Page: List of Bakugan Battle Brawlers: Gundalian Invaders episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 190.140.235.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6] under 190.140.234.119 (talk), note that other editors had added a plot summary of a recently aired episode between these reverts.
• 6th revert: [7] under 190.140.234.119 (talk)
• 7th revert: [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Comments:
This IP editor keeps adding unsourced information about an episode title and airdate despite the fact that the sources do not support either bits of information. I've warned the editor earlier when I noticed the problem.[10] However, the editor continues to add the information without any further comments.

Earlier diffs where the IP adds in the same information over a period of 8 days.[11][12][13][14] —Farix (t | c) 01:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor has switched to a different IP, 190.140.234.119 (talk), and is continuing to edit war.[15][16] —Farix (t | c) 12:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for 24 hours. TFOWR 14:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• IP has now been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism on other related articles. —Farix (t | c) 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Ohalo College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 2knowledgeable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

1. 05:16, 20 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369074184 by Shuki (talk) Reasoning doesn't wash")
2. 05:24, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369214083 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) vandalism; war editing")
3. 05:25, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369214301 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) vandalism; war editing")
4. 08:09, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369311978 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) reverting the revision; editor is close to breaking the three-revert rule")
5. 08:33, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369321251 by Andrensath (talk) please discuss this like a grow up. your behavior is inaprorpiate")
6. 9:50, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369323544 by Andrensath (talk)enough already. look at the talk page")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

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

Comments:

User has also been making personal attacks, and misdeploying warning templates on the talk pages of Shuki, Nomoskedasticity, and myself. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a classical case of the pot calling the kettle black. The editor keeps blanking the section without discussion and seems unwilling / unable to discuss it. I have turned to Wikipedia Mediation Cabal [20]. The Editor will receive full cooperation if s/he is willing to communicate and compromise2knowledgeable (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There's only one editor who has violated 3RR on that page, with repeated additions of unsourced material; nor have the editors insisting on sources failed to contribute to the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not true: I keep asking the editor to discuss this. More spedifically - the editor claims that I need to document sources, and I keep asking what exactly needs documentation [21] and the editor fails to answer. Again, if s/he tells me what s/he needs I'll try to help. But the editor seems unable to communicate or mediate.2knowledgeable (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I also suspect that the very recent additions to the talk page were performed in support of this report, and in order to avoid being reported for war-editing in the first place (see my own warnings to both editors which were conviniently deleted... [22][23])2knowledgeable (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours - you seem to not understand that edit warring to your preferred version is not acceptable. Please see WP:BRD. You boldly added your section. It was reverted. You readded it six more times. Warning those with whom you disagree about edit warring or opening a mediation request does not make that conduct acceptable. Rather, it shows that you understand and are disregarding the policy. You need to be willing to allow the wrong version of the article to be there temporarily while you discuss the issue, particular when erring on the side of not saying anything (as opposed to potentially saying something incorrect). --B (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Park Geun-hye (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: hkwon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29] (note this is not on the article talk page, but I believe it is still acceptable.)

Comments:

• The user brought this to wikiquette reports seeking feedback, and reverted me twice when I didn't support his view. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• I made a compromise by collapsing irrelevant material on the talk page rather than simply removing it, which I believe is better in terms of wikipedia policy; a block may not be necessary if the user leaves this change alone; I accept that since the comments were irrelevant but not harmful I probably should have done this to begin with. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I reported User:Sennen goroshi's behavior of deleting Rinkaym's comments on a talk page to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts at 11:56, June 21. While the page was waiting for a dispute resolution by an administrator, User:Giftiger_wunsch deleted my comments and Rinkaym's comments twice, and I reverted those deletions to preserve the page for a neutral decision, urging User:Giftiger_wunsch not to delete others' comments any more. Hkwon (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't believe the comments are irrelevant, but don't have any problems with collapsing them as long as no one removes others' comments from a talk page without a good reason. Hkwon (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a quick look at the recent edit history of Hkwon will show someone pushing the 3RR as far as possible and generally being disruptive with their edits and their dealings with other editors. Comments such as Are you out of your medication or something? [[30]] and why don't you make those warnings when you become a real administrator? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giftiger_wunsch&diff=prev&oldid=369349325 while not relevant to this case, go someway to showing the lack of respect this user is showing for wikipedia and fellow editors. Perhaps a short block from editing, will help this user understand that 3RR is not a right, 3RR cannot be broken just because you think you are right and that some general respect and civility for other users is a really good thing. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the user has mainly been relatively civil, I am just concerned that his comment regarding making warnings when I'm not an administrator is demonstrating that he doesn't properly understand policy; in any case, only the 3RR violation is relevant here, and since the user seems to have stopped reverting the article, a block may not be necessary. I'll leave that to the discretion of the reviewing admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 12 hours --B (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Jana Gana Mana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apalaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 14:39, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 14:54, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 15:20, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
4. 15:20, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
5. 15:29, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")

--

Older edits of similar nature from June 15

1. 12:34, 14 June 2010 diff (via his IP)

1. 08:59, 15 June 2010 diff

1. 09:47, 15 June 2010 diff

• Diff of warning: here

—Ragib (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

Apalaria (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts Hindi language script for the Bengali language song Jana Gana Mana (written in Bengali language and Bengali script). Despite repeated requests to stop in his talk page and the article talk page, he has not refrained from reverting to his preferred version. He has made similar edits on June 15 (though stopped short of 3RR then) and also via his IP Special:Contributions/71.120.115.92.

While I have reverted his edits today, I guarantee that *I am NOT* going to revert it any more today. I am very much open to discussing the issue in the article talk page and hope that the dispute will be resolved that way. --Ragib (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Accepting Ragib's assurances that he will not be editing the article again today, and will continue to discuss on talk.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I pledge once again here that I will not edit the article further today and hope to resolve this in the article talk page via consensus. Regards. --Ragib (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 07:45 19 June 2010

• 1st revert: 04:34 21 June 2010
• 2nd revert: 05:36 21 June 2010
• 3rd revert: 17:55 21 June 2010
• 4th revert: 18:11 21 June 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:11 21 June 2010

Comments:

Screwball23 was blocked four days earlier for the same revert, and made a further revert two days ago. Several users have attempted to explain to Screwball23 on the article talk page why the text he keeps adding is not acceptable, but to no avail. They seem intent on adding this information even when it has been reverted by several different editors. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours - second time in less than a week. --B (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Page: Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 17:05, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "a differing viewpoint")
2. 17:12, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368828150 by MickMacNee (talk) uhhhh WP:OWN much? petitions can have countering viewpoints and this page needs to be n")
3. 17:17, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368829439 by MickMacNee (talk) I don't need consensus to state my opinion in Wikipedia namespace")

—  — Jeff G. ツ 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Stale The last edit to the page was on June 18. 3RR blocks are to prevent disruption, not for punishment. If the user has not edited this page (nor any other) since June 18, there is no disruption to prevent. --B (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Joseph McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.26.5.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]

• 1st diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]
• 2nd diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

The IP's purported source appears to be bogus. I also left a caution about appropriate sourcing on the IP's Talk page, customized by hand to address this particular situation: [39]—DCGeist (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 08:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Tomtolkien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

95.149.233.129 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

88.110.140.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

88.110.190.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Charlesdrakew#York

almost-instinct 10:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PS User:Tomtolkien in this diff takes exception to my belief that these IPs and he are one and the same almost-instinct 10:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do take exception - almost-instinct 's allegation is without evidence or foundation and should be removed. Unless directed otherwise I will remove all instances of the false allegation with 10 hours unless others have acceptable reasons or there is consensus against. Furthermore, I think it is likely based on the edit pattern of the York pages and other pages involved with the Education section, that it is other users involved in an edit war and that this editor's allegation is directed to put up smoke. The lack of discussion, seeking of consensus and AGF on the part of the other editors would appear to bear this out. Tomtolkien (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected for a week as obviously we lack the technical capability to enforce a block against an IP user who hops IPs. The "accusation" should most certainly not be removed from this page (though it will be archived in a week and we can collapse it after a day or two). Whether it is removed from the talk page itself is a decision for y'all to make, though I would suggest hiding the section (you can use {{hat}} and {{hab}}) and starting over if there is heartburn about it. If the reporting party wishes to pursue a checkuser request, you are welcome to do so at WP:RFCU. Although I hear a faint quacking off in the distance, there is certainly nothing that I am going to issue a block on without a checkuser, nor do I see any real cause for one. Even if you were to assume that the IPs and Tomtolkien are the same user, what policy would they have violated? --B (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This solution seems to be efficient and elegant. Thank you almost-instinct 16:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Bayes' theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Riitoken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]
• 5th revert: [51]
• 6th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:
The last three reverts are within the past 24 hours.

Rick Block (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Editor is warned they may be blocked if they continue to restore their diagram at Bayes' theorem without getting consensus on the Talk page. The same person has been making lots of undos at Risk (game). EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Upstate New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anne Feinstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]
• 5th revert: [66]
• 6th revert: [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

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

Comments:

This user has edit warred on several articles since their first edit 04-27-2010. They have edited no talk pages and have not responded to any messages on their talk page. Tiderolls 02:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 08:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I also warned the user about a possible longer block for repeated blanking of pages. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Chips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maashatra11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 109.67.1.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75] Block history, with past blocks for edit warring, show a clear understand of the rules regarding edit warring [76]

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

Comments:

OK, this is where it gets complicated. First and final revert were made using an IP - an IP with a grand total of 17 edits. Included within those 17 edits are 4 edits on articles that have also been edited by the main acct. The last edit by the IP and the main acct used the same edit summary when reverting (although RVV is pretty common) other shared edit summaries include "prod" The times when the accts are active are rather revealing, as soon as I warned the main acct for edit warring, the IP stepped in and reverted. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Since making this report, there has been one more revert.

