Page: Hungary–Slovakia relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iaaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

1. 16:23, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 420310534 by CoolKoon; This article refers to the realtion bteween Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic. (TW))")
2. 16:48, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 420511934 by Iaaasi; content does not fit here. (TW)")
3. 16:59, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "I've explained to you very clearly, if you continue I'll file a reportReverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW))
4. 22:44, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW)")
5. 10:36, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "(Reverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW))")
6. 10:42, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW)")

Familiarity with 3RR : [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3][4] These are my attempts to explain why this content obviously does not fit here. The second diff is a link to my comment, consequently my attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. I was not reverting-without-talk (Iaaasi (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Comments:

The user is willing to discuss edits without wanting to adhere to the 3RR rule as has also recently been blocked for a whole week for a violation of 3RR.[5] Also, it is important to note that the user had already been blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing from which got a second chance for the return.[6]--Nmate (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism does not count as a revert in an edit war. It is an obvious vandalism, User:Koalicio was even warned by the admin User:Anthony Bradbury for that: "one more vandalism edit will result in your being blocked from editing". It is a clear explanation on the talk page why the respective text does not fit in the article. I invite the admins to see it, because it is an obvious inappropriate addition (Iaaasi (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Urgh, that is really ugly edit-warring, and the later reverts falsely label the content that is being removed as vandalism. Considering that Iaaasi has been previously blocked indefinitely for similar disruption and was only unblocked upon the condition of good behavior ([8]), I am reimposing the indefinite block as a normal admin action. In view of his previous WP:DIGWUREN warning ([9]), I am also imposing the following restriction to take effect in the unlikely event that the block is ever lifted: In application and enforcement of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Iaaasi is indefinitely prohibited from making more than one revert per month per page, if the page or the action being reverted are related to Eastern Europe. A "revert" is any action that undoes the action of another editor, in whole or in part, as explained at WP:EW.  Sandstein  15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]
• 5th revert: [15]

This user has a history of edit warring, on June 2010, April 2010, Dec 2009, Sept 2009. Also, it was made clear, by user Sean.hoyland [16] earlier today that "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."

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

<[[17]]> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Hope I did this correctly, GoetheFromm (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the first and second reverts are the same. The others are distinct. I don't believe GoetheFromm understands this policy or many Wikipedia policies. Instead, as you can see on this talk page for Talk:Miral, s/he is flaming other editors and clearly not assuming good faith by labeling certain editors "pro-Zionist" and thereby rejecting their contributions that are well based on Wikipedia policy. I would like that behavior to stop and this faulty incident report seems to be a part of that behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the two similar reverts I made were before the WP:1RR restriction were placed on the page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you read wikipedia policy on 3RR, that ANY revert within a 24 span is subject to 3RR violation! GoetheFromm (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, I invite you to show me where I labelled someone and dismissed their contributions as a result! I expect an apology if you are wrong in your implication. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

1) All my edits aren't even reverts. 2) You characterized BioSketch as a "pro-Zionist" and belittled his/her edits on the page by unfairly implicating they were a product of ideology, when there was no evidence to do so. Not cool. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Yes, I believe the edits that I've brought up are reverts as per wikipolicy, 2) You are not BioSketch and I was not belittling his edits (other users and admins can support this). 3) You have had past experiences of edit warring and your behavior on the Miral page is borderline, if not certainly, editwaring (hence the purpose of the inquiry) GoetheFromm (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for that apology....GoetheFromm (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

<- I'm not an admin. I can't put 1RR restrictions in place on articles. That restriction was already in place on the article because 1RR already applies to "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed" whether the templates are there or not. Anyone who edits regularly in the I-P topic area will already know that because the templates are on a almost 800 articles. I added the headers to theMiral article because the article had been missed and GoetheFromm does not edit regularly in the I-P topic area and so cannot be expected to know about the restrictions in place. He is aware on them now. Having said all that, it would be much better if things were resolved on the talk page rather than through edit warring, name calling and noticeboards. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Protected three days. It is advisable to use this time to discuss the open issues on the talk page, and try to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Robert Hurt (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SayHiWorld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last version since the user started editing: [19]

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert: [23]
• 5th revert: [24]
• 6th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: [27][28][29]

Comments:
Constant edit warring from the User:SayHiWorld since March 22. It started when he wanted to add the POV term "flip-flopped" based on two separate facts. The source did not directly say it and it was essentially his own personal analysis. Since then, the user has been adding self-published sources into the biography in order to justify his addition of using the term. However, I explained to the user that self-published sources were not allowed in BLP's. He ignored what I said and kept adding it. Furthermore, he is misinterpreting what sources are saying which I have explained to him on this talk page. He has added his own original research again by characterizing quotes he has made as "extreme" and misinterpreting a comment he made on "climategate" as meaning he denied climate change. As I previously said, he ignores my comment and continues reverting to add the content in. Truthsort (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for severe edit-warring to include unsourced (or unreliably sourced) negative content in a WP:BLP.  Sandstein  07:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Cannibal & the Headhunters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.119.162.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments: This has been a repeating pattern going back several weeks - the user has been repeatedly warned on his/her talk page, with no response. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked 2 weeks by another admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Kochi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP Users 59.92.x.x, 218.186.x.x, 218.248.x.x

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kochi&curid=56274&diff=420774500&oldid=420771506

Two qualifying claims about the airport was there on the page for a long time. It is removed by editor User:Samaleks. Solid proof for those statements was provided on the Talk Page by myself. No response was given by any editor. Several IP addresses started to continually remove the information, without coming to talk page. The intention is to remove the information, despite the solid proof provided.

This tactics of using IP edits and avoiding discussion has become a standard procedure by the editors who want to push a POV. The recommended methods of dispute resolution breaks down in these situations. Playing by the rules by refraining from reverting those edits would only encourage such malicious tactics. A semi-protection forcing edits by registered users seems to be the only way to restrict this behaviour.

DileepKS(talk) 16:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Semiprotected for a month to stop the absolutely confusing edit war about what seems like a trivial point among the IPs.  Sandstein  19:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: 1941 Odessa massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 89.40.216.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

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

1. 23:38, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420708095 by Dahn (talk) Previous edit was politically motivated to support a forum debate.")
2. 12:25, 26 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420741377 by Biruitorul (talk) Previous edit was politically motivated to support a forum debate (again!).")
3. 13:21, 26 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420803339 by Dahn (talk) Previous edit was politically motivated to support a forum debate (again!!)")
4. 15:48, 26 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420808710 by Dahn (talk) Previous edit was politically motivated to support a forum debate (again!!!)")
5. 17:23, 26 March 2011 (edit summary: "Please consider the content as valid (and stop this nonsense) as this subject is still under scrutiny and has yet to be decided over the accuracy of the figures presented. Better leave both sides displayed for the sake of pervasive information. thx")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Comments:
IP adds revisionist material to the article, trying to diminish the importance of one of the largest massacres that took place during the Holocaust, massacre acknowledged even by the government of the perpetrating country. Considering the version reverted to was added by a different IP, a semi-protection may be needed too. Anonimu (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours and semiprotected for a month. No matter what one thinks about the content changes, the removal of external links, categories etc. is clear vandalism.  Sandstein  19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: The Venus Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gharr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38] this is the first edit by User:Gharr which started the edit war, this is the original another user reverted to [39]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning for previous edit war: [44], warning giving out by User: Gharr to another user on current edit war: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
The edit war largely consists of User:Gharr making changes to the article for which no consensus exists among the other editors. He seems to refuse calmly talking them through. His reverts have been conducted over a long than 24 hour period (41 hours), but the behaviour seems pretty blatant. Note that there's broader problems with the user's behaviour, documented at this very long thread at ANI (ironically started by himself). --Sloane (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This guy/girl called User:Sloane has no case, I did not make any 3 edits reverts withing a span of 24 hours. This user is simply trying to intimidate me. User:Sloane also gave me a generalized 3RR tag previously that Wikipedia states as being aggressive:

• The rules on issuing a 3RR tag are clear “see Edit_warring#Handling_of_edit_warring_behaviors: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive." This links to the tag User:Sloane used: straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me--this type of warning is clearly aggressive in nature and he/she should not have used it.
• I consider this action to be an aggressive attempt at continuing to “hounding me” by striking back at me for saying that the use of this aggressive 3RR tag together with with the history of a BLP incident in the past—that I believe involved his friend User:OpenFuture—was the reason behind why he/she is “hounding me.” You can check out my complaint about User:Sloane here: Complaint made to Administrators (assuming it has not been moved into archives yet, but it was active at the time User:Sloane made this complaint).
• Incidentally, User:OpenFuture and a new person who turned up suddenly called User:Edward321 are the people who have been reverting my edits. User:Sloane seems to be kindly stepping in on behalf of his/her friend User:OpenFuture while also continuing his task of hounding me.
• I also feel offended that this user is trying this without checking the facts. Perhaps User:Sloane was expecting you to make an error in the time calculations, but that would be dishonest and taking advantage of this place for the purpose of threatening me to back down on my complaint to administration. --(Gharr (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Gharr, there are 4 reverts, done by you, within a 24-hour period. I doubt you'll be let out on the template technicality, especially since you've accused others on violating the 3RR and thus should be very aware of the policy. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for the record, as I stated above, the reverts happened over a 41-hour period, instead of a 24-hour period. But that obviously doesn't excuse the edit warring.--Sloane (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh, you're right. I really need a new set of eyes. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

[Statement from you own user page] Zakhalesh:

• "I am Zakhalesh. I've got nothing to hide but I prefer to keep some obscurity as I don't want any "real" problems arising from conflicts with the people I oppress."
• "Although my edits may seem genuine and even friendly, I have several disgusting plans for Wikipedia. Remember to treat me as you would treat any online terrorist, as I will do my best to prevent you from learning the truth."

