Page: American Idol (season 9) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.98.50.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

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

Comments: This IP-hopping user has been making the same edits over and over again on both this article, American Idol (season 10) and Lauren Alaina for over the past month. Another IP address in the same range was blocked for edit warring in April, User:190.98.10.89. Aspects (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - 48 hours for long-term edit warring. This user never engages with others on article talk pages. A rangeblock might be considered if the same war is continued by another IP from the range. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] Uninvolved editor with this edit war, but not the information. I did edit this once from another editors contribution (Sindinero). Some discussion has been undertaken in regards to edit warring with this editor in the past in regards to him and he in regards to this editor.

Comments:
At first I thought it was just three but the third does appear to basicly revert the same material in question in order to place a desired version of the section.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Equazcion#3RR. I made only two actual reverts here, and each were of different edits. I explained this on my talk page. Aside from repeating that I violated 3RR, there wasn't much of an attempt to address this.

• [13] - User AKA had inserted a redundant statement (which he later admitted was by mistake), and I removed it. This wasn't a revert. He did other things with this edit which I didn't touch.
• [14] - This was a revert of [15].
• [16] - This was not a revert. User AKA has removed a reference for being a blog, so I added a different reference instead.
• [17] - This was a revert of AKA's removal of that reference.

The final edit here was indeed a revert of a revert, but if you look at the talk page and history of this article, user AKA doesn't tend to abide by BRD, and several of us have grown tired of trying to force the issue. He's also been admonished for this numerous times on his talk page by users and an admin, though he removes those warnings, so you'll need to check his talk page history. Either way, 3RR wasn't violated here. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined As noted, one revert appears to be "consensual", and reverts that are an attempt at iterative improvement (making the requested change in the ref) are iffy. Since this is a little stale, I would suggest no other action. Kuru (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Agnieszka Radwańska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dencod16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Agnieszka Radwanska

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk page

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

Comments:
I'm attempting to maintain a concise version of the Agnieszka Radwańska article. Dencod16, who has a history of disruptive editing, keeps restoring a far longer version which contains unverified claims about a living person (heroics regarding qualifying matches and other "accomplishments"), and is full of grammatical errors, over-linking, and comma splices. I've tried explaining multiple times that Wikipedia is not a diary, and that all of this statistical detail about matches is unnecessary. Dencod has ignored all of these points and resorted to uncivil insults. -- James26 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Warned. Left a message on user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He at first said that scores should not be placed. And then he stated that it should be done like Roger Federer's page. And then he stated that Roger Federer's structure page doesn't matter after I pointed out that Federer's page is very detailed. And to say what i did was a diary is untrue, as with other tennis player's page it is important to state there whole season as it shows how they have done, every round they have lost and tournaments won. It is our responsibility as editors to provide as much information as possible to the viewers. At least my informations are true to WTA Activity Section of Radwanska. For example he placed Myskina as the seventh seed as she was really the sixth seed. Dencod16 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: The Avengers (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Denny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here are five links to the version before the reverting took place, made by three different editors to remove OR fancruft from a comic-book movie article.

• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

• 1st revert [23] 22:40, 1 May 2012
• 2nd revert [24] 23:13, 1 May 2012
• 3rd revert [25] 23:24, 1 May 2012
• 4th revert [26] 00:39, 2 May 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There has been a discussion for two days, with no consensus to add the OR/fancruft version Denny is edit-warring about. Rather than discuss issues, he simply said, 'This is what I'm going to do," despite at least four other longtime WikiProject Comics editors in opposition to him — and myself offering a compromise solution with three or four posts beginning here that he dismissed in order to edit-war his version.

