Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive187

Page: Arriva Southern Counties
User being reported: User:Charlesdrakew

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments: User is constantly removing relevant information Davey2010 Talk 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 has now reinserted a large amount of unsourced directory material no less than seven times in two days.--Charles (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No time to do more right now but OP is now at 4RR (no warning on talk page but obviously knows the score), and is being reverted by at least two editors, maybe more as I only went back 24 hours. Gotta run, but I suggest

talk

) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I see it as removing information that's useful ?, As I've said before - not everyone's brilliant at pcs, I don't see any harm in it being left as it is ?, Thanks, Kind Regards Davey2010 Talk 18:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Davey for 24 hours, since this is definitely his violation. When you report someone else for edit warring, you know enough that you don't need a talk page warning template. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9] 20.27
• 2nd revert: [10] 20.38
• 3rd revert: [11] 21.07

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

This is only 3 reverts, and there haven't been any recent blocks, so I expect a formal warning rather than a block. However, the nature of the blanket removal of longstanding content together with the failure to reply to repeated user talk messages or to engage on the article page even after I opened a thread there means a stern warning is definitely in order. But in view of the nature of the reverting I wouldn't actually object to a block for blatant edit warring. The reverting involves the wholesale removal of longstanding content even though the sourcing issue that prompts the removal is under current discussion on the talk page at Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Food_section; repeatedly leaving a broken reference (search for /ref> in his preferred version); and removing a reference not objected to (UNESCO). Rd232 ^talk 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: following other actions, I had to post at ANI, and the user was blocked for 2 days. Rd232 ^talk 08:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:Nyttend. Rd232 ^talk 23:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]
• 5th revert: [19]
• 6th revert: [20]
• 7th revert: [21]
• 8th revert: [22]
• 9th revert: [23]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]No More Mr Nice Guy made no attempt to talk

Comments:
No More Mr Nice Guy has apparently taken it upon himself to remove any recent edits that do not agree with his opinions on the basis that they come from "non-reliable sources." Rather than discussing the reliability of the sources, he has decided that the most diplomatic way to address the issue is to do 9 reverts within a span of 31 minutes without once going to the talk page.

These reverts violate the 1RR violation, as the BDS page relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict: WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are: All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. VivaWikipedia (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

These are all consecutive edits, which makes it a single revert, not nine reverts. From

Ghost

10:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Per SudoGhost, I see one revert (in the form of a number of consecutive edits) by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs), and am going to close this as no violation. That said, I'd encourage both of you to get to the article talkpage and work this out. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JacobYohannan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26] (May 17)
• 2nd revert: [27] (June 5)
• 3rd revert: [28] (June 5)
• 4th revert: [29] (June 5)
• 5th revert: [30] (June 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31][32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been lengthy discussions on this topic, especially here and here.

Comments:
This user's edit warring at

17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - the reported contributor was made aware of the lengthy disputes that Cuchullain refers to in their report - see this diff. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours. I hope that this is simply the inexperience of a new user with our consensus-building methods, so I've left a personalised explanation of what's happening in hopes that he'll become a significant member of the community. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Hispanic and Latino Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Y26Z3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AY26Z3&action=historysubmit&diff=495845946&oldid=495844056

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHispanic_and_Latino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=495727281&oldid=494991560

Comments:
I've added text with copious citations to back up my edits. User:Y26Z3 continues to revert my edits, refusing to accept my citations, instead making vague excuses, trying to come up with something new every time I back up my edits. This editor has appeared to have similar complaints about vandalising other articles.

Goodsdrew (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As a third-party editor doing recent changes checking, I am on the side of Goodsdrew that user Y26Z3 has broken the
  Lusitanic. Y26Z3 has already labeled me and Goodsdrew as vandals [37], [38]. Goodsdrew has been removing content in the article, which states that the word 'Lusitanic' is not a recognized word in any known language. Sources that made reference to this statement were searches on online dictionary websites which yields no positive results (see [39] for an example of content and sources), and Y26Z3 has been attempting to explain the validity of the sources and thus the content, through the relevant edit descriptions and through posting a section on the article talkpage [40]. User SudoGhost has also left a comment in the talkpage section detailing the reasons why the lack of dictionary entry is not a concrete proof on the validity that the word in question, 'Lusitanic' is not a recognized word. I believe that Goodsdrew is faultless for his engagement in the revert war, as exemptions are made under the three-revert rule that the removal of poorly sourced material is not counted as a violation of the rule. Optakeover^(Talk)
  01:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• The editor also made 9 reverts on
  Ghost
  01:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours. The amount of edit-warring by both editors on both articles is completely ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 05:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for resolving this issue. Personally I would assume good faith on the part of Goodsdrew, especially because at least from what I see, Y26Z3
  refused to get it. I would have supported a reduced block on Goodsdrew. Optakeover^(Talk)
  10:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• First, I am absolutely not going enter into an edit war. I am allowed to add the following to Lusitanic now that I am unblocked though correct?

“Lusitanic” is not a word in the Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, or Macmillan dictionaries.[1]^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]} It also does not have an entry in the Britannica, Columbia, or Oxford World encyclopedias.^[8][9] In regard to its etymology, “lusitanic” has no entry in Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language" or "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology". Furthermore, in regard to its use in American slang, it is not in Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang". ^[10] Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

• Well, Y26Z3 certainly took the block to heart. After 9RR on
  Ghost
  10:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll be nice and
  WP:SYNTH. Still however, that other than the fact that this edit has gone against consensus, doesn't contribute to the quality of the article (there isn't a need to know that the word isn't in a dictionary), the user has gone ahead and re-included the same material over which he entered an edit war with another user. Optakeover^(Talk)
  16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH, you can find that here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lusitanic&action=history. There is actually a consensus that it should be there. (Y26Z3 (talk

) 21:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

The lack of consensus is evident on the talk page and article history. The page has been protected, so now would be the time to establish that consensus. -

Ghost

14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Also,

WP:UNDUE as explained in the talk page. (Y26Z3 (talk

) 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

In regard to my most recent edits to the page Hispanic and Latino Americans (by the way, I say most recent because there were numerous other issues that Goodsdrew continually reverted, but eventually stopped),

First, I changed U.S. Government to U.S. Office of Management and Budget because that is correct. Goodsdrew still maintains that it is the U.S. Government?

Second, I deleted a redundant, superfluous part of the article; this is addressed in the talk page.

Third, Goodsdrew cited the Journal of Rehabilitation, a graduate student writing about a different topic at Auburn University, and an article in The Guardian, claiming these sources dominated American Heritage Dictionary, which specifically addresses the issue. This is also in the talk page. The sentence should probably simply just not be there, but in any case American Heritage Dictionary is in opposition with Goodsdrew.

This is brief, but I hope not too brief. There is much more elaboration and discussion on the talk page.

Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

Page: Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borovv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]
• 5th revert: [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:This is not a report of a violation of 3RR but an edit-warring report. This editor has a history of disruptive editing of the Moon article, including copyright violation, and a repeat copyright violation where he changed the source to try to get it through - he eventually put the verbatim sentence in quotes. Also, some of the diffs above show that he makes repeated errors in his citation formats, ending up with citations that are not just technically wrong but worthless. He also incorrectly accuses other editors of vandalism. He accuses me of misusing rollback rights when I didn't rollback but undid with an explanation. There's more but this is all I'm putting in for the present. These other allegations support not the edit-warring but the claim that he's disruptive. It's not clear to me whether I should be bringing him here or to ANI, but I decided to go this route first.

• This is additional complaint on User:Borovv from Jun.rhee (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC). There is a possibility of his edits escalating into an edit war. He is issuing vandalism warnings for my undoing his edits where it doesn't merit one; I've explained why I undid two of his edits and will be glad to elaborate to any editors watching this page. There is also NPOV issue with User:Borovv using Korean government promotion articles regarding Korean War's 60th anniversary events that have copied verbatim from www.Segye.com which is publication owned by Unification Church. I do not yet know enough how to bring this NPOV issue up with anyone. I'd appreciate it if someone were to advise me via my talk page.

• Jun.rhee attempted to restore the article to a clean version, but Borovv reverted yet again. I've added it as a 5th revert above as further support of edit-warring (not 3RR).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hahaha. User:Borovv has now accused me using multiple accounts on my talk page. Great. What an upstanding guy. He's not content enough to constantly call me a vandal right off the bat and posting that I've been reported as a vandal, etc., etc. He needs a class in civility. Jun.rhee (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That was quite petty of me. I withdraw that superfluous comment. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nauvoo, Illinois: Nauvoo, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rockford1963: Rockford1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: 02:31, 4 June 2012
• 2nd revert: 13:40, 4 June 2012
• 3rd revert: 02:22, 5 June 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:31, 4 June 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 03:00, 5 June 2012

Comments:

This user has been a moderately active user for several years. They should know 3RR, NPoV, and Verification Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• No violation Need four reverts for a 3RR. Stale at this point as well. Kuru (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Since when did three reverts become four? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:3RR ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period.") --Bbb23 (talk
  ) 22:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Doh, sometimes I amaze myself. Reading is hard. We can close this out, sorry for wasting your time. I will reopen if the editor persists. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: King's College School, Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kitty101423 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Comments:This is not a 3RR report, rather a report regarding edit-warring from an SPA who persists in adding unsourced derogatory material to the article. Example edit, including the phrase "Some parents are now asking why the headmaster is still employed by the school, having caused it so much damage and disgrace". It could be dealt with as a vandalism-only account; I've brought it here because it is arguably not quite vandalism and yet is clearly edit-warring (even if not fast enough to be 3RR) -- as quite evident from the user's contributions.