• 5th revert:[77]

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a revert but a wp:MERGE to fish and chips, see [78]. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but considering that your desire was to remove my text from that particular article - I consider that to be a revert. Even if I am wrong in stating that it was a revert (which I don't think I am) it still leaves you with 4 reverts within a 24 hour period, and sock puppetry. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My desire was to merge your text into the appropriate destination, and not, as you claim it to be, "to remove your text from that particular article". You can re-add that text to Chips if you wish. Note also that I self-reverted my fourth revert and left all your original text intact. I acknowledge that User:109.67.1.252 is myself, I don't know if it accounts as sockpuppetry since I forgot to log-in after logging out (I only noticed I wasn't logged-in in retrospect). Best regards, Maashatra11 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn't notice that you were editing with an IP? I see. I guess this message that you deleted [[79]] and this threat to report you for sock puppetry[[80]] that you also deleted did not make it clear enough. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The merge was a clear revert, you could have copied the information to the initial article , but you chose to remove it from the initial article. That is a revert. Just as clear as it being a revert, is your reason for doing so, you wanted to ensure that there was no exclusive content on the article that you were trying to get deleted. It was a revert, it was gaming wikipedia, it was you editing under an IP and an account in order to get around 3RR and it was you self-reverting after a 3RR report was made against you. You cannot get away with breaking 3RR, just because you self reverted after a report was made. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment OK, you're both edit-warring so if blocking is necessary, I'll be blocking both of you. Alternatively, you could BOTH start pursuing dispute resolution with all haste. Regardless, I'm going to start you off by asking for more opinions at WP:FOOD. CIreland (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. My argument is that chips is a WP:POVFORK of french fries, containing ONLY duplicated text from that article as the two terms are identical, "french fries" being the American expression for the "chips" of Britain. I really see no reason to keep the Chips article as it is. Maybe if someone can prove me that "Chips" is a completely different term from "french fries" with authentic sources and content, rather than just copypasting the text from the french fries article, I'd be convinced that it deserves its own article and I'd be happy to compromise. Please see this AfD: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chips_UK from 2006, about a similar article, the result was to unanimously delete it. Best regards, Maashatra11 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Funny comment Seems like someone is eager to make this apparent "skirmish" appear eventually in WP:LAME. And I don't think it's me... :) Maashatra11 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation Maashatara11 immediately self-reverted this edit - "11:32, 24 June 2010 109.67.1.252 (18 bytes) (rvv) (undo)" so there are only three reverts, not four. As CIreland said, you both were edit warring but I think it's cooled off now, so there is no need to block anyone. --B (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Article in dispute: Rudolf-Harbig-Stadion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Users being reported:

141.76.183.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and

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

• First [81]
• Second [82]
• Third[83]
• Fourth[84]
• First warning [85]
• First warning (different IP) [86]

Tried to discuss at IP talk page, but no luck. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. A dynamic IP is warring to restore an ungrammatical version of the article. The 141.76.* IPs do not participate on Talk. Between them the IPs are way over 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

An edit war is something that I truly hope to avoid, which is why I am writing on here, first. I am specifically talking about, Petergriffin9901's edits on the article Celine Dion, here [87]. The user decided to add information that I believe is wholly uneccessary. The revision that had been in place for some time was completely sufficient, in my opinion. Nevertheless, after clearly telling him that it was not neccessary, he repeatedly reverted my edits, violating WP:3RR, something I warned him about breaking. He also wrote on my talk page, stating irrelevant personal statements, and not heeding my advice. I decided not to revert his edit, and came straight to this page to see what can be done. I don't want to start a war, but I also want to keep the article's reputability and maintain its FA status. I do hope something can be done. Thank you. BalticPat22Patrick 01:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation I also agree with this comment. Take it to talk.--Chaser (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Caroline Nokes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison: this revision.

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

1. 17:33, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ its not notable, unless it affects her career or something happens about it")
2. 17:37, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ what happened")
3. 14:30, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by Nomoskedasticity; Guy is named in reliable citations, removing is censorship, . (TW)")
4. 14:34, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity; Cited content please move to discussion. (TW)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88] (user is long-established and is well aware of the rule.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Currently under discussion at WP:BLPN

Comments:

Here's a bit of context for this user's reversions performed today: as is clear from comments here, he is unhappy that contributors to BLPN do not share his views on how to edit the Nokes page -- so today he has been reverting my own efforts to pare down the section on her affair, restoring details regarding a non-notable person. These reversions took place after I suggested that he seemed to be contemplating a course of action that constituted WP:POINT.
There is also disruptive WP:POINT editing on the article talk page, here.
I'd also like to note misuse of Twinkle for the reversions performed today and would request that twinkle (and rollback) be removed from his account.
—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor—this does indeed appear to be a textbook breach of the 3RR, an edit-war over a simple content dispute, and does indeed show evidence of rollback/Twinkle abuse. Suggest block and removal of privileges. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  Disclaimer—I came across this because I watch one of the involved editors' talkpages. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 16:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on my talk, I cant see a violation I cant see a warning and I cant see anything that I could revert to remove the complaint. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't see a violation? [89][90][91][92] – what don't you understand? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit one and edit two are not connented to edit three and four at all there is no warring here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to be "connected" – you made four reverts on that page within 24 hours, so you breached the 3RR. You are an experienced editor and know about the rule, so did not need to be warned IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is my warning, I didn't get one where is my opportunity to revert if there is an issue where is the continuation of any warring after my warning, none of these things exists. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I only speak English and thus have no clue what that means, but you have been warned about the 3RR many times before (more than once by me, I think!) and so were well aware of the restriction. Why did you break it? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that I have violated policy, if I had a good faith notice would have been nice and a good faith request to revert would have been nice and if you had of given me a warning and I had continued in a similar manner then there would be something worthy of action here as it is none of these things happened and there is nothing worthy of action here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that I have violated policy – well, WP:3RR clearly states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." You did that, therefore you violated the policy, clearly. Nothing requiring that experienced editors receive warnings. You should know. But I debate with you further. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I tell users wanting to make a complaint, to make a decent report, when 3 reverts have occurred then add a warning to the users talkpage, if the user makes another revert then request him on his talkpage to self revert, if he does not do this then you have a strong complaint. This complaint has none of those strengths. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason you don't see a 3RR warning is that you removed it from your talk page already. This appears to be a technical 3RR violation. (See the reverts listed above. #1 and 2 remove material from the article, and #3 and 4 are marked as 'Revert' in the edit summary). You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will take a break from editing the article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Since he already has a lengthy block log for edit warring and a number of warnings over the last few months, I'm not sure this is an appropriate outcome (imho). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nomosk. And since Rob insists that he did no wrong, letting him completely off the hook would scarcely be constructive? ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This was not a warning it was a FYI you are reported, the first contact I had had. I will happily agree to avoid the article . Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's a 3RR vio, and warnings are not an entitlement. However, if Off2riorob could voluntarily agree to avoid the article, there's no need for a block. T. Canens (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I will avoid at all costs. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Off2riorob has agreed to a voluntary restriction from the Caroline Nokes article, which will expire at 18:11 UTC on 2 July 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted and appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page: Environmental technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Khadija-NJITWILL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User User:Khadija-NJITWILL has exceeded three reverts in 24 hours and ignored requests to discuss their additions to the Environmental technology page. The user has made unilateral additions and deletions of questionable value, and portions of the added content are cut-and-paste plagiarism. I have copied all the proposed content to the talk page for editing and discussion. I am requesting a short block be placed on the user to draw their attention to their own, or the topics talk page.--E8 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 24 hours. The person is clearly edit warring. Though they are new, they did not stop after warnings. You've also complained about plagiarism. Though it does appear that the material is cut-and-pasted from somewhere, you should back up the charge of plagiarism by giving links to the original source of the material. Such links could be added to the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: List of terrorist incidents, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amakthea computer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:

The fourth revert is only a partial revert, reverting back to add one incident instead of two. The editor is edit warring against the existing consensus on the page that add incidents must be described as "terrorism", one that is obviously backed up by policy and has also been endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick. O Fenian (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Block might not be necessary for now as they have not continued to revert since their fourth revert and are discussing it on the talk page, this may change though obviously. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined in light of discussion on talk page. O Fenian, you've been edit-warring, too; 3RR is not an electric fence which one must pass in order to edit-war.--Chaser (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page: Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reporting MickMacNee for his repeated reverts of a quote I entered in the article Isner–Mahut_match_at_the_2010_Wimbledon_Championships. I entered a quote from a comment made in The Guardian regarding the sportsmanship, integrity and importance of the Isner-Mahut match and quoted the entire quote, as it made several pertinent points and seemed to sum up what many other tennis commentators were making. MickMacNee has edited it down to one sentence, which not only completely changes the meaning of the quote but also has not apparent consensus for the edit. He has changed it back to his version three times, and then sent me a message threatening to report me here. I enclose his message and my response below. It is a violation of the most basic wiki ideas to change someone else's work simply because one person doesn't like it. He offered no rational explanation for his edit other than "it was objected strongly to" and I was very "bold to have added it" in the first place. I wasn't aware I needed MickMacNee's permission to add something to an article that I felt gave it far more depth and information. If I am wrong please correct me, but in looking at his talk page I don't think I am the first person he has done this with. Specifically, I would like him to stop violating WP:EW, WP:BRD and NPOV standards and create a talk section on the article page, get a consensus about what should be done with the quote, and then follow whatever the clear consensus is that the community comes to. His single opinion is not a consensus, and if he feels that "it's presence is objected to, strongly," he needs to demonstrate by whom, other than himself, it is objected to by. I feel that he should have gotten a consensus through to talk page before he begins ripping into something that was posted long before he started working on the article at all.

This is what I originally posted: A number of players, former players, officials, media commentators and fans all joined McEnroe in commenting on the way that both players conducted themselves. One commentator in the Guardian seemed to sum up most of the comments in saying that {{cquote|[T]his match in one fell swoop reminded people of what sport is supposed to be; intense and competitive, but also with fair play, respect, class and sportsmanship. Isner and Mahut reminded the world that winning might be important, but how one wins is even more so. Today Isner may have scored one more service break than Mahut, but they both, and sport in general, won a much grander victory. These two gentlemen returned class and respect to the field of competition with their sportsmanship, grit, determination and mutual regard for the abilities of their opponent. They were playing for the love of the game, something almost all professional athletes seem to have long ago forgot. In that sense, they won a far more tremendous victory today than simply a tennis match. In ten years, few will likely remember who won this year's Championships. However, people will be telling their great grand children, who will tell their great grand children, about the day that sport regained its soul."[22] (In the article, this was formatted to a quotation paragraph).

This is what he has reverted it back to three times: One commentator in The Guardian wrote "In ten years, few will likely remember who won this year's Championships. However, people will be telling their great grand children, who will tell their great grand children, about the day that sport regained its soul."[22]

