Page:Journal of Cosmology (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: [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well established and familiar with 3RR policies

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[6]

Comments: User keeps removing expert blogs citedmultiple times by other sources per some misunderstanding of whatWP:SPS actually says. E.g.Pharyngula (blog) is an award-winning blog fromPZ Myers, whichNature (journal) recognized as the top science blog of 2006. Likewise forPhil Plait and hisBad Astronomy published inDiscover magazine. Battison herself published in theJournal of Cosmology and gave a hard look at the peer reviewing process from the Journal of Cosmology. Rosie Redfield also gave a point-by-point debunking on the Hoover claims. All these sources were widely quote in the media, and are as reliable as it gets.Headbomb {talk /contribs /physics /books}20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP removals are not a revert. Using this blog to call the journals editors "Cranks" isa violation of BLP policy. I will also point out Headbomb has done three reverts, with one after BLP concerns were raised[7].Darkness Shines (talk)20:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are not BLP removals, as the quotes are fully attributed to whoever made them, reflect mainstream opinion, and were published in reliable and recognized sources.Headbomb {talk /contribs /physics /books}20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You used a Blog to call BLP`s "cranks" if this is so mainstream why use a blog and not a newspaper or journal?Darkness Shines (talk)21:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Because if you want to quote someone, you cite the place where the quote was originally made.Headbomb {talk /contribs /physics /books}21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Full protection, 3 days - work it out on talk.Vsmith (talk)21:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[8]

• 1st revert:[9]
• 2nd revert:[10]
• 3rd revert:[11]
• 4th revert:[12]
• 5th revert:through sock IP 24.21.18.209

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

Comments:
Assorted copyvio infringements, statements not covered by citations and citing Wikipedia articles. Continues unabated despite multiple warnings. Violations ofWP:BLP.Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis}07:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of1 weekFASTILY^(TALK)22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Fastily. Take care.Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis}23:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[14]

Reverts done today:

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

Older reverts within 3 days:

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]

The user is trying to glorify the article, which is about a caste in India. He has removed the refimprove/peacock tags from the page, and is reverting since a week.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [25]
• [26]
• [27]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[28]]

Comments:
Even after 3 warnings issued to the user, the artice is getting reverted.Chektomate (talk)12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four reverts in 24 hours (12:08,06:51,06:06,02:47) and many warnings about 3RR.Kuru(talk)15:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Wanted (2009 film) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Tamilan101 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[29]

• 1st revert:[30]
• 2nd revert:[31]
• 3rd revert:[32]
• 4th revert:[33]

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

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

Comments:I haven't even received a summary from this user for his unexplained vandalizing reverts in theWanted (2009 film) page. He seems to be a die-hard Kollywood fan (no use ofWP:AGF here) and reverted mine andUser:Managerarc's edits 4 or 5 times on changing the sentence to saying that "It is a remake of the Telugu film Pokiri". He wants it read that it is a remake of the Tamil remake of the Telugu film. I posted a notice in his page asking him to explain why he did it and I have provided a valid reason "In case of multiple remakes, the original writer is credited, so the original film i.e the Telugu version, is the film from which this has been remade" but no summaries or response has been received. Please block him at least for sometime and here's a link tohis talk page in which I gave a warning. Thank you!

• Warned Re-report if the user continues to edit war.FASTILY^(TALK)22:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Big Brother 2011 (UK) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:User:86.176.153.183 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[34]

see diffs identified in simultaneous report of same user/topic, following this report.

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

• This latest revert diff edit summary[35]appears to imply ownership of the article. I assume the "c" is intended to indicate copyright! However, it may be that he is agreeing to cease from further disruption.LeakyCaldron15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[37]plus response from IP[38] alleging censorship and ignoring consensus.Comments:

Closed per report below.Kuru(talk)15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Big Brother 2011 (UK) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Big Brother 2011 (UK) (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[39]

• 1st revert:[40]
• 2nd revert:[41]
• 3rd revert:[42]
• 4th revert:[43]
• 5th revert:[44]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Big Brother 2011 (UK)#Removal of non-encyclopaedic material

Comments:

I didn't realize Leaky Cauldron was also making a report. As it seems we have given slightly different information, can our two reports be merged somehow?LadyofShalott14:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Was warned; pretty simple.Kuru(talk)15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Two and a Half Men (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Users being reported:Westvoja (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log),Davejohnsan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[45]

Reverts by Westvoja:

• 1st revert:[46]
• 2nd revert:[47]
• 3rd revert:[48]
• 4th revert:[49]
• 5th revert:[50]

Reverts by Davejohnsan (including two misuses of Rollback):

• 1st revert (Rollback misuse):[51]
• 2nd revert:[52]
• 3rd revert (Rollback misuse):[53]
• 4th revert:[54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (for Westvoja, Davejohnsan is experienced enough to know to not edit war):[55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[56]

Comments:

• Note:I'm not involved in this edit war, but decided to report it. Seems to be a hint of incivility (by Westvoja) as well here.Jasper Deng(talk)22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of1 week -FASTILY^(TALK)22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the other user be blocked too?Jasper Deng(talk)22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody warned him. I'm not inclined to blockUser:Davejohnsan without notice. You can warn him if you like though... -FASTILY^(TALK)22:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

He was the one who gave the warning (see the diff), which implies he understands it. Plus, the misuse of rollback is something to look at too.Jasper Deng(talk)22:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Warned now. I am, however, not comfortable blocking or revoking rollback privileges at this time. -FASTILY^(TALK)22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Principality of Hungary (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

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

Time reported: 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 08:49, 26 September 2011(edit summary: "rv - dont use the sources from the 1905 and encyclopedias instead of the reliable secondary sources and stop to edit warring")
2. 09:26, 26 September 2011(edit summary: "we cannot verify the source from bauer from your link")
3. 09:58, 26 September 2011(edit summary: "how could be a hungarian principality a first state and it was a tribal alliance? its unlogical, source its there but i need a verification")
4. 10:23, 26 September 2011(edit summary: "Its first time, what I have undone your edit today Koertefa. You came into content dispute between me and Fakirbakir (you are not neutral). It were removed tertiary sources from the 1905. secundary sources are there and content was repaired")

• Diff of warning:here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[57]

Comments:
Samofi is a very disruptive user who got a second chance for returning to Wikipedia after once already being blocked for indefinite time[58][59]. After that, he returned to his old way of editing; editwarring with Hungarian users, over Hungarian related content, and changing the nationality of every famous person who posesses an article on the English wikipedia from Hungarian into Slovak.

When he received his indef block, the reason for that was that[60];

• "As noted at ANI, the combination of large aggressive editing with a clear POV indicates a battleground mentality that's inappropriate here. The fact that your response pointing to edits at Černová tragedy which were immediately reverted (in part, because you are obviously removing sources you don't agree with) indicates a real need to understand that purposes of Wikipedia is not for you to push your POV on everybody else."

Which very reminiscents of what is going on here as mentioned by his opponent in this edit war by an edit summary:

• 9:38, 26 September 2011(edit summary: "The full book is there (p. 586), DO NOT REMOVE SOURCES")

Also, Samofi is being discussed at WP ANI[61]. But because in my opinion, Samofi is in violation of 3RR, I also reported him on this very board as well. --Nmate (talk)11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a clear 3RR (10:23, 09:58, 09:26, and 08:49) and appears to be a continuation of his previous disruptive editing. Not sure on the block length, though; will provide input at the ANI discussion and see what other opinions are out there.Kuru(talk)15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree with the Nmate. I was not disruptive, I always use the reliable sources, but he dont like me from my begin at wikipedia - he wrote a lot of warnings to me, sockpuppetry investigation, he never discuss just write a reports against me. My last edit warring was a 1,5 year ago. My first edit what is reported here as edit warring is cut from the context (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&action=history). My first editation consisted with a 5 edits, I wanted to make a better entrance, but fakirbakir started to undone my work. So I undoned him 2x. Than his friend Koertefa (they were involved in canvass afairhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fakirbakir&diff=prev&oldid=448977281) was involved. I misinterpret 3RR, I thought that its about persons (Fakirbakir vs. me) its reason why I undone the edit of Koertefa (I wrote in the edit summary that its for a first time what I undone him). So it was a big mistake from my side that I broken a 3RR. If I would know it, I will not make it. Sorry. --Samofi (talk)06:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