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Nyttend. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Elizabeth Warren

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning to Gandydancer about 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (1): Attempt to discuss #1 2: Attempt to discuss #2

Comments: I have attempted to work with Gandydancer (talk) to work out the differences. However he has refused to work cooperatively.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

While Edmonton7838 and Gandydancer's edit warring on the article is problematic, diff 1 and diff 2 are consecutive. Hipocrite (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but the timing of the 3RR warning is after the 4 edit in the list above; no further edits by Gandydancer after the warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the report, but Gandy is well aware of 3RR. See [50] Arkon (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That may be, but it's pretty bad form to make a report that includes a warning when the warning was given after the last edit in the list. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been blocked for edit warring once. [51]. Gandydancer (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Stale This is right outside the 24 hours window for 3RR, but as it was several days ago and no other offending edits have taken place, I would suggest marking this as stale and moving on. Kuru (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Orly Taitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz

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

Warning to Dr.K.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] and on Dr.K.'s Talk Page: [53]

Comments:
Hello, I hope I have formatted this right.

I made an update to Orly Taitz last night. Within 2 mins, my update was removed. I reverted to my edit, and changed the language a bit to clarify what I could only assume was the issue; nothing had been noted on the talk page. Within minutes, my edit was again changed. I have discussed this with Dr.K. on the talk board for Orly Taitz and a bit on his user page talk page. I believe that Dr.K. is engaging in edit warring.

I am newish to Wiki, so I may be in the wrong. I don't think that I am.

I made one more edit on the page, but it was only a minor edit to change the word "she" to "Taitz". I'm just letting you know of that edit.

I don't understand why Dr.K. is watching Orly Taitz so vigilantly.

One more thing; Dr.K. didn't edit a change by someone else who used the same document as a Personal Source that I used. So, the source can be used for some points but not others?

I believe that I explained my thoughts on sourcing on the talk page for Orly Taitz. I'm happy to clarify any questions.

I did note on the Orly Taitz talk page that I was filing a noticeboard complaint.

Thank you for your time. Funnyhaha71 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you notified Dr. K of this thread?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've notified him. He has only touched the article three times in the last few days. I believe that you should continue to discuss on the talk page with other editors. There has not been any edit-warring here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

He has reversed my edits twice in less than 24 hours! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnyhaha71 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins ←track

) 23:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the 3 RR page before posting this. Because Dr.K. is obviously tracking edits and reversing them in mere minutes, I thought that this is a good place to encourage him to stop his behavior. I've been talking with the user. He refuses to address this in any meaningful way other than to say "you're wrong". If I fix what I perceive to be his error, I'm busted and he isn't? Good grief. Funnyhaha71 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you are not busted (yet) if you can still post here. But in the future, you need to avoid posting complaints like these as they may be taken very seriously and they could

dispute resolution.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►

01:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Funnyhaha71, No one would see the actions as synonymous with you having been busted. All of the actions were specifically marked as edits in good faith. The vigilance you describe in monitoring the article is not a red flag for concern, but instead a commendable act of selfless service. Talk with Dr. K., you'll soon find that good fortune is working for you; there's not many, better in manner, knowledge, and deed. My76Strat (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to avoid commenting here but in the face of such praise, so exquisitely expressed, I wish to thank you My76Strat for such an honour. I also thank Berean Hunter and BWilkins for all their help in this matter. Thank you very much again guys. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Funnyhaha and I are discussing the content issues on the Talk page. He seems to be calming down a bit. Dr. K. did absolutely nothing wrong (I confess to being biased as I'm a big fan).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I simply can't believe this. One honour after the other, especially from editors I deeply admire and respect. What have I done to deserve this? Thank you very much Bbb23 for this honour and for offering your expert advice at the article talkpage. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• No violation I see nothing here approaching 3RR (which is actually needs four reverts); there's nothing wrong with removing OR from a BLP. Kuru (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Kuru. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your assistance. It is appreciated. I have learned a lot through this experience. Thank you!Funnyhaha71 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Question; Dr.K mentioned on the Orly Taitz talk page that I incorrectly listed the reverts I was reporting. Dr.K. is correct. Should I revise or leave everything as is. If I should revise, what should I remove? Thank you in advance for your time to answer this question.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's all water under the bridge now. It has been resolved and all necessary acknowledgments have been made. No further action is needed on your part. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviator&diff=495888545&oldid=495826457

Previous version reverted to: [54]

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Talk:Aviator Whether the offender is right or wrong about "soap-boxing" the violation was still committed.   

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

I opened a line of communication which the violator did not acknowledge. I even placed a warning on their User talk:Wikipeterproject. They ignored it. They only acknowledged that an invitation from me was sent when it suited their reversion. You'll see I left a now erased message on his talk page to engage in debate ("Argue it out") before either one of us violated the rule, but he reverted a 3rd time and only then entered debate. I was not about to revert a third time so his reversion is not standing, illegally.

No other comments at this time, other than the Diffs can be seen in the History page of the article. I'm still learning how to really understand the Prev and Cur buttons. You can see his revisions in the reflection of the edits that show -4000 Aviator: Revision history. It's clear that way. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to spend to much time on this. The issue was taken to the talk page and quickly resolved. I removed content that was inconsistent with WP policy, the complainant reverted the removal twice and I reinstated it twice and opened a discussion on the talk page, which quickly established that my removal of the content was correct in accordance with WP guidelines. There was no breach of 3RR on either side. It seems that the complainant is unsatisfied with the outcome of the talk page discussion and a later failed attempt to create a new article with much the same content, but that is no reason to make a frivolous complaint here, especially where there were clearly only two reverts on either side. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• No violation Only three reverts; need four for a 3RR. Stale at any rate. Kuru (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]
• 5th revert: [64]

Also a simultaneous edit war at the related article:

• 1st revert: [65] (misleading edit summary "per source" when that is what is being disagreed)
• 2nd revert: [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: no because this was a resumed editwar by an experienced user (who has previously responded rudely to talkpage warnings).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67] [68] [69]

Comments: Article had reached a stable version after agreement between the involved users (as proved by this anti-vandalism revert [70] without disputing its current state, and had been this way since some time. This was recently vandalized by an IP and reverted by another user. following which DBigXray has started pushing his previous POV even after more users have edited the article in against that. DBigXray is currently editwarring against 3 users and 1 IP and is at 3RR currently at Battle of Chawinda and just short of one revert to be there at the related article Battle of Phillora too (note that his editwarring is disruptive in itself and that this is an editwar report and not a 3RR vio report). The versions being reverted to are blatantly opposite of what the article first stated... this is obvious POV pushing. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply by DBigxray

I believe this report has been made in accordance with this threat made by TopGun on my talk page few days back.

A little Background

Battle of Chawinda was in stalemate and ended in ceasefire as said by a number of sources in article, no source so far claims of Pak victory in Chawinda even then TopGun, Mar4d and a few socks claim Pakistani victory .TopGun who is on a 1RR [71] has been gaming the system by reverting every other day. and not participating in the discussion with sources. Instead of backing up his false claims with sources he feels its better to frame a false report to get the user blocked. Also in the 2 out of 3 reverts in 24 hrs I have twice reverted sockpuppetry (socks = [72],[73])(per DENY) following policies. [74][75] which TopGun chose not to mention (so that his false accusations of 3RR and 24 hr appear true). Besides i have Made full use of talk page for discussing my reverts whereas TopGun still keeps away from givng sources for his false claims.

• Another claim by TG that The versions being reverted to are blatantly opposite of what the article first stated is completely wrong, the stable version of the article never stated Pakistani Victory which he and his friends are now trying to edit war into the article. It stated Ceasefire (as supported by source) and TopGUn falsely claims of Pakistani Victory without even giving sources for victory

Explanation of my reverts.

• Revert 1 (11:29, 2 June 2012).I Reverted A new user (sleeper) who comes and changes the Infobox completely in violation of what was discussed in the talkpage.
• On seeing myself reverted by another user Mar4d 17:39, 2 June 2012 I immediately start a discussion on the , Talkpage 17:50, 2 June 2012 and then restore the correct and sourced version 17:51, 2 June 2012
• Mar4d again reverts me 18:11, 2 June 2012 and then replies falsely claiming that source does not say this (while he does not provide any source to back up his claims) on Talkpage and rather tells me to wait for his tag team partner TopGun,
• Darkness shines supports that my revert is in accordance with source.on Talkpage
• 18:55, 2 June 2012 On Talkpage I respond to Mar4d's
  wp:SYNTHESIS

• TopGun comes and claims That India failed without giving any source for his claims on 03:25, 3 June 2012 I ask him to back up his claim by sources on Talkpage 12:13, 3 June 2012

• after waiting for 2 days at the talk page for a source supporting the so called Victory I revert on 17:51, 4 June 2012

• TopGun returns again. Disregarding the talk page discussion and without giving a source for his Pakistani victory claims, reverts the article 04:47, 5 June 2012
• Mar4d adds Pakistani victory even though no source claims this, without discussing on talk and a biased quote, 08:06, 5 June 2012
• 11:21, 5 June 2012 on Talkpage I again discuss that Victory claims are not in the source.
• 11:20, 5 June 2012 I revert the seriously Biased quote and source misrepresentation.
• 14:46, 5 June 2012 on Talkpage Mar4d falsely Claims that sources says victory which is
  wp:SYNTHESIS
  while in reality the source does not.
• I Again discuss on the talk page about the false and unsourced reverts. on Talkpage 18:05, 5 June 2012
• A sock
  wp:DENY
  and also add another source that supports that the result was Ceasefire.
• an IP Special:Contributions/2.91.10.69 (who has no history of editing) an apparent sock(proxy?) of some user here 21:33, 5 June 2012 comes and reverts in support of Pak Victory without discussion.

• 01:04, 6 June 2012 I revert the sock following DENY
• 03:39, 6 June 2012The page is protected for persistent sockpuppetry.