"Nice sense of humor you have there;" I wouldn't worry about your error, "since they will get better at taking down their prey now that you have let them practice." --(Gharr (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Gharr, that does not belong in 3RR noticeboard, and if you weren't trying to find anything to use against me, you'd probably sense the irony, if not from the text itself, from the links. I seriously urge you to stop attacking other editors. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

However, I taste some sweet irony in the fact that it is you who take that seriously. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I dropped a mention on Gharr's reply to the ANI thread. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours. A typical edit by Gharr seems to be this one. It takes opinions which are cited to Fresco and expresses them like they are simple matters of fact, in Wikipedia's voice. This violates WP:NPOV, which doesn't always lead to a block, but when accompanied with edit warring, it's hard to defend. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Revenge of the Nerds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.238.238.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]
• 4th revert: [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:
I have noticed this apparent edit war pop up in my watch list over the past few days. Although the IP editor may be acting in good faith, he/she is actively changing the article the same way each time. Multiple editors have reverted the edits but IP continues to change it. This subject was already discussed on the talk page, but I'm afraid no consensus was reached. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} • 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No 3RR here, obviously; the edits are spaced over a month. I see no edits after the warning, either - that's kind of the point of the warning. Keep working on a consensus on the talk page, but I'm not sure if any administrative action will help here. Kuru (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

• 1^st revert: [54]
• 2^nd revert: [55]
• 3^rd revert: [56]
• 4^th revert: [57]
• 5^th revert: [58]

Edit warring/3RR warning diff: [59]
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page diff: N/A has a long history of edit-warring. Failed to follow the BRD procedure many times

What a big fat lie. There are but three reverts on that article. And one of those ought not count due to IGNY moving the article without consensus knowing full well it was contentious. Tentontunic (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Comments:

I am hoping the administrator who looks at this report looks properly, there are not five reverts there at all, IGNY is being dishonest here. Edits done one after another with no other editor editing between does not count as a revert. As IGNY is no doubt aware. Tentontunic (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• No violation I only count three reverts (the three successive edits count as one). Yes, even reverts which undo "contentious" edits/moves will count; those are the kind we'd like to avoid the most. It may be a good idea not to skirt around the edges, and move any further discussion to the talk page. Kuru (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Bob's Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 131.156.211.10

Clean version: unvandalized version.

IP has been hopping and refuses to understand Wikipedia guidelines. Revert profile: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Comments:
The IP has been warned that he was reverted. I cannot see why he refuses to add a source or acknowledge this is trivia. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:38 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protected by Airplaneman (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: 51/50 Ratchet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Markelmitchell (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]

Comments:Since this user has made similar unconstructive edits to numerous WP:Albums articles, and has ignored any attempt to talk to him (see user talk page) this is not about the individual article. But the user did slip up here. He has been blocked once before for being non-responsive and his disruptive editing.

Stale T. Canens (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing. Dan56 (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Swedish diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Other pages are relevant to the discussion as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_diaspora&curid=17379619&diff=421088211&oldid=421087198

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&curid=30941449&diff=421093828&oldid=421092312

For example, a recent revert of a single quotation by two unrelated editors in the lead paragraph has led the reported editor to call it an edit war, rather than simply addressing the reasoning for the quote in the Talk page.

User being reported: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is consistently avoiding consensus discussions in favor of BOLD editing. This might be fine, but I feel it might be occasionally crossing the line into disruptive editing. This user makes literally hundreds of changes to Wikipedia a day, and boldly moves on, but it would be nice if they would stop when questioned to simply give a rationale for their actions. It strikes me as not in line with fair play to simply push others aside in favor of making major adjustments to the encyclopedia.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User failed recently to respond to a complaint regarding their behavior regarding calling other editors "Essjay". My feeling is that the editor will continue to ignore comments, and so I will place a notice on their Talk page, but I would rather see other editors review and resolve this.

-- Avanu (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: The editor seems to be now involved in Wikipedia:Canvassing in an attempt to 'win' the argument of whether their edits are proper or not. So far this still has not been in line with simply asking for opinions, but again is being phrased as "edit war". To me, it appears designed to again promote their POV on articles.

04:13, 28 March 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Aristophanes68 ‎ (top)

04:10, 28 March 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Sharktopus ‎ (→Diaspora edit war: new section) (top)

Content of canvassing: It looks like the diaspora edit war has heated up again. Would you look at Swedish diaspora and help decide whether the quote should stay or go. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

-- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Without diffs of the reverts constituting the alleged edit war, the situation cannot be evaluated.  Sandstein  05:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am not the person calling it an edit war. I am responding to the tone of what Richard Arthur Norton himself is calling it, and the pattern of rolling over the community in the edits. I guess really I am asking for assistance before it begins to escalate into something further, and since first encountering Mr. Norton, the general attitude has been one where he seems unwilling to stop and actually discuss his actions, and more of a person who simply changes things and moves on, and others are left to pick up the pieces.

• As far as "complete diffs", I'm not sure without going through dozens of edits how to present a cohesive picture of what is occuring in general. The article link and the diff I provided at the beginning is the one that Mr. Norton recently called attention to as an "edit war", rather than simply addessing other editors in a community fashion.

• I would ask you to reconsider this decision to simply say 'malformed report', and give me some idea of how to proceed if this is incorrect. I am really just looking for Mr. Norton to act as a community partner, not as a singular, driven editing machine. -- Avanu (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the complaint is about RAN's characterization of certain situations as an "edit war", a characterization that Avanu disputes. If so, then this is something that should be worked out between RAN and Avanu, or, if RAN is somehow acting disruptively, be reported to a suitable venue such as WP:ANI. This board is for dealing with ongoing edit warring. If you think that there is no edit war then there's nothing for us to address. T. Canens (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake then. At the time I filed this, my impression was that RAN was beginning an edit war, and has characterized the edits as such with 2 other editors on their Talk pages in order to enlist their aid in pushing his POV. I have explained further at User_talk:Sandstein and he also advised me to go down the WP:DE route with this. I really don't want to make a huge issue of this, but I am a big believer in community and mutual support of editors, and it seems from my research and experiences that RAN is typically more apt to act unilaterally. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

• 1st revert: [61]
• 2nd revert: [62]
• 3rd revert: [63]
• 4th revert: [64]
• 5th revert [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] This ought not be needed, Igny made a spurious report here on myself, and then proceeded to break 3r himself to edit war in a POV tag. This is not the first time he has done this.

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

Comments:

Igny has persistently edit warred this POV tag into the article. This is not the first time, nor I fear will it be the last. I am unsure if moving the article without consensus is a revert, if not then he has but four. Tentontunic (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure this meets a full-blown edit war status (it hits 4RR only because of the attempted move) - I am more concerned that [68] (moved Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states over redirect: move per talk) evinces a unilateralist philosophy which is contrary to consensus building in any case (having noted that nothing remotely near consensus existed for the move). Collect (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This move was not unilateralist. As the discussion on the talk page demonstrated, numerous sources and arguments have been provided from both sides. I would say, the prerequisite for this edit war was created by Peters, who attempted to close the RfM[69], a step he could not do, as Lothar explained here[70]. Although I see no any gross violation in this Peters' step (he definitely genuinely believed he could do that), the same step made later by Tentontunic few days later[71] was a more severe violation: he was informed by me about incorrectness of the removal of the tag by involved users[72], and, nevertheless preferred to ignore my advice to self-revert. Therefore, per WP:BOOMERANG the most correct solution would be to direct sanctions against Tentontunic. BTW, it will be not the first, and even not the second block in the recent Tentontunic's block history. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul's attempt to blame Peters' RM closure as a cause is a misrepresentation and may be a breach of WP:HONESTY, Peters' good faith closure has absolutely nothing to do what so ever with Igny's disruptive behaviour, as is demonstrated by Igny also removing the RM tag[73]. I note that a totally uninvolved editor has noticed Igny's disruptive behaviour and reported him to ANI[74], some action needs to be taken here. --Martin (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I do not blame Peters in anything, I just explain what the Lothar's position was: an involved user cannot close the RfM. After Peters has been explained, the issue was easily resolved. Again, I see no serious violation from the Peters' side (who genuinely believed he had a right to close the discussion, which, in his, (and in my) opinion became dormant), and I expect Martin to withdraw his odd accusation. In any event, by this step Peters unintentionally renewed the discussion over renaming, which, despite a visibility of dormantness, appeared to be not completely resolved.

Interestingly, another step that lead to escalation was a unilateral change of the sidebar's title by Martin[75] That has been done without any discussion, and the need of this step was questioned by others (see talk page). Therefore, although I see no traits of edit warring in these Martin's actions, he definitely contributed into the development of the conflict, and, therefore, this his comment is somewhat hypocritical.

However, all of that are just minor details. The reality is as follows (I reproduce it again below):

"Tentontunic removed the RfM tag[76], the step, he, being an involved user, could not do. After the issue has been explained to him[77], he refused to self-revert. This[78] is a proof that he has read my post. This[79] is a proof that he was an involved user by the moment he de facto closed RfM. This[80] is a proof that he removed a POV tag despitre the fact that the thread named "POV issues" is still active on the talk page[81]. Therefore, despite the fact that Tentontunic made just three reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84],

by these three reverts he removed the POV tag twice, and removed the RfM tag.

When I started to write this post I didn't know all these details, and I didn't realise the situation is so severe. In this situation, to block Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has already been blocked recently twice, would be a good solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you clarified your position and have struck my comment accordingly. Note that Igny's move was marked as minor. This is not the first time, Igny has previously attempted to move this article against concensus, also marking those edits as minor: here,here andhere, so this current move is part of a pattern of reverts by a long standing edit warrior. --Martin (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. Although I do not think Igny's behaviour is correct, however, we must concede that some steps made by other users could contribute into the Igny's emotional outburst. Moerover, since Igny seems to accept my advice[85] (at least, his last edits just restored the status quo ante bellum editorarum[86]), the situation seems to be resolved, and any actions against Igny will be punitive, not preventive.

Re minor edits. I myself sometimes do the same mistake by automatically clicking at this box.

However, that does not resolve another issue: the behaviour of Tentontunic. I suggest to focus on this problem. Do you have anything to say on his behalf?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The 3RR case above against Tentontunic is closed, this is about Igny. No, Igny's last edit did not "restore the status quo ante bellum editorarum" as you claim. This edit by you was the last edit[87] before Igny started edit warring[88]. I can understand accidently marking an edit as minor, but doing it four times for the exact same edit in the case of Igny? Igny was previously warned by an admin for this kind behaviour[89], so any action here would be preventive. --Martin (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remark that Tentontunic's move was also marked "m". Now Martin, you go ahead and try to move an article and mark it minor. I would like to see how you do that. (Igny (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Just my tuppence.

• My report against Tentontunic was not frivolous, he just got a break on a technicality, for some reason, 2 reverts were counted as one. I would appreciate if someone reviews how how 4 reverts ([90], [91], [92], [93]) do not mean an automatic block.
• By contrast, Tentontunic's report was frivolous, I would like someone to explain to me how 2nd and 3rd edits reported by him can be considered reverts.
• Amount of bad faith from Martintg's towards me is staggering, but understandable as I have so far refused to put up with his behavior here. I can not help but wonder if that is a new EEML technique to irritate opponents by ignoring opponents' arguments while poking at anything which could potentially provoke an outburst. They however fail to realize that attempts to boycott an opponent does not work on WP, as they would in a kindergarten, for valid arguments not go away unnoticed.

(Igny (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Old news first, I suppose. The previous report against Tentontunic was not frivolous, it was simply incorrect. I'm surprised that you've used the phrase "for some reason 2 reverts were counted as one" as this is specifically coded into the policy as "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I'm not sure how much more clear that could be.