About user Nmate who reported me. He provocate and write reports to all Slovak and Czech editors with different opinions and fall dirty to them instead of discussion and help. Look his activities, its clear ideological warrior and Iam abused from he more than year:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yopie&diff=451666472&oldid=451650075 he bite a newcomershttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omen1229&diff=446123412&oldid=444652689http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaemn784&diff=prev&oldid=451831919 he often contact other editors and cooperate -http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fakirbakir&diff=prev&oldid=452511766 he blanked my sourced page:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovak_principality&diff=prev&oldid=449286064 he deleted my sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&diff=prev&oldid=449286020 he still plays with investigations:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi&diff=prev&oldid=451509181 - look to this, again Hungarian editors vs. others. He has a battleground mentality and I cannot work at wikipedia because of he. He knows a rules good, so he provocate with other users and waiting for a mistake from our side. About my second undone:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&diff=452489154&oldid=452487328 - sourced name by secondary sources the Hungarian tribal alliance was removed, I repaired it in my best faith coz its more frequent term than principality of hungary (which is mentioned only in tertiary sources). --Samofi (talk)07:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This board is about edit warring, and there is a clear violation of 3RR, which is certainly disruptive. Furthermore, once already said user was blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing, and the only thing that he can do to"improve" Wikipedia is edit warring. Any other thing is irrelevant to this case.--Nmate (talk)08:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not clear violation, it was a misinterpretation of the rule and my first edit was rebuilding of the entrance to the article. So I 2x undone fakirbakir and once Koertefa, coz I thought that 3RR is about persons and not about article. How could be principality a tribal alliance? There were unlogical things.. I explained why I made that - it was also written in edit summaries. I made it (violation of 3RR) firstly a long time ago, I was new and I did not know about this rule. Am I a disruptive user? Why only Hungarian editors has a problems with me? I stopped for a short time edit Hungarian related articles. I was edditing Principality of Nitra, Slovak history, music articles. What happened? Hungarian users started to revert my edits in Slovak-related articles. And about my work here.. I added +/- 100 sources last month about history of Slovakia and history of Hungary, I have read a plenty of books - more than you in all your life. Nobody is interesting about your enmity and your to me and other non Hungarian editors. If I really broken the rule about edit warring, than sorry and I will take a consequences, but I made it in the good faith. --Samofi (talk)09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone who was already blocked for indefinite time, refers to not being familiar with the 3RR rule is hardly credible. By the way, your entire contribution to Wikipedia is edit warring. And in addition, notwithstanding the fact that Samofi is being reported here, he is still edit warring on an another article[62]. --Nmate (talk)09:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I add the sources supporting that tertia pars regni is the same like nitra appanage duchy - in the discussion (see talkpage) and article principality of nitra. Fakirbakir did not discuss, he just undone my edits without reason. He undone all my edits and Iam the warrior? I was open to discussion, if he would have a 1 source supporting his opinion against my 5 sources i would never undone it. --Samofi (talk)10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You are edit warring on the article onTercia pars regni; you deleted the article contents and replaced with a redirect at[63],[64], and[65] in a space of 27 hours. A normal good-faith editor would have placed a notice onWikipedia:Articles for deletion, and opened up a discussion on this controversial deletion.--Toddy1 (talk)10:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A) You knows nothing about this topic B) Have you raed talkpage? I added sources each time when I put the redirection in the article - article was not sourced. Its same content in the article Principality of Nitra and in the article Tercia pars regni. Btw it should be "tertia pars regni" - 116 vs. 13 hits. Fakirbakir has no references - his good fight would be if he would add some references supporting his statement - he is editing a new propagandistic articles without references, iam trying to repair it, coz wikipedia is not dictionary. --Samofi (talk)11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I nominated article Principality of Hungary for deletion, than for rename and I was reported by user:fakirbakir that I want to destroy his work. He redirected Royal Hungary without discussion to the Kingdom of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Hungary&action=history) I just made a same thing. I use the same shifts as he. He is good and Iam the bad and disruptive? Its unfair. --Samofi (talk)11:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And I think that in the tertia pars regni it was not edit warring but it was ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle --Samofi (talk)11:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once[66][67].
• BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

And this also seems to be a revert on a yet another article--[68]--Nmate (talk)11:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

and here I undone an edit in this article:[69] Uf Iam so disruptive.. You are a really funny with your efforts to ascribe to me a disruptions and edit warring. I try make all according to rules in the good faith, all my edits are based on reliable english sources, sometimes Iam bold, okay but Iam able to make a compromises. You are not. I agree that I made a mistake in article about Principality of Hungary, if I would know that my last edit will break the 3RR I would not make this edit so Iam sorry about this. --Samofi (talk)12:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