Here are the messages we have corresponded.
....message transcription begins here....
This is a warning for you to stop edit warring on the above article. If you want your version to remain, start a discusison on the talk page and get consensus for it, but I can categorically tell you right now, it is a blatant violation of NPOV, and it is simply ridiculously long to boot. I have no idea where you got this idea that it is Wikipedia's role to reflect the 'power' and 'gravitas' of an external source's entire quote in this way, but you are massively wrong. I am trimming it one more time, to restore the consensus situation per WP:BRD, namely, you were bold to add it, and it's presence is objected to, strongly, and has been removed pending discussion. If you reinstate it again, I will be asking at the edit warring noticeboard for an admin to remove your ability to carry on being disruptive until you accept that this is not how you resolve disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You sir, are the one who needs a reality check. You started the war with an arbitrary edit that has no consensus behind it. Simply because you object to a long quote does not mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that it is "ridiculous". As you are the one editing and changing the original post, you are the one who needs to open a talk page discussion and get a consensus. Your opinion is not the rule of law. Where do you find a "consensus situation" (based on WP:BRD) that conforms to your opinion about the edit. There isn't one, and your stating, however forcefully, that there is does not create one. How arrogant is it to assert that I was "bold to add it"? Does everything have to pass through your censorship filter in order to have a consensus? Show me where others are of the same opinion and I will abide by that, but I have looked and found none. The quote was part of the article long before you started editing it to fit your personal standards. If you find this disruptive, than that says more about your insecurity and arrogance than it does about my quote. Remember, YOU edited down a quote that YOU found "ridiculous" without any consensus to back it up. Before you go threatening people with banning, you should look to your own behaviour. How does my editing constitute "being disruptive" and your does not? You have changed my original work three times - isn't that is disruptive and unacceptable? I see no pending discussion, no attempt to find consensus, and no attempt on your part to do exactly what you are demanding of me. Until that is present, please stop threatening me meaninglessly - you say "it's presence is objected to, strongly," - by whom, precisely, besides yourself? Please list them so that I can see a consensus for your action. Absent that, please stop threatening people to get your way. It is unseemly and unnecessary. DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is pretty clear, and WP:DR and WP:3RR are even clearer. I haven't threatened you at all, I've warned you what the consequences would be if you carried on edit warring. And sorry, but you aren't special, these consequences are what anyone in your position would be facing if they were acting in the same way. Do not fall into the trap of thinking the warning has anything to do with the validity of your content, it does not. But on that issue, if you think your content is valid, it will be a trivial matter to show it has support then wouldn't it? I await to be convinced, but based on my experience in editing thousands of other articles, I remain strongly skeptical that you have a proper handle on what is and isn't appropriate in this situation. You comments about how this one massive quote summarises everybody else's opinions nicely is just out and out editorialising tbh, very concerning. But let's be crystal clear, I am not required to begin that discussion for you, not in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You have have made no effort to show that you have support for anything, yet seem to think that I need to show solid support for every word I write. That is a pathetic double standard. At any rate, you are correct - you don't have to have that discussion with me. I have posted this whole mess in its entirety on the edit war board and have reported you for edit warring. Please take it up with them. If they say that I am doing something wrong, I will certainly abide by that. However, you asserting your opinion and then arguing that it is the only correct choice is beyond arrogance. I will abide by the consensus that the edit warring board reaches. Please do not contact me again on this issue. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
....end of transcription of messages....

Please give me, and MickMacNee, some guidance on this. I simply do not feel that one person's opinion is a consensus for changing something, however forcefully (and almost abusively) he states that it is. I have to admit, his tone is part of the problem here, because I feel that it is also reflective of his attitude. Please let me know what to do here. Thanks. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the only mistake I made here was to massively over-estimate Themoodyblue's experience with Wikipedia's rules and processes. He has notionally editted here since 2006, long before me even, yet he seems to have little or no grasp of BRD or DE, let alone 3RR. He is under some misguided idea that it is me who needs to get support for his disputed content, and that the admins who peruse this board are going to sort out the content dispute for him. Quite the opposite, I warned him for edit warring on the article, while admittedly coming close to 3RR myself as he repeatedly tried to restore the content, but I had explained the facts of the matter to him, and as is normal, warned him that if his next move was another revert, I'd be coming here myself. The only thing to be done here is for Themoodyblue to realise his content is disupted, and if he still wants it in, he needs to show it has support beyond fighting with me or bitching about my attitude to all and sundry. Had I had the first idea how little experience he has, my approach would of course have been more tempered, but it's too late now. Mea Culpa. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone disputes an edit, discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring. It's that simple. Fences&Windows 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This is far from the first time that MickMacNee's overly aggressive, antagonistic and abusive attitude has caused disruption. Time and again he picks on edits that most other users find perfectly acceptable, instigates an edit war (often with provocative, disrespectful or dismissive edit summaries), and fires tirades of abuse, disparaging remarks and personal attacks at his targets. His behaviour suggests that he enjoys fighting on Wikipedia. His very extensive block log over the past couple of years speaks for itself (and I see he was indefinitely blocked earlier this year, but managed to have his block removed after a profuse apology and showing apparent intention to change his ways). His habit of vulgar and abusive posts to users who he disagrees with is totally disruptive (examples: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109] - and these are just from his own talk page). For how much longer will good faith contributors have to put up with this horribly abusive (and I'd go as far as to call it troll-like) behaviour? 81.155.12.99 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This report is pretty tl;dr. This noticeboard is really meant for reports in which you list diffs showing a 3RR vio or, if you really think it merits administrative action, edit warring that does not actually violate 3RR, rather than long textual explanations of what happened. Those are more suited to our dispute resolution procedures or, if you really must, the drama board. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action. If this is intended to be an edit-warring complaint, it is too hard to follow. We are talking about a heavily-trafficked article, and if your material is worthy of inclusion, you should be able to find supporters for that material on the article's talk page. I suggest opening a discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Matthew 6:7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 02:23, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 03:06, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "restoring article")
3. 04:21, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370200368 by Neutralhomer (talk)already did take it to talk. stop redirecting.")
4. 04:32, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "saving the article from bulldozing")

• Diff of warning: here

—NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you didn't take my suggestion. Options are going to be "block both of you" or "block neither of you because you two are discussing your edits". Which would you prefer? Prodego ^talk 04:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Question before my answer, why am I being blocked? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Takes (at least) 2 to edit war. At any point you could have just stopped reverting, which would have stopped the edit warring just as much as if JALatimer did. But neither of you did. Prodego ^talk 04:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as the latter. Prodego ^talk 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Per my post to your talkpage, we will make it the latter. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since JAL seems to have declined that, I have blocked him for 55 hours (longer than normal given the number of warnings and second chances). Prodego ^talk 05:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Hans Zimmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An IP keeps on adding this to Hans Zimmer, despite advice about WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR. Also refuses to discuss on the talk page, and tries to WP:GAME the system by forcing WP:3RR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. The same person is using more than one IP to edit war on this article. Cf. WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Persistent POV warrior using multiple IPs on Falkland Islands to edit war.

• First edit
• First revert
• Second revert
• Third revert
• Fourth revert
• Fifth revert

• 3RR warning

IP addresses:

• 190.226.134.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 186.124.6.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.231.216.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

all resolve to the same ISP based in Buenos Aires. Pfainuk talk 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sixth revert, new IP 190.224.219.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Pfainuk talk 20:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Its pointless trying to block someone hopping ips so I semiprotected the article for 3 days to try and persuade them to stop. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - but you appear to have full protected it, not semi. Was this the intention? Pfainuk talk 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No I clicked the wrong button in twinkle. :-o I fixed it and its now semi. welcome to leave notes on my talkpage if the ip editor comes back. I see we had this issue before. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: 2010 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 19:47, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Portugaljunior identified as vandalism to last revision by Big Axe. (TW)")
2. 22:19, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Discipline */ keep the minutia to the main page, particularly since the table is broken now")
3. 22:39, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Knockout stage */ as discussed on the talk page. Removing some of the content. Details can be seen on the main pages linked to the article. This page is starting to take too long to load.")
4. 22:42, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Eliminated teams */ This section is new when compared to 2006 FIFA World Cup. Not sure how the teams would be ranked either. Please discuss on talk page")
5. 04:37, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370030419 by Reywas92 (talk) Go to the sub article.")
6. 04:38, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
7. 06:16, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Filming */ Host Broadcast Services is a company. The 3D games will be produced for FIFA by Host Broadcast Services not "the Host Broadcast Services".")
8. 06:38, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "linking to main article instead")
9. 15:19, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370099184 by Facts707 (talk) If it were to nations it would be hosts. We are speaking of one nation therefore host nation.")
10. 15:27, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370103333 by Algebraist (talk) Well in that case, host is correct in American and Canadian English and it was there first so using WIkipedia policy of first edit after stub")
11. 16:08, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370109738 by Elpincha (talk) restoring qualified qualifier.")
12. 20:57, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "bad math. Total goals is 101.")
13. 01:52, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Who would remove this wonderful image after the discussion that we had about it?")
14. 16:02, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370265775 by Eduardm (talk) There appears to be a discrepancy between the English and German sites. Our refs are from English sites.")
15. 16:36, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Round of 16 */ Not required in the general article. All the general details are above. Specifics are in the child article.")
16. 16:37, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Quarter-finals */ ibid")
17. 16:38, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Knockout stage */ Ibid")
18. 16:53, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Metallurgist; Don't add until there is consesnus. (TW)")
19. 17:02, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370273369 by Metallurgist (talk) Don't restore until there's consensus")

—Metallurgist (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion made on article's talk page. This is a general article on the subject that some users are adding minute details to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• By the way. The edits are all to different sections. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you have removed my offer of a negotiated alternative. Does that mean you prefer to be blocked? If you undo the work of other editors in multiple sections, these undoings are all counted as reverts. Entries 15 through 19 of the above list all show you removing the work of others from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours. Since consecutive reverts count as one, the four reverts I see are numbers 14, 15, 18 and 19. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He also removed my notification that this was posted. Metallurgist (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible return as IP] Metallurgist (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Mobile phones and driving safety (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: "Friendsofmary" is not a valid project or language code (help). / Friendsofmary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

• 1st revert: [111]
• 2nd revert: [112]
• 3rd revert: [113]
• 4th revert: [114]
• 5th revert: [115]
• 6th revert [116]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117] [118]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• First of many attempts by Martinevans123 [119]
• First attempt by Famousdog [120]
• Attempt by Sunray [121]

Comments:
Note that since there is both an IP address and a user account involved, a checkuser may need to be run. However, there is clear evidence in the edit summaries of the reverts and the talk page discussion that they are one and the same. For example:

• In the edit summary for this revert [122] the comment "We finally agree ... enough is enough!" is made. Up until that date, the talk page discussion had been entirely with Friendsofmary.
• Or note the similarities in style and content of this comment by Friendsofmary [123] and this one by IP 71.175.181.251 [124] Bottom line: Both accounts continue their edit waring. Sunray (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Result - Friendsofmary blocked 48h hours for edit warring and socking, article semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.46.113.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:49, 26 June 2010

• 1st revert: 10:29, 26 June 2010
• 2nd revert: 22:22, 26 June 2010
• 3rd revert: 23:52, 26 June 2010
• 4th revert: 00:05, 27 June 2010
• 5th revert: 00:21, 27 June 2010
• 6th revert: 00:38, 27 June 2010

Previous version reverted to: 00:59, 27 June 2010

• 7th revert: 01:04, 27 June 2010
• 8th revert: 01:12, 27 June 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:28, 26 June 2010 and 00:02, 27 June 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Canada#Call to stop censoring article about Canada

Comments:
The user is also leaving odd messages about censorship on other editors' talk pages. Seems out to make a point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Based on this edit and others like it, I believe that the reported IP has now become Truthinwiki2010 (talk · contribs). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure that the month's duration is appropriate - the reported user now has an account and will be able to edit through semi-protection in a matter of days. Thus, I would argue for either a block or a shorter protection (maybe a week?). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If the editor persists, we can deal with the situation as it is then. The last semiprotection issued on Canada was for six months so a month is not unusual. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&oldid=370313273

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&diff=370314166&oldid=370313273 (first corrected but less sourced version by me)
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&diff=370316198&oldid=370314771
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&diff=370329329&oldid=370327182 (final version by me)
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&diff=370342576&oldid=370341041
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&diff=370362879&oldid=370349968

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&diff=370362879&oldid=370349968

Talk Page:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somalia

Comments:

User Middayexpress constantly reverts massive sourced facts i added out, because he just dont like them. In the first instance he reverted back to a version which used exact same source (the UN News), but he cited it wrong. After pointing this mistake out and correcting it with more sources, he suddenly declared the UN (a sourced which he used previously by himself) as a unreliable source and reverted it, adding a strange source of one (now 2) private founded liberitarian american institutes. Those sources do not contradict the stated (see talkpage) facts which i could back up with dozens or more sources if needed, they focus on other points. He dont accepts this, harping on points which are not relevant to the dispute and asserting that there is a big conspiracy of the UN. Trying to resolve the dispute on the article talkpage was fruitless, he is ignoring my arguments and discussing points which arent even relevant to the issue. The talk page archive also shows that different approaches of other editors to change the article were blocked by him too, as he regards the article as his own kingdom.