The four diffs you give as examples appear to be from the same sample set as your report above. All four are indeed clear reverts. You will also the reverts at 14:27 and 14:03 occur without interventing edits and count as one - he could have just as easily done it in one edit. If you need a better explanation, please let me know, but this seems quite clear. So that's the old news, I'll look through this report now. I do notice that you are still the last editor on that page and there is still time to self-revert before I dig through this. I would encourage you to do that before I finish. Kuru (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for an explanation, and for the opportunity to self-revert. (Igny (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

• No violation Collect is pretty spot on above; I see four reverts including the move revert, not five. Since Igny has self-reverted the last one, there are only three and no 3RR which forces a block. I would encourage everyone on this article to start making sure there are discussions that are completed on the talk page before making any other reverts. This is an excellent time to point out that 3RR isn't the only criteria for an edit warring block, it's just the bright line; please don't start playing games with four reverts in 25 hours or some other nonsense. Kuru (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Éamon de Valera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.20.46.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Under discussion at [98]

Comments:
The article is under a 1 revert restriction per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE_case. O Fenian (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Stale T. Canens (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Guy Fawkes Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [99]

1. 08:28, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 421111187 by Moonraker2 (talk) I suggest you read up on exactly what he was doing. An undercroft is not a cellar")
2. 09:45, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "he was caught "skulking around" in there, not leaving, and the pile of explosives was not limited to gunpowder. Do try and keep up, try buying some books on the subject, they may help")
3. 09:52, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 421121143 by Moonraker2 (talk) the house of lords contained gunpowder? News to me.")
4. 10:47, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "Jesus Christ, there was only ONE undercroft beneath the house of lords, and it contained MORE than just gunpowder. If you're going to make changes then make them legible and factually accurate!")

In all four reverts the word "gunpowder" has been replaced with "explosives", but there are other reverts in the diffs as well.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I will post a message about this posting on User talk:Parrot of Doom. PoD is an experienced editor and has already been warned by me twice in the last week about 3RR. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] see the section Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night#"explosives not limited to gunpowder"

Comments:
This is the third time that PoD has broken the 3RR limit on this article in the last week Once was report here by me, the second time I pointed out PoD's breach on POD's talk page with a list of the diffs See:

1. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive153#Parrot of Doom reported by Philip Baird Shearer (Result: No action taken) (22 March)
2. User talk:Parrot of Doom#Four more reverts and partial reverts in 24 hours (24 March)

-- PBS (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Surely it's now time that PBS was once again blocked for disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 1 week in lieu of blocks and rollback removals and whatnot. T. Canens (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I had already asked for the page to be protected (on the 25th) so I am please that you have done so. However, that does not address the issue of of PoD breaching 3RR not once but three times on the same page within a week, and coupled to this two editors on the the talk page have suggested that PoD has an ownership issue with this page.

I think that PoD should be blocked for a time so that a clear message is sent that whatever the content dispute may be, breaching 3RR multiple times is unacceptable to the community, particularly as his/her conversation on his/her talk page with User:Charles Matthews shows no understanding that his/her breaching 3RR is out of order. Although I do notice from the archives of this page that PoD will bring 3RR complaints against others.

Also knowing that this 3RR report was open PoD performed another revert at 08:25, 29 March 2011 bringing the number of reverts up to five in a 24 hour period. Exactly how blatant does breaching of 3RR have to be before a block is imposed? -- PBS (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the editors who feels PoD has ownership issues also told an American editor she has no 'qualification' to comment on the talkpage - essentially telling her to go away. I think protecting the page is the right decision, but don't think blocks are necessary at this point because of the provocation I'm seeing on the page and talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88 to which editor are you referring? I have checked the edits of the two editors who have explicitly commented about PoD's ownership of the article on the article's talk page by linking to WP:OWN when making those comments, and could not find any comment by either of them of the type you describe. I presume that the discussion you are referring starts close to the top of the section Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 3#Bonfire night. Do you think that the editor who wrote "Hello, Truthkeeper88. As you would suppose.." also thinks that PoD has ownership issues? BTW I do not think that the editor in question, suggested anyone should go away. -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to bring personal histories into this PBS then perhaps I should post this link, which clearly demonstrates that quite a few experienced editors (content creators unlike yourself) feel that you are disruptive. Although you're "clever" enough to not appear to break the rules you are obviously edit warring, and having clearly lost several arguments on the article's talk page you are now attempting to force your view with this bureaucracy. The scholarly integrity of that article is far more important than my block log and I will not allow you to derail it by adding a load of badly-written and dubiously-sourced bollocks. Cease your disruption and go and do something constructive. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good move to protect the page. I've tried to stay out of the childish name-calling, and have no intention of defending all of PBS' edits, but the comment by PoD above that "I will not allow you to derail it by adding a load of badly-written and dubiously-sourced bollocks" hopefully is sufficient demonstration of the nature of the problems facing other editors - see WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The views of PBS are clearly at odds with the majority of editors on the article's talk page. PBS is using bullying tactics to impose his minority view. Several editors have suggested to PBS that his suggestions could improve the Bonfire Night article yet he seems intent on degrading the Guy Fawkes Night article to the level of the Oktoberfest article. Parrot of Doom is not the editor creating drama here, it is the sustained campaign by PBS to get his own way.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That comment is utterly misleading. There is a group of very active, very technically proficient editors, including Parrot of Doom, J3Mrs, and some others associated with the Greater Manchester WikiProject, who take the view that articles such as Guy Fawkes Night should take a certain form, and be academically unimpeachable. That would be fine, were it not for the fact that they (in some cases) abuse and generally denigrate other good faith editors who take a less absolutist and more inclusive view of different approaches towards informing readers. PBS has one view, and has edited in accordance with that view - his editing approach on the article (I can't comment about other articles) is far from "bullying". I don't personally agree with many of PBS' edits, or all his comments, but to suggest that he is in the wrong and PoD's approach (which includes, at best, gross arrogance and incivility) is "right" is completely preposterous. There is no evidence either that PBS' views, or those of PoD, command the support of the "majority of editors" - there is disagreement as to the way forward (in particular, as to whether the GFN article should be expanded, or whether an (effectively) new, more general, article on Bonfire Night should be developed), and a poisonous atmosphere which is apparently designed to ensure that GF editors on such articles are driven away. What a shame that PoD should be defended in this way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

J3Mrs, rather than discussing the content of articles and the alleged behaviour of other editors in this section, do you think that editors should be allowed to repeatedly breach 3RR? -- PBS (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure as to why you mention the Greater Manchester WikiProject and what it has to do with my comment. From my reading of the talk page I disagree with Ghmyrtle's analysis but that is my opinion. However I should point out it takes two editors to create these situations. If I have harmed caused PoD any offence, I apologise to him.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The only relevance of mentioning the WikiProject is to indicate that those defending PoD's behaviour will have had many previous WP interactions, and may conceivably even know other in real life. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You haven't offended me at all J3Mrs. As usual, certain people here are whinging about personal insults while spewing forth their own. The hypocrisy is amazing. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not "spewing forth" or "whinging" at all - just commenting. Independent readers will quickly come to their own conclusions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they already have. Parrot of Doom 19:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's good the article was protected. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Paypal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.248.151.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Latest revision as of 20:47, 28 March 2011

• 1st revert: 10:15, 27 March 2011 (diff | hist) PayPal ‎ (Undid revision 420939175: 67.248.151.69
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 15:33, 27 March 2011 Undid revision 420990839 by Jpgordon (talk) 67.248.151.69 (talk)
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:56, 27 March 2011 Undid revision 421030851: For some refs, see www.paypalsucks.com, www.paypalwarning.com, or ask any major ebay seller 67.248.151.69 (talk)
• 4th revert: Latest revision as of 20:47, 28 March 2011 Undid revision 421207552: POV? Please... Paypal freezes and takes funds from sellers accounts; Where is the protection? 67.248.151.69

Comments:
Incessantly edit-warring and reverting multiple users. Adding POV, OR and unreliable sources. At RFPP I was told to report here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours T. Canens (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jane his wife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: Reverted User:HJ Mitchell at 19:02, 28 March 2011 from here through 21:31, 28 March 2011 here

• 2nd revert: Reverted User:Tenebrae at 22:07, 28 March 2011 from here through 23:02, 28 March 2011 here

• 3rd revert: Reverted User:Crohnie at 23:51, 28 March 2011 from here through 01:38, 29 March 2011 here

• 4th revert: Reverted User:Tenebrae at 03:10, 29 March 2011 beginning here

• He then went on to revert User:Drmies three times after this. You can see the extent of his singleminded efforts at the article's history page, where you'll also see his uncivil comments to the multiple other editors who disagree with his press-puffery, his WP:PEACOCK, WP:DATED and other vios, etc. Despite a request on both his talk page and the article's talk page, this is his reply:

First off, I'm not 'new' to wikipedia, I just got another screename, second I don't do 'talk' pages, this part of the article has been here for years and is staying. My 'snide' comments are only to those who deserve one

LMAO yeah that was really un-friendly, you want to see un-friendly, go out more, how about you stay away from here. There is nothing wrong with how the article stands, not to mention I added 70% more information to it.

I wasn't even talking to you. How about you go away. I'll reply in my edits if someone responds like you are now, so shut it.

As well, he is exhibiting WP:OWN and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: "if I'm blocked I'm reverting all the edits I added MYSELF back to how bare and unprofessional it looked a month ago"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Jane his wife#Reap what you sow

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Jane his wife#Nicole Kidman, and bottom of Talk:Nicole Kidman.

Comments:

--Tenebrae (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.169.173.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: stable revision, seven intermediate reverts

• 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:

Pretty sure this is the same revert warrior hopping IPs. More recent war erupting on Flying Spaghetti Monster. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a period of 3 days Blocked 124.169.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Barbara Boxer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 219.144.166.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

• 1st revert: [101]
• 2nd revert: [102]
• 3rd revert: [103]
• 4th revert: [104]
• 5th revert: [105]
• 6th revert: [106]
• 7th revert: [107]
• 8th revert: [108]
• 9th revert: [109]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Barbara Boxer#Major rehaul

Comments:

I have tried, to no avail, to develop dialogue with a fellow editor regarding edits to Barbara Boxer's article. The only response is him reverting edits. He doesn't seem to be even reading the edits I made or the discussions I have left on the discussion page. Any help would be appreciated. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for standard edit warring. I'm a little concerned that most people on the other side of this dispute didn't take it to the talk, while those who did generally said things like "this edit is not acceptable" without explaining why. Still, it can't excuse this much reverting by any means. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Heimstern, Thank you for your help and assistance. The editor (editors) continue to refuse to discuss and make any comments on the Boxer talk page. You told me that I should not revert, but report it here and it will be dealt with, and so that is what I am doing. 219.144.167.100 (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Heimstern, Thank you for your help and assistance. The editor (editors) continue to refuse to discuss and make any comments on the Boxer talk page. You told me that I should not revert, but report it here and it will be dealt with, and so that is what I am doing. 219.144.167.100 (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Matt Painter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 14:45, 29 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2010-2011 */ meeting with Mizzou about their opening (edited with ProveIt)")
2. 15:23, 29 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by 98.228.37.170 (talk); No confirmation. (TW)")
3. 16:20, 29 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 168.166.55.11 (talk) to last version by Happy5214")
4. 16:28, 30 March 2011 (edit summary: "Rejected the last change (by 24.217.153.255) and restored revision 421502374 by 12.237.176.2 - Media speculation only, at this point. No confirmation.")
5. 16:38, 30 March 2011 (edit summary: "Rejected the last change (by 69.1.140.55) and restored revision 421505191 by Strikerforce - No confirmation yet.")
6. 16:43, 30 March 2011 (edit summary: "Rejected the last 3 changes (by 75.9.50.54) and restored revision 421506410 by Strikerforce")
7. 16:55, 30 March 2011 (edit summary: "Rejected the last change (by 184.78.125.32) and restored revision 421507090 by Strikerforce - No confirmation yet.")