and I add the source in the article about Csontvary, there is written "Magyar" - ethnic magyar roots. No Hungarian roots - it can be nationality, origin or ethnicity. Its explained that word Magyar is the most precise but vandalized by editors from hungary - they did not open discussion about this but edit warring against me. Look what editors from hungary make here:[70] Nmate deleted 3 times in the one day my source:[71][72][73] and he did not discuss it at the talkpage and did not discuss with me - clear edit warring. Dear ADMINS, its more than one year what the Nmate harass me and other slovak users - espetialy newcomers:[74][75]. --Samofi (talk)12:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? How does someone with ethnic-Magyar roots differ from someone with ethnic-Hungarian roots? The word 'Magyar' is just the Hungarian word that means 'Hungarian'.--Toddy1 (talk)13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week This is clearly an extension of the previous behavior which lead to the indefinite block last year. I've blocked for one week for the clear 3RR violation, and this is a warning that the previous block will be reinstated if there is further problematic behavior.Kuru(talk)14:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Aprock has been notified several times not to remove the link to the articlemilitant atheism from other articles and templates throughout Wikipedia as theRfC that is discussing the article's fate is still in progress. I asked the editor to kindly wait until the RfC was over but he continued to remove the link to the article in question from other articles and templates. The following are the relevant differences:

• Exhibit A
• Exhibit B
• Exhibit C
• Exhibit D
• Exhibit E
• Exhibit F
• Exhibit G
• Exhibit H
• Exhibit I
• Exhibit J
• Exhibit K
• Exhibit L

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Exhibit 1,Exhibit 2

Comments:

• note: not a single diff listed above is a revert, and all but four of them come from before the linked warning.aprock (talk)09:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Warned both users. In case there's even one more removal of internal links and subsequent reversion from either one of you, you will be blocked immediately (in case the RfC hasn't ended). Wifione^Message09:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:94.5.94.52 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[76]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[82]

Comments:

This IP apparently believes that sources must be online, which is not so.Jezhotwells (talk)01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You realize you've violated 3RR yourself, yes?only (talk)01:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR does not relate to combating vandalism.Jezhotwells (talk)01:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but he's claiming the source is not POV and is removing it on that grounds. This sounds like an edit dispute over the source...not a case of vandalism.only (talk)01:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What, are you claiming thatThe Times is in some way unreliable?Jezhotwells (talk)01:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Film reviews are obviously not NPOV, they are opinions> I have added two "positive reviews" but the fact remains that some critics don't think much of the film. Do you think that the opinions of aTimes reviewer are not worthy of inclusion?Jezhotwells (talk)01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And another removalhere.Jezhotwells (talk)01:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You guys have already engaged in discourse on the talk page - clear up your disagreements there before you start editing the main page. I'll check back in a bit to see how things are going.m.o.p15:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks,Jezhotwells (talk)21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Tar baby (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:70.143.87.254 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[83]

• New text added by 70.143.87.254:[84] 03:59, September 27
• 1st revert:[85] 04:22, September 27
• 2nd revert:[86] 04:34, September 27
• 3rd revert:[87] 07:26, September 27
• 4th revert:[88] 14:24, September 27

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Tar_baby#US-centric_nature_of_discussion_racist_implications

Comments:

The IP editor has a decent point to make—there is a grain of truth to the assertion that the racist meaning of "tar baby" is largely confined to the USA. However, the subscription-only OED non-print version mentions Australian and New Zealander racism associated with "tar baby" term. The IP editor, after seeing initial resistance to his poorly sourced edits, changed his focus to the OED print version and continues to revert.Binksternet (talk)15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Declined No reverts since 3RR warning. If the IP continues edit-warring, please re-report. -FASTILY^(TALK)08:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[90]

1. [91] 16:32 - 51 27 Sep (6 edits) (revert)
2. [92] 16:55 (revert)
3. [93] 17:04
4. [94] 17:06 (2 edits)
5. [95] 17:10 (revert number 3)
6. [96] 17:13 - 15 (2 edits) (revert 4)
7. [97] 17:54 (revert number 5)
8. prior edit same day[98] 13:46 6th unquestionable revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Multiple efforts see also[100] prior EW example and his response at[101] etc.

Comments:
Yonmei has made a relatively large number of edits on that article, shown an argumentative attitude on the article talk page, and repeatedly pushed any EW envelope (I do not list his multitude of edits over 24 hours, as the case would be exceedingly strong).in the case at hand, he is well past any rational excuse for 3RR (5RR or higher if we start counting earlier edits today) . Cheers.Collect (talk)18:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Page protectedFASTILY^(TALK)08:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[102]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[107]

Comments:

Editor has been conducting edit wars in the Johann Hari article andmaking comments lacking in civility on the Talk page. I took a break for some days from editing the article because of his comments. The particular example he objects to that was resolved by consensus on the Talk page was using the header "Plagiarism" under "Journalistic Controversies".