It is possible that i violated 3rr this way too, but i want to put this to a temporarily end. StoneProphet (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made the following suggestion to both parties: It seems that you and your opponent have both broken WP:3RR at WP:AN3#User:Middayexpress reported by User:StoneProphet (Result: ). You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will promise not to make any further controversial changes between now and August 1 at Somalia without *first* obtaining a consensus for your change on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well i have no problem with this, but i doubt he will accept any change to this article. Its a content dispute and the actual version he reverted too is the old version -> as long as he can keep this one he has no interest in a consensus as one can see in the talk page archive. :/ StoneProphet (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How utterly disingenuous. Those links above are not me simply "reverting" edits, as this user absurdly insinuates. Except for the first revert (which admittedly was a revert), it is a case of me adding new sources to support my edits, and/or generally expanding the article. For instance, in the link above that the user claims is a "2nd revert", I actually completely rewrote an entire section of the article, improving it with new references and facts. Similarly, in the link above he claims is a "3rd revert", I added a reference from the reputable Ludwig von Mises Institute to support my edit; it wasn't just a "revert" as this user falsely claims. The so-called "4th revert" above is another instance of me expanding my sourcing to support my edits, this time adding references from the World Bank and the Independent Institute. And in the supposed "5th revert", I added yet another source to support my position, this time from the Foundation for Economic Education. The user above has attempted to dismiss all of these sources & characterize my succesively adding them and otherwise expanding the article as "reverting" for one reason and one reason alone: All of the reliable references on the modern economic situation in Somalia (that is, actual studies of the country) conclude that it has managed to maintain a healthy informal economy. That includes the CIA source which the user above misrepresented in his initial edits. I had to go as far as quoting from the paper itself just to get this user to back down, and even then he kept insisting that it asserted that Somalia's economy was in a bad way. As for the UN sources, firstly, I did not initially provide the UN source in question, as the user above falsely claims. It was already in the article before the user started manipulating references. Secondly, as I repeatedly pointed out to this user on both his own talk page and the article's discussion page -- conversations which I had to initiate; the user above was up to then content to just keep knee-jerk reverting -- the UN is not at all a neutral source on the conflict in Somalia (I won't go into the details here since, unlike the user, I have read the instructions laid out at the top of this noticeboard to "not continue a dispute on this page"; quotes & links from the UN itself explaining the situation can be found on the article's talk page). Lastly, it is not possible but certain that the user above himself has violated 3RR:

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

It would appear here again that he didn't read the part at the top of this page that reads "Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." Middayexpress (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You just dont get it: Your sources do _not_ contradict the stated UN facts, they are in a complete different field. You deleted my good sourced and relevant information to reinsert your claims. I have no problem with your Mise institute whatever, but you should not delete my part, because you think the UN and hundreds of newspaper on the world participate in a world-wide conspiracy, and that there is in reality no poverty, no UN aid program and no piracy in Somalia. That is your POV, which doesnt matter, because the UN is regarded as a neutral and reliable source on wikipedia. Despite this you are doing constant personal attacks on me, deliberately misinterpreting cited sources and allege me things i never did - but explaining and correcting this would take me hours and i would have to produce a wall of text like you did, which my sparse time prevents. So lets better focus on the article. Well i start to think it seems to be meaningless to edit the Somalia article as long it is on your occupation, where you prevent absolutly every edit by foreign editors.StoneProphet (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's clear you have no regard at all for Wikipedia rules and policies (much less other editors) or you would've by now heeded its plainly-stated instruction at the top of the page -- which I quoted above -- not to bring the dispute here. I realize it's much more convenient to try and reframe the discussion as far away as possible from the quotes and links I have already supplied on the Somalia talk page indicating that the UN itself has admitted to being a non-neutral and disruptive influence in Somalia (nevermind its sources), but this is still unacceptable. If you were conversant with actual Wiki policies or even cared about them, you'd already understand that those refs therefore fail WP:QS and especially WP:CONFLICT. Lastly, the Somalia talk page is frequently visited by me because I am one of the article's primary contributors. And not just on the Somalia article, but on all the Somali-related articles on Wikipedia. You see, this is an area I have actual knowledge in, so I share it, as Wikipedia itself recommends. FYI, Somali Studies is an area open to all scholars, Somalis and foreign alike. Attempting to insinuate that I believe that it isn't and is the preserve of locals without my even having so much as disclosed my ethnicity to you is more a reflection of your own preconceived notions than anything. Not good. Middayexpress (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And again more personal attacks while you just repeat the old arguments which are not relevant to the real issue, the same behaviour you have at the talkpage. You are really good in ignoring the points and arguments i actually said, while bringing in thousands of links, which are not relevant to the current dispute.StoneProphet (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Both parties are accepting the voluntary restriction proposed above. Neither one will "make any further controversial changes between now and August 1 at Somalia without *first* obtaining a consensus for your change on the article's talk page." See discussions at User talk:Middayexpress#June 2010 and User talk:StoneProphet#June 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Animal protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 14:46, 27 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "see my response on the issue in the debate page")
2. 15:23, 27 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "see my response in the debate page, its information in the public domain")
3. 15:45, 27 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "see my response in the AFD debate page, it's verifiable from origins of attitudes towards animals, a dissertation, reliable source. stop vandalism")
4. 15:56, 27 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "see wiki policy on reliable source yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship I will report you if you keep vandalizing the article")

• Diff of warning: here

—64.53.165.54 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 48 hours for 3RR, based on the four genuine reverts listed above. Background for the dispute may be seen at WP:Articles for deletion/Animal protection. This editor seems be the newly-created successor to Youdontownwiki who was blocked for username. If additional brand-new accounts make their appearance on this article, semiprotection may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [125] This is the first reversion that he made and then 30 reverts later and a month later here is his latest reversion (It would be too tedious to place all the links I hope you understand) [126] to see the rest just look at the history of WrestleMania XXV

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

Comments:

He has violated the 3RR rule once but that was a week ago but he seems to think the nickname needs to be stated rather than the page name in the name parameter and never accept the edit summaries that User:NiciVampireHeart gives and he continued to do it until he got 6 warning (and not just for that page) as you can see here User talk:Saimcheeda#June 2010 so since continued to edit war it finally had to come here.--Curtis23's Usalions 04:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Wow. --slakr^\ talk / 04:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Robert J. Bentley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.12.191.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127]

• 1st revert: [128]
• 2nd revert: [129]
• 3rd revert: [130]
• 4th revert: [131]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:
Persistent removal of most page content. IP claims to be removing unsourced/etc. biographical material, but as User:Boromir correctly points out, WP:SELFPUB covers this case. Immediately after final warning, User:166.137.13.70 started removing same information, so likely same user trying to get around warning. As a note, I did revert the article back to original state four times, in good faith as fighting vandalism/page blanking. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - This dispute is being handled elsewhere. Someone asked for article protection at WP:RFPP and it was declined. See Talk:Robert J. Bentley#Multiple issues and notice the comments of admin TFOWR. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Analog stick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.6.2.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]
• Sixth revert [139]
• Seventh revert [140]

Comments:
An anonymous IP editor (via what appears to be multiple addresses) has been spending a rather excessive amount of time inserting large amounts about the trade show induction of individual controller development text into the Analog Stick article [141]. After multiple reverts where they attempted to mix introduction dates with release dates (apparently in an effort, it seems to make it appear that one company copied another, in this case Sony copying Nintendo), by erasing ONLY one part of the trade show dates [142], another user attempted to end the edit warring by accepting introduction dates from the Wikipedia articles themselves, which the anonymous editor lied about and continued reverting, claiming the links were unsourced[143].

• Result - Semiprotected. Not an easy case, because some of the IPs are well-intentioned. There is a good discussion on the talk page, but the IPs doing most of the reverts aren't participating there. If consensus is reached on the major issues, the semiprotection can be lifted. Meanwhile, all the IPs are urged to make their case on talk. IPs can use {{editsemiprotect}} if necessary to get help from registered editors. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [144]

• 1st revert: 04:43, June 27, 2010
• 2nd revert: 21:17, June 27, 2010
• 3rd revert: 22:05, June 27, 2010
• 4th revert: 02:42, June 28, 2010
• 5th revert: 02:56, June 28, 2010
• 6th revert: 03:25, June 28, 2010

See similar at Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and long history on User's talk and article talk

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145] Also, May 2008, July 2008 and September 2009

Comments:

User continually deletes well sourced content on a Featured article, and adds content that doesn't conform to WP:MEDRS (the six reverts reported are only the last 24 hours, but a slow edit war has gone on longer). Based on the history at Quackwatch and Water flouridation, an SPI may also be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Tirumala Venkateswara Temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rohinikumart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [146]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]

Comments:

This user seems to be intent on (for some reason) removing proofs of historical/popular cultural references to/from Tamil language in various sections of the same article. This is clear from the edits that the user has made, and implies that this user is deliberately trying to force his/her personal biases upon the contents of Wikipedia.

• Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 08:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 09:43, June 26, 2010

• 1st revert: 10:20, June 27, 2010
• 2nd revert: 10:32, June 27, 2010
• 3rd revert: 08:13, June 28, 2010
• 4th revert: 09:08, June 28, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154], also [155] and [156]. User has been blocked previously for 3RR, and must therefore be presumed to be familiar with policy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]; discussed at greater length in Talk:Circumcision#Absurdly over-wordy image captions.