• Diff of warning: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStrikerforce&action=historysubmit&diff=421509830&oldid=421354814 here]

—174.253.20.207 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Declined I'm not going to block people for reverting unsourced (and false, it seems from the most recent reports) crap out of a BLP. T. Canens (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: [112]
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]
• 4th revert: [115]
• 5th revert: [116]
• 6th revert: [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user (only occured on user talk pages) talk page: [119]

Comments:

In addition, the content inserted is a blatant violation of WP:COI and WP:NOTABILITY. The user has not listened to what Materialscientist and me have told him.

• Oooh - and now a sock emerges. The plot thickens ;> Doc talk 02:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 03:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

This has been reported at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Platinumshore_and_Peak_oil_again, but I am cross posting here as previous postings at that NB produced no effect. Please indicate there if action is taken.

• Jan 22 first insertion of text: [120]
• Jan 22 removal of CN tags: [121]
• Jan 25 removal of CN tags: [122]
• Feb 1 removal of CN tags: [123]
• Feb 1 removal of CN tags second time: [124]
• Mar 1: [125]
• Mar 13: [126]
• Mar 15: [127]
• Mar 29: [128]

No response on user's talk page or article discussion page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

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

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Yellowstone National Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lkmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

Comments:

Multiple users have attempted to explain WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. to this user, to no avail. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My last edits has WP:RS. They are NOT WP:OR. Lkmen (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also edit warring on Yellowstone Lake, attempting to add the same content. Mikenorton (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

..and at Islam + Qur'an adding ext links repeatedly that don't meet the inclusion criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"adding ext links repeatedly that don't meet the inclusion criteria."?! How come?! What is and where is this inclusion criteria?! Lkmen (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries (via the article's history tabs) added by editors removing the links. You will see links to WP:ELYES, WP:ELNO and WP:ELMAYBE. They all link to parts of WP:EL. That is irrelevant though because you shouldn't be repeatedly adding things people remove in the first place because it's edit warring. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. The editor has continued to revert since this report was filed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Another revert necessary: [137] --Mike Cline (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [138]

• 1st revert: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140]
• 3rd revert: [141]
• 4th revert: [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Paulo Francis#Blatant partiality and POV and Talk:Paulo Francis#POV?.

Comments:

The user is using similar behaviour (imposing his POV by force through consistent and persistent edit-warring) in other articles, namely Olavo de Carvalho e Landless Workers' Movement, where he has repeatedly reverted my attempts to edit in those articles. RafaAzevedo ^msg 12:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Architect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jerry20112011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

• 1st revert: [145]
• 2nd revert: [146]
• 3rd revert: [147]
• 4th revert: [148]
• 5th revert: [149]
• 6th revert: [150]
• 7th revert: [151]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153], [154], part of a lengthy discussion by myself and others, see extensive discussion on User talk:Jerry20112011

Comments:
Jerry really doesn't like the use of "architect" for anything but a licensed practitioner of architecture. As a licensed architect, I actually sympathize with him, but he's stretching various points of obsolete state legal language and selectively quoting from blogs, then isisting that others provide cites to refute the sources/blogs/forums that for the most part flatly contradict his position. Acroterion (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Page: Tom and Jerry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.174.141.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155]

• 1st revert: [156] (as 86.148.254.239)
• 2nd revert: [157] (as 86.148.254.239)
• 3rd revert: [158] (as 86.176.54.35)
• 4th revert: [159] (as 86.176.54.35)
• 5th revert: [160] (as 86.176.54.35)
• 6th revert: [161] (as 81.159.236.246)
• 7th revert: [162]
• 8th revert: [163]
• 9th revert: [164]

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

Comments:
IP editor has been reverted by several different users, constantly changes IPs. Page has already been protected once in the last few days. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Now, this IP user keeps wanting to blank his talk page, including the block notice. I do not have an opinion on whether he should get his way with blanking his talk page, or whether the block notice should stay up on there, but it almost seems that there is now an edit war going on with him and TheRealFennShysa over whther the page should be blank or not! I posted a message on his talk page to tell him to discuss changes on the talk page, etc., but he obviously cleared that off also (which, I do not care, for he might have read it. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 48 hours by JamesBWatson. The guideline at WP:BLANKING allows the user to remove block notices from his own page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Ritual Decalogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 00:37, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "undo: we do not write in WP jargon, so "disambiguation" means what it says in the dictionary. edits were also factually incorrect: the ED is not in general said to be later than the RD.")
2. 09:12, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "Yes, seriously. You're obfuscating the situation, and misrepresenting the claim")
3. 19:57, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "*sigh*")
4. 22:48, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 416254088 by Jayjg (talk)--No, you stop edit warring: read BOLD if you don't know how WP works")
5. 16:10, 1 March 2011 (edit summary: "rv. to stable version until this is resolved.")
6. 07:01, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: " ")
7. 22:18, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: "factually incorrect: ED is not, in general, said to be composed at a later date")
8. 06:36, 3 March 2011 (edit summary: "rv. unencyclopedic edits. Jay, articles are not about terms. That's what the dictionary is for. Take it to talk.")
9. 15:04, 4 March 2011 (edit summary: "restore & add refs")
10. 07:18, 8 March 2011 (edit summary: "still no refutation of the basic premise, nor reason to delete the alternate names")
11. 23:45, 10 March 2011 (edit summary: "it's been five days, and the deleting editors have failed to provide any sources supporting deletion")
12. 02:51, 11 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 418231919 by Plot Spoiler (talk)--then define it appropriately. Don't delete sources wholesale.")
13. 04:09, 13 March 2011 (edit summary: "rv. content deletion for mere stylistic reasons")
14. 18:04, 15 March 2011 (edit summary: "integrate new source into article")
15. 19:31, 15 March 2011 (edit summary: "Okay, but then let's start from the beginning, per WP:BOLD")
16. 21:01, 15 March 2011 (edit summary: "No consensus for these changes on the talk page. Follow your own standards.")
17. 22:35, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "compromise with Slrubenstein and Jayjg per Talk")
18. 19:53, 27 March 2011 (edit summary: "restoring mass deletion of sources; blanking of content w/o explanation")

• Diff of warning: here (note, though I warned him I would report him on March 3, I delayed my initial report for almost two weeks, hoping he would stop reverting).

• Comment: This is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR-violation report. For a month now Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) has been reverting the Ritual Decalogue article, in almost all cases inserting the phrase "one of three lists identified as the Ten Commandments in the Bible" (or close variations) into the lede. He has reverted 18 times now, and in turn been reverted by five different editors (Kwamikagami is the only editor supporting the use of this phrase). After a previous report of edit-warring was made, the article was protected for a week. Within 48 hours of protection elapsing, he reverted again, and has done so again today! Even more provocatively, his edit summary claimed he had reached a "compromise" with other editors on this on article Talk:, despite the fact that the other editors clearly stated they did not agree with this insertion. As stated before, Kwamikagami will apparently will never stop reverting, regardless of how many editors oppose him, unless some more serious sanction is imposed.Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Response: As noted last time Jay posted this, this is a content dispute, with several editors on both sides. As of today he does finally seem to be collaborating on this, but a previous outside editor described trying to get answers or sources from him as "like pulling teeth". It looks like we are approaching consensus on the talk page, and our recent edits have grown closer, now that Jay has made a couple objections and sources explicit. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• This dispute has been going since 2005, though not always with the same two people. A previous edit-warring complaint was made here on March 16. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive153#User:Kwamikagami reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: article protected).
• The article Ritual Decalogue was created by Kwamikagami back in 2005. It was Kept at AfD (No Consensus) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual Decalogue in August, 2005,
• The same article has been taken to the admin boards and to mediation numerous times. See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts/Archive 2#Ten Commandments
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-02/Ten Commandments
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 15#deleting some of the Ten Commandments
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive678#Ritual Decalogue
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive100#User:Kwamikagami.

I'm afraid that the 3RR board does not often do anything useful with very-long-running disputes between senior editors. I wonder if either party could propose an outcome, or a further negotiation step whose results they would agree to accept. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's possible kwami has been battling over this article since 2005, but this specific dispute started on Feb 27, when kwami reverted slrubenstein.[166] Also, it's rather bizarre to see kwami claim there are "several editors on both sides" and that "as of today [Jayjg] does finally seem to be collaborating on this". The fact remains that kwamikagami has reverted eighteen times, and been reverted by five different editors. This is kwami vs. everyone else. The edit-warring board can (and typically does) often deal with this kind of disruptive behavior by a lone editor (kwami) edit-warring with five other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the latest round, after the article was stable for so long, was a failure to observe BOLD, and insistence that sourced material can be deleted simply on one side's say-so.

The other editors who have objected to Jay and SLR, or have been frustrated with their refusal to cooperate, are Griswaldo and Steve kap.