Following several comments on the Talk page that the "Journalistic Controversies" section ought to beredrafted I did so, including changing the "Plagiarism" header in line with consensus reached on Talk page. receiving an approving comment from another editor for my work.Collect did not comment in the Talk page on those changes, but instead posted a3RR warning on my Talk page, instructing me to revert my changesto a version of the page last edited byCollect or he would report me.

If I followCollect's instructions and self-revert, not only will I be ignoring the consensus discussions on the Talk page, but it would involve reverting changes made by three other editors whoare engaging in discussion on the Talk page about these changes, whichCollect is not.

I think this is an abuse of process. Please advise.Yonmei (talk)18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: I apologise for the mirroring reports:Collect posted on my Talk page at18:06 to say he intended to report me if I did not self-revert, and then13 minutes later seems to have reported me here anyway - the length and complexity of the reverts he wanted me to make were such that, if I had opted to follow his instructions, it would have taken a lot longer than a quarter of an hour to follow through.

Comments:

While technically Collect may not have surpassed three reverts, he is an experienced editor and clearly aware that he is editing against consensus.TFD (talk)19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is clear retribution for my noting Yonmei's "more than five reverts" above - and also note thathe left no warning as required in the first place -- just a notice that he filed this report <g>.Hi, you have been reported for edit warring on the Johann Hari/Talk page. isnot a proper warning - and the notice on my UT page is not per policy. And I would noteno warning on that talk page exists either. As for consensus - the fact is and has been that Yonmei is the one who is pushing a POV, while my edits were based strictly onWP:BLPand noted as such. Cheers TFD - but your backing of this report makes no sense whenWP:BLP is a specific exception to the 3RR rule in the first place.Collect (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Note: edit summaries ofper actual content of cites and contents of sections - WP:BLP still applies as he is not yet dead) andper fact as to what he apologized for explicitly - and again oer requirements of WP:BLP) pretty clearly and properly invokeWP:BLP. Cheers again.Collect (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)FWIW, I prepared the 3RR warning and only after preparing it discovered he had made yet another edit - sorry Yonmei - but when a person makes 6 reverts in a four hour period, it becomes a teensy bit hard to justify. And half the reverts hadnothing to do with me.Collect (talk)19:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not the correct response when you believe there is a BLP biolation.TFD (talk)20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect repeatedly argues that a news report fromThe Independent is an "unsourced contentious claim". Link toCollect continuing this dispute with another editor on the article talk page:[108]Yonmei (talk)22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be niceif you made anaccurate statement. My view is that for an article to state outright that the person apologized for "plagiarism" a strong source must be used. In point of fact, alas, the actual "apology" doesnot include any aology for "plagiarism." Given such an overt conflict, the newspaper article isinsufficient. I also note the Laurence Tribe case where that author had actually used words of another and claimed them as his own - which more clearly fit the textbook definition of plagiarism. Cheers, andnext time please reflect what I write, and not what you wish to set up as a straw argument.Collect (talk)12:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You have attempted several times to make this case on the Talk page, and each time a general consensus has agreed that you are factually wrong - we have a strong source, which has been linked to and quoted at you multiple times by multiple editors. I'm delighted the page has been protected, as I hope that over a week you will cool down and realise that continually making reverts against Talk page consensus and a strong source, even if technically you abide by the 3RR rule, is not good practice. Thanks!Yonmei (talk)13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

First - this isnot the place for you to continuouslytendentiously misrepresent the edits of another editor. I would particularly note yourcurrent efforts to include blogs as sources in the BLP are failing mightily. Cheers.Collect (talk)14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

First - I have not done that. Please stop claiming that I have. RememberWP:NPA adWP:NICE. Second: The page is protected precisely so that we have a week to discuss proposed changes on the Talk page - please take your comments there. Thank you!Yonmei (talk)14:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

