thus I'm trying to add the notion. On yesterday, I added categorization for existing implementations (also half of these were written by me with precise references). However, this user want to delete the categorization without any reliable source nor alternative plans. I already show several sources supporting my categorization, however, this user repeatedly reverted without any sources. It may be obvious vandalism. --Clusternote (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected — furthermore, Clusternote (talk · contribs): there is no requirement for a user to create an account in order to participate in discussions. --slakr^\ talk / 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support and kindly advice. (Yes, in general, IP user is equivalent to account user, especially on the article's talk page.

    However in this case, the behavior of corresponding IP user seems similar to a specific banned user (who added obvious personal opinions and uncertainly description without any sources in the past, and as a result, disrupted the normal evolution of article), so I request the creation of account. Without account, responsible long-lasting discussion is hard to achieve.

    If my behavior was inappropriate, of course, I want to change it.) --Clusternote (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)

User being reported: Seamus48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 12:33, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469314317 by Fmph (talk) repeated attack on Climate of Northern Ireland page")
2. 12:52, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469499862 by Fmph (talk) restoring Northern Ireland page after repeated sabbotage by user Fmph")
3. 13:40, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469505347 by William M. Connolley (talk)")
4. 13:51, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469507557 by Fmph (talk) Restoring climate for Northern Ireland after sabbotage")
5. 13:51, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Providing a link to the Climate of (Republic of) Ireland page")

• Diff of warning: here

—Fmph (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked for 24 hours by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 02:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Using ISP based in Ankara, Turkey: 85.97.3.231

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]
• 4th revert: [56]
• 5th revert: [57]
  • Creates the name Bokhara to continue with edit-warring, vandalism, and putting personal unsourced POV (
    WP:OR
    ) into the article.
• 6th revert: [58]
• 7th revert: [59]
• 8th revert: [60]
• 9th revert: [61]
• 10th revert: [62]
• 11th revert: [63]
• 12th revert: [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments: There may not be 12 reverts, but anyway, Bokhara is sockpuppet of Khiva (talk · contribs) [67] and very disruptive. It refuses to accept all sources (western media reports/US military reports/Afghan defense ministry) that the Afghan national army has 180,000 soldiers. Bokhara claims that he is a diplomat and that these sources are all lies, and that he knows the real truth, which is his own estimate of 100,000 Afghan soldiers. In addition, Bokhara / Khiv are single purpose accounts most likely created by a sockmaster and both should be indef blocked. That IP of Turkey should also be blocked for being used by disruptive person. Thank you.--119.73.13.158 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm discussing it with the editor and don't think that a block would be any use at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not a good reason to not indef-block someone who created single purpose sock accounts and edit warring with them. Do you doubt that Khiv (talk · contribs) and Bokhara (talk · contribs) are the same person?--119.73.13.158 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They've told me that they forgot the password for Khiva so created Bhokara _{(you spelt both wrong in that post)} - there's nothing wrong with that. If any of them continue to be disruptive then they need to be blocked but at the minute, a block wouldn't prevent any disruption, so is unnecessary. FTR, I first became involved with this after seeing Bhokara reported at AIV earlier today. SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 109.150.57.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours v/r - TP 19:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fluffymoose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

• 1st revert: [76]
• 2nd revert: [77]
• 3rd revert: [78]
• 4th revert: [79]
• 5th revert: [80]
• 6th revert: [81]
• 7th revert: [82]
• 9th revert: [83]
• 10th revert: [84]
• 11th revert: [85]
• 12th revert: [86]
• 13th revert: [87]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on project talk page: [90]

Comments:

The editor keeps inserting what some editors have challeneged as

) 20:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 9 days Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [92]
• 2nd revert: [93]
• 3rd revert: [94]
• 4th revert: [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments:

jeffsong followed me to this page and tries to push his pov by trying to avoid this wikilink in question. i have explained it many times in the discussion, there is a whole section, the difflink above is only one comment. Wikipedia:Consensus states:" "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context." he also ignores Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". i would agree to a 3rd opinion or mediation but this self-righteous edit war should stop. thank you --Severino (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

what is listed as the first revert is from nearly two week ago. Edit #2 also does not fall within the 24 hour window. Severino himself has made as many, if not more revert to push the link to Aparthied, over the objections of editors on the Talk page (myself, and Socrates2008 [98]):

• 1st revert: [99]
• 2nd revert: [100]
• 3rd revert: [101]
• 4th revert: [102]
• 5th revert: [103]

That said, I'll self-revert and avoid this article for a while. Jeff Song (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Marking this Warned for now due to the self-revert; please keep in mind that you can still get blocked for
  three-revert rule. --slakr^\ talk
   / 02:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Tim Donnelly (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.55.198.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]
• 4th revert: [108]
• 5th revert: [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:

This user and these users ([112] [113]) who I believe are the same, keep inserting libel about Tim Donnelly. Multiple users, myself including, have tried discussing with them about the problem, however they ignore us and continue inserting libellious POV statements. There are some useful contributions amongst them, however that should not allow them to slander against a living person. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 10:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Ear training (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.228.56.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

• 1st revert: [114]
• 2nd revert: [115]
• 3rd revert: [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

This editor has been attempting to add an external link. He has left profane messages on the talk pages of myself and an administrator but has not participated in any discussion on the article's discussion page. aruffo (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Roguana using ip adress to revert 3 times, then logging in to revert a 4th time.

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [119]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120]

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

Comments:

Not only is the User breaching

) 07:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Duly reported (again) to:

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brian_Souter

--Mais oui! (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Previous BLP Noticeboard item here. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly,

) 08:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment — realistically,
  WP:AGF, but I think the probability of the user having seen it is extremely high (given this directly after the ip was warned). On top of that, the user hasn't edited the page before using that account. --slakr^\ talk
   / 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Realistically, no I did not, and there is not a shred of evidence to confirm otherwise. I had read the Brian Souter article a couple of times the other day because I am researching a project, and I noticed that the intro to the article seemed a lot shorter the second time I read it. A look into the article's edit history showed that certain editors (

User:Cntras are either the same person or working together considering the quick "response" Mais Oui showed at the time, and also their shared edit histories which have 100 intersecting articles on extremely far ranging subjects. As I have shown in my post above, it is not I who is the troublesome editor here. Roguana (talk

) 09:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Stale --slakr^\ talk / 04:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

))
User being reported: Bodhidharma7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tamilan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [127]
• 2nd revert: [128]
• 3rd revert: [129]
• 4th revert: [130]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131], [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Bodhidharma7's discussion of issues

Comments:
Both of these editors have recently been warring repeatedly over the articles listed above -

has taken place, but the problem appears endemic. Suggest temporary topic ban for both users to allow other editors to establish consensus on the disputed material.

Personally I have no opinion either way as to whose edit are "correct" and which versions of the articles should be retained. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bodhidharma7 is a POV warrior. He reads a source, interprets it as he likes and ups his new found truth on wikipedia. This is not a content dispute. He's an editor, who needs to start an internet blog. --MThekkumthala (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also User:Tamilan101 was not warned before he was reported here! Since Yunshui warned him, he didn't engage any edit war! It's only Bodhidarma who violeted against all customs. --MThekkumthala (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See next section also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bodhidarma is at it again, reverting all sections to his false version.--MThekkumthala (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've clearly have told Bodhidharma7 that his edits were POV everytime I have reverted his edits. It is he that insists his POV ideas are correct in an article where all aspects of an issue must be shown.(Tamilan101 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

MThekkumthala, what would you call this if not a warning? He has so been warned.

Simply judging from

Indo-Aryan Migration, Tamilian101 is not innocent in this. Here and here

Tamilian101 removes information that is supported by the sources given.

I do not mean to say that Tamilian101's edits are all wrong. This would be acceptable if the material was moved to another article, which it does not appear to have been. This edit is correct given the sources present in the article (which connects Dravidians to the Elamites).

Neither user appears to be reverting based on sources but on ideologies. Bodhidharma7's edits are slightly more in line with the sources overall, but neither of them have been posting on the talk pages for the articles they've been edit warring over. Instead, they call each other "newbie" in edit summaries (even though the length of time one spends here means nothing), and tell the other person to quit POV-pushing on their talk page without ever actually demonstrating how they are going against sources.