As shown above There is no 3rr violation, I have used the talk page and clearly stated my point. I sincerely hope the admins will notice the Bad faith report, unwillingness to discuss on talk with source, Sockpuppetry , tag teaming and BOOMERANG before making a decision on this attempt to harass Me so that I give up --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted only once on the article, so better not make this about me - such false accusations are considered as personal attacks. There's no excuse for editwar whether you are discussing on talk or not. You should really read

WP:SOUP. --lTopGunl (talk

) 15:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• User:Dannydoesia and Special:Contributions/2.91.10.69 speak for themselves, And from what it seems above, I dont have the right to explain myself and my edits --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment (from a silent observer of the article in question): The chain of evidence provided by DBigXray is strong and self-explanatory. DBig conducted one edit on June 2, was reverted by Mar4d, conducted one revert, was again reverted by Mar4d. It was DBig to stop (!) the revert circle and it was also DBig who immediately started a discussion on the talk page. DBig let the version of the other editor stand to discuss on the talk.

After waiting 2 days no sources were provided by neither TopGun nor Mar4d on the talk page which would back up their pov ("Pakistani victory") but instead DBig had acquired the support of two other established editors one of whom provided two further reliable sources on the talk page for DBig's version ("ceasefire"). As such DBig had acquired consensus on the talk page a) because a majority of editors backed up his version, b) because all reliable sources presented backed up the "ceasefire" and c) because those in the minority opposed failed to provide any source for their pov on the talk page. Such gave DBig the full right to reinstate after waiting for 2 days. Any revert of DBig by others was against consensus at that point.

That a confirmed sock and a SPA IP then came to meddle into the article history and to revert DBig, is troublesome, possibly damaging to wikipedia, speaks for itself and would need further investigation. Reverting socks, does not count as a revert. JCAla (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Swedish IP is not on the same continent as any one in the dispute and neither is it a webhost or a proxy or confirmed as a sock by anyone. You're neither an admin nor involved. Please don't add more to the

WP:SOUP already present. --lTopGunl (talk

) 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it so that ones who are neither involved nor admins are to avoid commenting here as observers? Can this be rather dealt on the talk pages itself then?

The evidence from DBigXRay is very exhaustive according to me. Whether the edits present 'opposing view' in a stalemate etc. is secondary to content backed by secondary sources per me. As reverting socks does not count as revert so 3RR stands too. User:Dannydoesia is a confirmed sock-puppet and the IP has edited just once per contribs of that 2.91.10.69.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, JCAla is involved in a hell load of content disputes with me.. I asked him to stay away as it would appear as hounding. And I did not count the reverts to Dannydoesia. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• No violation Maybe three reverts over a three day period; two others reverting clear Nangparbat socks, all several days ago. DBigXRay's timeline seems accurate. It would be best if all parties worked more on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

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

Comments:

• Is this a fucking joke? Look at who I was reverting, it was a sock of user:Nangparbat which is now blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• No violation As mentioned above, the account being reverted is suspected to be a sockpuppet of a known problem user. Furthermore, separate discussions on DarknessShines' talk page show that DS has a history of cleaning up after this particular individual. Ckatz^chat_spy 07:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

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

Comments:

• Good lord, you even posted on his talk page, how did you not see he was a blocked sockpuppet? The user being reported here is a blocked sock of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Already blocked Kuru (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: {{Susana Martinez}}
User being reported: User:Rr0044 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [86]
• 2nd revert: [87]
• 3rd revert: [88]
• 4th revert: [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

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

Comments:

• 3rr, mass deletion of reliable, sourced material - asked editor to go to talk page many times. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours instead of the normal first-offense-24 since he logged out to keep it up as an IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Schengen Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Camoka4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

• 1st revert: [92]
• 2nd revert: [93]
• 3rd revert: [94]
• 4th revert: [95]
• 5th revert: [96]
• 6th revert: [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Schengen_Area#Candidate_countries_shown_on_both_maps.3F

Comments:

One of the reverts was made by

) 23:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Camoka4, I tried to contact the user L.tak several times, although he has no argument against my edit, and although he reads my messages on his talk page, he never responds, he started to revert my edits after a very long time of my first edit, my question is how can I find a consensus when the other side keeps hiding ? Thank you.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

He gave a pretty well-reasoned argument on the article's talk page, and the consensus on the talk page appears to be in support of it. An editor's participation isn't required to form a consensus, and there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page even now. L.tak's lack of comment isn't a reason to make six reverts today. -

Ghost

23:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not even true that User:L.tak didn't respond to Camoka4's comments on L.tak's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours As noted, this is clearly the IP editor. This is his second block for 3RR. Kuru (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

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

• 1st revert: [101]
• 2nd revert: [102]
• 3rd revert: [103]
• 4th revert: [104]
• 5th revert: [105]
• 6th revert: [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107] Previous warning from March

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments:

Edit warring over the same issue from June 3rd: [109], [110] and earlier (April, March) [111].

The edit itself is an attempt to insert an anti-semitic rant by Henry Ford into the article about "evil Jewish bankers", based on this [112]. I'm surprised this user hasn't gotten blocked already.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: List of modern dictators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.127.171.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_modern_dictators&diff=496554248&oldid=496551231>

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

• 1st revert: [113]
• 2nd revert: [114]
• 3rd revert: [115]
• 4th revert: [diff]

The Current page is the right version.50.117.56.221 (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This user has been warned many times for adding his thoughts on discussion as you can see, but each time he goes and edits the page, same he is doing it few other pages as well. 50.117.56.221 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 15:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_dictators
User being reported: User:Justicejayant, for use of proxies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_modern_dictators&action=history

With in a short time, 5 different ips from different geolocation reverted an ip's edits, "coincidently" to avoid a 3RV violation by user Justicejayant.

This diff proves that User Justicejayant is atleast one of those Ips

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_modern_dictators&diff=496415802&oldid=496415378

Checking his blocklog, this is not the first time he has been blocked. He has been blocked 5 times before for POV pushing and editing warring, the most recent ban was for a month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AJusticejayant I7laseral (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected Due to the strong relationship to the above report, I have upgraded the protection to FULL on the article (
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• add -
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 15:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reinventor098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:10, 5 June 2012

• 1st revert: 00:27, 6 June 2012
• 2nd revert: 03:59, 6 June 2012
• 3rd revert: 03:59, 6 June 2012
• 4th revert: 04:48, 6 June 2012
• 5th revert: 22:27, 6 June 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments: Discussion about sourcing here

Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Unequivocal edit warring despite warnings. Seems to be a pattern too. I am also unimpressed by the personal attacks on other editors in edit summaries and what not.--Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Again

Back from his block, he's reverted again.

• 23:51, 7 June 2012

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• And again and again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• And yet again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Like Tom, I'm not even sure this subsection is appropriate, but, in case anyone is watching, Reinventor098 has been blocked for 96 hours per my report at
  WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 20:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: James Bond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: 1

• 1st revert: 1 15:50, 6 June 2012
• 2nd revert: 2 00:11, 7 June 2012
• 3rd revert: 3 08:47, 7 June 2012
• 4th revert: 4 09:07, 7 June 2012

The problem is pretty much one of those

, he contended that the first edit wasn't a revert and did not count towards the 3RR violation.
I informed him that if he failed to self-revert within a few hours, I'd report him here. RL intervened and I wasn't able to file this until now - only after checking to see if the user had chosen to self-revert. He has not.
Additionally, the editor argues that the article for the book already uses the term 'authoriZed' and not the British term, and thereby supports the Americanized version. This is strikingly deceptive, as SchroCat has specifically manipulated the article for the book to support his edit-warring in the James Bond article. To whit, he renames/moves the article to his preferred version], and makes several edits in support of that change (1, 2, 3). Furthermore, he offers as substantial citation an explicitly manipulative search of the British Library sources (ie. searching for his preferred term only when a more thorough search reveals that the British term existed prior to it).

I've sought to sort this out with the user, but they aren't interested. As I see it, SchroCat altered the book article (written by a Brit, published in a country that uses British naming conventions about a fictional British subject) because he found a version of the book that doesn't use the British spelling. He then alters another article to support this change and edit-wars it into a 4RR vio despite warnings to stop and self-revert. I'm at odds as to how to resolve this, so I came here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (as noted above): article edit summary, article discussion as well as his user talk page - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC) -->

Ah how nice it is to try and spin reality and get your cheap shots in first. Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs) is right on one point tho, it does relate to a UK/US spelling—and as an Englishman who lives and breathes BrEng spelling and who is constantly protecting the BrEng spelling in British articles, it is funny (almost painful) to have to use "authorized" in an BrEng article. Unfortunately JS has not yet managed to grasp the fact that the first edition published in the UK in 1973—the UK edition—uses the word "authorized", rather than the BrEng version. Perhaps a quick spin through the chronology of this sorry affair may straighten things out a little more:

1. An edit on the
   Sidgwick and Jackson
   edition and is the first edition anywhere in the world. Some subsequent editions then started carrying the "authorised" version, but not the first edition.
2. After confirming Fanthrillers was right, I made a number of changes to articles, including
   James Bond (character)
   site (dated at 21:50, 6 June 2012) is not, therefore, edit warring, but the correction of incorrect information as part of an overall editing process aimed at keeping the Bond-related articles at as high a standard as possible.
3. After the articles were corrected, the unpleasantness on the James Bond (character) article started:

1. At 02:07, 7 June 2012‎ Jack Sebastian reverted the edit. (JS's first revert)
2. At 06:11, 7 June 2012‎ I reverted JS and pointed out that authorized is correct 1st edition title (Schro's first revert)
3. At 14:45, 7 June 2012‎ JS reverted again and asked for a citation. (JS's second revert)
4. At 14:47, 7 June 2012‎ I reverted and said that I would add to the talk page in a second (and pointed out he should also have gone to the talk page before reverting) (Schro's second revert)
5. At 14:51, 7 June 2012‎ I started a new section on the talk page, "Pearson's authoriZed biography"
6. At 14:57, 7 June 2012‎ JS ignored my talk page discussion and started his own, followed by:
7. At 15:03, 7 June 2012‎ JS continued to revert the article, despite being asked not to so and despite the Talk page discussion being started. (JS's third revert)
8. At 15:07, 7 June 2012‎ I reverted again and again pointed JS to the talk page (Schro's third revert)

My second talk page edit was where I warned JS about the danger of him breaching

WP:3RR

if he continued reverting. Yes, I probably shouldn't have made the third revert (15:07, 7 June 2012), but when I've started a talk page discussion about an edit and the discussion is ignored and the edits again reverted, then I do take it as an attempt by an editor to edit war, which is why I warned JS of his approaching breach of 3RR.