ReadWP:BLP for the fact that the policyrequires removal of unsourced contentious claims. Cheers - I had two reverts (one edit was, in fact, a copyedit not removing anything of substance from the article itself) to Yonmei's 6+. I suggest that the difference is quite substantial, indeed, especially when the changes were required by Wikipedia policy. Your mileage apparently varies. Cheers.Collect (talk)20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for using incorrect procedure: this is entirely new to me. I didn't intend this as retribution - I just wanted it clear, sinceCollect had declared he was going to bring in the admins to try to clarify what had happened and accept their judgement.Yonmei (talk)22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you have used noticeboards in the past, I thought you read the instructions at the top of the page. Meanwhile I suggestTalk:Laurence Tribe who was accused of "plagiarism" is on point here, along with the consensus that such charges do, indeed, fall underWP:BLP strictures. Cheers - that article shows clearly why this article has a major BLP problem.Collect (talk)23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The information that Collect keeps removing is not an 'unsourced contentious claim'. He has been provided with the source many times (at least twice by me alone). He has not yet explained why he believes this source to be unacceptable and continues to edit against consensus on this matter. Collect, your claim regarding theTalk:Laurence Tribe is being addressed onTalk:Johann_Hari#Controversy_in_lede so I suggest we continue that discussion there. -JRheic (talk)23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.FASTILY^(TALK)08:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Talk:Quagmire's Baby (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:GageSkidmore (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[109]

• 1st revert:[110]
• 2nd revert:[111]
• 3rd revert:[112]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:This user keeps removing the notice even though someone has to review the page first and see if any improvements can be made, as perWP:GAN

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.FASTILY^(TALK)08:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Azerbaijani American (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Beyond My Ken (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

User Beyond My Ken, who admits not being an expert on the issue of Azerbaijani-Americans on his own talk page, and admits of him being "(perhaps) prejudiced"[113] removed/blanked out a large paragraph of "heavily sourced" (as he admits) information with some 18 (!) citations/URLs/references.

• Link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to:[114]

Previous version reverted to:[115]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[120]

Comments: I've expanded and improved the article over the past month, and have pleaded BMK today to not remove info, instead discuss it and help re-phrase anything he feels needs to be re-phrased.

Saygi1 (talk)01:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The material removed wassynthesis in blatant violation ofWP:CRYSTAL, specifically #3:

Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it.

The paragraph removed speculated on what the U.S. Census results would say when it was released, and none of the sources provided were reliable as to that subject. Discussion about this took placehere andhere, and I opened a thread onWP:RSNhere. No amount of superficial rephrasing can turn speculation into fact. The Census data will be released in time, and it will say what it will say. At that time, it can be added to the article. There's no encyclopedic need to speculate in advance on what it might say, so my removal of the material was jutsified.Beyond My Ken (talk)01:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The diffs speak for themselves - there was no violation of CRYSTAL.Please see the last version that BMK reverted, there was no such wording[121]. There was smth to that effect in an older version of the article[122], which literally said smth different than what BMK alleges:"The 2010 U.S. Census results, to be released by the end of 2011, are expected to reflect a more current official estimate on the number of Azerbaijanis in the U.S."[123]. (BMK claimed above this: "paragraph speculating about what the new U.S. Census results will show about the number of Azerbaijani-Americans") As you can see, there is no prediction of Census results of Azerbaijani-Americans even in the older version of the page, before it was re-written, but simply informing the viewer that there was a recent Census and its results will be available soon. What kind of results, it does not say and does not speculate. Yet it was still reverted by BMK, improperly citing CRYSTAL. Even if there would have been a speculation over the number of people, that's not a license to blank the page and remove 18 sources along. There is no CRYSTAL violation here. He could have simply removed one word or re-phrased one sentence. But he preferred to revert the page 3 times in one day, despite my repeated pleas on his talk page and the talk page of the article itself. --Saygi1 (talk)01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"...are expected to..." speaks for itself.Beyond My Ken (talk)01:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I just thought I'd chime in here...I had a look at what was removed, and it does seem to be pretty speculative, albeit sourced speculation. I'm not quite sure that it was flat out blatant, but it didn't take a stretch for me to see it as speculative.Ks0stm^{(T•C•G•E)}01:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