Comments:

Studiodan has a history of edit warring on circumcision and related pages; he was previously blocked on May 10 for edit warring on the same page (see archived report). Most recently, he has taken a dislike to the word "uncircumcised", claiming that it is "hate speech"[158] and that restoring it constitutes "vandalism"[159]. Previous reverts on this matter alone have included [160] [161] [162] [163] (closely related reverts also include [164] [165] [166]). Five editors have reverted his edits including JoshuaZ, Alex Bakharev, Baseball Bugs, and Boing! said Zebedee, and myself, and he has been advised on several occasions to seek consensus for his changes instead of trying to force them through. Unfortunately this has not been successful. Jakew (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• No comment on the above, beyond mentioning that I looked at this editor as a result of a report at WP:AIV. I saw several reverts, but paid no attention to the time period in which they occurred. I was sufficiently concerned to warn the user about WP:3RR, at which point I became aware of this report. TFOWR 09:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 1 week. The editor seems to have a fixed idea regarding this topic, and did not budge the tiniest bit when admin TFOWR asked him about his reverts. He has learned nothing since the last block on May 10 about the same article. He should decide whether he is suited for a collaborative editing environment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ChaosMaster16 (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]
• 5th revert: [172]
• 6th revert: [173]
• 7th revert: [174]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The_Last_Airbender#.24280m_budget_edits

Comments: The last five reverts violate 3RR. First of all I am also guilty of violating 3RR too after I became incredibly frustrated when the other editor simply refused to respond to my concerns on the talk page. We were both warned by administrator User:Barek, and I gave my word I would stop editing the disputed section (which I have respected), but User:ChaosMaster16 has gone ahead and started adding back in the disputed content [176], despite specifically being told to discuss any further changes to the disputed content before adding it back in. This guy simply has no respect for consensus, and doesn't take on board other people's concerns. The problem is that he keeps adding synthesis and what I consider an invalid reference. The lastest edit [177] involves the Cinema Blend reference. I asked him on the talk page to not not add this in because the CinemaBlend references [178] uses the LATimes article [179] as its source which is already there(the Cinema Blend article is unnecessary in the presence of the LA Times article since all it does is regurgitate their story and become second-hand information). In short the editor refuses to discuss changes on the talk page, and has continued to add in disputed content after receiving a warning by an admin and is still in the 24 hour period of his previous reverts. If you feel you can't take action against him without also issuing punishment against me I will accept that since I did break the rules. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is resolved now. He's self-reverted so I don't want any action taken against him since he's done the right thing. Betty Logan (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action. The dispute has been resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Anti-Americanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Americanism&oldid=370440784

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

Don't know what this is asking.

• 1st revert: [180]
• 2nd revert: [181]
• 3rd revert: [182]
• 4th revert: [diff]

I'm not sure what to do. It seems silly for me to revert him again (that would be 3rd for me), just to "make" him revert a 4th time so I can "get" him. The spirit of the rule is being violated. He has been previously blocked for edit warring on this article: [183], and it wasn't until his third revert that even started a discussion on the Talk page.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

-Noloop (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that one of the reverts was a revert of a revert that Nollop had marked as minor when in fact it alterd the meaning of the sentance and thus wass not in fact a minor edit and that this was therfore a misleadiing edit.I would also point out that his atmept at resolution in fact did not say that the source does not use the contested words but words that were never in the contested sentance. Also noloop was about to be blocked a while back as a result of this artciel (sockpuppetry if I remember) but was not after saying he would no longer be editing Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I mostly can't figure out what Slatersteven is saying (this is a constant problem in working with him). I've never made any agreements (or been told) not to edit. I self-imposed a break of several months in response to too much wikidrama, and may do so again.

You attempted to enforce a wikibreak upon yourself (something you seem to have tired multiple times and failed) [[185]]. This and the fact you had stooped editing for two week meant that a arbitration case was dropped, with the proviso that if you come back with and there are future problems that a new case should be re-opened [[186]], I would now ask that that is done. Especially as you have indeed started to accuse other edds of trolling [[187]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Technically, Slatersteven did not violate 3RR and both he an Noloop have been reverting each other. So blame is a fifty/fifty. I would not impose a block on either. There is an RfC on this article.[188] Unfortunately there has been considerable dispute on this article over the years and there are now 28 archived talk pages. TFD (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not blocked No edits to that page from the reported user in over 24 hours and the user has been discussing it since then. There is no disruption to prevent with a block. --B (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page in dispute: B. H. Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: 24.10.244.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 05:59, 27 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 06:01, 27 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Political and military career */")
3. 20:13, 28 June 2010 (edit summary: "Unexplained changes- new from new bio B.H. Roberts U of U Press upcoming")
4. 22:58, 28 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted- Vandalism by John Fox undone")
5. 23:16, 28 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision of know mormon vandal John Foxe")

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

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

Comments:

OPTIONAL: Someone please just take a look. This anonymous adds the same paragraph every once in awhile for no discernible reason that I can think of. John Foxe (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation The first two edits were not reverts and even if they were, they were back-to-back edits, which only count as a single edit for purposes of 3RR. Also, no attempt was made to engage the user prior to his most recent edit. New users are not normally blocked until they have been informed of the rule and then violated it knowingly. In addition to giving the 3RR warning, it is helpful to give the user a personal (non-template) invitation to discuss the issue on the talk page. --B (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: R68 (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IGeMiNix (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:

Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Alright cool, somebody else should watch the page.--IGeMiNix (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation Two reverts were back-to-back and only count as one for purposes of 3RR. There are only three reverts. --B (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [189]

• 1st revert: [190]
• 2nd revert: [191]
• 3rd revert: [192]
• 4th revert: [193]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194] ; previous 3RR warning in related dispute removed without response by Edwpat [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196]

Comments:User:Edwpat is determined to include/refer to his original research conjecture about Elijah Wood's romantic/personal life in various articles, violating WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. The conjecture is not supported by any significant textual sources; instead, the user has hung his theory on a set of unrelated photos (and occasionally trivial captions) that he's turned up on (mostly) celebrity gossip/paparazzi sites. Rather than address the policy issues involved, user simply reverts and tweaks the language slightly to make his theory a bit more of an implication than an outright claim, which is still inappropriate under BLP. Not quite a 3RR violation; user knows enough to space out edit over 27 hours, but still edit warring and BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Warned for now, will block if this user continues adding poorly sourced personal claims to articles. --B (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Xnacional received a one-week block for edit warring, then a two-week block for immediately returning to edit warring upon. Well, the two-week block is up and he immediately restored edits/content the local consensus at three Star Wars film articles. No attempt at talk-page discussion, no edit summaries -- really, it's just time to permablock this guy. --EEMIV (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked One month block courtesy of HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). --B (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Stuart Campbell (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rev. Stuart Campbell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:05, 29 June 2010 (edit summary: "Sigh. I should know what I do and don't do.")
2. 18:18, 29 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370825694 by 88.105.252.76 (talk) Talk page utilised.")
3. 18:26, 29 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370828543 by 88.105.252.76 (talk) Since you are an SPA, that hardly includes you.")
4. 18:32, 29 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370829422 by 88.105.252.76 (talk) Please use the Talk page as you advised. I have not breached WP:COI.")

--88.105.252.76 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Protected 1 week --B (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Continuation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Posse72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]. The exact version being reverted to was established by an IP, with the actual outcome change history going back several years.

• 1st revert: [198]
• 2nd revert: [199]
• 3rd revert: [200]
• 4th revert: [201]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has been warned against 3RR, incivility and revert warring in this article specifically several times (his talk page consists mostly of such warnings), to no avail.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Continuation War#Result. The result issue has been (and still being) discussed extensively, with the user's only contribution to the discussion consisting of the above diff.

Comments:

The Continuation war article (and related topics) is regularly visited by single-purpose accounts from Finland who attempt to aggressively rewrite part of the article in accordance with their point of view. This leads to the article being (semi)protected on a regular basis. The last such event was on 23 June, after which the article was semi-protected for a week on my request. After that, Posse72 jumped in and began reverting to the version by the anonymous editor, limiting his participation in the corresponding discussion to a single remark. Note the he narrowly misses 3RR in the 4 reverts I provided above (by 10 minutes), but I think that battleground mentality demonstrated in such edit comments needs some sort of administrative intervention. --Illythr (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --B (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: San Francisco Pride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Castroskullcrusher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [202]
• 2nd revert: [203]
• 3rd revert: [204]

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked courtesy of Tim Song (talk · contribs). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Rasmussen College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison [205]

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

1. 20:50, 29 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 20:51, 29 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 20:53, 29 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
4. 20:54, 29 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
5. 20:56, 29 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
6. 20:57, 29 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History */")

• Diff of warning: here

It is likely that this user was editing as this IP immediately prior to starting this account. Perhaps, then, semi-protection as part of the solution here?
—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The first two are combined additions the third is an addition, the other three are reverts but all his edit history is there, he has seven edits in the whole world. The other user involved has more reverts User:Active_Banana five clear reverts. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're confused, pal -- the third is an addition of something that was added earlier by the IP, so adding it again is a revert particularly when it is almost certain that Warrenpd was editing earlier as the IP. Don't confuse things here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not your pal or your bud or your anything at all, thankyou. Please refrain from your personal terms of endearment. I have asked you this before and only recently, please stop your personal name calling. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that I did exceed the 3RR guidelines in removing promotional materials from the article. I will not be making any additional edits to the article today. If administrators feel it appropriate, I will not contest application of 3RR sanctions regarding my actions on this article. Active Banana (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Please everyone keep in mind that we have talk pages for resolving disputes. It is best practice for the proposing editor to justify their edits there, but anyone else may also be the first to start a discussion aimed at achieving consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The user has IP jumped and continued to edit war to push the same promotional NPOV violations [206] Active Banana (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Article semi-protected by EdJohnston (talk · contribs); I left Warrenpd (talk · contribs) a note about {{Request edit}} and another request to read WP:COI. If any other IPs in this range show up on related pages, please let me know. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Whitewash (censorship) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.100.2.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [207]

• 1st revert: [208]
• 2nd revert: [209]
• 3rd revert: [210]
• 4th revert: [211]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [212]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [213]

Comments:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealFennShysa (talk • contribs)

• Already blocked NJA (t/c) 09:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: (initial deletion of content)
• 2nd revert: (replacement with ungrammatical and unencyclopedic drivel)
• 3rd revert: (unexplained revert)
• 4th revert: (unexplained revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warning—subsequently removed)

• My polite attempt to resolve the issue amicably was deleted with an edit-summary of, "bugger off."

Comments:
A relevant ANI thread is currently open. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary noted above was, word for word, one that TT had previously used towards KnowIG.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So wrist-slittingly irrelevant to this, but nice one, well done :) ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So it's relevant when you mention it, but suicidally boring when someone else does. Got it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For the love of God this is bullying all because someone has a difference of view pointKnowIG (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And your violating the 3RR was an act of self-defence, then, I suppose? ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 13:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours This is an extremely lame edit war, and despite KnowIG's admittedly poor history, TreasuryTag did not help matters at all. -- tariqabjotu 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Dwight D. Eisenhower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.225.190.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [214] Revision as of 13:50, June 30, 2010

• 1st revert: [215] 14:17, June 30, 2010
• 2nd revert: [216] 14:29, June 30, 2010
• 3rd revert: [217] 14:40, June 30, 2010
• 4th revert: [218] 15:32, June 30, 2010
• 5th revert: [219] 19:11, June 30, 2010
• 6th revert: [220] 19:22, June 30, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [221] by User:MrDolomite, 18:44, June 30, 2010
• [222] by User:Binksternet, 19:19, June 30, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [223]

Comments:
IP editor is using very unreliable self-published web sources to try and establish a Jewish father for Eisenhower. Various standard biographies of Eisenhower deny any Jewish blood in his family. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. This might be a dynamic IP, so if it continues from a different IP, please ask to have the article s-protected. --B (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Page: Baby (Justin Bieber song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vitor Mazuco (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: [link]

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

Comments:

Has now violated 3RR by restoring/adding content to Baby. He is continually adding Brazil charts to article, he is claiming they are okay but are clearly not listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. He is linking to a page that he created claiming they are okay because of that page, (it was made today). There is no consensus on if the chart is acceptable or not. It is very disruptive, i warned him about 3RR and he continued to violated itg (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 23:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, reporter cautioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Not 3rr:

• 1st revert: 17:06, 28 June 2010 revert. Dis puted content.
• 2nd revert: 17:57, 28 June 2010 reverting a revert of his edit
• 3rd revert: 02:56, 30 June 2010 Large change of disputed content after being reverted by a second editor
• 4th revert: 04:15, 30 June 2010 Revert of a third editor

This is not 3rr but is edit warring. The article was locked only a week ago for edit warring of the same content.[228] RomaC knows it is contentions. He even warned another editor about edit warring[229] and 3rr.[230] Reverting and then starting another discussion on what is a BLP is terrible.(great idea on centralizing the discussion split between talk page sections but there were comments not even an hour old right above) I personally have seen this history before with RomaC not breaching 3rr but getting as close to the line as possible. This might not be as bright but it is clear that further discussion is needed and if I revert a second time I will be just as disruptive. This is a BLP that simply needs to get discussion going and work (he recently tagged the bulk of the article for refs needed and I supplied them. That is one way of actually getting it done.) The bottom line is this is a BLP and he is doing the exact same thing that got it locked. Enough is enough. RomaC needs a 1rr from what I can see and the page might be ready to get locked again due to this stuff.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad Cptnono is concerned, the page could benefit from some outside attention, although this is not the place for content disputes. On the editing, it's fairly simple -- some back-and-forth then consensus seemed to have been reached with help from a non-involved admin. Then a couple of drive-by reverts with no Talk participation:

• first
• twice
• I warned the editor on WP:3RR, then: here

I reverted twice asking for Talk page participation, stepped back. The following day I reworded slightly and have invited the uninvolved admin to check in here, s/he agreed. I'm more than willing to stay off the page until the admin drops by, and hope Cptnono can do the same.

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 16 hours I don't understand RomaC's attempt to justify this edit-warring. I cannot in any way see how she can make a BLP claim here, especially from her perspective. Further, I don't care what Shimeru has to say. As far as I can tell, she is involved here in this edit war, and she over-stepped her bounds my protecting a page where she was clearly involved in this dispute. Blatantly improper move. -- tariqabjotu 09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Tariq your comments above are directed more toward Shimeru's actions than mine. I suggest your block was unwarranted especially as I did not violate 3RR and, more importantly, had clearly indicated I was more than willing to stay off the article while awaiting input from others. Would appreciate it if you would reflect on this and consider striking the block from my logs. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Young Liberals (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LibStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [231]

Edit war, not 3RR.

1. Revert: [232] (claimed 'censorship', which I thought could not be understood, so I proceeded to put an explanation on his talk page.)
2. Revert: [233] (after giving Libstar reasonable time to respond to the discussion, which did not happen (only attacks and accusations of me), I removed the content and indicated where to find the reasons for doing so, but it was once again reverted, but this time by User:Alans1977 who cited it was 'relevant material' in the changelog, but did not engage in discussion about the content either)
3. Revert: [234] (after reverting the last revert with a message that there were no explanations on why my changes should be reverted, Libstar reverts the edit because it had now been 'failing to gain consensus')

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [235] [236]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237] (this is a warning he put on my page, which I think is unjustified)

Comments:

Hello, I would like to report edit warring. I have removed three times two irrelevant, questionably sourced and poorly written entries added to the page's criticism section that were introduced a few weeks ago by a single-purpose unknown user who did not cite a reason [238] but User:LibStar has reverted my edit in this regard twice without proper explanation and indicates no interest for engaging in proper discussion on why the entries should be included, even though I offered him a comprehensive explanation on his talk page [239]. Furthermore, Libstar has been hostile towards me, immediately dropping a conflict of interest template [240] (and various accusations [241][242]), most recently, an edit war warning template [243], on my own talk page. It is also a worrying possible conflict of interest that User:Alans1977 who is listed as a supporter of an opposing political party/organisation on his user page would ignore discussion and revert without proper explanation. There has not been any attempts on the article talk page [244] or my talk page [245] by these two editors to discuss the content. Thank you very much for your time. I hope I am in the right place for this sort of thing, as I am new to editing, but have tried my best to learn. If you have any suggestions please feel free to make them.

• No violation -- tariqabjotu 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Susan B. Anthony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [246]

• 1st revert: [247]
• 2nd revert: [248]
• 3rd revert: [249]
• 4th revert: [250]

Comments:This is a content dispute, with both parties violating WP:3RR on several occasions. It should be noted that User:Binksternet has been blocked twice for edit-waring, but he continues to routinely violate WP:3RR and edit-war on different pages trying to impose his POV. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [251]

• 1st revert: [252]
• 2nd revert: [253]
• 3rd revert: [254]
• 4th revert: [255]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [256]

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

Comments:

1. Context: on 20 June, Gaeser started an edit war on the same article on WP:fr, then on its category on Commons, and now here on WP:en; I tried to discuss with him on the talk pages on WP:fr and on Commons (see [257]), and on our user talk pages on WP:en (all I got here are answers like "There is no use of talking"). The global content issue is not per se the subject of this request.
2. Subject of the request: on 29 June and along other changes, I added a fact tag to this article; Gaeser has constantly removed it with his reverts and did it though I indicated in all my edit summaries "unjustified removal of a fact tag", which is so far the only reason for my own reverts.

Sardur (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The user is pushing marginal Armenian POV. Doesn't look at lots of sources. Doesn't fulfill WP:WEIGHT. Performed 5 reverts - [258], [259], [260], [261], [262]. Thus, I suppose that this user, who doesn't want to learn about rules - such fundamental as WP:WEIGHT and [[WP:MARG], and as a breaker of edit war, must loose his access to editing Wikipedia until learns several important rules and stops POV pushing.--Gaeser (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation, as I only reverted for the fact tag. Sardur (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sardur, you know it's really very funny that you don't want to hear anything about rules and now you are talking about other user's "violations". Personally it makes me very funny. Please stop this POV pushing and learn more about rules. –BruTe ^Talk 07:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, some one else who always repeats the same without addressing my arguments on Commons. But whatever, the issue here is the constant removal of a fact tag. Sardur (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NB: on the content issue: I placed a PoV template on the article and discussed it on the talk page. Sardur (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.75.185.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [263]

• 1st revert: [264]
• 2nd revert: [265]
• 3rd revert: [266]
• 4th revert: [267]
• 5th revert: [268]
• 6th revert: [269]

The anonymous user has been reverting all the edits I've made to the page with no rationale or explanation whatsoever. I've tried to rationalize with him, but he gives no justification for his edits and simply goes back to revert my edits (as well as the edits of other users).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here, here and here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [270]

Comments:
The anonymous seems to have a history of uncooperative behavior with other users, as well as unconstructive edits to certain pages. Again, he gives no justifcation for his edits and simply goes back to reverting to his preferred revision of the page without any stated justification. This is the third time I've reported him and last time it ended with the page being protected for a month. Once the protection ended, he simply went back to reverting the page. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Only one of these edits is within the last month. The 207.x.x.x user is obviously on a static IP ... why don't you try leaving a personal message (not a template) at his/her talk page? --B (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you even seen the messages I wrote to him? I already did Here and here this? Only one of my message was done using a generic template. The only reason why there's only one edit during the last month is because it was locked for a month. Otherwise, there woukd been more edits than that one. Like I said, the other user doesn't carebout discussing things.. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Replied on my talk page. Please try the 207.x.x.x user talk page. The 209.x.x.x IPs are dynamic and your message may never have been received. If you try talking at the 207's page and he/she continues to revert, we can block the 207 IP and/or s-protect the article. --B (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aedes_aegypti&action=history
• and other pages using Template:TaxonIds (that is also under RfC).

User being reported::

• Stemonitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jay L09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snek01 (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aedes_aegypti&action=history

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

Comments:

• Nominating editor blocked 72 hours. I don't see anyone else who violated 3RR and I do see what appears to be pretty broad consensus at Template_talk:Taxobox#NCBI_Taxonomy_IDs and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Templates_for_external_links for using the template that Snek01 is edit warring to remove. --B (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 369405706

• 1st revert: [271] (removing "un-Christian", etc.)
• 2nd revert: [272] (reinserting "officially", etc.)
• 3rd revert: [273] (reinserting "officially" and "groups such as", etc.)
• 4th revert: [274] (reinserting "officially", etc.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [275] This editor has been warned about 3RR several times and blocked for violating it in the past.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [276] (and elsewhere on that talk page)

Comments:
Not directly related to this incident, Sweetpoet's recent edit history indicates less than exemplary behavior on several editors' talk pages. In my opinion, his posts to Talk:Separated brethren indicate an unwilingness to work toward consensus in favor of edit war behavior.

Novaseminary (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Nova is that he WANTS me blocked no matter what.

I don't think I technically violated 3RR as those were basically (if you check carefully) UNRELATED edits, and just simple modifications. Not all were related "reverts" in that sense.

But here's the clincher....Nova requested on the Talk page that I remove the word "mainstream" and put something else, otherwise he'd notify the board....WELL I GRANTED HIS REQUEST BEFORE I EVEN KNEW HE WENT TO THE BOARD. He never gave me a chance.

Below is pasted the last two exchanges in the article Talk page...and see what's up here, please read it carefully.

This shouldn't be personal, Sweetpoet. We are only talking about a few imprecise words. I don't think any of the editors editing today actually disagree on substance. Please self-revert your edits so I do not have to report you, Sweetpoet. Some word other than "mainline" or "mainstream" should be used, per my edit history. "Mainstream" most often refers to specific Protestant denominations, per Mainline Protestant. More than just these groups are considered separated brethren, so limiting it in this way (which I don't think you mean to do anyway) is inaccurate. Further, Sweetpoet is the only editor who has inserted "officially". It was actually not me who removed it earlier today in the first instance. So as to not violate 3RR myself, I will not revert again. Novaseminary (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, to keep some semblance of peace and civility, I granted your request. I removed "mainstream" and put in the word "most." But to be honest, I'm not sure why you have this thing against the word "Mainstream" as I see you removed it also from the other part of the article. Why???? Your thing is that "evangelicals" are not considered "mainstream"? Well maybe, there's a case there, but sometimes it's in the eye of the beholder too, and not so black and white. My only point about "mainstream" is that per that paragraph, "Mormons" ARE CONSIDERED "PROTESTANT".....but NOT "mainstream Protestant." It was simply clearer and contextual to the paragraph.

As for "officially", I'm sorry, there's NO good reason at all to remove that one, because as I said, it should be made clear to the reader that it's actually an OFFICIAL Catholic view that "Mormons" are not "separated brethren" and are "polytheist" and "nontrinitarian", and is not just the view maybe of some individual Roman Catholic apologists. You MIGHT have a point about the word "mainstream" (maybe)......but the word "officially", I'm sorry, there's really no excuse or reason to remove that. Anyway, like I said, I don't think I actually violated 3RR per se, as they were mostly unrelated edits in a way, but to keep civility and respect and courtesy, I did what you asked. See how it looks now. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I granted his request (quickly), but he never gave a chance to even see it, but ran to this page (hastily and neurotically and spitefully) ANYWAY....

the Admin "B" knows about Nova's antics, and warned Novaseminary a couple of weeks ago to stop this with me, otherwise he'd be banished. He warned both of us......two to tango. But Nova continues doing this with me, STARTING EDIT WARS.....wanting me to get in trouble, manipulating things where I look bad, running to boards, and trying to have it where he comes out smelling like a rose, and just to hurt me...