The talk page is the way to get there, if both sides use it in good faith. It's very difficult to accommodate objections if those objections are never made explicit, or to source a differing point if the sources presented for that point don't actually address it. As I said, we finally seems to be moving forward, and we're not very far apart. I don't see why we can't come together on this. My unanswered questions on the talk page are one possibility. — kwami (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Do we actually have the case of two admins edit warring with each other? Honestly? Blocks are useless on a long-running dispute, as EdJohnston said. We have pretty much two options: 1) all of you stop edit warring, or 2) the page gets fully protected until the heat death of the universe or you all finally work something out, whichever is earlier. Take your pick. T. Canens (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to delete anything which is unsourced or which Jay or SLR are able to show is unwarranted. I'm not willing for them to delete reliably sourced info just because they don't like it, or for reasons or sources they refuse to disclose. (Even if they claim they have already or don't need to disclose them.) They have been extraordinarily uncooperative, as others have noted, but things seem to have improved in the last couple of days, with both making constructive comments, which are now incorporated into the article. I've posted my objections to their edits, and the reasons for them, on the talk page; let's see if they're willing to substantiate their objections, as we have repeatedly asked them to do. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor Kwamikagami seems extremely zealous here. He has been battling this out against the consensus of numerous other editors, and appears to be acting as though he has a vested interest in pushing one position. I understand the idea of assuming good faith, but assumptions only go so far, and Kwamikagami is pushing the bounds of what can be assumed as good faith. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

But obfuscation, lies, and playing stupid should make us think they're acting in good faith? Jay and SLR have been zealous in battling this out against the consensus of numerous other editors as well, since evidently "numerous" here means "a few". But we go by our sources. I am zealous against those who would delete sources or sourced information and refuse to give any good reason, no matter how much they bluster that their irrelevant claims are good reason. Let Jay and SLR spell out their actual reasons, and address the actual points being contested, and we'll have no problem. We no longer have a problem with the few points where they finally caved and cooperated. Cooperation should be the default. It shouldn't take years of requests and edit wars before one side addresses the issues at hand. — kwami (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, you've now reverted 5 different editors 19 times. That's what this board is about, not what names you call people, or what absurd claims you make about them "finally caving and cooperating". Please stop reverting everyone, all the time. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Troutted — Keep in mind that admins edit warring tends to be highly frowned upon and prone to subjecting you to major pains in the ass. Have you considered opening an rfc? Or official mediation? You guys should know better than almost any other editors what dispute resolution is, what edit warring is, and how not to be a dick. That said, I would very strongly suggest that everyone involved in this voluntarily adhere to 1RR on that article. --slakr^\ talk / 03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried an rfc the last time we went through this, and no-one was interested. It looks as if we're pretty much in agreement now, though. — kwami (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [167]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

Issue was discussed at BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Lurie_stalker

Comments:

Appears to be relating to an off-wiki stalking saga, still ongoing. The Interior (Talk) 01:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

After seeing the BLPN discussion, my view is that a long block of User:Lurielurie may be needed. Here is one of Lurielurie's edits of the article, in February. As an alternative, Lurielurie might agree to stop editing this article. I've asked him to respond here. My blocking suggestion makes no assumption as to who Lurielurie may be in real life, and as to who may be behaving better in the real-life dispute. LL is constantly adding poorly-worded negative material to the article, after our policy has been explained to him. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lurielurie repeatedly added a link to www.johnperrynyc.com, the website of the man who was reportedly stalking John Lurie. [173][174][175][176] This editor is too interested boosting the image of John Perry while pushing down the reputation of John Lurie. This editor has a very serious WP:Conflict of interest; in this case destructive rather than promotional. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 19:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Bradford Guitar Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 07:35, 30 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
2. 08:48, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
3. 10:31, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
4. 12:52, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
5. 13:05, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
6. 13:10, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
7. 13:26, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
8. 18:43, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
9. 18:58, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
10. 19:18, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
11. 19:26, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
12. 20:15, 31 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
13. 07:19, 1 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
14. 07:22, 1 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
15. 07:24, 1 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
16. 07:46, 1 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
17. 07:56, 1 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
18. 08:11, 1 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")

User was warned on 31 March but ignores all invitations to discuss this.--Charles (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Bradford Guitar Boy

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

Comments:I have not used this board before so I hope this is ok

I may as well own up and admit that I was the other user involved in the edit war, and that I too infringed the 3RR rule. I have stopped now after Charles' advice to do things through the proper channels, though I do find it frustrating that this means leaving incorrect information in the article. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected It looks like there are a couple of disagreements in the page history between a few different editors. However, always keep in mind that you can't edit war to undo edit warring, so blocks will likely ensue next time. --slakr^\ talk / 19:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AFolkSingersBeard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177]

• 1st revert: [178]
• 2nd revert: [179]
• 3rd revert: [180]
• 4th revert: [181]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [182], [183]

Comments:
This new account (which looks very much like a sockpuppet of a banned user) is repeatedly disrupting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews by deleting another user's edit - he did the same thing on another AfD only a few days ago and was blocked after he escalated to harassment. He has been warned repeatedly but has not responded to any talk page messages. In view of the fact that this user has just come off a 24 hour block for disrupting an AfD, I suggest that a longer block is needed to ensure that he gets the message this time. Prioryman (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked --slakr^\ talk / 22:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Pages: 2011 Toronto FC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Danleigh Borman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tony Tchani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bubbagump24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [184]
• 2nd revert: [185]
• 3rd revert: [186]
• 4th revert: [187]
• 5th revert: [188]
• 6th revert: [189]
• 7th revert: [190]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191]

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

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Although he's reverted across a few articles, it doesn't appear that he's actually edit warring quite yet. --slakr^\ talk / 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Changsha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.8.138.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One of his contentious edits: [192]

Reverts all in a line, with some interspersed by an actual vandal.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. This IP has been warned by another and me for potential, though not necessarily, vandalism. This IP user has made no attempt to communicate, i.e. on his talk or through edit summaries, whatsoever. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 01:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Pages: Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Damiens.rf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Direct reverts.
Diff of warning: Editor was recently blocked for violating 3RR here

• 1st revert: 01:11, 2 April 2011
• 2nd revert: 20:37, 1 April 2011
• 3rd revert: 20:12, 1 April 2011
• 4th revert: 16:09, 1 April 2011

Editor claims these reverts are exempt from WP:3RR under WP:COPYVIO, but has presented no convincing evidence of this, and has madfe only this comment[194]. Content appears to meet Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use. Dreadstar ☥ 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected There seems to be some disagreement on the talk page over whether it's too long, so while he did edit war a little, it does seem to me that he thought he was either going with consensus or doing the Right Thing™. Either way, I'm guessing 3 days should give enough time for consensus on the whole thing to be ironed out. --slakr^\ talk / 01:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good for that article, but this user is edit warring across many articles. But this is beyond the scope of this report. Unfortunately. Dreadstar ☥ 01:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Damien does some to be on a little crusade, but he might have a point with this one. There's a large block of text lifted from somewhere. It would be better to have maybe one or two representative sentences and a link to the full text, assuming it can be found at a site that owns the copyright. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens is a perpetual and unrepentant edit warrior and uncivil editor who engages in personal attacks and tries to own articles. I guess this will have to be addressed in an a user conduct WP:RFC. Dreadstar ☥ 01:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, his last block was ~a week ago. That said, I still think that in this particular instance it doesn't necessarily justify a block. His behavior, as a whole, might justify one, but as far as this particular report goes, I'm going solely on the talk page and the page's history with a cold eye. If he keeps at it or his reverts get crazy, you might consider a drama discussion, too. *shrug* Naturally, if he continues to edit war or violates the 3rr, feel free to update this thread or open another one. --slakr^\ talk / 01:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, but there's too too much drama already from this disruptive user, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Enforcement_of_non-free_content_policy, et al...[195]..too many to list here, actually.... Dreadstar ☥ 02:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you're lucky not to have blocked him, else you might have some lovely suggestions as to performing with retractable batons and whatnot. :) Dreadstar ☥ 02:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The guy has been trying for 2 1/2 years to get that 2001 image removed. That sounds like obsession. Goddess only knows what else he's been up to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a long, very slow edit war is just as bad a quick hard one. Dreadstar ☥ 02:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Talknic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [196]

• 1st revert: [197]
• 2nd revert: [198]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199] [200]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [201] long and meandering discussion.

Comments:
Like all other Israel/Palestine related articles, this article is under is under 1RR, among other active arbitration remedies, as noted on the top of the talk page. I pointed talknic to the ARBPIA template on the top of the page a few days ago [202]. Today he reverted twice within less than 2 hours. When I pointed this out and suggested he self-revert, both on his talk and the article talk (diffs above), his response was "nice try" plus an explanation that amounts to him arguing that it's not a revert because he didn't press the undo button. So here we are. There's also what looks to me like a 1RR violation on 1949 Armistice Agreements if an admin wants to look at that as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In learning the ropes for editing on Wikipedia I took this advice Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages and played it out in a bold edit, giving the reason for the bold change, citing a source, the Jewish Virtual Library, which reflected both the The Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization. It was reverted by one No More Mr Nice Guy. [203] whilst completely misrepresenting my stated reason for the change and giving no other reason. He did not question the source. The nature of his tactics has been consistent throughout every discussion we have engaged in.

To the first accusation.

I'd simply recommend reading through [204] (itemized below) where No More Mr Nice Guy has indulged himself in blatant contradictions to the editorial policies he demands others follow. Where the source was still being contested, per No More Mister Nice Guy's own criteria and where consensus per No More Mister Nice Guy's own criteria, had not yet been reached and where in fact his preferred source was rejected by consensus 3:1

At 10:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC): The 1st instance where No More Mr Nice Guy attempts to get consensus for the JPost source "Here's a reliable source (per WP:RS)" However, the source (Jpost) had never been discussed per WP:RS 'for that context' at WP:RSN or anywhere else. Furthermore the source JPost was reporting did not once use the words being disputed, quite contrary to WP:RS. A fact I pointed out at 11:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC). The JPost article did not even pass the basic premises of WP:RS.

At 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC): Again misconstruing WP:RS & WP:RSN-- "JPost is considered a reliable source. If you disagree you may try to convince other editors at the relevant discussion board (in this case WP:RSN), but if you do a search on the board and you'll find that this issue has come up before and there is a wide consensus JP is reliable" It had not, 'for that context', come up before, had never been discussed, was not validated in any way whatsoever 'for that context'

At 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC): After misconstruing the guideline himself in order to gain consensus for his preferred source, he then comments "Judith, could you please explain to Talknic how WP:RS works? I don't seem to be getting through to him"

At 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC): I pointed out //Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.//

No More Mr Nice Guy's JPost source was then opposed by myself 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC), Itsmejudith 17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC), Noisetier 07:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC). The consensus No More Mister Nice Guy demanded & sought, was against 3:1.

At 11:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC): Another voice is added to the chorus misconstruing WP:RS. Itsmejudith says "JVL's a secondary source, it just isn't a reliable secondary source for this." JVL was never examined at WP:RSN or anywhere else 'for this'.

At 21:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC): I asked in good faith, "Are The Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization reliable sources? " (the sources reflected in JVL)

At 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC): Itsmejudith "No..." Yet their reliability for this particular statement had not been discussed at WP:RSN or anywhere else 'for this' i.e., 'for that context'

At 06:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC): I remind them of WP:RS and 'for that context'

At 14:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC): No More Mr Nice Guy then makes an unwarranted accusation re my understanding of WP:RS and finally infers there must be agreement to make any suggested change - "You should consider that maybe it's you who is misunderstanding the guidelines rather than others misconstruing them. I have wasted enough time making a good faith effort to try and explain these things to you. I will not be commenting further on this issue. Do not take that as agreement for your suggested change."

At 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC): I reminded folk of the misconstrued guidelines (rather lengthy and pointed) and again suggested a constructive change in good faith, adhering to WP:RS calling for contributions for improvement, whilst still observing No More Mr Nice Guy and Itsmejudith's demands for consensus.