I utterly refute JS's accusations of being "strikingly deceptive" and of editing a search that has "specifically manipulated" in support of edit warring and I am furious at his attempts to smear what I have done in this way. I have edited the James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007 article in a fitting way in the light of the information provided by Fanthrillers and no changes to the word "authorised/authorized" took place once JS started his edits: for him to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Unfortunately JS has still not got to grips with the fact that the 1973 Sedgewick and Jackson UK edition of the book is the first edition of the book anywhere in the world and it uses the title James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. Sadly it does mean that a US spelling is in a BrEng article, but as it's the correct information then it's got to be shown as such. -

^ • @

) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's set aside the content issue for the moment, SchroCat. At what point did you think that reverting four times (haven't a clue why you think the first revert wasn't one) was an effective method by which to find a consensus for your opinion. Last time I checked, edit-warring a preferred version - without discussion - is not collaborative editing. When someone tells you that you are breaking the 3RR rule, your VERY first action should be to go to the history and count the edits, and self-revert if there is even the possibility that you have broken 3RR. Are you under the impression that no one at all could consider your four edits in support of a single word change to not be edit-warring? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

PS. Jack, you were right first time round: I am a "him", not a "her". -

^ • @

) 05:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies; I was looking over the AN/I blocking complaint you were involved in, and it seems they were under the impression that you were a female. I'll undo those gender changes asap. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditto Jack: my first edit was not warring, it wasn't even bold, it was an everyday ordinary edit to correct something incorrect. Since then we have both reverted three times. I counted. At what point did you decide to ignore my discussion on the talk page and then revert edits was the proper course of action? -

) 06:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

While the first revert is not considered edit-warring; subsequent reverts on the same point are. As well, your statement about using the article discussion page seems on its face disingenuous: you reverted four times (yes, we are counting the first revert as such, as you reverted in your preferred version) and THEN went to discussion more than four hours later. I simply reset the article to its pre-existing state and suggested conversation three different times.

So, as is demonstrably accurate, discussing the issue wasn't really part of your plan...until you had reverted yourself into a hole. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you believe youself or not on this. See the chronology above. I reverted twice, very rapidly following up my second revert with an entry on the talk page. I subsequently reverted your edit, which you had doneAFTER a talk page discussion had been opened. Decidedly uncool that one. I then pointed out to you nbot to revert again, warning you about 3RR. I was the one that raised that to you as I knew where I stood and I did not want to see fall into the 3RR hole. I'm not entirely sure where you get the four hour window from... again, see the chronology, with the time stamps all nice and visible for everyone to see. -

^ • @

) 14:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I really have to do this? Okay:

15:50, 6 June 2012 1

00:11, 7 June 2012 2

08:47, 7 June 2012 3

09:07, 7 June 2012 4

08:51, 7 June 2012 5

Oops, a mistake on my part: from the time you were reverted to the time you posted was closer to eight hours. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is getting utterly, utterly ridiculous. You are displaying all the behavioural patterns of a troll, on this and three other pages. Your comments on

^ • @

) 14:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Stale. Speaking of
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Err, so now we aren't supposed to politely ask people to self revert? We just run over here and report them the moment they blow up 3RR? It isn't a content issue, BWilkins; it was about someone who ignored the rules when it came to shoehorning their pet opinion in. But thanks for your take on AGF protocol. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"you're not actually trying to gain protection, you're attempting to punish", "an overview of your editing style and trying to figure you out" suggests something verging—but not quite at—

WP:HOUNDING" Jack Sebastian has an extensive history of this kind of behavior. When someone points that out he reverts and calls it "personal attack", then comes the insults, biting and cheap shots. Maybe a warning Jack Sebastian about his behavior may be in order. 65.204.124.130 (talk

) 01:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. For an "anonymous" IP editor - one who openly admits to sharing their Wiki account with several other people - you seem to have a particular hard-on for me, chum. I wonder who you really are. No matter. Things like you always get sorted out in the wash. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack, Just by way of clarification, I am not the IP editor in question and I hope you do not think that is the case. Anything I have to say I will, can and have say directly to you under my own name. Geolocate puts this IP user in the US: I am happily tucked up in London. -

^ • @

) 08:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, SchroCat - it wasn't you I was suspecting. Someone I've interacted with before who self-destructed got themselves indef-blocked. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Progressive tax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.74.164.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [118]

• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123] - He didn't respond to my post on the talk page.

Comments:

This isn't a 3rr issue. His reverting includes the removal of a "Page needed" tag (3 times) and the usage of an Amazon.com listing as a reference (3 times). Tiring. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Stale, but I'll warn the editor any more slow-motion edit warring will lead to a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [124]

• 1st revert: [125]
• 2nd revert: [126]
• 3rd revert: [127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

Did not respond to my response: [129]

Comments:

User engages in removing sourced material after unilaterally declaring "need a better source". Confuses sourcing of a book with "Amazon". Textbook ideological vandalism as user keeps attacking only the section that deals with opposing arguments - a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. After engaging in removing sourced material, user makes a flurry of small edits to try to mask his initial edit. Please see entire edit summary.

• No violation No violation, appears several other editors have disagreed here. It's also not appropriate to call edits in a content dispute
  vandalism. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}
  09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Sanjiv Bhatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.169.25.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

• 1st revert: [131]
• 2nd revert: [132]
• 3rd revert: [133]
• 4th revert: [134]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Admittedly not tried. :-(

Comments: All initial reverts were to edits by Sitush (talk · contribs) plus 1 by AnomiBOT. Editor seemed to stop after being warned at 05:17, 9 June 2012, but came back and performed 2 more reverts

• 5th revert: [136]
• 6 th revert: [137]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear 3RR; warned prior. Kuru (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Susana Martinez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:206.169.60.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [138]
• 2nd revert: [139]
• 3rd revert: [140]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

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

Comments:

• This anon keeps mass deleting material with no reasons. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 15:19, 14:39, 14:13, 00:29; was warned prior. Ism, please note that you are just outside the automatic block window yourself; it may be advisable to limit yourself to the article's talk page for a bit. Kuru (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What the anon's last mass deletion? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Bronygarth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter E. James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [142]

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

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

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

Comments:

Water marble nail (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP that was adding obvious nonsense about "Bronies." Peter E. James appeared to be reverting vandalism, so there is no action to take, unless someone wants to argue that the IP edits were valid additions. Acroterion (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• • No violation Concur that this was reverting more my little pony trolling. Kuru (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

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

• 1st revert: [149]
• 2nd revert: [150]
• 3rd revert: [151]
• 4th revert: [152]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A - really no need, as this user just got back from a 24 hr block for exactly the same thing and resumed right where s/he left off [154].

Comments:

AmourReflection just got a 24 hr block for this very thing [155]. As soon as the block expired s/he returned to the exact same thing. This despite additional warnings/advice, post block, [156]. Just not getting the message.

Also, someone should check out this account Ilikecod, as in the short time that AmourReflection was blocked, it performed the exact same revert that AmourReflection was edit warring over before (and now, after) the block: [157]. VolunteerMarek 05:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. As for Ilikecod, there just isn't enough evidence to determine that the two accounts are operated by the same person. Strange as it is, that patterns of editing for the two accounts don't seem to support the theory of a sockpuppet. -- tariqabjotu 08:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: The Unsung Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.219.78.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User201212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [158]

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Have attempted to resolve on IP's talk page, without response.

Comments:
IP appears to be User201212 logged off. The status quo has been that The Unsung Heroes has been a redirect to another page. User201212 has been writing article about what appears to be a non-notable band called "The Unsung Heroes". As part of that campaign, User201212 and the IP have been edit-warring to keep The Unsung Heroes as an article about the non-notable band. Singularity42 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. I have restored the redirect. Whilst the band may be notable in the future, they obviously aren't at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Organometalic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

User has reverted at least ten times today, has been warned several times about edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours -- tariqabjotu 03:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: The Woman in Black (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2.25.71.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 14:57, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 496434878 by Williamsburgland (talk)")
2. 15:00, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 496434025 by Williamsburgland (talk)")
3. 15:05, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497069567 by Williamsburgland (talk)")
4. 15:18, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497070979 by Williamsburgland (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2.25.71.119

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Woman_in_Black_%282012_film%29#British_English_or_America_English_in_reviews_section.3F

Comments: Please also see my last edit summary; informing him that we were both at our 3RR. Please also note that two of my reverts were in regards to this - my first was reverting a good faith spelling error.

--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 09:47, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497020505 by Nick-D (talk) To serve as a counter-weigh the statement by W.Churchill")
2. 10:14, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497036475 by Nick-D (talk) Churchill is not a historiaan either. This quote by a right wing American (Hornberger) summarise many of the opponents view.")
3. 14:18, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "/* Preferable to invasion */ Removed as it clearly is a Self-published sources")
4. 14:35, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497058404 by Wee Curry Monster (talk) Albert Camus is totally irrelevant and not adressing the bombs specifically")
5. 15:53, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497076040 by Wee Curry Monster (talk)JUST QUOTING CORRECTLY! But seemingly I am the only one who has the privillige to LOO UP the sources!")
6. 16:29, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497080543 by Wee Curry Monster (talk) The source is self published")
7. 17:02, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497084759 by Binksternet (talk) Hasegawa| DONOT support this view. QUOTATION FRAUD")
8. 17:38, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497087026 by Binksternet (talk)")
9. 19:06, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497095657 by Oda Mari (talk) Quation fraud. Look it up, for Christ' sake!")