user Beyond My Ken removed the whole paragraph with 18 sources over one or two words in the first sentence of the paragraph that he claimed was "speculative". That is wrong, as he could have easily re-worded it and edited it (and he has a lot of time and experience), as well as discuss it with others. This is why I reported him here, as it's a pure case of edit warring. --Saygi1 (talk)23:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.FASTILY^(TALK)08:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't report a 3RR violation, I reported edit warring - this page is for both types of violations, and I did not indicate 3RR violation anywhere. --Saygi1 (talk)23:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Users areonly blocked for violations of thethree revert rule or for long-term edit-warring ( i.e. edit-warring over a period of weeks or months). Neither of these conditions has been met, so Beyond my Ken is not going to be blocked. -FASTILY^(TALK)23:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:African American (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Therock40756 (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]
• 4th revert:[128]
• 5th revert:[129]
• 6th revert:[130]
• 7th revert:[131]
• 8th revert:[132]
• 9th revert:[133]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Therock40756 has been blocked twice before for edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:African American#Consolidation of African-American,Afro-Carribbean, U.S. African immigrants,Talk:African American#Problem with Obama not a real African-American by the definition

Comments:

Therock40756 has been engaged in an edit-war on the article for most of September. I asked for temporary full protection of the article, and Therock40756 refused to discuss his proposed changes. Shortly after full protection was lifted, Therock40756 began edit warring again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk03:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Andanother revert after being informed of this complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And now, out of the blue after being inactive for the same week as Therock40756,Sourcechecker419 has reappeared to pick up the edit war while Therock40756 is being reported. I don't have the website for edit comparisons handy, but obvious sock/meat appears obvious here.Dayewalker (talk)05:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've opened an investigation atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Therock40756. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk05:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

i was just coming here to see how do you check for sockpuppet. Last time this happened I said this on the talk page I suspect therock and sourcechecker are the same person. With such a specific agenda I think we know what we will find.[134]--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk)05:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of1 month -FASTILY^(TALK)08:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make a formal complaint onMalik Shabazz for edit-warring. It of course, takes two to edit-war. Please take note of my attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page:Talk:African American#Consolidation of African-American,Afro-Carribbean, U.S. African immigrants,Talk:African American#Problem with Obama not a real African-American by the definition. In fact, I STARTED the discussion. Malik Shabazz has a long history of meddling around with the page consistently.

Im also particularly conserned about this version which dramatically alters the lede^[1] Malik continues to insert this version with no consensus. I ask for either the page be protected for one month to a condition before the edit war began to give time for more debate^[2] OR Malik must have his account suspendedTherock40756 (talk)04:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, this reporting editor has himself been reported above for continued edit warring on theAfrican American page.Dayewalker (talk)04:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1. This edit-warring complaint is stale. My last revert to the article was on September 20.
2. Nothing is preventing Therock40756 from "more debate". I invited him to discuss what he doesn't like about the consensus lede on September 21. Therock40756 has yet to reply. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk04:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

ALSO:

Im also particularly conserned about this version which dramatically alters the lede^[3] Malik continues to insert this version with no consensus. I ask for either the page be protected for one month to a condition before the edit war began to give time for more debate^[4] OR Malik must have his account suspended.

[1][2][3][4][5][6]

These are just 6 of the 15 edits Malik has made in less than 2 weeks.Therock40756 (talk)04:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• ReporterBlocked – for a period of1 mothFASTILY^(TALK)08:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:African American (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Sourcechecker419 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[135]

• 1st revert:[136] 16 Sept
• 2nd revert:[137] 20 Sept
• 3rd revert:[138] 20 Sept
• 4th revert:[139] 28 Sept

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Sourcechecker419 has been blocked for a 3RR violation in the past

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:African American#Consolidation of African-American,Afro-Carribbean, U.S. African immigrants,Talk:African American#Problem with Obama not a real African-American by the definition

Comments:

Sourcechecker419 has been jumping in to edit war on behalf of his friend/meatpuppet/sockpuppet Therock40756 when Therock40756 is close to violating 3RR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk05:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Already blockedFASTILY^(TALK)20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Effects of climate change on humans (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:

1. 99.181.150.29 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
2. 99.19.47.31 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
3. 99.119.128.169 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
4. 99.181.131.7 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

• 1st revert:04:56, September 27, 2011 (as IP #1)
• 2nd revert:23:49, September 27, 2011 (as IP #2) note the lie in the edit summary, "spelling"
• 3rd revert:01:23, September 28, 2011 (as IP #3)
• 4th revert:04:18, September 28, 2011 (as IP #4)

In each case, the editor is restoring the text a link to [[Celsius|°C]]; in each case, I was removing the link, although one could argue that the first time I changed it to an unlinked "°C" was not a revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[140] (to IP #3); I've warned the bouncing IP before

Afraid not. He doesn't listen to arguments, anyway.