At 09:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC): I took the discussion to [205]....where

At 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC): No More Mr Nice Guy again makes an unwarranted accusation about my understanding of WP:RS "Since we have established that your understanding of the guidelines regarding reliable sources is poor, and that you are not interested in learning how to apply them properly, I see no point in pursuing this further. The sources I provided above are good, as any experienced editor will tell you." Alas, none of those sources had been through any process at WP:RSN or anywhere else to confirm their 'goodness'.

To the 1st instance: Removing No More Mr Nice Guy's change as explained at the time, reflected A) a 3:1 consensus in talk that the source not be used and in good faith to B) the process still under discussion on the talk page[206] and C) according to No More Mr Nice Guy's own criteria for reaching consensus in order to make a change or use the JPost source.

To the 2nd instance: Reverting No More Mr Nice Guy's change as explained at the time, reflected A) the notion in talk that a source be discussed and in good faith to B) the process still under discussion on the talk page[207] and C) according to No More Mr Nice Guy's own criteria for reaching consensus in order to make a change.

I believe the above speaks for itself. I have no further comment.

To the second accusation.

[208] Is quite simply, not subject to an 1RR restriction.

Note: Now that No More Mr Nice Guy has added the template to the 1949 Armistice lines,[209] I must admit my error re there being no WP:1RR restriction. Apologies here and there [210] talknic (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Never the less, again No More Mr Nice Guy shows a blatant disregard for own criteria. He had no involvement in the discussion, from 12:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC) til after 12:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC). A period in which I called time and again for constructive comment, criticism and consensus [211]

Faced with only un-sourced, irrelevant comments by AnonMoos, without valid objections or constructive input or criticism and according to Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages I made a change to reflect the actual information of the armistice Agreement, giving a secondary source per WP:RS, which accurately conveyed the same information as the primary source it cited, being the Armistice agreement. Where in it says "the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine"

The suggested change was made, at 09:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC) with explanation.

At 11:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC). No More Mr Nice Guy altered the information by adding "Mandate Palestine" to reflect what is not conveyed in the secondary source or the primary source it cites, being the Armistice agreement. This was in contradiction to A) his demands that changes be discussed B) his demands that consensus be reached and C) to accurately represent the information conveyed by the secondary source's reference to the primary source.

Furthermore, as the revision history shows No More Mr Nice Guy also made a false accusation - "By the way you also broke the avalon link I fixed" 12:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Note:Apology received and accepted [212] talknic (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy then began to launch into a discussion about the 'implications' brought about by what the the secondary cited primary source (the Armistice Agreement) actually says, being "the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine" Alas the issue is not the 'implications'. The end issue is what the Armistice Agreement actually says, being conveyed through a secondary source.

I believed I had fulfilled the criteria and that his alteration constituted a blatant contravention of the essence of Wikipedia in order to promote his own biased POV.

I have no further comment talknic (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: No block, since it is believable that Talknic was unaware of the WP:1RR restriction at the time. I am notifying him of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Talknic has posted a long justification above. This is not helpful. Admins will not take sides in the content dispute. The people you need to convince are the other editors on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Qur'an (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

1. 15:28, 1 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 421829305 by Zubair71 - New Advent is Christian, but there's no evidence Ibn Rawandi is. "Not Muslim" does not mean "Christian." Added in "potential." I'll look for more secular sources, though.")
2. 16:02, 1 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Rv censorship (this isn't attacking but literary criticism, there is a difference), adding in sources.")
3. 16:25, 1 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "rv pov-pushing, Muslims believe it, but not everyone else does")
4. 16:59, 1 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid unsourced revision by Zubair71 - at most, that is a claim.")

Comments: The User:Ian.thomson is pushing POV on the article Qur'an. He has reverted 4 edits on the same page in less than 2 hours. —Zubair71 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You completely miss the point of edit warring. I've been reverting different attempts to POV push, not the same decent edit over and over. Also, you failed to inform me of this report as you were supposed to, the only reason I became aware was because I'm keeping an eye on you and your POV-pushing. Changing "Muslims believe" to a statement of universal fact is POV pushing, treating a legend about the Qur'an as an unchallenged fact is POV-pushing, attempting to hide possible relationships between the Qur'an and other texts is POV-pushing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Warned And zubair71 seems to be bordering on disruptive editing. --slakr^\ talk / 19:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ian.thomson is not stopped. He has done five reverts in total during the last 24 hours (1 day).Zubair71 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And you haven't stopped your POV pushing. You are nothing but a disruptive editor and you should just leave. If you want to start an Islamic blog, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not here for for anyone to push their worldview on. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Anthony Watts (blogger) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.153.223.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [213]

• 1st revert: [214]
• 2nd revert: [215]
• 3rd revert: [216]
• 4th revert: [217]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218]

Diff of attempt to request the user moves to discussion and to notify about the discretionary sanctions : [219]

Comments:

As there is not action on this report and if there are no objections, I will revert the IPs edit as it removed three citations and left a redlink in the references section. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP has reverted the article five times in the past week and never participates on the talk page. Some of his edits remove references and he does not explain why. I am notifying him of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Al Cisneros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Phatboi96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [Revision as of 09:38, 10 February 2011]

• 1st revert: [220]
• 2nd revert: [221]
• 3rd revert: [222]
• 4th revert: [223]

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

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

Comments:

• This is not an appropriate use of this noticeboard. All of the reverts in question are more than a week old, and not a single person has told this rather inexperienced editor what the problems are with his edits. Templated warnings that do not actually explain the concerns that the user is supposed to address are not only useless, they are harmful. Please ensure that users such as this are made aware of the problems with their edits. In this case, I suggest that either the reporter or the person placing the warning explain the problem to the editor. Risker (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional note: After more indepth review, the user has been blocked indefinitely for repeated violations of the biography of living persons policy. The block is *not*, however, an edit warring block. Risker (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Stale Last revert was on 20 March. Courcelles 03:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: April Fools' Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [224]
• 2nd revert: [225]
• 3rd revert: [226]
• 4th revert: [227]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228]

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

Comments:

• The second one shouldn't count, as the restoration of content was made by an editor with a recent history of nothing but blind reversion of edits. Check their talk page. The third was restoring from an editor who mysteriously had made no other edits since early March and apparently reverted me just to revert. Either way, I had no plans to continue touching the page after that last edit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No violation First link is a WP:BOLD edit, not a revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Manichaeism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jimhoward72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: 0 diff
• 2nd revert: 1 diff
• 3rd revert: 2 diff
• 4th revert: 3 diff
• 5th revert: 4 diff
• 6th revert: 5 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff of 3 times reverting

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion in the talk page

Comments:

I have some problems to see why the user makes Original research and does make claims not supported directly by the source (wp:synth). The user does not even understand the linguistic meaning of terms Iranian and Persian (see the diffs). nobody claimed Mani is Persian. Also if the user makes up his/her mind he/she sees that what I have added supports his/her claim but in more correct version. The user sees "residence of Babylon" as "incompatible with having Iranic parents" (I already said some "African Americans" are American but of African parents). Xashaiar (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: 2011 IIHF World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brandonstone57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [229]

• 1st revert: [230]
• 2nd revert: [231]
• 3rd revert: [232]
• 4th revert: [233]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none, the user has not tried to)

Comments:

Keeps adding unsourced info despite warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: 2011 Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=422079394&oldid=422079035
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=422080338&oldid=422080233
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=422082748&oldid=422082648
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=422084483&oldid=422083416
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=422085051&oldid=422084730
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=422089283&oldid=422088842

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several users have been trying to discuss this with SuperblySpiffingPerson.

Comments:

This fairly new editor seems eager, earnest, and informed, and would probably be incredibly helpful in editing this article due to their unique perspective. The problem we're having is that the editor seems unbelievably single minded in his edits, and others are trying to help him understand but we're not being successful in getting the point made.

I really don't want to see this editor be lost to Wikipedia because I think there is a lot they can bring to these sorts of articles, but it really amounts to disruptive editing and others are having to follow up each edit with a revert or a mergence of the material in order to make it more encyclopedic.

Looking for solutions.

-- Avanu (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 fortnight King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: English Defence League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 193.163.248.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 04:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 02:06, 3 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 03:30, 3 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 03:54, 3 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
4. 04:14, 3 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: 04:00, 3 April 2011 here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None made, but changing the description of the English Defence League to "human rights movement" is clearly unacceptable.

—TFD (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

No violation The first one is a WP:BOLD edit, not a revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Dennis Genpo Merzel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Genpo_Merzel&diff=421864646&oldid=421667140
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Genpo_Merzel&diff=421864646&oldid=421666517
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Genpo_Merzel&diff=421864646&oldid=414552170
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Genpo_Merzel&diff=421864646&oldid=415074794
• many more including a few page blanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dennis_Genpo_Merzel

Comments:

Drmies seems to be on some sort of crusade for this article. He has made disparaging remarks on my talk page and other editors talk pages. He has chosen to interpret a Wikipedia standard and make it his own pillar of self righteousness to shore up his argument. He has been uncivil and down right insulting to other editors. He is both pedantic and condescending to others without any regard for their level of involvement. His threat on my page to warn me for vandalism is both the last straw and the impetus for me to come here to make a complaint. He is using a bullying method to get his way instead of using some sort of consensus. At this point I have merely reverted the article back to the way it was before he blanked the page. I appreciate some other eyes on this issue. Thank you Golgofrinchian (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

comment - User:Drmies has three edits in the last month, two of them are concurrent. I totally agree with Drmies edit. The User:Tao2911 and the user that made this report are making an edit that removes independent reliable externals and they are greatly expanding the BLP in a promotional manner using a front page 404 of the subjects own website, it is used 15 times in the version they are inserting. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I doubt I ever blanked a page, unless it was an attack page. This report is certainly a creative way to make those edits appear as if they happened in a 24-hour period. Of course, the assailant could claim that I am edit-warring in the broad sense of the term, and in a way that could be correct: I have tried over a period of time to add some BLP sanity to the article, for instance by adding reliable sources (I believe Bb23 has done some of that work as well). Those are the references that were removed in the intermediate edits, which inserted the multiple references to a personal website--which the assailant and their teammates (including the aforementioned Tao2911) are claiming to be a reliable source in the sense of WP:BLP (see article talk page--Golgofrinchian's are the comments with lots of bold print). They may call that edit-warring; I call it adhering to the BLP standards. This is nasty--Tao referred on the talk page to Bb23 as a moron and to me as an idiot.