(you should see the nonsense he did with me with something that had nothing to do with him, with another editor in the Columbus article, where it showed that Nova was STALKING me....on his watchlist....just like how he even now makes biased references to what I do on other people's talk pages, assuming automatically that I must be in the wrong in those cases, where those other people must be totally perfect.....rank bias....Admin "B" told him he was out of line, and to stop bothering with me.....Nova does not stop.)

It has to do with this article "Separated brethren" that he never even wanted to be there to begin with. He second-guesses EVERYTHING I do and put in or clarify, and starts edit wars and reverts.

I put in simple modifications, NOT "reverts", and some not even related, but new edits, but he'll run now to board pages CLAIMING they're "reverts", force-fitting it that way conveniently and dishonestly, hoping that an Admin will on the surface hastily see it that way, SIMPLY TO GET ME BLOCKED. I can't deal with it anymore.

I feel on edge every time I try to edit that article now. KNOWING that Nova will inevitably come in AND UNDO AND CHANGE EVERYTHING I PUT IN. For real.

Anyway, if I did violate 3RR, it was TOTALLY UN-INTENTIONAL.....but in reality, I don't think I actually did in that sense, because for instance the changing of the word "orthodox" was not even related to the other edits before that, but was a new and separate edit, in a way. Also, the first one was not even a revert, but simply a modification because of incorrect grammar. Again, it becomes obvious that Nova WANTS me to violate 3RR to simply get me blocked.

And again too, even after I granted his request and pretty quickly I did too...he still goes to this board page. What does that say of him and his integrity and word? Nobody's perfect. I know I'm not. But Nova does not seem to think he does ANYTHING wrong or out of bounds. Admin "B" does not agree with Nova though. Anyway, sorry for the trouble here, and thanks for your patience. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a somewhat incorrect retelling of my previous comments. At User_talk:B#Trouble_with_another_editor, I said you both need to cool it and disengage, not you are right and Novaseminary is wrong. You really need to dial it back a few notches. In your thread at the talk page, you made it about Novaseminary, not about the correct language for the article. If what you are looking to discuss is whether "official" and "mainstream" should be used to describe various positions, then you need to make your thread about that, not about "he" and "him". I'm going to recuse myself from handling this since I have already involved myself. --B (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, B, I think you didn't read everything I wrote.

You missed the part where I said:

"the Admin "B" knows about Nova's antics, and warned Novaseminary a couple of weeks ago to stop this with me, otherwise he'd be banished. He warned both of us......two to tango."

I never said that you thought it was just Nova and not me, and I made that clear. Or that just Nova was wrong, and I was totally right. I even said that I know I was not perfect. And that you warned both of us. Etc... But the point was that you DID find Nova out of line. Just to set the record straight. I'm curious, why didn't you read everything I wrote? It seems you just quickly hastily skimmed what I wrote, if you think I said that you said it was just Nova and not me at fault. (Hence why I worry about Admins judgments, cuz they're only human too, and can be hasty and surface reading...)

Also, it's obvious that on the Article talk page too, you did NOT read everything I wrote,... I did not make it "all" about Novaseminary. I went HEAVILY into specifics and points of wording and language of the article also. Not sure how you missed that. It's all clearly there.

B, sir, why are skimming and skipping over whole sections of my comments?? I also went BIG TIME into about the "correct language for the article." How can you say that I did not go into that at all? That tells me (double-sighs...) that just like with my comment on THIS page, you did not read everything I wrote on the article talk page either. Not very encouraging....

I CLEARLY on my comment on the article talk went into specifics of the article, but you focused only on the first couple of lines of the comment it seems, ignoring or never reading the rest.

With respect, I ALWAYS go into specifics of the article AS WELL, not just about personalities. Yet for some reason B is saying that I only talked about Nova's personality and nothing else. SIMPLY NOT TRUE.....read everything carefully on the article talk page, and you'll see. (Hence why I don't have 100% trust in Admins, who may surface and hastily read things..., as being only human)

Again, I said clearly that you warned BOTH of us..."two to tango". Regardless...though, Nova is out of line, and I did not violate 3RR, with things like incorrect grammar or new unrelated edits or modifications. Sweetpoet (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I asked Sweetpoet to self-revert and gave Sweetpoet an opportunity to do so. Sweetpoet changed one of several words in dispute apparently in response to my request on the article talk page, but did not self-revert. I then reported him here. There was no lack of intergrity on my part. Sweetpoet has refused to self-revert. Such a self-reversion, and that alone, would have prevented me from reporting Sweetpoet here. Novaseminary (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean, about this person?

I DID "self-revert" as "reverting" does NOT always entail pressing the "Undo" button. Also, Nova said clearly to use some word other than "mainstream" or "mainline"....AND I REVERTED MYSELF MANUALLY.

I REVERTED MYSELF MANUALLY

I REVERTED MYSELF MANUALLY........and changed the word "mainstream" per Nova's request......into the word "most."

and it WAS basically what Nova asked for:

again, look, his words:

"Some word other than "mainline" or "mainstream" should be used, per my edit history."

Well I did just that, manually self-reverting.....but apparently that was not good enough, as "manual reverts" are only "not reverts" when it SUITS Nova....whereas "manual reverts" are ok to count as "edit warring" and "revert warring." See what I mean? There's plenty I can say about this individual, that I will hold back, per WP policy....but trust me, this guy has SERIOUS issues. And is a STALKER. (And others have seen it, besides Admin B....one editor North8000 said that Nova just "batters the article with wiki lawyering" and just wants the article "deleted" and has NOT added anything meaningful to the article. See the Talk. Also, another editor "Jotamar" has been another victim of Nova's constant barrage of deletions and tags, calling Nova's edits "overly restrictive interpretation of WP policy"...etc) This guy has made it personal first. And I'm tired of it. I violated no 3RR, and I granted Novaseminary's request, though he WANTS it to be where I didn't. Yet he runs to this board, tattling (about something that I didn't even actually violate) regardless. HIS SOLE GOAL IS TO HAVE ME BLOCKED AND REMOVED...(read my words carefully above and see the fuller story). thanks. Sweetpoet (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. The both of you are edit warring, and I strongly considered blocking on this account. There may be enough other editors involved at that article that that would be a better solution than protecting the article; if anyone thinks that this is the case, please do so and let me know. A few further points:

• WP:3RR does not require that the reverts be related content, only that they be to the same article in any 24 hour period and not covered by the vandalism or BLP exceptions.
• Violation of 3RR is a sufficient but not necessary condition of edit warring. Please do not treat three reverts per day as an entitlement. Any time a good faith edit is reverted, a talkpage discussion should likely ensue (almost certainly in case of re-reversion).
• Sweetpoet, this is completely unacceptable. Please do not personalize disputes. Further posts of this nature will result in you being blocked.

- 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Protecting the article is more extreme than I would prefer, especially in light of the fact that the reported editor technically did violate 3RR (and whether blocked or not probably won't revert again for a while), and I noted on the talk page that I would not be reverting anything else even before I made this report. (I made two reversions plus a tweak that is probably a technical reversion meaning I am at the limit.) Nonetheless, I would suggest that if the protection is to remain, the protected version should be this version, the last edit made by an editor other than Sweetpoet or me. Novaseminary (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:PP#Content_disputes and m:Wrong version. Normally when a page is protected, the current version, unless it contains unambiguous problems, is protected. --B (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've read those, though, (and almost mentioned it above!) which is why I proposed to go to the last pre-edit-war version per WP:PP#Content_disputes which says: "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." I think such a point does exist. We could go even further back removing all of today's edits, too. Regardless, fully protecting the page seems too much. One of only three editors editing the page recently promised not to revert anything anytime soon (me), another would be even more clearly in violation of 3RR and subject to block if he reverted anything else in the near term (Sweetpoet), and the third has not engaged in anything remotely edit-war like (Afterwriting). What is too bad about this incident is that I don't think there is much of a substantive content dispute. My beef with Sweetpoet was that he refused to constructively engage on talk and instead implemented his will via aggressive editing in contravention of 3RR. Novaseminary (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I REVERTED MYSELF MANUALLY........and changed the word "mainstream" per Nova's request......into the word "most."

and it WAS basically what Nova asked for:

again, look, his words:

"Some word other than "mainline" or "mainstream" should be used, per my edit history."

Well I did just that, manually self-reverting.....but apparently that was not good enough, as "manual reverts" are only "not reverts" when it SUITS Nova....whereas "manual reverts" are ok to count as "edit warring" and "revert warring." See what I mean? There's plenty I can say about this individual, that I will hold back, per WP policy....but trust me, this guy has SERIOUS issues. And is a STALKER. (And others have seen it, besides Admin B....one editor said that Nova just "batters the article with wiki lawyering" and just wants the article "deleted" and has NOT added anything meaningful to the article. See the Talk.) This guy has made it personal first. And I'm tired of it.

I violated no 3RR in actuality, certainly NOT intentionally or callously,

because simply cuz there was more than three edits does not mean necessarily that there were three solid clear "reverts" per se....sometimes eye of the beholder, as my first edit was NOT a "revert" but simply fixing a grammatical problem, and making a modification, and also regardless I granted Novaseminary's request, though he WANTS it to be where I didn't. Yet he runs to this board, tattling (about something that I didn't even actually violate) regardless. HIS SOLE GOAL IS TO HAVE ME BLOCKED AND REMOVED...(read my words carefully above and see the fuller story).

• As to the word "officially"...

And of course he's complaining about the protection and which page is set that way.....he prefers the word "officially" not be there in that particular paragraph, or in any part of the article, as Nova has removed the word "officially" from the paragraph regarding "other groups", as he does not seem to like how the Roman Catholic Church OFFICIALLY does not count Mormons as "separated brethren"...and not just individual Catholic apologists. He seems to want to SUPPRESS anything that he personally does not like or disagrees with him. Whether they're valid or not, accurate or not, good-faith or not, needed or not. He has no right to keep doing that. If I see him/her or any other editor doing it in the future MAKING VERY CAREFUL THOUGH NOT TO BREAK 3RR, or even go to brazen edit-warring, I will simply put back the word "officially" back into the article, regarding the Mormon situation.