It would be easiest and fairest if Tamilian101 and Bodhidharma7 received the same treatment, whatever decision is made. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully endorse all actions by Tamilan101 against Bodhidarma7. We both know, that Bodhidarma doesn't have the capacity to write well thought and useful sentences for wikipedia. Tamilan didn't engage in an editwar after the warning template, while Bodhidarma continued to editwar even after he was reported here. Still no action against this dirty behaviour! --MThekkumthala (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again: Here and here Tamilian101 removes information that is supported by the sources given. That is inappropriate deletion, it is censorship. He engaged in name calling as well, and he has not engaged in any more talk page discussion than Bodhidharma7 has. Your blind support of Tamilian101 and your blind opposition to Bodhidharma101 is making it hard to

assume good faith and not file a sockpuppet investigation. Ian.thomson (talk

) 23:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak Tamil sadly, but I can understand it. To be proud to be a Dravidian means also being solidary with fellow Dravidians in their fight against darkness in persona of Bodhidarma and his Aryan fellowship. I guess you are a proud Aryan aren't you? --MThekkumthala (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My ancestors' ancestors' ancestors were from the Caucuses ultimately, but I come from a culture with just as many Bantu influences as Scots-Irish ones, I worship a Semite, and I'm eating Thai food right now. I'm a citizen of the world, and all peoples are my brothers and sisters. I find it extremely inappropriate how much emphasis you are placing on other editor's ethnic origins. Your last comment borders on racism (and that's only because I'm assuming good faith against good reason). Humanity is humanity, and how humanity is expressed genetically has no bearing on one's ability to follow the site's guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that a Tamil child over 2000 years ago said similar thing? *yaadhum oorae yaavarum kelir* very famous in South India! --MThekkumthala (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Historical definitions of races in India has been fully protected until January 14, 2012. Techman224^Talk 04:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

On the article

but there doesn't appear to be that consensus.

I have supplied multiple links showing that the name "Hitachi Class 395" is in common use by reliable sources, and have no sources that use the disputed title. The editor hasn't made an attempt to compromise or discuss with me and keeps reverting. The changes the editor is making fail

(you can google "Hitachi Class 395" and "British Rail Class 395" and see that the second mostly generates wikipedia mirrors, and isn't used by reliable sources)

Editor has also undone my revision 4 times now. [133] [134] [135] [136] Mddkpp (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article name is BR Class 395, and is part of a series of articles including around 100+ other BR Classes, all of which have "British Rail Class X" in the infobox. I accept there is no evidence for this name in use anywhere, because it isn't, this is a naming convention used on en.wp for the purposes of consistency. Otherwise we'd have to deal with some British trains being (eg) "Alstom Class 390 Pendolino", "British Rail Class 321" "Bombardier Class 222 Meridian" (or maybe "Bombardier Class 222 Pioneer"). Perhaps "Class 66 (British locomotive)", "Class 150 (British diesel multiple unit)" and then "Class 395" on the basis of that not needing disambiguation. It would be a mess. Therefore there is a naming convention in place that gives us "British Rail Class X" form for ANY train currently operating on British tracks. It is not in use because it's correct, it's because it's the better of several bad options. As for the consensus I mentioned, it is more a lack of consensus to do anything else - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20#Naming_convention. There was a discussion to try and do something else, it came to nothing, and all {{disputed}} tags were removed from articles.

That I did four reverts was a mistake in that I wasn't counting, and for that I'm sorry. However, I was trying to revert it to the way it had been, and the way that is consistent with all the other british railway articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Pages: Real algebraic geometry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and Page: Selman Akbulut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: estater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

History of the edit war: [137] and [138]

• 1st revert in Real algebraic geometry: [139]
• 2nd revert in Real algebraic geometry: [140]
• 1st revert in Selman Akbulut‎: [141]
• 2nd revert in Selman Akbulut‎: [142]

Note: I guess that User:Remarksen, another account created today is the same people

Comments:

I have not discussed on this on the talk pages, but I have warned the user in his talk page and explained my edits in the subjects summaries (see history of the pages, above)

User:estater has now removed 3 times in the same day the tag {primary source} without providing reliable secondary sources. D.Lazard (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• BWilkins ←track
  ) 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

talk

) (Result: 31h)

Page: Walt Disney Masterpiece Collection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 173.55.65.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 19:24, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 19:30, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 20:48, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 20:50, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 20:52, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 20:55, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 20:57, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 20:58, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
9. 20:58, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 21:00, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 21:01, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 21:02, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 21:03, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
14. 21:04, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
15. 21:08, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469968980 by Achowat (talk)")
16. 21:09, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469968980 by Achowat (talk)")
17. 21:09, 6 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469968980 by Achowat (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—

) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked for 31 hours by someone else. --slakr^\ talk / 01:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Victims of Communism Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.51.170.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 07:13, 6 January 2012

• 1st revert: 20:39, 6 January 2012
• 2nd revert: 20:45, 6 January 2012
• 3rd revert: 20:56, 6 January 2012
• 4th revert: 21:12, 6 January 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NA

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

Comments:
Suspected sockpuppet of User:Orijentolog/User:Jacob Peters [143]. --Nug (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked 31h by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 01:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: List of oldest universities in continuous operation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aaljuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

• 1st revert: [145]
• 2nd revert: [146]
• 3rd revert: [147]
• 4th revert: [148]
• 5th revert: [149]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150]

Comments: Keeps re-adding University of Al-Karaouine and and Al-Azhar to the table, even though a lengthy discussion is ongoing. Flagrant breach of 3RR, appears to be a revert only account.

) 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by me from an RFPP report. --slakr^\ talk / 01:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Historical definitions of races in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bodhidharma7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

• 1st revert: [160]
• 2nd revert: [161]
• 3rd revert: [162]
• 4th revert: [163]
• 5th revert: [164]
• 6th revert: [165]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page of Bodhidharma7

Comments:

He is actively reverting revisions by other users on different articles ignoring all edit summaries..--MThekkumthala (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While Bodhidharma7 has made more than three reverts, it appears that they are spread across at least three days of editing—no 'bright-line' violation of the 3RR has occurred, which requires more than three reverts in a single 24-hour period. That said, there is definitely edit warring going on at that article, involving Bodhidharma7 (talk · contribs), Tamilan101 (talk · contribs), and to a lesser extent MThekkumthala (talk · contribs).

None of the editors at Historical definitions of races in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have made use of the article's talk page. Tamilan101's attempt to contact Bodhidharma7 through the latter's talk page didn't exactly strike a constructive, conciliatory tone, either—while personalized messages are often more effective than templated warnings, this rule of thumb does not apply to messages which begin "Listen bud...".

In lieu of blocking all three editors, I have protected the article for 24 hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yunshui suggested I comment, because I have tried to give some comments to these editors. It appears their disputes range over a number of articles, the same ones which Bodhidharma7 tried to get protected [167]. My comments on the style of the 3 parties editing style can be gleaned from my attempts to get discussions going Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia: [168], [169]. My impression is that these are all good faith editors who are taking hardlines because they all think the other side is extremist. (A classic problem.) Although they clearly disagree on some things, if they would try to discuss how to summarize the sources I would expect that they can get through this, probably just by tweaking some wordings - but they need to make the effort.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW this section and the one immediately above are obviously about the same group of editors. There are 3 editors involved, on 2 "sides".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Tamilan101 and MThekkumthala are the ones who started this mess to begin with. They decided to push ahead with changes without using the talk pages first. Second, these two seem to have a reading comprehension problem, as all three of us apparently support the same things, judging from the criticisms received so far.