  Now, to make matters perfectly clear, I don't mind the article being expanded with sources that are as reliable as can be--I agree with Bb23's comments on the talk page, even though I sense that Bb thought I went to far in stripping, but what I did was, rather than strip, revert to a verified version of the article. Adding information is the answer, and since this is a BLP, reliable sources are the key. If these three editors wish to expand, that is fine--but they can't undo the work of other editors and remove the reliable sources they have dug up. Accusations of vandalism, bad faith, etc. are strewn all over the place there, and it is clear (to me) that the three editors ganging up on me there (and see also Tao's comments/personal attacks in the history of my talk page, which I removed as trolling) have an insufficient grasp of our policies on BLPs. I take BLPs seriously, and so should we all. Personal websites are not sufficient. Reliable sources should not be removed. Bad edits (a dozen different references to the same page, for instance) should not stand. This isn't a crusade for some version of this article (or some opinion of this subject), but a stance on our BLP policy. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets get some things straight. I have not inserted anything. I have reverted huge deletions by Drmies. I am not involved with this war other than to try and remain an impartial observer. Check my talk page, the talk page of the article and the talk pages of all of the main players; I am not that invested in this. If it were not for Drmies repeated bullying of the other editors, belittling language and threats to warn me for vandalism I would not even be involved. He might not have done 3RR in succession but he has blanked whole sections of the article. Merzel admitted to having sexual relations with the members of his Sangha. It was admitted on his own personal page (which somehow is not relevant according to Drmies). It was talked about on several websites all that were cited, it was mentioned in a magazine article that was cited. Somehow none of these citations meet Drmies interpretation of the standard. Furthermore his abusive threatening behavior should not be taken lightly. How is it an editor can make judgements of a persons character, insult their grammar mistakes, threaten them with a warning, yet is touted as supporting the Wikipedia standard. The standard for BLP might be upheld but is the community to stand for an abusive despot? I have never been anything but civil regarding this matter and I hope to continue to be, it is just tough when I see the misinformation being spread. Check the records. All I did was revert a near page blanking by Drmies. I did not insert any false information into the article. Golgofrinchian (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this frivolous report, which no doubt will be closed as "no action" soon, that's real civil. And look carefully next time: you didn't revert a "near blanking"--the version I reverted to here for instance has more reliable sources than you can shake a stick at. In other words, this revert, by one of your associates, removes reliable sources and replaces them with personal websites. Someone close this quickly, please. Drmies (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Protected one month. Please use {{editprotect}} to ask for changes that are supported by consensus on talk and are consistent with WP:BLP. If agreement is reached on the outstanding issues, protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [235]
• 2nd revert: [236]
• 3rd revert: [237]
• 4th revert: [238]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page by User:Toddy1: [239]

Comments:

I personally am not involved with the edit war. Have just reported it.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment I am a little confused over the way the 3RR has been constructed - it seems that the edits span a period of over 48 hours. Secondly - the policy of BRD.

• They boldly change, I undo (asking for discussion and consensus) 1RR
• they revert (without discussing or finding consensus), I revert (again asking for discussion and consensus) 2RR
• they revert

So now we are left with a contested edit and I cannot change it as I will violate 3RR before them. How is this right? THe edit is contested and so I should be in a position to keep the edit off the page until consensus is found. In the present format I breach 3RR before they do - it seems a little messed up. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The contested edit by Zas2000 was reverted by Taivo at 04:23, 2 April 2011. The current version contains those elements of Zas2000's edit that they can both agree on (see the talk page).

So, Chaosdruid, the contested parts of the edit have been kept off the article page.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case, perhaps. My second comment was about BRD and 3RR in general - when trying to keep contended material off the article page we are left with being the first to breach 3RR when trying to get editors who made the initial changes to follow BRD. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Zaporizhia is fully protected one week. User:Toddy1 has been trying to mediate the dispute on the article talk page; this will be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Lawrence v. Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seanor32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [240]

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=next&oldid=421990310
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=next&oldid=421999254
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=next&oldid=422019953
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=next&oldid=422020866
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=next&oldid=422023297
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=next&oldid=422023650
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=next&oldid=422023702
• 8th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=next&oldid=422024017
• 9th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=next&oldid=422158429

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seanor32

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several users have left messages on Seanor32's talk.

Comments:

Seanor32 has continued adding the same unsourced essay to the article and on top of this, has now started to add external links which border on simple vandalism. Valenciano (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For edit-warring and vandalism (adding the "dickmanagement.com" link to the article).  Sandstein  20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [241]

• 1st revert: [242]
• 2nd revert: [243]
• 3rd revert: [244]
• 4th revert: [245]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [246]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [247]

LiteralKa (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• No violation. The first reverts were of edits by an abusive sockpuppeteer. LiteralKa's edits were reverted only twice by Killiondude (while LiteralKa reverted Killiondude 3 times). --KFP (contact | edits) 17:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Ancient astronauts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Warmcocoa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and as the Ip 82.229.148.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [248]

Previous version reverted to: [249]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [254]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 2#Proof of Scientist Working on the Theory/Associated (Reference fest)

Comments:
User is edit warring against consensus on talk page that their sources aren't reliable. See associated discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ancient Astronauts. Above are a smattering of diffs, but user has gone way beyond 3rr and seems to be not getting the advise, warnings or even the gist of how we work here, and has been warned 3 or 4 other editors. Heiro 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I protected the page, I believe something needs to be done about the editor and possibly his IP accounts. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 48 hours for edit warring. This editor continued to revert using his IP after he had responded to a 3RR notice. This shows he had read it, but reverted anyway. IP has been blocked one month for abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Kiss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Problem: Edit warring over image and placement
Goal: Preemption, and censure if warranted
Diffs of edit warring

• 1st revert: [255]
• 2nd revert: [256]
• 3rd revert: [257]
  

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [258] and User's talk page:(see bottom, "allegations" and again, "Notice of COI report.

The user has violated numerous guidelines, some very serious, besides edit warring. See Talk:Kiss. His comments and edits should be reviewed - otherwise they may set a precedent relying on PC fear tactics to push non-neutral images, in addition to Gaming the system.
--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey genius, I have 2 edits in the last 24, you have 3 CTJF83 21:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The User was also notified on his talk page about this ANI, however he deleted the "Notice"--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DO you not know anything about policy? You can't count on 3RR and "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." CTJF83 22:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No violation This does not constitute serious enough edit warring to warrant a block. As for the other issues, take it up at WP:ANI if desired. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [259]

• 1st revert: [260] (Taged as a Minor edit despite a move from the consensus of editors)
• 2nd revert: [261] (Taged as a Minor edit despite a move from the consensus of editors)

• 3rd revert: [262] (Taged as a Minor edit despite a move from the consensus of editors, the reversion away from the previous advocated by an established editor was baselessly labled as a reversion vandalism from them)

• 4th revert: [263](After having attacked other editor for warning them of 3rr)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toa_Nidhiki05&diff=422285771&oldid=421882371 Attempt to speak to the editor in order to reach some form of understanding. [264] Editor is combative and refuses to see anything wrong in their behavior

Comments:

I’ve only come here because the editor has consistently been aggressive towards others("I have no tolerance"), shown a lack of good faith by using misleading edit summaries(tagging the page with m despite it being a controversial edit), and labeled their edit warring as a reversion of vandalism against editors(422391619). Furthermore a cursory look at their recent contributions history shows that in the past month they have repeatedly engaged in all of the above mentioned behavior including the intimidation and labeling of other editors as vandals. This seems to be part of a long term trend and when other editors and I asked Toa Nidhiki05 to consider his behavior, his response was argumentative[265] and accusatory. And while he said at one point he was willing to talk, once he receives what he wants he shows no willingness to talk, and simply ignores or removes other users comments. Even after repeated attempts at having a polite dialogue with said editor they were still argumentative, believing that they had done no wrong and could continue their behavior[266]. They show no willingness to stop or respect others, and their contributions history and record of previous blocks for editwarring and revert violations show the same.-Freepsbane (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Addendum: User:Toa Nidhiki05 has rollback rights, their use of them for largely edit warring, along with misleading labeling and tagging of other well meaning editors as vandals may also constitute an abuse of them.-Freepsbane (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note Rollback permissions removed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, if it’s not too much to ask, could you talk to them and let them know that their behavior is not appropriate. They won't listen to me[267].-Freepsbane (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours They have two previous blocks for edit warring, so a don't think a talking-to is sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That works, but please talk to them too. I don't think their behavior is likely to change unless if someone gets it through to them that it is unacceptable. Sorry about pestering you with all this.-Freepsbane (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Neo-Assyrian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.237.8.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [268]

• 1st revert: [269]
• 2nd revert: [270]
• 3rd revert: [271]
• 4th revert: [272]
• 5th revert: [273]
• 6th revert: [274]
• 7th revert: [275]
• 8th revert: [276]
• 9th revert: [277]
• 9th revert: [278]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [279]

Comments: I have reverted back numerous times, putting notes on my edits to stop this person constantly writing Armenia/Ararat/Armenians after every mention of Urartu. Apologies if this is not sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. An IP-hopping editor is warring to assert a connection between certain nations of 600 BC and modern Armenia. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Template:Palestinian nationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheCuriousGnome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This request concerns a page move war on a topic subject to 1RR.

User:TheCuriousGnome objects to the existence of this template, which was previously called Palestine topics; she or he has made that abundantly clear.[280] TheCuriousGnome decided to rename the template Template:Palestine nationalism and the region of Palestine. Reverted by User:Oncenawhile, TheCuriousGnome renamed the template Template:Palestinian nationalism.

This sort of outrageous game-playing is precisely why there is a 1RR restriction on all pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. See WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: It's unfortunate that you (Malik Shabazz) cannot block the users in question (as an admin) due to involvement. Definite violation of the 1RR rule. If I were an admin, I'd block both users in question.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The original name of the template was "Template: Palestine and Palestinian nationalism". In retrospect, in my opinion, the original name itself was much better than the controversial name it was soon changed to. On March 31 the user Oncenawhile decided to change the name of the template to "Template:Palestine topics". He also changed the title of the template to "Palestine topics" and made sure to add a link to the article about the historic region of Palestine alongside the Palestinian flag. The template was now factually incorrect, misleading and inciting – suggesting that the the entire region of the historic Palestine belongs only to one side – to illustrate my point, it would be just as factually incorrect, misleading and inciting if I would have used the same namespace "Palestine topics" next to the flag of Israel and having the template focus only on Israeli related topics.

I decided that the only way we'll have a better template covering the topics relating to the Palestinian people in a balanced way, would be achieved by rolling up my sleeves and improving the original template, sharing my knowledge on the subject matter, and making sure that it would expanded significantly and cover the topics of both the Palestinian National Authority (the political entity of the Palestinian people) and the topics which focus on the Palestinian people. After many hours in which I collected and arranged the relevant information, I was able to formulate a much more comprehensive, balanced and appropriate template (I decided to change the name of the template to "Template:Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people" to reflect the topics which this template focused on). In addition to that, to make sure that the topic of the historic region is also covered in a comprehensive and balanced way, I created an additional template which mainly focused on the historical region of Palestine - I managed to balance this template by making sure that the information in the template would not focus only on one of the political entities that existed in the historic region of Palestine throughout history, or which exists today in the historic region of Palestine.