Comments: The only real solution ispermanent semi-protection of all global-warming-related articles, loosely defined, if we can't put together a range block which catches all of these. —Arthur Rubin(talk)05:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Declined I don't think it's feasible to perform a rangeblock - we'd basically have to block the entire 99 range. Wide-scale protection or whack-a-mole may be a better alternative.FASTILY^(TALK)20:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Kayla Ferrel (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Alex singersing (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[141]

• 1st revert:[142]
• 2nd revert:[143]
• 3rd revert:[144]
• 4th revert:[145]
• 5th revert:[146]
• 6th revert:[147]
• 7th revert:[148]
• 8th revert:[149]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Removing speedy template that is candidate for speedy deletion

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

Comments: That person is not notable on the American reality fashion show,America's Next Top Model. And he attacked my user talk page on vandalizing the speedy deletion tag.ApprenticeFan^work08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Already blockedFASTILY^(TALK)21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page:Rutgers University (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:67.82.118.189 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&oldid=452786346

• 1st revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=450733907
• 2nd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=450832463
• 3rd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=451014584
• 4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=452413205
• 5th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=452756533
• 6th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers_University&diff=prev&oldid=452908957 (Current Page)

(This list does not count the original edit, of course.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.82.118.189&oldid=452787201 (User was warned previous to last revert that a discussion should be started and a consensus reached)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I had commented at the bottom of the 3RR warning on the user page, and no attempt was made by the user to reach out to me to discuss further, and the IP user has not attempted to start any discussion to reach consensus on the article Talk Page.

Comments:
The conflict revolves around the 'school colors' of Rutgers University. Clearly "Scarlet" is indeed the most recognizable color, the Rutgers Visual Identity System says that the official colors used by Rutgers University are "Pantone® 186, Pantone® Cool Gray 9, and Black". Pantone 186 is more commonly known (as used by RU) as "Scarlet". The colors were listed in order on the Rutgers University infobox (Scarlet given top billing, of course).

Reference:http://identity.rutgers.edu/identity_manual.pdf (See: Page 3.1 'Color', section "Primary Color Palette". PDF Page 24/84.)

While not a 3RR violation per-se, I believe that this is a case of edit-warring.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKai445 (talk •contribs) 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC) -Kai445 (talk)20:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of1 week -FASTILY^(TALK)21:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[150]

• 1st revert:[151]
• 2nd revert:[152]
• 3rd revert:[153]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[154] (made aware of bothWP:3RR andWP:AA2). User has been notified of the report here:[155].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[156]

Comments:
The articleGülablı is about a village ofAgdam Rayon ofAzerbaijan Republic, occupied by Armenian armed forces in July, 1993. UN Security Council even passed a Resolution 822 condemining the occupation of Agdam and calling on Armenian forces to uncoditionally withdraw from the territories of Azerbaijan. However, to this day, this village along with hundreds of others is still under control of Armenian forces. The Armenians have changed the name of the villages but the changes are not recognized by any international organization, any government, except for probably the government of Armenia. Now Armenian usersTakabeg,MarshallBagramyan andRaffiKojian have engaged in edit-warring on that page, adding the illegitimate name of the village asVazgenashen and dismissing theneutral reliable source from theGEOnet Names Server already present in the External links section of the article, which does not call this village "Vazgenashen" or anything of the sort. Moreover, the user MarshallBagramyan added"Armenianpedia" as a source for his claims. Armeniapedia isowned byRaffiKojian, an Armenian user who also edit wars on other pages. (Please see removal of large sections of sourced text here:[157],[158],[159]). Another allegation is that a drone has been shot down near this village, and the sources added for that either do not indicate anything about the village or are biased. Yet User Takabeg continues to edit war by reverting what MarshallBagramyan added:[160],[161],[162].

However, this particular article is not the only cause for the report. Disruptive editing behavior of User Takabeg is visible from his recent edits in Azerbaijani related articles. See his unjustified addition ofcitation needed tags on Azerbaijani villages such as:

• [163] when theneutral source clearly indicates the name
• [164] when theneutral source clearly indicates the name
• [165] when theneutral source clearly indicates the name
• [166] when theneutral source clearly indicates the name
• [167] when theneutral source clearly indicates the name

There are dozens of others which he tagged today. See his contributions:[168]. To my knowledge the user has not violated the three revert rule per se but is clearly engaged in revert wars for inclusion of POV. My warning to User Takabeg was immediatelyremoved by him.Tuscumbia (talk)13:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)