Can you believe that these two accuse me of being Hindutvadi? Andrew, this is ridiculous. It's not my fault that some people don't know how to read. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Though myself and MThekkumthala are the ones who reverted and edited Bodhidharma's edits, it is clear who is spreading the propaganda here. Bodhidharma's knowledge on these articles is very insufficient. First, he claims Dravidian speakers(a language group) as a specific race(Australoid) which is a very POV motivated claim on wikipedia as many editors know that language and race have nothing to with each other. Secondly, I have explained very clearly in all my reverts that his edits were POV. I went to his talk page and clearly stated the problem and solution, where he replied with annoyance and irritation claiming that we were "politically inconvenient". Thirdly, MThekkemthala had deleted his edit multiple and I don't find any significant problem in that. Bodhidharma's paragraph was clearly off topic because it did not discuss about the "Historical definitions of race in India", but rather genetics of modern day races in India which is still openly debated. Bodhidharma's knowledge on this particular subject is limited because he does seem to understand what physical features are. The physical features Australoids possess are different from today's South Indians. Though they do have genetic influence, and share SOME features, they also share features of the Caucasoid race as well as Mongoloid, therefore you cannot claim they are Australoid. It is clear who is creating the predicament here and that is BodhiDharma7. (Tamilan101 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

...and that's a discussion for the article talkpage. We go by

BWilkins ←track

) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• CommentThese editors have simply moved their discussion (and edit warring) to
  talk
  ) 01:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that it's pretty tied with the above. It may be worthwhile to combine the two, as Tamilian101 and MThekkumthala are tag-teaming. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours The Helpful One 02:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Crisis pregnancy center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: (will explain reverted content below)

• 1st revert: [170] - adds statement to lead about CPCs providing other services which was previously removed in this edit; moves statement about CPCs providing false information back to lower paragraph after it was moved up in this edit; changes "reported" to "alleged" after "reported" replaced "accused" in this edit (ignoring extensive discussion of the language, see talk page link below)
• 2nd revert: [171] - repeated same reverts, plus removal of material added less recently, etc.
• 3rd revert: n/a, topic area is under 1RR per ArbCom, following on from earlier community sanctions
• 4th revert: n/a

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user is well aware of 1RR in this topic area having been blocked for it on three separate occasions as well as warned more recently

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A number of the places this user edited were already being discussed by myself and a third user at Talk:Crisis_pregnancy_center#Primary_reason_for_existence, but NYyankees51 evidently didn't see fit to join us or to consult the discussion before making his reverts.

Comments:
User has a shall-we-say problematic history in this topic area, including but not limited to edit-warring, sockpuppetry, harassment, and paid editing, and was individually warned in the ArbCom decision.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Only legitimate thing you mentioned is edit warring. The sockpuppetry was done for a sports article, not even close to abortion; don't know what you're referring to by harassment; and paid editing? What are you talking about?

talk

) 03:14, 7 January 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. --slakr^\ talk
   / 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: on closing admin's recommendation, incident has been taken to

) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [172]
• 2nd revert: [173]
• 3rd revert: [174]

Similar activity has been monitored in the following;

.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [176] Attempts to resolve the dispute on talk pages

) 08:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the

3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. In addition, your diffs are not to the article about which you are complaining. KrakatoaKatie

10:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [177]

• 1st revert: [178]
• 2nd revert: [179]
• 3rd revert: [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on user talk page: [182]

Comments:
I have made multiple attempts to explain the problems with the user's changes to the Fungus article. These included a carefully-cited set of arguments demonstrating the correctness of the original wording, and requests for clarification for edits I did not understand. With a single exception (see below), Drphilharmonic has only responded in comments made in conjunction with reverts, at least one of which is clearly a personal attack directed at me. Another user (Adrian J. Hunter) also tried to reason with the user, and supported the original wording of "single-celled" as well, since that wording is standard in the literature. Neither my comments nor Adrian's received a response on the user's talk page, except for a tangential attack on British English (diff: [183]). Justification for reverts (again, given only in editing comments) refer only to personal essays on the user's talk page, none of which are sourced and most of which consist of original research to support a position at odds with established professional literature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this matter is now resolved, as the user has graciously ceded to the cerebrum-deficient tsunami. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he's just started making the same contentious change to other articles [184] and [185]. So, the matter is only resolved with respect to the single article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked --
  (t) (e)
  20:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BoDu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [186]

1. 18:41, 5 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "See the discussion")
2. 09:12, 6 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 469764460 by Lajbi (talk) Do not return material until consensus is reached")
3. 09:37, 6 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 469872805 by Fyunck(click) (talk) Do not return material until consensus is reached")
4. 11:08, 6 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 469880422 by Lajbi (talk) The original state was without the World Tennis Championship included")
5. 12:03, 6 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 469885410 by Lajbi (talk) The original state was without the World Tennis Championship included")
6. 13:02, 6 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 469891556 by Lajbi (talk) The status quo was broken with the inclusion of World Tennis Championship")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [188]

Comments: I also ran into a three revert myself in this case. Also I must admit that it wasn't me who started the discussion about it on the article talk page but I kept on insisting of not changing the original content until consensus will be reached. User argued by stating that a far earlier version of the page hasn't got the material in question: I find this illogical as it was a ongoing sports-season article so materials were added as sport events had happened and thus obviously wasn't part of the page from the very start.

15:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider
  (t) (e)
  19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andriabenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

• 1st revert: [190] 13:42 6 January
• 2nd revert: [191] 15:51 6 January
• 3rd revert: [192] 16:19 6 January
• 4th revert: [193] 18:36 7 January
• 5th revert: [194] 20:20 7 January
• 6th revert: [195] 22:51 7 January
• 7th revert: [196] 19:33 8 January
• 8th revert: [197] 19:56 8 January

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [198]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not applicable

Comments:
Although I am not sure whether this user has technically broken 3RR at any stage, they have evidently been edit warring on this page without leaving any comments on the talk page. They don't like the use of the word

) 05:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment With their 8th revert at 19:56, Andriabenia formally broke 3RR within a 24 hour period. A few minutes later, they were given a formal warning by HelloAnnyong, who probably had not noticed the fourth revert. [199] Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All of the involved editors are aware that the discussion takes place on Europe talk page, as well the administrator's notice board. I see no need to duplicate the discussion of the same issue on multiple pages, as user:mathsci likes to do.--Andriabenia (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please no wikiawyering. The discussion of an article takes place on its own talk page. Mathsci (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The involved editor chipmunkdavis was part of our discussion on the Europe page, which concerned the exact same issue. Duplicating discussion on ten different pages serves no useful purpose, otherwise all talk pages will become littered as you filled this one with your complaints of personal revenge.--Andriabenia (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Each article is different.

WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mathsci (talk

) 13:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked See below 2 threads. Chipmunkdavis for 24, but unblocked after further discussion. --
  (t) (e)
  19:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 166.89.112.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

• 1st revert: [201]
• 2nd revert: [202]
• 3rd revert: [203]
• 4th revert: [204]
• 5th revert: [205]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: [207]

Comments:

Over the last three months, there has been persistent edit warring from a couple of anon IPs over this diff, which - contrary to 166.89.112.6's claim - has been removed by six different editors as violating

06:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• (t) (e)
  19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [208]

• 1st revert: [209]
• 2nd revert: [210]
• 3rd revert: [211]
• 4th revert: [212]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [214]

Comments:
Straight edit warring with no discussion on the talk page. After their last revert I created the talk page. So far the user has refused to ackowledge any

) 12:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposed source did not explicitly explain the etymology of first name Tornike, it merely discussed a surname Tornike and leaving the etymology for Mathsci to guess. The other "references" which he listed on the talk page do not provide specific pages and i have already informed him that it is not our duty to read the entire book to verify the veracity of his claims.

Lastly, 2nd and 3rd reverts where really one revert in my view, I merely did it in two parts.--Andriabenia (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATEL:I see now that the source supports the proposed edits but it is not my fault that the page they linked does not explain everything but rather requires to search and click buttons to see the entire text. Perhaps, Mathsci, supposedly being a rule-aiding user, had to inform me of this, before he engaged in an edit war himself.--Andriabenia (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? But you nevertheless edit warred and made the above

WP:BATTLEGROUND claims. You simply blanked out the references and told me in an edit summary that I was blind (3rd diff above). Not good. Mathsci (talk

) 12:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I told you you where blind because the link you provided did not have the entire text that you claimed it had. This is a case of deliberate deception.