• Diff of warning: here

• Comment - Additional discussion at AN/I and article talk page.

—

) 19:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked by
  talk
  ) 19:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.222.145.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [164]

• 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:
This user has been vandalizing various action films and wrestling articles under a dozen IPs and does not respond to talk page comments or reverts. can anyone help? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP does this also on the following pages:

Bullet in the Head (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

1. 11:44, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 12:46, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 12:51, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 12:56, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 12:59, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 13:09, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 13:12, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 13:14, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
9. 13:15, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 13:18, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 13:20, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 13:22, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 13:24, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
14. 13:27, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
15. 13:28, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
16. 13:31, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
17. 13:33, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
18. 13:35, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
19. 13:37, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
20. 13:41, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")

Page: The Iron-Fisted Monk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

1. 11:50, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 13:06, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 13:16, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 13:17, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 13:19, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 13:24, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 13:33, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 13:34, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
9. 13:38, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 13:42, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 13:45, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 13:47, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

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

1. 11:52, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 13:04, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 13:19, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 13:19, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 13:20, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 13:22, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 13:25, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 13:32, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
9. 13:34, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 13:36, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 13:41, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 13:44, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 13:46, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
14. 13:48, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")

Page: Police Story (1985 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

1. 11:49, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 13:05, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 13:07, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 13:13, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 13:15, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 13:15, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 13:17, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 13:26, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
9. 13:29, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 13:32, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 13:38, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 13:42, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 13:45, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")
14. 13:47, 11 June 2012 (edit summary: "")

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked  for a period of 31 hours by DoRD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 19:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Neil Gaiman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 64.222.94.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 00:45, 12 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 496966215 by JohnBlackburne (talk) triviality is opinion, reverted.")
2. 00:55, 12 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497148807 by Rehevkor (talk) No LINKVIO here...please dont threaten.")
3. 01:05, 12 June 2012 (edit summary: "] (talk) There is no consensus and no rule has been violated. Reverting vandalism by John Blackburne.")
4. 01:07, 12 June 2012 (edit summary: "(talk) reverting vandalism by Rehevkor")
5. 01:10, 12 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497150444 by Rehevkor (talk) Please stop vandializing the page.")
6. 01:14, 12 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497150898 by Rehevkor (talk) Please stop vandalizing the page, Rehevkor.")

• Diff of warning: here

• Attempts to resolve issue: here

—

) 01:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• • No attempt has been made to solve this issue by anyone but myself. They simply are blanking what they don't like, or making claims that it's original research, or that it's "old" information, or that the source doesn't count, because, frankly, they don't LIKE the information. 64.222.94.115 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Note Editor has self-identified as

) 01:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Other edit warriors are exempt as the IP was including a copylink violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 70.95.49.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [165]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170] (not diff, no older version)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [171], [172]

Comments:

My apologies if the diffs are not the ones expected; this would be my first time reporting an edit war. Hello71 (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert #5 [173]

Revert #6 [174]

Revert #7 [175]

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Note -- I didn't see this post -- I saw this happening on recent changes. Antandrus (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: N/A

• 1st revert: [176]
• 2nd revert: [177]
• 3rd revert: [178]
• 4th revert: [179]
• 5th revert: [180]

The user has been constantly edit warring on this article since June 8 [181] against various users, trying to present the opinion of some authors that the term concerned refers to 'islamophobic' and 'extremist' 'conspiracy theories' as indisputable truth. Attempts to de-POVize the lead are met with blind reverting [182] and baseless accusations of 'vandalism'. The user has recently been blocked for this kind of behaviour.
What is especially alarming, is that after I edited the page

12:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The user appeared in the Gaza War talk page where I have a dispute right after I have reverted his edit in EURABIA.I think its clear violation of WP:STALK.--Shrike (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 12:22, 11:53, 11:49, 11:15, and 14:42 the previous day. Antagonistic comments on talk pages and false claims of vandalism indicate this will probably not stop. I've set the block for 24 hours as this is the first actual edit warring block; will extend if personal attacks appear in connection with this. Kuru (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Now the block is over, Altetendekrabbe and Estlandia have resumed their edit war over

Eurabia. They are both as bad as each other.--Toddy1 (talk

) 19:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit wars extend to other pages as well - for example Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a case of

WP:HOUNDING in that regard (Estlandia was in a dispute there about World War II - Altetendekrabbe reverted him after they engaged in this Eurabia edit war), which makes it a more serious offence. --Pudeo'

23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. He stalked my edits and found this page and immediately started reverting me, although there is nothing wrong with the article link I added. Cf third party comments he removed as 'nonsense'.

Estlandia (dialogue)

09:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to emphasize, that Altetenkrabbe's edits at

Estlandia (dialogue)

09:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

More edit warring and tendentious edits by Altetenkrabbe at Dhimmitude. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [189]

Comments:

OPTIONAL: Dr Keirnan has previously broken the 3 revert rule within the last few days, without my having reported the matter. I negotiated a number of changes at that time. There is a section on the talk page where several editors, other than myself, have made negative comments bout the balance of the article, especially the introduction. My edit summaries, and frequent comments o the talk page have documented the reasons for all significant changes. A number of disputes and reversals have resulted from the more trivial matters. DrKiernan is not the only "reverter". Their appears to be considerable "ownership" problems with the article, with a quorum, rejecting almost every attempt to improve the "balance". Amandajm (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: this message was left on the user's talk page 20 minutes prior to the last reversion. The edits and references I was working on are lost:

Reverting

Please stop doing it. If anybody takes the time to read my edit summaries, and reads the notes that I have made on the talk page about the necessity of presenting the major facts as "facts", then your reversions are going to look petty to say the least. You have not given any reason for doing it, except my lack of discussion. In fact, I have left long messages on the talk page. get onto the talk page, and answer the criticisms.

As you are well aware, others have also criticised the "lack of balance" and stated that the introduction weas very poor.

Amandajm (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked Doesn't look like this is needing a block. If anything, the article should be protected. Things have simmered down recently, so maybe that's not even necessary. For now. -- tariqabjotu 22:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Response. Things haven't "simmered down". The fact is that I have simply not made any further edits (except for reverting a small edit by a new editor which didn't comply with MOS policy on "honorifics". )

I want to continue sorting out the issues in this article, of which there are a great many. I am fairly sur that as soon as I attempt to return the encyclopedic statements to the article, they will be deleted, or reverted, and I will be complained of on this same board.

.So how do I go about improving the article, which is basically badly written. This has been agreed upon by a number of editors who commented on the talk page? Suggestions please Amandajm (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being clear enough. This is angling more for protection rather than a block, for if I choose to block DrKiernan, I would need to block you too. You are edit-warring just as much as he is. Yours may be even worse, given the total lack of support you have for your changes. I see no further edit-warring since this report was made, so I don't see why you think there would be even greater reason for a block now.

I am fairly sur[e] that as soon as I attempt to return the encyclopedic statements to the article, they will be deleted, or reverted, and I will be complained of on this same board.

As you should be, because you're edit-warring. You're

Dispute Resolution, but even that looks unnecessary at this point since it seems like your efforts to resolve this issue have so far only amounted to a few recently opened discussions during which you shout at your opponents, the edit-warring you've done with DrKiernan, and this complaint. Having had experience with far more protracted and seemingly irreconcilable discussions, this is far from the point of sounding the red alarm, especially when you have far from the cleanest hands. -- tariqabjotu

03:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how far back you looked, but the reason for my frustration (and raising my voice) was that a very lengthy negotiation had taken place several months before. At the point at which the article went on the front page as the featured article, just a few days before the main Jubilee events (and therefore attracting a huge amount of traffic) the Intro was seriously inadequate, and unbalanced.. Having already negotiated and negotiated and negotiated, to no avail, I was aghast that bit hit front page at that point in the life of the subject of the article, the Queen, without being fixed first. She deserves the same respectful treatment that any other living subject of a Wikipedia biography gets.

It was at that point, that I became really annoyed, and demanded an urgent fix. The urgency was as a result of the time of the Jubilee, and the very heavy traffic. When I wrote "fix it by tomorrow" I had in mind the Jubilee, and the 100,000 people who had viewed the article the previous day.

My prolonged complaints finally got a little action. As a result of criticism from several other editors, concerned mainly with the "Intro", some of the suggestions that I had made many months previous were finally adopted. They were then honed down to a minimum by DrKiernan and had several vital matters (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) removed by MIESIANIACAL who finds it difficult to comprehend how the wars are relevant to the Queen, since she isn't a politician or president.

Several of the most pertinent edits to the Introduction: Making encyclopaedic statements out of the key facts, are continually reverted by DrKeirnan, either blanket reversals or individual reversals.

As soon as I attempt to work on the rest of the article, which includes making footnotes out of non-relevant material (like how many people went to their neighbours house to watch the Coronation) and adding pertinent and referenced material, it gets deleted or reverted.

There is a serious "ownership" problem with the article that needs sorting.

This is the sort of thing which drives an elderly and highly experienced editor to a point of shouting in frustration.

I do not like to be contentious. I brought up the Dr Kiernan matter previously and sought advice without a request that they be banned.

Some younger person was so rude to me (as an apparent monarchist) that the matter was brought up on the complaints board, but I requested it be dropped, because the kid had already been reprimanded on the talk page by another editor.

The page is about a living person. It needs to reflect a balance. At the present, despite some recent improvement, it still favours trivia over fact, and modes of expression that are "journalise" and not encyclopaedic. It requires fixing. It cannot be fixed, when a quorum of people are determined to elbow out an experienced ediotr who has the ability to fix it.