• Discussion beginning 07:22, 30 April 2012: Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#Thanos
• Discussion beginning 12:44, 1 May 2012: Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#Post Credits Scene

Comments:

• This is not a comment by the reporter but by the reported. I obviously disagree with Tenebrae's assessment, especially on the ground that I have added, for the first time, the debated statement with a reference. This was reverted with reasons. I changed the statement to incorporate the given reasons, i.e. a stronger citation for the statement. I was continuously giving my reasons on the article page, but Tenebrae only added comments to it after repeatedly removing my work. I hope this adds a bit light on the issue. --denny vrandečić (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stale – Consider reporting again if the problem continues. From the talk page it is not clear there is any ongoing dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [28]

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] [34] Comments:

I may have jumped the gun, but if this isn't yet 3RR, it is likely edit warring. Beagel is not the only editor deleting content and sources. There have been repeated attempts to remove sources and large chunks of information that mention negative aspects of hydraulic fracturing. I'd like to see the article present the positives and negatives with sources and let readers decide. When I arrived on the page, it was very pro-industry. I added info about the concerns and fixed errors. This is the first time I've reported anyone. Hope I'm doing this right. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested to have any edit warring and therefore I stopped edit that article at the moment, although there is no violation of 3RR. However, the Hydraulic fracturing needs more close surveillance by administrators and it needs some dispute resolution. The current deletion of information is not deletion as such: the environmental information was split to two different articles but the existing section was never summarized and duplicates existing articles. The information still exists without any changes at the separate environmental articles (all details are at the article's talk page) This is discussed several times at the talk page; however, summarizing is blocked by User:Smm201`0 backed by user:Sindinero and user:Iloveandrea. There have been requests for comment; however unfortunately it seems that there is no intention to take account comments by non-involved parties. I know that this is not the right place to ask this, but any suggestion how to resolve the dispute between different parties, is the most welcome. I also hope that this discussion here will stop the name calling as all editors having different opinion as User:Smm201`0 are labeled as "business involved" or "paid editors".[35] This is serious accusation and I am glad if any non-involved editor will check all my edits to make clear if there is any bases for these accusations or not. I can honestly confirm that I don't have any involvement in the hydraulic fracturing business, don't have any relation to any oil and gas company other than filling my car at the petrol station, and I never did any paid edits in Wikipedia. I don't know how I can prove this but I hope that my edits will be sufficient proof that these accusations are baseless. I hope also that also User:Smm201`0 will agree if his/her edits will be reviewed. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second revert listed is not a revert at all, but a condensation of a section present in full in the more specific article, linked from this article at the top of the relevant section. Mikenorton (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation After reviewing all of Mr. Beagel's edits on that page, I'm not seeing it. You'll need to provide four reverts within a 24 hour period; and they need to be actual reverts. If you're asking to review the page for general edit warring, you may not like the first person I'd single out. Kuru (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]
• 4th revert: [diff]

The next day - mass deletion: [40]

This was addressed on the talk page and removed as synthesis of material. Smm should be warned about making allegations such as this. Arzel (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a series of early deletions on the Philadelphia Water Department page [41] from 04/28-29/2012:

• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]

Unrelated to this issue and additional issues of synthesis of material and undue weight. Arzel (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:
This user has a history of disruptive editing on this and other pages. She/he has been the subject of several ANI discussions. Her/his comments are throughout this talk page. She/he is on the verge of violating 3RR on the Seamus page as well. I may have jumped the gun, but if this isn't yet 3RR, it is likely edit warring.Smm201`0 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was 1 revert, the second and third claimed reverts were completed unrelated. Additionally, this editor made another spurious report immediately prior to this report. If WP really wants to address a problem on WP, they should review editors like Smm201`0 who are using WP for there personal activism. This editor has been on a vendeta against Hyrdraulic Fracing, not to mention accusing editors that disagree with him/her of being paid editors for the industry. Arzel (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if an Admin would really like to review something, perhaps they can ask Smm201'0 why they have this statement on their user page. Due to some wikihounding, I have a different username on certain pages, but never more than one name per article (unless I log on before coffee and it is accidental). I am based on the East Coast of the US. Claims of wiki-hounding or not, the use of multiple accounts to edit different topics sounds like sock behavior to me. Arzel (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation Reverts with no intervening edits count as one. Kuru (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [48] (April 30 version, i.e. before most recent reverting took place)

• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53] (edit warring); [54] (3RR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [55] (User:Middayexpress, May 2)
2. [56] (me, May 2)
3. [57] (me, May 3)
4. [58] (User:Middayexpress, May 3)

(These are just since May 2; the dispute has gone on since March 2 4)

Comments:

This has gone on for two months. User:Middayexpress, User:CambridgeBayWeather and myself had all pointed out concerns with User:Muktar allebbey's edits. Muktar allebbey acknowledged some points, and made some adjustments to edits, but has essentially pushed the same version. Most recently, though, he's been reverting back to even earlier versions, re-introducing problems that he had addressed in the meantime (along with undoing unrelated edits that other editors had made). Gyrofrog (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified all parties named in this discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The post above pretty much sums up the situation. The user Muktar has been repeatedly shown what are the specific problems with his edits. His attempts at fixing those issues, however, have been either minimal or ineffectual. He has essentially been reverting back to the same problematic edits. There have also been some civility issues along the way. It seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE matter more than anything. Middayexpress (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Long term edit warring; multiple previous blocks. Kuru (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO ADMIN: After I made this report, Dmugar was given an indef block for abusing multiple accounts. Cresix (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: David G. Mugar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dmugar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Article prior to first revert: [59]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Cresix (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – Indef by another admin for abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [65]

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70] [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] [73] [74] Comments:

As you know, the Argentine energy firm YPF was partly renationalized recently. Obviously, this has become a subject of some controversy. I'm reporting repeated attempts made to insert anonymous, unsubstantiated claims at the YPF article that "Spanish executives of YPF were hunted down by Argentine officials" and that "armed guards used physical violence and threats."

The two users who insist on adding this to the page cite a source (Financial Times), but the source is a restricted site. BobRayner believes we are to take the FT at its word (if we could access the word, of course) because they are "surely a reliable source on Argentine economic issues."

My questions as to verifiability of BobRayner's version of what was published in a restricted site quoting unnamed sources are "excuses" according to him, and citing a restricted site while inserting contentious, anonymous claims should not challenged.

Verifiability does matter, of course. This is all the more so when we have numerous freely accessible news reports that directly contradict the version of events these users are so partial to; these are in Spanish, but are from outside Argentina and with the wonders of Google Translate, are a cinch to read. Here's one written from a decidedly anti-nationalization viewpoint in ABC, a conservative Spanish periodical (there are similar stories in Mexican publications).

The source reads (I'm translating): Operation YPF found no resistance in any of the executives, Argentine or Spanish. Nor in Sergio Resumil, then-Director of Communications (spokesman). They complied with instructions given to them by Baratta (Roberto Baratta, state representative in the YPF board of directors prior to the takeover) who (according to Resumil) "was formal in his demeanor. There was no physical struggle, no pushing, or violence of any kind. The 16 dismissed executives left in their respective company cars, chauffeured to their residences."

Here we have a first-hand account from Repsol's own spokesman in YPF who, while sparing no misgivings about the nationalization itself in the interview, describes the dismissal of YPF executives (the very people in question) in no uncertain terms.

BobRayner's unverifiable source to the contrary is based on anonymous claims, for otherwise we would see a person's name attached to the claim being inserted into the article, rather than "According to the Financial Times." This anonymous claim is not only unsubstantiated, it directly contradicts first-hand accounts by Repsol's spokesman at YPF himself.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected I'm seeing multiple 3RR problems, so I've locked the page for a short period to encourage all parties to finish the discussion on the article's talk page. If you resolve the dispute before the protection expires, please contact me or leave a request at WP:RFPP and it can be removed. I don't buy the usage of the BLP policy in this instance, and there is nothing wrong with using sources that may or may not be easily available. Others can verify for you. Kuru (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: John Harington (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert: [76]
• 3rd revert: [77]
• 4th revert: [78]
• There are 18 total reverts.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments: A user added a popular culture South Park section to the article John Harington, and I came back to the article and the section was entirely gone with the reason being there were no references, so I found references and wrote a new section and added it to the article, references included. The user theredpenofdoom removed my section, and continued to so, even though I pointed out several articles have a popular culture section, he made a remark about it being "crappy", and continued to remove it, even though the part of the article is well-written, and has good references. I started ignoring him because he began constantly harassing me, and clearly just wanted to pick a fight with me, even though my points were valid. I'll admit, I have edited the article a lot, but if you look closely, I just edited things that I myself had previously written. He's the only user that had a problem with the pop culture section, short of one or two people I assume are his friends.