And may I restate that in my view, 2nd and 3rd "reverts" where really one revert done it in two parts.--Andriabenia (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not add the source Andriabenia, so I have no idea why you are using the word "deception". Perhaps you had difficulty using the source, but that is a different issue. Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You reinstated the source and had read it. You would see that the text is not entirely clear. You knew this is the reason why I reverted but that's exactly what makes provocateurs like you very happy. This is not a page of personal revenge so stop littering it.--Andriabenia (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would Cplakidas or I ever imagine that any editor checking the source would not click on a button? In the same way I can leave a url linking to an article in a journal which might involve far more that clicking on a button to read the source. You have been editing in an impetuous way without due care and this wikilawyering will not change that. Mathsci (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

When you provide a link, you have to be as specific as possible because you cannot expect us to search for evidence that you need to prove your edits. In this case you have the same perverted view of citations as you exhibit on page Europe, on which you often cite entire books without specific pages, which clearly shows your arrogant, "go find it yourself" attitude. Let me repeat it, it is not my duty to find my way through your citations or entire books if there is more specific way of citing something.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's up to each editor to acquire

WP:COMPETENCE: that is your own responsibility. As an example, a link to a non-reliable Georgian language site is completely unhelpful. You are the editor who has been edit warring in various places, not me. Mathsci (talk

) 15:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That Georgian website was the only source I could find specifically for Tornike and once the new source appeared discussing other variants of the name I have not reinstated the Georgian text. Moreover, there is no reason why the site is considered non-reliable.

Lastly, I have already warned you against hiding behind irrelevant wikipedia acronyms. Being as specific with your your citations as possible is not a matter of wikicompetence, its a matter of common sense, which you apparently do not have.--Andriabenia (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• (t) (e)
  19:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: List of Filipino Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Expectgood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

New editor is violating

. I have mentioned in the edit summary the reason for the reversions, and have now warned about 3RR. Assistance is requested. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [219] [220]

Comments:

This has not reached violation of 3RR yet; however, I need assistance in explaining to this new editor why his edits violate MOS and why adding the quote he has been adding leads to violating NOTPROMOTION. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [221]

• 1st revert: [222]
• 2nd revert: [223]
• 3rd revert: [224]
• 4th revert: [225]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was warned about 3RR/edit warring, asked to start discussion on article Talk page, and immediately reverted the article after the warning.

Comments: This is a report for edit warring at the listed article. New user has made edits in violation of NPOV policy. After these edits were reverted and user was notified about this policy, user reverted again. User was then warned about 3RR and edit warring and instructed to seek consensus in the article's Talk page. User chose to ignore all warnings and reverted for a third time without discussion outside of comments in edit summaries. User appears to have no interest in learning about Wikipedia policies or in following them. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Latif Yahia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.83.157.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [227]

• 1st revert: [228]
• 2nd revert: [229]
• 3rd revert: [230]
• 4th revert: [231]
• 5th revert: [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comment. The Talk page has a discussion on the article, which is a mess, but there was no attempt to resolve the "dispute" with the IP. In addition, the IP kept refactoring comments on the Talk page (one example: [234])

Comments:
Please consider a block longer than 24 hours because in addition to the edit-warring and the violation of 3RR, the IP received escalating warnings about blanking content in the article. Also, as mentioned above, the IP kept refactoring another editor's comments (although it might be the same person but not logged in, which is an abuse of multiple accounts). The only thing in the IP's favor is, as noted, the article is indeed very messy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week by JamesBWatson for "Long term disruptive editing, including edit warring, deleting or refactoring others' talk page posts, etc etc". Minima© (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Additive synthesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.169.179.65 (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=Additive_synthesis&diff=470455427&oldid=470453484
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Additive_synthesis&diff=470460403&oldid=470460232
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Additive_synthesis&diff=470461855&oldid=470461493
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Additive_synthesis&diff=470464102&oldid=470463738
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Additive_synthesis&diff=470465051&oldid=470464671

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A71.169.179.65&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Additive_synthesis#Stop_reverting.2C_71.169.179.65

Comments:
Probably same as 70.109.177.113 who also made 3RR. He/she repeatedly reverting already fully sourced article without any preceded discussion nor his/her own rationality.　--Clusternote (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for three days and users warned about edit warring. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Napoleon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ric5575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version reverted:

• 00:09, 3 January 2012

Edit-warring:

• 1st revert: 17:54, 8 January 2012
• 2nd revert: 20:12, 8 January 2012‎
• 3rd revert: 01:30, 9 January 2012‎
• 4th revert: 03:51, 10 January 2012

• Diff of 3 RR warning: diff
• Courtesy note to user

Comments:
Keeps adding "Corsican" or variations thereof to "French" in Napoleon's lead. Edit-warring since 2nd of January, but I just added the edit-warring since the 8th of January. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: David Wilcock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Z0wb13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [243]
• 2nd revert: [244]
• 3rd revert: [245]
• 4th revert: [246]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [248]

Comments:
User:Z0wb13 has consistently attempted to revert accurately sourced information regarding the classification of a book which he admittedly has refused to read, due to his own personal beliefs. Attempts to reason with him via the article talk page have been futile. He simply resorts to going off-topic with comments about my "voice (moving) from active back to passive" rather than discussing the disputed content. Freshfighter9^talk 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Stale Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Indians in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Afghanistan–India relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.181.135.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [249]
• 2nd revert: [250]
• 3rd revert: [251]
• 4th revert: [252]
• 1st revert: [253]
• 2nd revert: [254]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: & terror attacks

Comments:

Given this IP is just recently off a block [255] for disruptive editing and edit warring, and has gone straight back to it. He has obviously not learnt his lesson. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• User i using a dynamic IP to edit war, last revert (no4) was as 31.52.184.22 addmits to being the same editor here [256] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Page protected by Magog the Ogre Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: R v Peacock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NotoriousQRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [257]

• 1st revert: [258]
• 2nd revert: [259]
• 3rd revert: [260]
• 4th revert: [261]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [262]

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

Comments:

The user is repeatedly reinserting a reference that describes themselves as an "expert" in the field and contains a link to their blog. I don't think it's notable so have been removing (as has another user) Somearemoreequal (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Stale. Furthermore, considering this edit of theirs, a block now would only be punitive. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Madurai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 115.248.154.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [263]

• 1st revert: [264]
• 2nd revert: [265]
• 3rd revert: [266]
• 4th revert: [267]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:115.248.154.196#January_2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [268]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)

User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 18:07, 10 January 2012 (edit summary: "rv: oh come on: feel free to find such a paper, but people have tried")
2. 09:49, 11 January 2012 (edit summary: "rv unexplained deletion back to sensible version without the pointless cn. DS: you you really want to blow your credibility over this?")
3. 14:06, 11 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 470790827 by 165.123.211.234 (talk) the A/G stuff is just NN (as well as being wrong)")
4. 14:10, 11 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 470789703 by Jsolinsky (talk) as before; we don't need WUWT dictating article content")

• Diff of warning: here
• He has since deleted this warning with the comment "nope, I have 3R".

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [269] [270] [271]

Comments:
Connolley is refusing to engage constructively. He is instead making false assumptions about who I am and apparently rejecting my concerns on that basis. His talk page comments and most recent edit comment tell the tale. Along the way, he has made four self declared reversions to the same page in a 24 hour period.

Connolley is an experienced editor and former administrator. He has a history of previous infractions. ArbCom has previously warned him about Edit Waring and taken away his Administrator status: [272] In short, he knows better than to behave this way (edit warring, 3RR violation, refusal to engage constructively on talk page), and has been more than adequately warned.

Connolley is very smart. He is quite capable of deciding to deliberately violate the Wikipedia policies he knows so well, with the expectation that the positive consequences of his violations will exceed the negative consequences of any enforcement actions. In an ideal world, the enforcement would be of sufficient magnitude to discourage any such decision making process. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverts 3 & 4 are contiguous, so count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that JS, like me, now has 3 reverts to this page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlike William, I am a newbie to these types of proceedings. I believe that this is the first time I have ever reported somebody for edit warring. It is my impression that the first of my edits would be considered a change, not a reversion. Although all parties agree that I have not violated 3RR, I would still like confirmation that my understanding is correct (or not).