Basically,

• No-one ought to have to argue that the Gulf War, the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan are events of great import in the life of a monarch whose country is involved!
• No-one should have to argue that the Head of the Church of England going to visit the Pope was major event, after a 500 year rift.
• No -one should have to argue that addressing US Congress was a major event, after the US War of Independence.

The fact that these people are so unaware of the importance of these events means that they are not the right group of people to be controlling this article so very possessively.

I have no idea whether you are a student of history, but it doesn't take a very deep knowledge of British History to give an understanding of the relevance of these wars and the two other events (and the visit to Germany and to Ireland). Yet I have had to wage a veritable war in order to get any of them included in the Intro.

• The fact that the Queen is the Head of the Church of England had been omitted entirely from the introduction, when the article was on the Front Page.

How could it possibly have got to be a "featured article" with that fact missing?

Just getting the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan acknowledged in the introduction has been an exhausting business. Every single improvement, regardless of how minor has taken almost as much effort as I am putting in now.

So, what does one do, to get a highly inadequate, yet featured, article about a living person improved and treated in a balanced way, where facts take precedent over trivia, and where a war is treated as more important than a fight between the corgis??

Amandajm (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 65.95.4.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [193]

Comments:
The user's talk page was blanked after the first warning, before he reverted the article a third time. The discussion actually took place on the

) 12:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [199]

• 1st revert: [200]
• 2nd revert: [201]
• 3rd revert: [202]
• 4th revert: [203]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Blocked previously for edit warring

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

Comments:
With long rants on the talk page and edit summaries like "It is an Italian history article, not an IRA reunion" and "Push your anti-historical POV someplace where I'm not working" it appears pretty clear he shows no interest in being civil or following the accepted guideline regarding the name of the city which can be found at

16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of sixty hours Potentially warranted a longer block, but we'll see what becomes of this and if he continues after the block. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: B. R. Ambedkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akhil.bharathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [205]

• 1st revert: [206] - principally, unexplained removal of maintenance. templates
• 2nd revert: [207] - ditto, although some potentially ok stuff in there also
• 3rd revert: [208] - maintenance templates again, despite request to review talk page; reinstatement of Gyan - an unreliable source - despite being asked not to do so
• 4th revert: [209] - continuing to remove maint. template, well after 3RR warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [210]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see User_talk:Akhil.bharathan#Gyan_Publishing and this.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Anne Hathaway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Milkshake6789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [211]

• 1st revert: [212] 1645 13 June
• 2nd revert: [213] 1659 13 June
• 3rd revert: [214] 1758 13 June
• 4th revert: [215] 1804 13 June

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216]

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

Comments:

Dispute resolution on article talk page not attempted: BLP user warnings on colntributor's talk page only. --

) 17:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Bwilkins. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [217]

• 1st revert: [218]
• 2nd revert: [219]
• 3rd revert: [220]
• 4th revert: [221]
• 5th revert: [222]
• 6th revert: [223]
• 7th revert: [224]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [225]

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

Comments:
Editor may also be the blocked IP

19:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

At least three other editors have also tried to engage Aidny in discussion, fruitlessly, as can be seen on his talk page. His Wikipedia edits have been almost purely disruptive. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Croat–Bosniak War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alan.Ford.Jn (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]
• 6th revert: [233]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [234]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [235]

Comments:
I've posted here before, but no one responded. I am hoping this time someone will look at this.

User Alan.Ford.Jn has on multiple occasions reverted all edits by by myself and another user to an older version. Note that Alan.Ford.Jn has never used the discussion page to explain their edits. I have made an effort to source all the additions I have added so user Alan.Ford.Jn could have no excuse to delete my contributions; unfortunately, it has had no effect. In this first reversal [236] user adds the summary "Removal of sourced information" in spite of the "(-2,561)" negative number recorded in the edit history. In fact, looking at the page's edit history [237] shows consistent negative numbers in accordance to the removal of text: (-1,255)‎ [238], (-1,656) [239], (-3,499)‎[240], (-1,810) [241]‎, (-2,250)‎ [242]. In another edit [243] Alan.Ford.Jn wrote: "Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Second Edition says nothing about attack within Kakanj?! provide online WP:RS source)", which although somewhat difficult to discern their language, appears to be mocking the Encyclopedia of Human Rights as an unreliable source that does not even mention the attack in Kakanj (simple Google search showed that it did.) Another round of reverting [244] has Alan.Ford.Jn saying "are you kidding me? you haven't even read the article, haven't you realised that you put wrong paragraph into wrong section with false data? April 1993 comes after December 1992, not before?!" Even though I find it difficult to understand the language, user Alan.Ford has not attempted to use the discussion page to discuss what article, what false data, and what other problems he seems to have with additional edits by other users. He made just one post on 10 June, which provided no insight or explanation on the article. It consisted of a few brief sentences attacking me by saying my edits were "nationalistic propaganda".

I even left a note on Alan.Ford.Jn's talk page [245] but they never responded. From April 18, 2012 to June 10, Alan.Ford.Jn has made 13 edits, all on the

) 05:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A problem with the edits of Alan.Ford.Jn is that he would do large reverts on ethnically-disputed articles while never commenting on the talk page. Now finally he has left his first talk page comment of 2012, and it is here. The point of his comment is to accuse the editor on the other side of ethnically-motivated edit warring. This is not very satisfying. Alan.Ford.Jn has already been notified under

WP:ARBMAC might be considered but it would need some study of his past edits, which I don't have time for at the moment. EdJohnston (talk

) 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

His refusal to use the discussion page and sporadic editing history is very strange. As said before, there is a large gap between his edits, and it seems he focuses mostly on reverting things to his pleasure and not the good of the article. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Users being reported: Bozo1789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Nmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I stumbled across these two people while using Huggle. In the past day, seem to have nothing else to do but continuously revert each others edits across some Eastern Europe related articles. I cannot say exactly which info is correct and which should be removed, but I do know that these two are far past

09:53, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Reverting samples below

• 1: [246]
• 2: [247]
• 3: [248]

Comments: I am not personally involved in this, but merely acting as a third party in reporting their edit war. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 09:53, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Relevant links: [249] [250] [251] Bozo1789 (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BAN. I am reverting edits made by the previously confirmed socpuppets of the site-banned user Iaaasi , and Bozo1789 began restoring them one by one with which he betrayed that he is also a sockpupet of Iaaasi. Additioanally, Bozo1789 does not even deny that he is a sock of Iaaasi. for more information, see:[252].--Nmate (talk

) 09:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons". [253] Ada Kaleh was never part of Serbia, it is not a verifiable information, but a false one

Nmate also restores vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilona_Szil%C3%A1gyi&curid=21488719&diff=497527122&oldid=497526613}

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Bozo1789 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 10:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [254]

• 1st revert: [255]
• 2nd revert: [256]
• 3rd revert: [257]
• 4th revert: [258]***

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: ***This Diff gets an asterisk because it's not from

)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Normally, I'd block 24 hours for this, but logging out and continuing to revert doesn't garner any favors from me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Progressive tax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.74.164.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version: [260]

• 1st revert: [261]
• 2nd revert: [262]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [263]

Talk page discussion: [264]

Comments:

I'm trying to nip this edit-warring in the bud. I reported this user less than a week ago, that case is currently third from the top of this page. This user is relatively new to Wikipedia (around 50 edits) and doesn't understand how

) 09:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User Somedifferentstuff fails to understand he is engaging in the same behavior he is accusing me off [266] [267] [268] [269]

He unilaterally engages in removing sourced material. He started with this edit [270] then went on to unilaterally remove material [271] that previously existed as a consensus by declaring all by himself "Need a better source" without ever bothering to discuss it on talk page. Currently he continues to remove material backed by 7-8 sources. It's plainly obvious he hasn't read all the sources listed. I tried to explain to user he needs to educate himself better in economics. His inability to understand basic economics is not my problem. Please check entire history for confirmation. - 173.74.164.212 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you're both at fault, I full protected the page. Seek

dispute resolution. With regards to 173 specifically, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you continue to insist that you're right, he's wrong, you have a degree, he's an idiot, it's far easier for me to simply block you from editing and unprotect the page. Someguy1221 (talk

) 02:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Both at fault??? Did you look at the talk page? I explained there that the first bullet point, which has 3 sources, violates
  WP:OR. The first two sources don't even mention progressive taxation, the topic of the article. The third source doesn't list a page number. The next 2 bullet points don't even mention progressive taxation, another violation of WP:OR which User:173.74.164.212 has stuck back into the article. He also reverted material that had been incorporated into the article from the section tagged with a "pro and con list" tag. Don't take my word for it, investigate it. I am very disappointed in how you guys have handled this. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC) --- I have added another comment to the article talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk
  ) 10:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed the part of

BWilkins ←track

) 09:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: The following is the version from before beginning of edit war on Marriage today: [272]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk-page discussion was ongoing when edit-warring began - [278]; Another editor had also asked him to stop edit warring: User_talk:Crzyclarks#Edit-warring

Comments:

• Additionally, it should be noted that the user in question has a long history of edit-warring to push his views / how he wants an article to be across as can be seen on his talk page

As I recall, when a new edit is undone, you're supposed to take it to the talk page before reverting it. You didn't do that, so I reckon you broke the rule. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not related to the 3RR rule in that I have not broken it. And you have continuously, across several articles, in multiple instances, with several other editors, reverted the edits of others to suit your views. --Scientiom (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's related. You shouldn't have reverted, but gone to the talk page. To suit the facts, although being right is not the point, in most instances recent edits should have been taken to the talk page, as in this case, rather than getting into an edit war. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll also add, that I was right in the instance that I was blocked, it was an obvious breaking of rules. Regarding the warning on Kony 2012, it wasn't an edit war, but more of a series of edits that compromised on what the other person said. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Did someone forget to add

BWilkins ←track

) 12:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• BWilkins ←track
  ) 09:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal

(Result: )

Page: Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.25.186.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also: 2.27.81.7 (talk · contribs), 2.27.80.162 (talk · contribs), 2.27.90.175 (talk · contribs), and 163.167.171.212 (talk · contribs))

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 22:22, 13 June 2012‎ (reverting this edit)
• 2nd revert: 11:42, 14 June 2012 (reverting this edit)
• 3rd revert: 21:40, 14 June 2012 (reverting parts of this and this edit)
• 4th revert: 22:04, 14 June 2012 (reverting this edit)
• 5th revert: 15:26, 15 June 2012 (reverting this edit)
• 6th revert: 20:06, 15 June 2012 (reverting this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Anon user was made aware of
  WP:3RR at this time
  (20:33, 30 May 2012).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• between 21:55, 7 June 2012‎ and 15:51, 14 June 2012‎
• A direct request for participation in discussion was made at 15:44, 14 June 2012‎.
• 20:12, 15 June 2012

Comments:
This user has shown a consistent pattern of reverting (often with edit summaries consisting of only or little more than "rv" ([279], [280], [281], [282], [283]) and declining participation in talk page discussions.