I see nothing wrong with this being added to the article, other than some user with something to prove doesn't like it. It's well written, and has more than one reference included.

• Declined The editor you're reporting has not touched the article in several weeks. I would encourage you to use WP:DR. Kuru (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Richard Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 06:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 01:50, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")
2. 03:54, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")
3. 19:58, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")
4. 22:39, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Update -- here is another one, same edit. It's obvious it will continue, unless... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. This is an edit warring-only account, and what they're removing is cited to a reliable source which clearly supports what's in the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Noelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mirror89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [80]
• 2nd revert: [81]
• 3rd revert: [82]
• 4th revert: [83]

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

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

Comments:

Judgeking (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [85]

• 1st revert: 1 May 2012 [86]
• 2nd revert: 1 May 2012 [87]
• 3rd revert: 2 May [88]
• 4th revert: 3 May [89]
• 5th revert: 3 May [90]
• 6th revert: 3 May [91]
• 7th revert: 3 May [92]
• 8th revert: 4 May [93]
• 9th revert: 4 May [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. While that material is negative about Mr Galtung, it is cited to reliable sources (I checked the Haaretz article) and there's consensus on the talk page to retain it in some form, so WP:BLP is not an excuse for this behaviour. Block duration set at a relatively short length given the extent of the edit warring as this editor has not been blocked previously and is probably editing in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: X Nilloc X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert: [98] (10:51, 2 May)
• 2nd revert: [99] (03:16, 3 May)
• 3rd revert: [100] (14:12, 4 May)
• 4th revert: [101] (15:40, 4 May)
• 5th revert: [102] (02:32, 5 May)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103] (3 May) and [104] (4 May)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox, notifications of the discussion also posted at WT:MILHIST and WP:RSN#Discussion about Taliban/Insurgent casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) infobox.

Comments:
This is a report of sustained edit warring against the majority position rather than a 3RR violation (though the editor seems well on the way to this). On 29 April I removed a casualty figure for total Taliban deaths in this war which was cited only to a Wikipedia article (which doesn't actually provide this figure) and provided a reference to a reliable source which states that there are in fact no reliable estimates for Taliban deaths. When doing so I also started a discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox where this position has received support from most of the editors who have commented. X Nilloc X (talk · contribs) is participating in that discussion, but keeps reverting the unreferenced figure back into the article despite being asked to stop this. I and two other editors have been reverting his or her changes. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I'm up to three reverts in 24 hours in this article myself (two reverts of X Nilloc X and one of Stumink (talk · contribs), who has been twice invited to join the talk page discussion but has edit warred instead). As noted earlier, two other editors have also reverted X Nilloc X within the last 48 hours. I will not be making any further reversions of the article this weekend. Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X Nilloc X has reverted me again since I posted this report and notified them of it (added above as the 5th revert), and has also started a spurious discussion at WP:DRN. Nick-D (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 04:30, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "The Seeds of Tomorrow")
2. 04:40, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Disallowing an integral party to every previous failure from preventing a real solution.")
3. 04:49, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Just the same 3 people (Mtking, TreyGeek, Haseur) who've betrayed the process again and again trying to prevent resolution that's not controlled and failed via them.")
4. 07:17, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "The clique of Mtking/Treygeek/Hasteur clearly _hate_ any attempt at a process not under their direct control. They'll do _anything_ unsavory possible to prevent.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Mtking ^(edits) 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]