Aside from the technical question of whether or not it was a revert, it seems like an edit that was very much in the spirit of Wikipedia. We had two editors who questioned some material and one editor who reverted their deletions and citation needed notes. The one editor recused himself from editing the page, so it seemed natural to restore the page to its state prior to the recused editor's last edit. I'd also solicit advice on whether or not this understanding is incorrect. (Especially since the recused editor never provided any justification for his edits on the talk page) Jsolinsky (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• - comment - Hm, this is quite a strong report - a warning given with a good faith request to the user being reported to self revert - the person making the report then waited over an hour after the warning and self revert request comment before making this report. The reporter has also in good faith notified the user of his report. A very strong good faith report imo. The reverting is a judgment for an administrator. As a user recently with a recently relaxed editing arbitration restriction in this sector should the user be getting involved in revert wars in the area like this so soon after the relaxation? Is his standing on the redline in such a case actionable considering the recent arbitration? Youreallycan (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Time for the vultures, I see. But you know that 2 contiguous edits count as one, so you know this is weak, not strong. You also know (because you checked the diffs) that the first revert just removes a cn tag, not text, so it isn't even 3 reverts of the same material. OTRR, why don't you do something useful? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

One of my useful things that I am doing right now is to attempt to raise the standard of good faith reporting at this noticeboard. This report is very strong in good faith and the reporter is to be commended. Your apparent refusal to self revert and return to discussion under the circumstances is not. Youreallycan (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Raising the standard is great. Start with yourself, OTRR: do you understand that two contiguous edits count as one, and hence that I haven't broken 3RR? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish to point out that you can be edit warring even if you do not technically breach

WP:3RR. Now, my advice would be to selfrevert. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!}

16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, you can. But I disagree that I was. And I have no intention of touching that article again for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I also dispute and object to your calling me a "vulture" - I support your reintegration to your primary topic area, and as and when clearly your contributions support it, the relaxation of your restrictions and my desire is that you become as beneficial a contributor to the project as possible. - Youreallycan (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Wasn't WMC on a 1RR with all global warming related articles, or has that expired? If not, should a 1RR be reinstated? Seems like a good idea, with all his technical "two reverts in a row, only counts as one."--JOJ ^Hutton 18:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

it's hardly a technicality if it is mentioned in the definition of a revert in

WP:3RR. The rule this noticeboard is partially about. It makes sense anyway, counting consecutive edits as seperate reverts, would result in promoting in making one big edit instead of incremental ones. And he isn't on 1RR as can be seen here 94.208.67.65 (talk

) 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• No violation --slakr^\ talk / 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: AECOM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ekr219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

5 January 2011

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

28 November 2011

• 1st revert: [276]
• 2nd revert: [277]

31 October 2011

• 1st revert: [278]
• 2nd revert: [279]

28 November 2011
Message left by Sionk on User talk:Ekr219

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [280]

Comments:
User seems to only edit the AECOM article. On 17 November 2011 I came across the article and removed hyperbole and a large amount of information sourced from this large company's press releases. I replaced the 'advert' tag with a 'refimprove' tag and highlighted some statements where citations were required.
On 28th November Ekr219 updated the company's financial stats (unsourced) and reverted my removal of the press-release sourced list. I happened to notice this and, upon closer investigation of the article's Edit History discovered Ekr219 had also reverted similar edits by two other editors in October 2011. I repeated my edits and left a message on Ekr219's talk page explaining my actions and inviting them to discuss it.
On 5th January 2012 Ekr219 again reverted my edits with no explanation. They removed the 'unreferenced section' tags.

Warned — The editor may be blocked if they continue to revert without any discussion. So far, they have never left a talk comment or an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Religion in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.71.207.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [07:28
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]
• 4th revert: [283]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284] and [285]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [286]

Comments:2 editors have reverted this guy, told him to use the talk page, every day for the last 4 days he has been without listening inserting information which is a. already dealt with in the article, b, not accurate, c.a weight issue and d. removing value content in the process. Talk page continues to say he is right and that is that.The ip editor also goes by various other ips — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halaqah (talk • contribs)

Page protected — Article has been fully protected by User:Qwyrxian. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [287]

• 1st revert: [288]
• 2nd revert: [289]
• 3rd revert: [290]
• 4th revert: [291]
• 5th revert: [292]
• 6th revert: [293]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [294]

Comments:
Conflicting user, uses sock-puppets (example User:AdministratorMLML and very many IP's: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Malulay), two edit-war in short time. This is report of the second edit war, between him and four! other users. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Declined — If you have concerns about sockpuppetry, please consider opening a case at
  deletion policy. --slakr^\ talk
   / 01:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 109.70.140.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 12:08, 12 January 2012 (edit summary: "It is glost firing")
2. 13:19, 12 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 470956514 by Theroadislong (talk)")
3. 13:24, 12 January 2012 (edit summary: "Glost fired is the recognised term")
4. 14:22, 12 January 2012 (edit summary: "revert to recognised term following unhelpful edit and false claim of vandalism")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:
Three different IPs were removing the same synonym last week; 109.70.140.167 popped up today to revert to that version again, four times. —

) 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 01:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Erast Fandorin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.145.185.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:194.145.185.229#Erast Fandorin‎]

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

Comments:
Both parties are edit warring here. Schrodinger should tone down the "vandalism" accusations in the edit summaries, since it clearly isn't vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Apols - it's something that has been going on for a day or so and I've tried to point out that if they read

^ • @

) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined — After considering the personal attacks in both directions, I'll close by advising both editors to cool it. It is hard to disagree with the IP's point that {{main}} should only point to articles that exist. I assume that Schrodinger intends to create an article on He Lover of Death rather soon. If warring continues about the redlinks, action may be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Chauhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 123.238.25.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [299]

• 1st revert: [300]
• 2nd revert: [301]
• 3rd revert: [302]
• 4th revert: [303]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [304]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [305]

Comments:
THe IP is now talking at Talk:Chauhan but is not getting it. A 24 hour break while they read up on the policy links etc might still be useful. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

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

• 1st revert: [306]
• 2nd revert: [307]
• 3rd revert: [308]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [309]

Original discussion about two versions (V1 and V2) goes back to December 21. Noetica claims there is no consensus, but nine editors expressed support for V1, and there are no arguments for V2 in all these weeks. How long are we supposed to wait? Kotniski apparently thought we had waited long enough today, and inserted the V1 wording. Noetica reverted back to V2, JCScaliger restored V1, Noetica reverted again, I restored, and he reverted a 3rd time. He refuses to present an argument for V2 or against V1 on the talk page, but insists that there is no consensus for V1 despite nine editors favoring V1, and none expressing any substantive arguments to the contrary. It starts here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost The latest discussions: User_talk:Noetica#Article_titles and Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Protected

Comments:
Noetica reveals knowledge of being on 3RR thin ice by claiming an exemption in the edit summary of his 3rd revert: "I claim immunity from 3RR on the basis of the admin". I call B.S.; there was no emergency. He could and should have notified an admin instead of doing the revert, but I suspect he did not want the page locked to the version he opposes. He reverted three different editors today -- First Kotniski, then JCScaliger, finally me. He's an experienced editor who knows better and is knowingly pushing the envelope.

Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I realize there were only 3 reverts so technically not a 3RR violation, but

WP:3RR says "any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Since this was a policy page and involved the same editor who knows better reverting 3 different editors over the same material, I thought it should be reported. --Born2cycle (talk

) 07:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I protected the article today for a week. I gave a warning a couple weeks ago, and the edit warring stopped till now, though apparently without resolving anything. It doesn't appear that anything has moved through DR. If anyone can see the purported consensus, which I can't find, feel free to change the article to that version. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Inital issue explained here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost.

Nine editors -- Born2cycle, Kotniski, EdChem, PBS, Kai445, Powers, WhatamIdoing, JCScaligera, and Enric Naval -- support V1 over V2; no editors support V2 over V1, here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RFC_on_Recognizability_guideline_wording.