This has now spread to other articles as the anon seems to be following my edits to start more edit wars (adamantly refusing to follow the editing cycle, including starting or engaging in discussion at talk pages, per

22:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Page: Durrës (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [284]

• 1st revert: [285]
• 2nd revert: [286]
• 3rd revert: [287]
• 4th revert: [288]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [289]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [290]

Comments: Bright line violation of 3RR, 4 identical reverts of this edit [291] on June 10, all in less than 24 hours. 3RR vios don't come any clearer than this. What makes it worse is that he thinks he is fighting for the

. In addition to a block, a formal warning of ARBMAC sanctions is in order.

• BWilkins ←track
  ) 09:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Pages:

)

Koch family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: XB70Valyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [295]

On Koch family page

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

On Political activities of the Koch family page

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning given by Arthur Rubin: [302]

Section on talk page with attempts to resolve dispute: [303]

Comments:

twice when Arzel tried to take out the section so that it could be discussed first.

On the talk page for Political activities of the Koch page, he made several personal attacks and accused other editors of edit warring and filibustering. He continually accused me of changing my argument 'over and over' when I had only made one simple argument that he did not responded to. He has been more and more hostile with each edit he makes and is throwing a lot of accusations around. He posted a warning on my talk page about edit warring even though I only reverted him once, and it was to initiate the talk page discussion. His actions have been the opposite of civil and I believe he should be blocked, at least temporarily, to cool off. It might also be beneficial to block him from editing the pages he has been warring on. In total, he has reverted 4 different editors to add the same controversy section into the article. I've done my best to be civil but he is throwing out a lot of attacks and accusations. I hope the evidence speaks for itself. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved and topic neutral third party who found this dispute by having Arzel's talk on my watch list. I just want to add that I endorse the statement above - there are seriously

^talk

01:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no doubt he's edit warring, but today's (i.e., the last 24 hour's) count is only 3 reverts each. He violated

WP:3RR on Koch family a day or two few days ago. I was going to report him, but decided not to, because I would have been away from my computer for 6 hours after the report. Perhaps I was wrong. There were clearly 4 reverts on Koch family during June 13, 2012 (UTC). — Arthur Rubin (talk)

01:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(

^talk

02:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked. XB70Valyrie did violate 3RR at
  WP:ANI. I would advise everyone else involved to remain civil and urge people to focus solely on the content disputed, rather than the conduct of other editors, during discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions}
  ) 17:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

User:24.183.49.183 reported by User:O.Koslowski (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Mark Weber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.183.49.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [304]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see the whole talk page.

Comments:
The IHR is well known for its denial pamphlets returning to the holocaust, and Mark Weber as its director has made several revisionist publications. He is an important piece of the extreme right. The IP's reversals made him seem like an ordinary guy who just happens to be the director of the IHR. The IP has been reverted by several editors and still pretends it's just me who has a problem there.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Crzyclarks reported by User:Knowz (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: (I'm not sure what this means)

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have asked both (see below) the warring editors to cease on their respective talk pages, and am not going to get involved in this conflict (see below).

Comments:
This has been going on for a while now,

(Talk)

17:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It was only 3 reverts, then I went to the talk page. One of them was not really a revert, as I took the person's objection into account and compromised on the wording. [315] Crzyclarks (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Crzyclarks, you can't just game the system like that - what is happening is indeed edit-warring and it needs to cease. --~

(Talk)

17:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't gaming the system. Specifically, the first revert listed there isn't a revert. Since they insisted on that wording, when my block expired I just added some information in so that it's accurate. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The aggravating factor is that Crzyclarks already has two blocks for edit warring on Homosexuality, Same-sex marriage and related articles. He started edit warring immediately after his last 48 hours block expired. The new block should be at least 1 week long.--В и к и T 18:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well my edit was correct in Homosexuality, the edit I kept reverting was synthesising and the current version is what I was reverting to and got banned for. I didn't start edit warring, I kept the wording that they wanted but added a couple of things so that what was being said was not false, but fact. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, I'm not banned from editing on things that I was previously banned for. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• BWilkins ←track
  ) 21:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Saedon

(Result: 31h)

Page:

Hijama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

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

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

• 1st revert: [316]
• 2nd revert: [317]
• 3rd revert: [318]
• 4th revert: [319]
• 5th Revert after being notified about report [320]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [321]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This all happened very quickly and I have not had time to engage in talk page discussion yet. I have started a discussion at

WP:CIR

may be an issue here, as the user has left vandalism warnings on my talk page as well as the article talk page

Comments:
This user is attempting to add poorly sourced, POV information that is likely

WP:OR about a related but separate topic to this page and has been reverted by myself, User:Bobrayner and User:A13ean

.

^talk

20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for a period of 31 hours. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

User:74.111.4.108 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Son of man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.111.4.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [322]

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

+ another

• 5th revert: [327]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Son of man#Far too few secondary sources Comments:

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Joshuaforest reported by User:Mattythewhite (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [330]

• 1st revert: [331]
• 2nd revert: [332]
• 3rd revert: [333]
• 4th revert: [334]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [335]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [336]

Comments:
Continued ignoration of the guidelines highlighted here through the addition/modifcation of career statistics tables for footballers. This extendeds beyond

WP:OWN. The user just can't seem to bear the fact that someone is amending a Nottingam Forest-related article, even though the amendments are improvements and adhere to WP guidelines. It's a shame because he's trying to be constructive adding these tabes, but is not willing to see anyone improve on them. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk

) 17:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the user has now been given a 24h block. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User:‎79.182.215.205 reported by User:Yobol (Result: 24 hours)

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)
User being reported: 79.182.215.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [337]
• 2nd revert: [338]
• 3rd revert: [339]
• 4th revert: [340]
• 5th revert: [341]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See extensive discussion on talk page as well as this link on the Wikiproject Medicine talk page

Comments:

The editor has a serious case of

WT:MED page. He has shown no indication that he plans to abide by any behavioral or content guideline. Yobol (talk

) 02:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a false complaint, I don't see from that diff how there were three reverts there. There is new text in these diffs, and the revert "(Reverted edits by 79.182.215.205 (talk) identified as spam (HG))" is a revert that an HG bot did by mistake, when I fixed a link, and it thought it was spam, when it wasn't, and so I reverted its stupid automatic revert. Give me a break Yobol.

I think that if you check what happened, including in the talk page, you would see that Yobol is editing things he don't understand, and don't try to understand, and without asking for clarification/consensus before he edit.

If you are already counting, please count Yobol's deletions, maybe he has 3 reverts. I try to fix the text, and I change the content according to remarks, so these are genuine edits, all Yobol does is delete without asking questions first, and because of errors in his understanding, sometime of simple matters.

It seem to me that Yobol effort will result in that the adverse effects of CTs would be underestimated by the readers, which is bad.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: The IP is now editing on the IP 79.182.199.172. Yobol (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that, my IP seem to have changed today.

79.182.199.172 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Was also warned here [343] a couple of days ago when editing as another IP. Discussion also occurred here [344] and [345]

talk · contribs · email

) 05:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• edit warring policy. - 2/0 (cont.
  ) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Igny reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: protected)

Page: Occupation of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly making the same edit - which is to add a POV tag to the article.

• [346] Revision as of 23:13, 11 June 2012
• [347] Revision as of 01:23, 17 June 2012
• [348] Revision as of 12:53, 17 June 2012
• [349] Revision as of 13:31, 17 June 2012
• [350] Revision as of 00:01, 19 June 2012
• [351] Revision as of 00:42, 19 June 2012

In fairness to Igny, he/she has also participated in discussion of the issues on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states and on User talk:Estlandia#You last removal of POV-tag. According to User:Nug posting on 20:07, 12 June 2012, User:Igny has just come off off a six month topic ban.Toddy1 (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually joining an edit war is not part of the procedure to report an edit war. Just so you know... (Igny (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

comment

The Wikipedia's policy

WP:NPOV

linked from the tag says:

That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.