At this point, apparently the user Oncenawhile did appreciate the work I did, but I assume that due to the amount of additions done to the original template, he didn't like that his original version was altered so much and therefore he decided to (1) leave the changes I made untouched (2) restore his work back to the namespace "template:Palestine topics" (which at that point was a redirect). Because he wouldn't specify what specifically was wrong with my additions, I perceived that one of the main motivations for his action was to have the inclusive namespace "Palestine topics" only be associated with topics regarding the Palestinian people.

As a result of Oncenawhile's actions I decided to open a request to merge the content of the template with the more balanced templates about the historical land of Palestine and the template about the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian society. Unfortunately, because we didn't get many participants in this discussion, and because I wanted both Palestinians and Israelis to participate in the conversation to help balance this template - I posted a message in BOTH WP:ISRAEL and WP:IPCOLL (which I assume has many Palestinian participants) inviting people, with knowledge on the subject matter, to participate in the conversation in order to help balance the template. Unfortunately, the user Oncenawhile perceived this action as canvassing.

On April 3, I decided that despite a discussion was still undergoing about the merging of the templates' content, the name of the template and the title which appeared in the header, were factually incorrect and therefore I decided that on that basis I was allowed to change the template name and the header name to a factually correct title - I changed the name to "Template:Palestinian nationalism and the region of Palestine" (almost exact to the original title). In addition, I added a notice in the template's talk page where I explained why I decided to change the name of the template even though the discussion about the content consolidation was still going on.

The user Oncenawhile changed the name of the article soon afterwards to the invalid name "Template:Palestinetopics". As a result, I changed the name of the template to "Template:Palestinian nationalism". At this point Oncenawhile told me I broke the WP:1RR rule. Because Oncenawhile had, by this time, changed the name of the template multiple times (last time to an invalid name) even though it contained an obvious factual mistake which he refuse to regard, I decided to try and get assistance from the administrators through "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection" where I requested that a protection be made to the template. Unfortunately, the administrators denied the request stating that Semi-protection would do nothing since both me and Oncenawhile are Autoconfirmed.

I believed that I had the full right to prevent POV pushing of obvious factually incorrect information. I apologize if I broke any rule - this was certainly was not my intention. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. I will prepare a response to this and post it shortly. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As promised, please see my carefully researched version of events below. The disruptive editing and gaming the system from TheCuriousGnome has been ongoing for a few days now. With respect to Jasper Deng's comments above, I believe I have acted correctly all the way through this difficult period, but happy for all-comers to explain otherwise.

30 March

• I created Template:Palestine and Palestinian nationalism here, and placed links to it on 12 pages relating to the Palestine and Palestinian people.
• TheCuriousGnome made a comment on the talk page here, which I responded to here by suggesting a change of name might solve the problem
• TheCuriousGnome made the template permanently collapsed here
• TheCuriousGnome began canvassing here

31 March

• After waiting for a response to the suggested name change, I changed the name to template:Palestine topics here, on the assumption that this would deal with TheCuriousGnome's comment and had the added benefit of being consistent with Category:Country_and_territory_topics_templates as explained here
• I suggested a neutral middle ground to the collapsing of the template here
• I made a neutrally-worded request for comment at WP:IPCOLL here

1 April

• TheCuriousGnome blanked the existing template and replaced it with a different template with a new title here, explained under the header Total Remake here
• TheCuriousGnome renamed all 12 of the links from other articles away from Template:Palestine topics to new names
• I restored the blanked template over the redirect here and posted a strong talk reponse here, which tried to reconcile matters. (NB In order not to turn up the heat further, I did not delete TheCuriousGnome's work as I believe I was entitled to do - as you can see from the talk, every attempt was made to diffuse matters. If I had known that TheCuriousGnome would continue the poor behaviour, I would not have bothered and would have reported the user immediately).
• TheCuriousGnome posted a thoughtful talk response here

2 April

• I posted a response to TheCuriousGnome on the user's talk page here and here
• I restored links to template:Palestine topics on the 12 articles (NB as mentioned in the first talk post, I believe I had the right to replace the links, but in order to continue the debate in a civilised manner, I simply added them alongside TheCuriousGnome's links to the new versions)

3 April

• TheCuriousGnome canvasses again, with POV statements made here and here without making such a statement at the most logical place of WP:PPalestine. Although the canvassing was brought to the user's attention immediately by Malik Shabazz, it was ultimately left to Malik Shabazz to add a neutral post on the Palestine talk page
• Without warning, and just as the community discussion was beginning, TheCuriousGnome changed the name again, this time to Template:Palestinian nationalism and the region of Palestine with an explanation here
• TheCuriousGnome then changed the redirect created automatically at Template:Palestine topics to one of TheCuriousGnome's own templates here which were already on many of the articles (a mess kindly undone by Malik Shabazz)
• I reverted TheCuriousGnome's name change with the message "Rv Thecuriousgnome - there is an ongoing discussion about this - please be patient and let the community decide (see talk)" and talk post here
• TheCuriousGnome immediately reacted by changing the name again, this time to Template talk:Palestinian nationalism
• I immediately alerted TheCuriousGnome to the 1RR violation and requested that the user self-revert here and here
• Instead of self-reverting, TheCuriousGnome made an immediate WP:RPP, which I responded to here

Thanks all for your consideration, Oncenawhile (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours for edit warring. Anyone who proposes to reorganize templates in the I/P area needs a lot of patience and ought to listen carefully for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, further to the above, please could the page move which resulted in the 1RR violation be reverted? Reasons below:

• Sets a bad precedent: If new status quos can be created by violating 1RR, this will only encourage further violations
• Current name is unusable: The name "Palestinian nationalism" is not representative of either the content or the stated intention of the template which is to organise all top-level articles related to Palestine. I believe the choice of name was a WP:GAME tactic to delete the template - i.e. change the name to something unrelated, which then justifies the later changing of the content to match the new name.

Oncenawhile (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [281]

• 1st revert: [282]
• 2nd revert: [283]
• 3rd revert: [284]
• 4th revert: [285]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Lega Nord#Right-wing populism (again)

Comments: a discussion about edits took place in the talk page, but reverts continue even without consensus

I report also editwar here, here and here using an incorrect source --Tia solzago (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, I would like to ask admins to take a general look to GiovBag's edits. Is seems to me that he is bringing editwar wherever he goes (see for instance Mexicans of European descent and Argentines of European descent. Should those articles be blocked? --Checco (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Vasil Bollano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adler87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [286]

• 1st revert: [287]
• 2nd revert: [288]
• 3rd revert: [289]
• 4th revert: [290]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [291]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below

Comments: Clear cut 3RR vio, and possibly also BLP vio by a nationalist SPA with no talkpage participation. User is aggressive, leaving talkpage posts such as these [292] [293], and also edit-warring on several other articles [294] [295] (the last also being highly tendentious). Consider issuing AE sanctions warning in addition to block. Athenean (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 72 hours. Notified under WP:ARBMAC. I agree that this diff is an example of WP:Tendentious editing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lvivske has been edit warring on various pages.

Page: All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [296]

• 1st revert: [297] (4 April, 6:55)
• 2nd revert: [298] (4 April, 21:09)
• 3rd revert: [299] (4 April, 21:20)
• 4th revert: [300] (4 April, 21:39)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [301] polite warning, asking Lvivske to revert under 3RR (Lvivske has made further edits, but that never happened)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [302] on Lvivske's talk page, politely asking to discuss on article talk page

Comments:

Lvivske has conducted non-3RR slow revert wars at other articles. (He made 7 identical reverts to Memorial for the victims killed by OUN-UPA (Luhansk) and 12 reverts to The shot in the back (monument) in just over two months).

Lovetinkle [303] and BurtAlert left comments on the disruption on his talk page [304], but this is ongoing.

Memorial for the victims killed by OUN-UPA (Luhansk) reverts (all reintroduce Category:Communist propaganda):

31 January [305], 7 February [306], 3 March [307], 5 March [308] [309], 3 April [310] [311]

The shot in the back (monument) (all reintroduce Category:Communist propaganda there as well):

31 January [312], 6 February [313], 3 March [314], 5 March [315], 16 March [316], 18 March [317], 28 March [318], 30 March [319] [320], 3 April [321] [322], 5 April [323]

Lvivske has already been reported here at least two times previously [324] [325]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Question - please be honest (at the risk of facing my unquenchable wrath): what relationship do you, the reporter, have with 99.235.218.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Was that editor you, or do you know who it was? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

None. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC) And Magog, his three edits are pretty different from mine - the first one is a weird nationalist edit I would never make [326], his second edit changes my description "Far-right" to "Nationalist" [327], and his third edit reverts his second [328]. It's more likely Lvivske's account. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Please note that the reported user was blocked solely for crossing the bright red line of 3RR, and that edit warring in general is discouraged. Future edit warring from either side may result in a block regardless of crossing the "bright red line" or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Bradford Guitar Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Diff of warning: [329]

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

1. 06:59, 6 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
2. 11:18, 6 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")
3. 11:54, 6 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Landmarks */")

Comments:
Bradford guitar Boy was previously in an edit war over this and the page was protected. He has been warned previously and the rule explained to him. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Concur. This user utterly refuses to heed talk page consensus or wait for an RfC process to proceed.--Charles (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 2 weeks by Keith D (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Panathinaikos FC: Panathinaikos FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.242.15.213 (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]
• 5th revert: [335]
• 6th revert: [336]
  • Here the user received {{uw-3rr}}
• 7th revert: [337]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [338]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wasn't involved with the article.

Comments:
Other edit warrior stopped after being warned for violating 3rr. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours T. Canens (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for archive clarification; Tim is referring not to Reaper getting blocked, but another editor reported by Reaper... Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Abhira tribe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 115.240.116.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [339]

• 1st revert: [340]
• 2nd revert: [341]
• 3rd revert: [342]
• 4th revert: [343]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [344] (no diff, first edit)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [345]

Comments:
An IP editor has been removing any unwanted mention of this tribe not originally being from India, and constantly reverts any restoration of this content. The IP address changes between each edit, but the edits made are identical. I have requested in the talk page as well as in the edit summaries that the editor discuss reasons for the removal of this content without success. I do not know if it is relevant, but I have also requested semi-protection for the article - SudoGhost (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Page semi-protected by RegentsPark (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: Española, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not having much luck with this form. It appears to me (aka opinion) that the other editor has stopped editing under his/her name and that the last two reverts, whether by him/her or not are by annon editors. I have attempted to discuss this on the discussion page,

The issue here is whether the early history of the Española Valley should go early in the history section of Española, New Mexico or not. I have not received any answer to my attempt to discuss this on the discussion page, though a rational is presented in the edit summary of the recerts.

PS somehow my post appeared as two here. Probably my failure to use the form correctly. Carptrash (talk) 17

29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I merged the two reports by Carptrash into the present report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected by T. Canens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)