If that's not consensus, what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's up to others to decide. I don't see it. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss consensus. It's the 3RR board. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Those links weren't for you but for whoever you were addressing. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Response. I thank admin Kwami for his comments here. I was aware that he was taking an interest in safeguarding the page (a vital policy page) from edit-warring and instability. Therefore, after reverting changes to the page that were done while discussion was underway at the talkpage (and clearly tagged with a template at the relevant section of the policy page), I approached Kwami and asked that he review the situation. I am pleased that he saw fit to protect the page. As for urgency, it is strange that the complainant finds an urgent need to restore a disputed wording that had not been in place for seven months, when Kwami had reverted that restoration on finding that no satisfactory resolution had been achieved. For me, it is urgent that stability be preserved in policy. The page is appealed to continually in RM discussions, so it is imperative that provisions not fluctuate rapidly while they are in progress.

I am indeed an experienced editor, and I deplore edit-warring. As a specialist committed to the orderly development of

WP:MOS

, I also take an interest in title issues, and I am very keen to see that due process is followed in the development of the relevant policy. We are instructed at the top of this page "not to continue a dispute on this page", so I will not go into detail here about the abuses of process and the litigious threats levelled against me when I have called for calm, slow discussion before editing policy.

I have not infringed the provisions of 3RR. It would take a major distortion of the facts to make a case that I ever violate its spirit. Much could be said about the complainant's behaviour; but this is not the place for that. I ask that the complaint be dismissed, as an attempt to harass an editor with a long record of efforts at unbiased, methodical consensus-building.

Noetica^Tea? 07:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, "the complainant" has no urgent need to do anything, but he and others have been patiently waiting since December 21 for someone, anyone, who disfavors the V1 wording, to at least provide an argument in support of that position. After so many weeks of no such argument, there were three attempts by three different editors to insert the V1 wording today, each one reverted by Noetica who still refuses to substantively explain his position. His only action in all this is edit warring and disruptive/non-substantive discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Born2cycle: If any of that were so, it might be appropriate to take action. But not here. I have explained elsewhere that I am not happy to engage in discussion where I am subject to intimidation at my talkpage, and there is conspiratorial discussion about the timing of possible litigation against me at the complainant's talkpage (when his own actions are less likely to be implicated!). Let's just settle the present situation and move on amicably. I hope the real issues can eventually be dealt with consensually at WT:TITLE, for a durable solution that will meet the Community's needs.

Noetica^Tea? 08:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ♥

"Subject to intimidation"? "Conspiratorial discussion"? "Possible litigation"? These are lame and disruptive excuses to avoid discussion because you have no argument (since I haven't seen one and this has been going on since Dec 21, that's the only reasonable conclusion). Again, you edit war, repeatedly, and you won't discuss anything substantively. These games are why we're here. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by Kwami. Unfortunately, although I understand the issue in progress, this is not the place for deciding on the same. Yes, there is edit warring, but I shan't block unless 3RR has been crossed. I'm closing the case right now. Will follow post the unprotection. Wifione ^Message 09:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [310]

• 1st revert: [311]
• 2nd revert: [312]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [313]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [314]

Comments:

New account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of edit warring on an article under ARBPIA restrictions. He received an ARBPIA notice on his talk page before making the second revert.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AGF meter a bit here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: David Crowder Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Talk:David Crowder Band (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mokejk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [315] (talk page) and [316] (article page)

• 1st revert: [317] (article)
• 2nd revert: [318] (article)
• 3rd revert: [319] (article)
• 4th revert: [320] (talk page)
• 5th revert: [321] (talk page)
• 6th revert: [322] (talk page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [323] and [324]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [325]

Comments:
This appears to be a rather complex edit war. It appears that both editors have been reverting each other's edits on the article and the talk page.

) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User being reported: Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The links below are for deletions of POV tags, not the disputes leading up to placing the tag.

Page: Template:Moons of dwarf planets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [326]

• 1st revert: [327]
• 2nd revert: [328]
• 3rd revert: [329]
• 4th revert: [330]

Page:

)

• 1st revert: [331]

Page: 90377 Sedna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: [332]

Page: Ceres (dwarf planet) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: [333]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [334]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [335], disc. at Makemake, disc. at Haumea

At NPOV board: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Moons_of_dwarf_planets_template

At RS board: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dwarf_planets

At ANI: [336]

Comments:

There is an ongoing dispute over NPOV issues with dwarf planet and related articles, where certain editors want to downplay or remove RSs that do not support their preferred POV. The argument has been going on for months, but Ruslik0 is consistently nasty, claiming that I am editing in bad faith, lying, falsifying sources (even though they are accepted as legitimate by other editors on his side), etc. For example, at {{Moons of dwarf planets}}, Ruslik0 reverted me for adding a couple dwarf planets accepted by several experts in the field.[337][338] Another editor (JorisvS) advised that I separate the objects into two rows: one for the ones Ruslik0 accepts, and another for the other two, saying specifically who accepts them (or, as the NPOV folks said re. this case, "when reliable sources disagree, we document the dispute without taking sides"), which I did.[339] Ruslik0 reverted that.[340][341][342] I then consolidated it back to one row, but with a footnote indicating who accetpts them,[343] and Ruslik0 reverted that.[344] Rather than continuing the edit war, I have started tagging the articles in question with {{POV}} until this is resolved.[345] Ruslik0 is now edit warring over deleting the POV tags (links above). This is beyond ridiculous, esp. given that the articles are mostly FAs.

User:Ckatz, an admin, is also deleting the POV tags from these articles, but I just warned him and will wait to see how he responds. — kwami (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that User:Kwamikagami is inserting POV tug just to make a point. There is a consensus that there are no POV issues with any of dwarf planet related articles and templates. So, he is edit warring against this consensus. In the last October he was already blocked for such kind of behavior behavior. Ruslik_Zero 15:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) You are not psychic, so you can't know my motivation. But this follows your entire approach, which is that since I disagree with you, I must be dishonest or editing in bad faith. That does not give you an excuse to edit war.

(2) You are involved in the dispute, so you should not remove POV tags from the version you support. Denial that the dispute exists does not make you uninvolved.

(3) There is clearly a lack of consensus, and references to some of the top astronomers in the field to back it up. Denial that a dispute exists is also not an excuse to edit war. — kwami (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Look, you're both edit warring. I could block both of you, but I'd rather solve this in a more civilised manner. Both of you, please stop reverting each other and discuss the issue. If
  WP:DR. But please stop this, it's just silly. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!}
  15:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But the whole point of the POV tag is to mark the article while it's being discussed. It's entirely appropriate to tag an article that's being disputed, and very bad form to delete those tags until the dispute is resolved. Edit warring over the deletion of tags is like edit warring over vandalism. How exactly would you suggest I proceed, if I can't even mark the article for discussion? — kwami (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's bad form to remove a POV tag while a discussion is still ongoing, but to edit war over it is silly... It doesn't improve the article and disrupts all attempts at solving the dispute. That's why I'm appealing to you both to leave the articles alone and concentrate your efforts on dispute resolution. A block would most definitely not be helpful, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that edit warring is not an optimal way to resolve disputes. However I must tell you the whole story. Beginning from the last October we have been having a discussion on Talk:Dwarf_planet#deleted_section about the issue. At one point it was even a formal RFC. As you can see most editors agreed that the disputed four bodies should not be called dwarf planets. You can also note a POV tag at the Dwarf planet article, which I have not removed. That is fine. However in December, when Kwamikagami realized that he could not get his way in that discussion, he started multiple discussions on talks pages of many dwarf planet articles (and on other noticeboards) and placed POV tags on many them as well, effectively forum shopping. I think placing so many POV tags and forum shopping is disruptive. What do you think should be done in such a situation? I am at loss. It is infeasible and extremely time consuming to argue about essentially the same issue all over again in many different places. Ruslik_Zero 17:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Going through the dispute resolution process—the NPOV and RS boards, RfC, etc—is not "forum shopping". Obviously outside people need to be brought in to resolve this. If I take Salvio's advice and continue at DP, which would mean mediation, would you dismiss that as "forum shopping" too? As for the tags, they were a way to stop the incessant edit wars you engage in: Kheider and I and the others reach a compromise wording, then you come in and unilaterally decide to revert it (Kheider's edits as well as mine and others), and then start edit warring to protect your version, so I tag it rather than continue the edit war. Then you start edit warring over the tag. And then you accuse me of OWN. — kwami (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Kwamikagami has been pushing his personal perspective with regard to dwarf planets for well over a year and a half now. This has translated into a seemingly endless series of highly disruptive actions at the main article dwarf planet, as well as equally disruptive edits at related articles. Ruslik should not be punished by association simply because he (along with numerous other editors, myself included) has had to repeatedly clean up the mess that Kwamikagami has created. Kwami has utterly refused to listen to the outcome of the extensive and prolonged discussions related to this matter, and insists on repeatedly inserting his POV. [has already been blocked at least once through this forum for the same issue], and was [at that time to avoid editing the dwarf planet article]. Given his continued disruption, and the fact that he insists on expanding the disruption to as many articles and forums as he can, I feel that it would be appropriate to extend that advisory to include all related articles as Kwami shows no sign of ceasing his behaviour. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My behaviour is trying to enforce WP policy on featured articles, something which as an admin you should support. You speak of the "outcome" of the debate, but that outcome is merely a 2:3 split along NPOV vs. authority. I am bewildered as to how you can flout our policies so casually, and then accuse those who don't of acting in bad faith. — kwami (talk)