To indicate that the neutrality of an article is disputed, insert

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

at the top of the article to display:

User Igny made his edits in full compliance with Wikipedia's rules as there are currently three users who dispute the article's neutrality. Conversely, removal of the tag by the opposing team is a breach of the rule. And following from what is cited above, any user has right to insert this tag once he/she disagrees with the content. There is no need for consensus for this tag because it is designed specifically to indicate that there is no consensus.--UUNC (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• The issues are more serious than just plain edit warring, there is an open AE case here. --Nug (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Update

The issue has been already addressed, the article is protected [352]--UUNC (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope - and Igny's "edit war" now encompasses 38 insertions of the same tag (or moving the article) in the past - which means even the 3RR "bright line" does not apply - this is a near-record edit war on his part. Cheers. (noting your extensive edit history). Collect (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Does not the tag say it should not be removed?--UUNC (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is the operative policy here - I can put "do not remove" on any edit I wish but the pov-tag has no more power than did King Canute. I am not "Latvian." Cheers. Collect (talk

) 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the tag is designed for the cases when there is no consensus at least as indicated in

WP:NPOV.--UUNC (talk

) 12:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 1 month by

talk · contribs). Remaining matters can be handled at the currently open AE thread. T. Canens (talk

) 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method reported by User:Mathsci

(Result: 48 hours)

Page: Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to: [353]

• 1st revert: [354]
• 2nd revert: [355]
• 3rd revert: [356]
• 4th revert: [357]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [358][359]

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

Comments:

Pass a Method has tried to insert content on same-sex marriage into

WP:UNDUE and unsuitable for the article: Mathsci, Maunus, Chipmunkdavis, Bluehairedlawyer and MadGeographer. He continues to restore the content and to disrupt the article in ways that are not an improvement for the reader. No other editors agree that his proposed content, purely on single-sex marriage, is appropriate, but he is edit-warring against this consensus. Usually on Europe

, amongst the 200 most read pages on wikipedia and as such an anodyne and neutral article, disruption has been caused by issues related to Eastern Europe. This is disruption of a different kind which is also wasting volunteer time. (The fourth reversion was about trivia in the lede concerning largest and smallest countries.)

Pass a Method has also been involved in similar edit warring on Africa also related to the topic of same-sex marriage. (More details will be added later.) Mathsci (talk

) 05:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

On Africa: Original insertion:[361] First reversion:[362] + new insertion on same topic: [363] Second reversion of all this new content: [364] Third reversion of previously added material: [365] Fourth reversion: [366] The content in this case was about "LGBT" (his subsection heading)/same-sex marriage plus statements added to the lede about which countries in Africa are the largest in area and population. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Other edits of Pass a Method, placing warning templates or comments on user talk pages when his edits were reverted, indicate a

WP:battleground approach.[367][368][369][370][371][372] He also commented on edits to Europe on Talk:Africa which is not very helpful for those watching Europe.[373] Mathsci (talk

) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply The fourth revert is about Russia so it is completely different to the first three reverts. The first revert was me adding a source (because of a request). Additionally i conceded to the current version long ago, so im not sure why Mathsci is re-opening a resolved issue.

talk

09:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverts are counted irrespective of the content being reverted. PassaMethod was evidently edit-warring. Above is the first time that he has explicitly stated that he now accepts that his edits were against consensus (presumably he means on both articles). Mathsci (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes i do mean on both articles about lgbt. But my last two edits on Africa had to do African demographics in the lede (See [374], [375]).

talk

10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 06:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Frotz (Result: Protected 2 weeks)

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

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

On April 24, 2012

Eurabia without mentioning it first or attempting to establish a consensus [376]

. This was quickly reverted. Subsequently Altetendekrabbe has been editwarring to keep this tag and eliminate the long-standing tag of {{Criticism of Islam sidebar}}. His subsequent edits introduced and continues to introduce are contentious, violate WP:POV, and are typically quickly reverted. He has been sanctioned already for strings of like edits and nothing good seems to have come of it.

Examples:

• [377] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [378] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [379] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [380] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [381] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [382] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [383] re-adds {{Islamophobia}} and deletes numerous citations.
• [384] Added language describing Eurabia as islamophobic
• [385] Introduced undue weight language
• [386] Deleted material cited from Bat'Yeor and others
• [387] Deleted material cited from Bat'Yeor and others again
• [388] Undue weight language again
• [389] Undue weight language again
• [390] Undue weight language again
• [391] Undue weight language again
• [392] Undue weight language again
• [393] Undue weight language again
• [394] Undue weight language again
• [395] Weasely use of "imagined"
• [396] Weasely use of "imagined" again
• [397] Weasely use of "imagined" again
• [398] Weasely use of "imagined" again

Diff of edit warring warning: [399]

Here is the talkpage thread I started to get to the bottom of this string of reverts:

Talk:Eurabia#Appropriateness_of_lead_template

. I initially suggested replacing {{Islamophobia}} with {{Islamism}} and then backed off to having no sidebar. I subsequently discovered that Altetendekrabbe has been involved in repeated attempts to change the longstanding sidebar of {{Criticism of Islam sidebar}} to {{Islamophobia}}

Frotz (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• In [400], Altetendekrabbe deleted the prescribed warning about this posting while issuing a taunt. Frotz (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe became close today to breaking the 3RR again: 1, 2 (note the personal assault in the edit summary, 3.

Estlandia (dialogue)

21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

frotz is indulging himself in misrepresentation of sources, and contentious edits, as noted by others [401]. he clearly has an anti-islamic pov, disgustingly displayed here, [402]. and now he is quoting diffs, from as far back as april, out of context. in addition, four out of the five editors on the talk page are in favor of keeping the islamophobia template. please also note his constant nonsense. he claims that i "deleted numerous citations" in diff 64 above. i checked and it turned out to be not true.-- altetendekrabbe  22:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly takes two to tango. I've looked through the first ten or so of Frotz's examples, and in my opinion they are quite straight edits. The question of whether the article should be included in the template or not isn't really a matter for compromise: It's either or. Not to mention that there are at least a total of five editors, four of them currently engaged on the talk page, who argue in favor of keeping the template. Altetendekrabbe isn't always as civil as he should be, but with the nature of some of these edits, I find it difficult to remain so myself at times. --benjamil (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with benjamil. This looks mostly like diff-padding (putting in a lot of innocuous diffs to make it seem like something bad is going on when there isn't, and hoping that whoever looks at it will be too lazy to click through and check the actual diffs). In this edit [403] altetendekrabbe was most certainly justified in removing what looks like an attempt at engaging in passive aggressive griefing by Frotz. Estlandia's here to pursue some kind of a grudge it seems. VolunteerMarek 00:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't consider the last 50 edits at

Eurabia being edit-warring "bad"? They took the edit-warring to Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 too, for which Altetendekrabbe was banned for 24 hours. Oh, and if I was Frotz I would have considered the accusation in this discussion about clearly having "anti-islamic pov, disgustingly displayed..." a personal attack, but my hat goes off to him if he didn't and keeps a cool head despite these accusations. --Pudeo'

00:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

er, right. when are you planning to stop stalking me? your continued (failed) efforts to get me banned are becoming annoying. by the way, this is what your friend mr. frotz wrote on the talk page:

There are solid facts and figures about demands that Europe adopt Islamic values as well as threats of and actual instances of violence when Europeans refuse. Recall the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy which spawned rioting, assaults, and murderous threats in Europe. What do you have, besides sensationalism, as proof that the Eurabia theory is bunk? Before you mention Anders Behring Breivik, I need to remind you that this was an isolated incident by a narcissistic nut reacting to Islamic outrages. Yes it was spectacular, but in the grand scheme of things is overshadowed by the multitude of incidents of Islamic intimidation and violence. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but one cannot legitimately point to isolated instances like this to counter a continuous pattern of violence and intimidation. [404]

user benjamil refuted him but he still continued in the same vein later. utter disgusting.-- altetendekrabbe  00:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not stalking you. I am following the page

Talk:Eurabia and here I am. On a friendly note, I suggest you change your tone to a more positive one when addressing others – you've been banned already twice because of personal attacks. Wikipedia etiquette promotes good manners and being polite; I find it rather weird that user:Benjamil defends rude behauvior in his last sentence here. --Pudeo'

00:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

nice try. i encountered you for the first time on my talk page, [405]. you stalked me and 3 days later you started edit warring on the eurabia-page, [406]. your friend estlandia started edit warring 9. june on the eurabia-page [407], a day after he had edit warred with me on another page, [408].-- altetendekrabbe  01:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pudeo has has logged many edits to articles critical of Islam at least as far back as 2011. Since you two seem to frequent the same sorts of articles, it's not suprising that you two would encounter him again. -- Frotz(talk) 01:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the annotations I just added above will make it clearer for those too lazy to click the diffs. Please point out where I am wrong. Did you just seriously suggest that leaving notice for a person reported to an Administrators' Noticeboard is passive-aggressive griefing? Look at the top of this page. You will find that such notification is mandatory. -- Frotz(talk) 00:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaving notices on talk pages is fine. In my experience it's best just to say "Subject: Notification" and leave a link. But stuff like this [409], this [410] or this [411] is just your standard attempt at intimidating a user (particularly the last one is the typical "intimidation by template" tactic"). Returning to do it again and again after the user has removed your previous comment IS a form of griefing.VolunteerMarek 02:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The first edit you refer to was a matter-of-fact statement of why I reverted his edit. I frequently do this when I feel a single line of text is not sufficient for explaining the change. Shortly afterward, it became clear to me that Altetendekrabbe is more interested in re-adding POV edits, so I made the report here and placed a notification on his page AS REQUIRED. The third edit was a warning from some other editor. What do you imply by referencing the third edit? -- Frotz(talk) 03:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Perhaps the annotations I just added above will make it clearer for those too lazy to click the diffs. Please point out where I am wrong." (Frotz) I looked at the three diff that you labelled as deleting quote ("[412] Deleted material cited from Bat'Yeor", "[413] Deleted numerous citations and re-added language describing Eurabia as islamophobic", "[414] Again deleted numerous citations and re-added language describing Eurabia as islamophobic"). None of them delete any quotation. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I got a little out of sync while adding the annotations. I have corrected these. -- Frotz(talk) 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of two weeks -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ http://oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/?region=us&q=lusitanic
2. ^ http://oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/?region=uk&q=lusitanic
3. ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=lusitanic
4. ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/american-english/?q=Lusitanic
5. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lusitanic
6. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lusitanic?s=t
7. ^ http://www.macmillandictionary.com/spellcheck/british/?q=lusitanic
8. ^ http://www.britannica.com/search?query=lusitanic
9. ^ http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchresults.aspx?q=lusitanic
10. ^ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=lusitanic&searchmode=none