Kwami, I cannot and will not support your disruptive behaviour, especially given that you are an admin and should know better. I find it quite sad that you are trying to tarnish the reputation of an established, positive contributor such as Ruslik. I note that you're looknig to position Ruslik as working against a supposed collegiality you have with Kheider, yet in Kheider's own words "you keep starting a debate on every dwarf planet page and dispute page that you can in hopes more editors will support your Sheppard2011-POV pushing". I'm thinking this has long since moved beyond a simple 3RR issue; you have long since exhausted any and all good-faith measures and a more severe sanction is warranted. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not claiming any collegiality with Kheider. But as much as I disagree with him, he is at least willing to work together. Ruslik has been uniformly nasty and apparently dishonest: any source I quote is "imaginary" or a "lie", even though you and Kheider accept it (accept that it exists, at least). How you can characterize that as "positive" is beyond me.

As for exhausting good faith, I feel the same of you: Adamant insistence in flouting WP policy for no point that I could ever see. You even edit war to delete POV tags, which as an admin you should know better than to do. Of the three of you, Kheider is the only one who is reasonable (well, apart from starting half (2 out of 4) of the debates on the DP articles, and then complaining about them in the quote you just gave, which is surreal). — kwami (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to read the discussion Ruslik links to above, but I abandoned it halfway through because I could not wrap my head around it. I really know nothing of the topic, so feel free to disregard my input, as I'm unfamiliar with the underlying content dispute. What I know is that disputes such as these have an unpleasant tendency to end up before Arbcom... Ruslik and Ckatz, if Kwami accepted to stop making the contentious edits for the moment, would you be willing to try

WP:DRN or mediation? Kwami, if Ruslik and Ckatz accept to try one of those venues, would you be willing to stop adding the POV tag? This compromise should be acceptable to both parties for the moment... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!}

20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I tagged them because the discussion was going in circles, even when for example the NPOV board said we should reflect all RS's, which has been the whole point.

There's not a lot to understand, actually. It's a matter of whether a statement by an expert in the field that X "is" a dwarf planet or "is likely" a dwarf plant justifies us calling it a dwarf planet, or not calling it a dwarf planet, or saying some think it's a dwarf planet, and whether we should treat all objects so mentioned the same. IMO a straightforward case of NPOV on the one hand and WEIGHT on the other. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, for DR, we should have the other two editors involved, User:Kheider and User:JorisvS. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Note This is woefully unacceptable. I'm actually at a loss of what to do here, because especially as admins, you both should be blocked for edit warring—you should freaking know better. Furthermore, I'm not sure what's more disruptive, the edit warring to begin with, or the subsequent edit warring over a legitimate editor placing a {{POV}} tag where he thinks it belongs, presumably because he has a legitimate concern over the template. Unreal. I feel dirty having even seen this, and I need a shower. --slakr^\ talk / 22:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd support Salvio or Slakr taking whatever action they think appropriate, but meanwhile I'd like to ask anyone (from the above discussion) to explain why there are no

WP:RFC templates visible at Talk:Dwarf planet. Do you consider that there are any actual RfCs on that page? If so, has anyone made a request for them to be closed? Of all people, admins should know how to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk

) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what Ruslik was referring to by a RfC. I don't remember one. I did ask for input at the NPOV and RS boards, linked above.

Okay: Ckatz refers to this section as an RfC, apparently from this request he made at WProject Astronomical objects, and that's likely what Ruslik was referring to. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the last RfC section was never posted, I posted a formal RfC to sci at Talk:Dwarf planet#RfC: What "is" a dwarf planet?. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a remarkably short memory. I told you many times that lying is bad. Ruslik_Zero 07:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that Kwami's comment immediately above, claiming not to know of the RfC that has already addressed this issue, is indicative of his demonstrated contempt for the consensus process. He was in fact the one to post the RfC request with this edit here on September 22, 2011. It was tagged by the RfC bot less than half an hour later. Furthermore, I can personally attest to having reminded him of the ongoing RfC during the countless times I have had to implore him to stop his disruptive behaviour while the RfC was under way. His behaviour here and elsewhere with respect toh this matter should take into account this demonstrated lack of respect. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I may have suggested the need for an RfC, and then Kwami actually filed it in September. The RfC tags were automatically removed by the 'bot after 30 days, although the discussion has continued since then. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the new RfC that was just opened at Talk:Dwarf planet#RfC: What "is" a dwarf planet? I confess that Kwami is the person who seemed most in line for a sanction based on the evidence up till now, but he has taken the initiative to open an RfC which seems like it covers everything that is currently in dispute. If other parties agree that the RfC is appropriate, and if everyone reveals by their behavior that they will stop reverting until this RfC reaches a conclusion, it seems that this AN3 might be closed with no admin action. Ckatz appears to believe that Kwami ignored the previous RfC (which Kwami opened at 19:42 on 20 September 2011), so I hope he will comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the page archives for an RfC and when I didn't see one, and you couldn't find one, assumed that one had never been filed properly. If I'd found (or remembered) the previous RfC, which didn't do much good, I would have filed for mediation rather than filing a 2nd RfC. We already have Ruslik adding a redundant thread section pushing his POV on the new RfC. (I.e., a section concerning the articles last on the list but placed at the top, a duplicate of the section already given for those articles, and titled with what he wants to do rather than asking the readers.) — kwami (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ludicrous, simply ludicrous. You filed the previous RfC, and you were fully aware of its existence, having participated in it extensively. There is no reasonable grounds for you to claim that you were unaware of it. It was still on the talk page when you filed for the second one.You're simply wasting everyone's time once again by expecting people to go through the motions again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was still on the page. I did not recognize it as a properly filed RfC, because the template had been removed. But then, what would be a discussion with you without assuming bad faith? — kwami (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note. User:Kwamikagami is edit-warring on Talk:Dwarf planet#RfC: What "is" a dwarf planet? trying to remove comments, which he does not like. If this continue no discussion will be possible with him. Ruslik_Zero 11:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please talk to Ruslik about how RfC works. I have set up a separate section for the threaded discussion, as the RfC page recommends. I also added sections for references and quotations, and specifically asked that comments be kept to the discussion section, because I knew there would be someone like Ruslik who would not be able to allow a ref or quote to go by without posting his POV all over it. And that's exactly what happened: I clip and paste a statement from the IAU, and Ruslik adds a comment that I'm "lying", that the IAU never said any such thing, that the authors of the papers are wrong and don't know what they're talking about, etc. Well, they may not know what they're talking about, but that's what the discussion section is for. And now he's edit warring over it,[346] as well as over the redundant biased section I mentioned above. — kwami (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As a relative novice and a non-admin here at Wikipedia, I am not sure if the following comment is relevant and/or acceptable here - if not, I deeply apologize to all involved, and withdraw it. Indeed, I'm INCREDIBLY HESITANT to make this comment in the first place, because I (and numerous other editors who focus on medicine and cancer-related articles) have been involved in a LENGTHY and NASTY dispute with Mr. Kwamikagami in the past over his adding inappropriate hyphens to literally HUNDREDS of cancer-related articles, directly and repeatedly against obvious consensus. During that dispute, he was REPEATEDLY warned about, and AGREED, to refrain from editing cancer-related articles. Now, JUST TODAY, I accidently run across this mess and - on a hunch, decided to check his User Page. To no surprise, I find the #1 item on his "To Do" list is ... more massive edits on cancer-related articles!!!

Best of luck to you ladies and gentlemen in dealing with this. Before I bail out, I respectfully suggest you do a quick search of Noticeboard archives for Kwami, which will reveal all you need to know about what you get into when you have a dispute with him. As for me, I suspect that this post will likely (a) bring down the wrath of Christ himself on me, and (b) likely result in my being blocked, or in voluntarily leaving Wikipedia forever. The last slugfest I endured with him, and - in my opinion, and with all due respect - the vast and still unrepaired damage he did to the many hundreds of cancer articles, against clear consensus and orders from above and even his own agreement to cease and desist, is cumulatively likely to amount to the "final straw" for me, FWIW.

Again, good luck on this.

Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, I haven't been working on the cancer articles. The item on the to-do list is just a left-over, as many of the others are. It's not a very active list. Check the page history for the last time I struck one off—from the bottom. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. Kwami and Ruslik0 have been participating in a new RfC at
  WP:RFC/U is an option among several others. Simply stalling or blocking progress by reverting some key articles suggests bad faith. Disputes involving admins sometimes wind up at Arbcom, but I don't think Arbcom would take this until more effort has been made at the community level. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Comments:

Self-reported after friendly advisory...inspired by a flurry of undiscussed edits, at least one of which had WP:BLP implications, to a highly contentious article. I should have been more circumspect and 24 hrs is warranted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks, Joisey Jake, no offense taken and no action necessary. Harmless mistake if that, no active edit war, unlikely to recur. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked No need for a block here as Wikidemon says. Blocks aren't punitive and it doesn't look as though we need to worry about you. If there are continued BLP issues take it to BLPN or even contact me.
  talk
  ) 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: Don 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Meryam90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 175.157.84.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [347]

• 1st revert: [348] - (reverted three edits of the other user
• 2nd revert: [349]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [350] and [351]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [352]

Comments:
Edit war since 14 January 2012 this month.

Result: Semiprotected one month. IPs warring to add unsourced information about the movie revenues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Reverting "British subject" to "Canadian"

• 1st revert: [353]
• 2nd revert: [354]
• 3rd revert: [355]
• 4th revert: [356]

Reverting tags

• 5th revert: [357]
• 6th revert: [358]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [359]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [360]

Comments:
I originally changed the article lede of 'Canadian' to 'British' with the pipe link going to Canadian nationality law, as when Naismith was born Canadian citizenship did not exist. Since he was living in America, serving in the US army, etc. it would be erroneous to assume he returned to Canada to apply for a new form of citizenship between its creation and him applying for US citizenship. I found it apt that if he was really a Canadian citizen, we need a source, otherwise it's

. Yes, he is referred to as a "Canadian" by many sources due to his place of birth. I was abiding by the MOS, which is citizenship in the lede, not nationality (or nationality of the country that would later come).

I tried reasoning on the diffs why I was removing Canadian (cit), but after being reverted I started on the talk page with Stevio. Each time he would revert me (calling me pedantic, or make other crass comments) and by the talk page and diffs, he completely ignored what was going on just to own the page. By his own admission, 'citizenship is irrelevant' even after I told him of the MOS issue. I gave in and put in dubious/talk, and fact tags in - and he simply reverted to remove them. I called into question his source (which is being used incorrectly) and he just reverted.

I'm stepping away from this for now, it's useless to even discuss it with him I feel. I realize I'm probably going to get in trouble here, I havent looked at it yet if I'm a 3RR guy but in my defense I tried to initiative dialogue on the talk page, and also tried going the tag route until we resolved.

The current verion has an inaccurate source in the lede (he used a source saying "canadian born" as a reference for his presumed citizenship) so at this point I'm calling bad faith - he knows the issue, he knows to discuss and wont, and he knows how to use proper sources and wont. I just want the reverts to the stop and some legitimate discussion to start so this can be resolved properly.

Seacrest out.--Львівське (говорити) 09:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined — Your diffs cover a period of several days, and you seem to be the person who usually reverts back. Should we block both of you? Consider opening an

WP:RFC or getting more opinions. Check other articles for people born in Canada 1800-1867 and see what is given for their nationality. Your criterion sounds a bit unusual, since it would make well-known people like the first Prime Minister of Canada British. EdJohnston (talk

) 21:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Page: 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AzureCitizen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [361]

• 1st revert: [362]
• 2nd revert: [363]
• 3rd revert: [364]
• 4th revert: [365]

This edit warring is about a content dispute that this user is refusing to discuss on the editing page, attempts have been made to discuss them but he has been able to reach consensus on his proposed changes, he is therefore making contested changes without having consensus and reverting them back to his version when you try to undo the work. This is very contested article that has previously been under lock and protection to aviod edit warring and he know it, I have numerous times asked the user not make changes before discussiong them on the talk page and reaching consensus but he doesn't listen.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [366]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [367]

This edit warring is about a content dispute that this user is refusing to discuss on the editing page, attempts have been made to discuss them but he has been able to reach consensus on his proposed changes, he is therefore making contested changes without having consensus and reverting them back to his version when you try to undo the work. This is very contested article that has previously been under lock and protection to aviod edit warring and he know it, I have numerous times asked the user not make changes before discussiong them on the talk page and reaching consensus but he doesn't listen. This edit warring is about a content dispute that this user is refusing to discuss on the editing page, attempts have been made to discuss them but he has been able to reach consensus on his proposed changes, he is therefore making contested changes without having consensus and reverting them back to his version when you try to undo the work. This is very contested article that has previously been under lock and protection to aviod edit warring and he know it, I have numerous times asked the user not make changes before discussiong them on the talk page and reaching consensus but he doesn't listen.
Truthtellers78 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Truthtellers78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the actioning admin: Suffice it to say, I don't agree much with the assertions and characterizations

SPA who was previously blocked for edit warring on the same article I think they were a bit hasty rushing to file here immediately after I posted this on the Discussion Page. In any event, a discussion is progressing now. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk

) 22:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined — No violation of 3RR. All parties are urged to continue the talk page discussion. Truthtellers78 is reminded that some of AzureCitizen's changes were intended to prevent copyright problems (literal copying of a passage from a NY Times article). Do not attempt to revert copyright fixes because that is directly blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Last_Man_Standing_(U.S._TV_series)&oldid=471227759

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Last_Man_Standing_(U.S._TV_series)&oldid=469580861
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Last_Man_Standing_(U.S._TV_series)&oldid=470814156
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Last_Man_Standing_(U.S._TV_series)&oldid=471360960
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Last_Man_Standing_(U.S._TV_series)&oldid=471373507

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuasyBoy#Disruptive_editing_on_Last_Man_Standing_.28U.S._TV_series.29

Comments:
QuasyBoy, is repeatedly deleting valid information without reason or discussion. The age difference of "Alexandra Krosney" and "Molly Ephraim" between the show and real live is not only valid it's astonishing and therefore qualified information for the wiki article. First 2 reverts where even without a comment. User does this on other articles too.  AmblinX  20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh...here's a quote from the wikipedia rules: It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism or violations of the BLP policy) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting  AmblinX  20:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Stale — Revert war has stopped for now, and the issue has been thoroughly discussed on talk. It is to be hoped that AmblinX won't continue to insert their version unless they can change the minds of the other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)