Whether it's "assumed" or not, the reader should be CLEAR on it, with no doubt at all, as far as the "nontrinitarian" Mormon issue. Nova had NO real sound reason to remove "officially" from the article or any part of it. In other words, it did NOT HAVE to be taken out. And the reason that others have not been edit-warring like Nova (or me) is because others don't have the same uptight issues that Nova seems to have. Just being frank. sorry.....thanks. Sweetpoet (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Novaseminary - I did see your pledge to stop reverting, which factored into my decision not to block both you and Sweetpoet. I think that there is enough [[WP:EW|edit warring at that article that I would not be comfortable blocking only one editor. I think that your suggestion to revert to the pre-edit war version is reasonable and would be permissable under the protection policy, but I prefer to reserve protect+revert for less ambiguous cases. This is a personal preference, and you should feel free to suggest reversion at the talkpage, using {{editprotected}} if there is a reasonable consensus. I also left an offer at both user talk pages to unlock the article if both will refrain from editing for the protection period. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Page in dispute: Cyrus Cylinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Matthias Blume (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:31, 2 June 2010

1. 07:19, 1 July 2010
2. 07:55, 1 July 2010
3. 09:22, 1 July 2010
4. 10:00, 1 July 2010
5. 20:01, 1 July 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:01, 1 July 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion at Talk:Cyrus Cylinder#Undue weight problems

Comments:

Matthias Blume has turned up of the blue to disrupt an article that is currently going through featured article review. He is edit warring to force a piece of content into the article, without consensus and against the opposition of other editors, and despite the fact that it duplicates content elsewhere in the article. He has clearly violated 3RR, notching up five reversions today. He was notified of 3RR after his fourth reversion but has continued reverting regardless. He has been asked to cease reverting and to undue his latest reversion but has not responded. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As a point of information/correction, the user first added that statement to the article on June 1, well before the FA discussion started. --B (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but all the five subsequent reversions have been over the course of the last 13 hours. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree (still looking) ... just stating that the characterization of "turned up of the blue to disrupt an article that is currently going through featured article review" is incorrect. --B (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours - the time of the warning threw me for a second ... I misread it and didn't think it was given until simultaneously with the last revert ... I see it was given 10 hours before (5:01 Eastern) whereas the last edit was at 15:01 Eastern). Blocked 24 hours --B (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [277]

• 1st revert: [278] (three edits ending up at the same place)
• 2nd revert: [279]
• 3rd revert: [280]
• 4th revert: [281]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [282]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here, here, and here, plus additional editors' comments.

The section is clearer, and shows BruceSwanson's version and statements opposed by a total of four editors, WLU (talk · contribs), MastCell (talk · contribs), Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs) and Scray (talk · contribs). The last revert and the last talk page post were within a minute of each other.

Comments:
Nothing to say. There's a history of AIDS denialism if anyone is interested, but it doesn't really seem necessary here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked BruceSwanson (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours. WLU (talk · contribs) advised that no matter how clear talk page consensus may be, it is better to report disruptive editing rather than edit-warring oneself. CIreland (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted, and agreed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Mdis is a four year old WP:SPA, who may be tied to an alleged diploma mill. His only activity has been to remove sources and add fluff from the school's webpage.

• 1st revert: [283]
• 2nd revert: [284]
• 3rd revert: [285]
• 4th revert: [286]
• 5th revert: [287]

Here is the same user on another article concerning Patriot Bible University:

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

Several users have told this person to discuss the changes and not remove sources or they might be blocked. A quick look on his/her talk shows this. Most recently HaeB told this to the editor, but was reverted and told the editor again. Weeks before that Orlady warned the user. Four years before that, several other editors warned this user about being blocked (such as "If you continue to make tendentious edits to this article you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia."). — Preceding unsigned comment added by May56candoit (talk • contribs) 2010-07-02 04:20:41UST

Note: This is this user's third edit. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's clearly some edit warring here, but none of it breaks 3RR. I'd like to hear a clear reason this case merits a non-3RR block from someone who's actually been involved in the dispute. The fact that this report is from a brand spanking new account does also raise eyebrows. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the request to talk. I have made competent neutral point of view contributions that improved the article and made it more encyclopedic. My contributions keep getting removed and the old comments put back up. Am I the problem or are the people who put up comments clearly designed for malice due to their anger over Hovind? It's that simple. Let the facts and sources speak for themselves. Until just recently there was only one point of view and it was extremely biased and any attempt to balance it out has been reverted over 4 years time span. Mdis (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

MDis response posted under Patriot Itself? complaint by May56candoit. Mdis (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing, Mdis - your edits have NOT been competent, or neutral, nor were they improvements and they certainly did NOT make the article more encyclopedic. Your contributions keep getting removed because they read like an advertisement for Patriot and, I am told, sometimes ARE an advertisement for patriot - specifically, copy and pasted from their website. In addition, old edits were restored because they contained well cited and well supported information. Removing cited material like that without first gaining a consensus is called disruptive editing. The information is not "clearly designed for malice" any more than mentioning that Hitler killed 6 million Jews is designed for malice. They're facts and it is the facts themselves that make Hitler, or in this case, Patriot, look bad. That is Patriot's fault for BEING bad, not ours for reporting it. You want the facts and sources to speak for themselves? Then stop REMOVING them. You've been informed of this multiple times over the years and have either failed to, or refused to, listen. I support a perma ban for this reason. If you can't learn after four years, you're not going to learn and you just shouldn't be trying to edit wikipedia.Farsight001 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, but an indefinite block is certainly not going to happen because of this report. That'd need to be discussed at a proper noticeboard. For any block at all, you're going to need to convince an admin that this case merits attention (since it's not the in the rule of thumb 3RR category). So I suggest doing so if you think a block is needed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mdis is edit warring today with three reverts already. What notice board should this be taken to? May56candoit (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 24 hours after the user committed a clear 4RR violation. Next time you see a user engaged in repeated reverts, please give the user a warning on their talk page (place {{subst:uw-3rr|Name of page involved in edit warring}} on their user talk page). Those kinds of warnings often cause people to back off. Please report them here only if they continue to edit-war in spite of warnings. --Orlady (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the continued reverting, I might well have been convinced to block by this point, too (even if it had not violated 3RR). Seems like a good call. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: List of MythBusters special episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Busted Mythbusting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [292]

• 1st revert: [293]
• 2nd revert: [294]
• 3rd revert: [295]
• 4th revert: [296]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [297]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:
This is not a 3RR breach as the editor has been careful not to make more than two reversion a day but it is still edit-warring. I suspect the editor is a sockpuppet, but I have no idea who the puppetmaster might be. He is obviously aware of such things as this edit summary shows, despite only having made a total of 7 edits to date.[298] His POV edits have been reverted by four editors and I have left four warnings on his talk page, including the edit-warring warning. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours No WP:3RR violation today, but clear edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Zeitgeist: the Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Falcon2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [299]

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

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

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

Comments: This editor is using a single-purpose account to heavily edit two related articles. While the four reverts listed above span a few hours more than 24 hours, the editor has reverted most objections to his/her edits, despite numerous users weighing in on the talk page and a very long history of discussion on many of the same matters. Worse, he/she was recently blocked for the same offense on the same page, and resumed the activity after the three-hour block expired. Please note that similar edits/reverts during the same time period have also been observed coming from the IP 208.120.242.125.

Jordgette (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Blocked last week for related issues, very little attempt at reaching consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Susan B. Anthony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [306]

• 1st revert: [307] Revision as of 00:40, June 29, 2010
• 2nd revert: [308] Revision as of 00:46, June 29, 2010
• 3rd revert: [309] Revision as of 01:57, June 29, 2010
• 4th revert: [310] Revision as of 15:11, July 1, 2010
• 5th revert: [311] Revision as of 16:43, July 2, 2010
• 6th revert: [312] Revision as of 21:18, July 2, 2010
• 7th revert: [313] Revision as of 03:09, July 3, 2010
• 8th revert: [314] Revision as of 03:33, July 3, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [315]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [316]

Comments:

InaMaka has repeatedly added text to the article, text about Susan B. Anthony's publication The Revolution "editorializing" against abortion, text that is questioned as to its accuracy, authorship, appropriateness and weight. InaMaka has not taken part in discussing this paragraph on the talk page and has instead repeatedly brought it back into the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected There is some edit warring at that page, but enough discussion that I think a few days without more reverts may suffice to get editing back on track. There are also related issues of civility - please keep in mind that consensus is achieved through discussion, not by belittling fellow volunteers. Editors here may also wish to consider posting to one of the content noticeboards, such as Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 219.89.84.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [317]
• 2nd revert: [318]
• 3rd revert: [319]
• 4th revert: [320]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [322]

Comments:

I believe that 219.89.84.122 may be the same person as 121.73.24.193 (removed the same text twice, a few hours ago: [323] [324]) but this is not 100% certain so I should really let the four diffs above speak for themselves.

219.89.84.122 has repeatedly deleted a well-sourced and relevant sentence from lede of Chiropractic. Edit comments say that the sentence has been "widely discredited" or is "defamatory" &c but no evidence is provided that supports these claims. User hints at compromise on talk page, then just removes the text anyway. Other edit comments say "See comments on discussion page" &c which is unfortunate as on the talk page other editors have objected to removing the sentence.

In hindsight, I should probably have used the talk page more productively - sorry. The sentence is rather unpopular with IP editors (see also [325] and [326]) - maybe another wording could attract less ire whilst still reflecting what the sources say.

Although I think the page is now the "wrong" version (others might think it's the right version), I have left 219.89.84.122's final reversion unchanged, rather than be tempted into an edit war.

bobrayner (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The original report is probably stale now, but there may be a WP:DUCK issue or need for page protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected due to edit warring by IPs. The sequence of events suggests offsite coordination in violation of WP:MEAT, such as a mailing list. The same passage has been removed ten times since 25 June. Please get consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This user is repeatedly edit warring on People's Republic of China, Two Chinas and China, inserting their own personal POV as to what name to use to refer to Taiwan. Several people have warned him/her, but he/she just blanks their Talk page and continues edit warring. Note that I am not involved in the edit wars, I merely have warned them once for 3RR violation, and am now bringing this discussion here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Declined I looked into this; I don't think it's reached disruptive proportions as yet. CIreland (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

[327] [328] [329]

This is not technically a 3RR vio yet, as Wittsun has only reverted three times. However, it is an edit-warring and POV issue. This user keeps inserting blatant POV-pushing and conspiracy theories about the Frankfurt School into the article on Reverse Discrimination, as well as material relating to hate crimes (which is a different topic altogether). Both myself and Oescp have been removing his commentary from the article, yet he keeps reverting us and re-adding it. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Not enough reverts to sanction anyone. Also, when I went to the talk page to read the discussions that established consensus, I could find only one editor commenting. CIreland (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, looks like Wittsun has made one more reversion since I first posted this thread; it's here: [330]. Since all four reversions (this one, plus the three listed above) are within a 24-hour period, Wittsun is now officially in violation of WP: 3RR. Thus, I think you should reconsider your Decline decision. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Based on the additional revert right after CIreland reviewed it, I have blocked the user. --B (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Byron Moreno
User:Melonbarmonster2

Previous version reverted to: [331]

• 1st revert: [332]
• 2nd revert: [333]
• 3rd revert: [334]
• 4th revert: [335]
• 5th revert: [336]
• 6th revert: [337]
• 7th revert: [338]
• 8th revert: [339]
• 9th revert: [340]

The user reverted other users' edits 9 times on July 3 without any comments/explanations on the article talk page.

Talk:Byron Moreno#User:Melonbarmonster2's violation of 3RR rule
Hkwon (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• No violation Consecutive edits count as one edit for the purposes of the 3-revert-rule, hence the above 9 diffs represent, at most, 1 revert. CIreland (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Virgin birth (mythology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammy64000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [341]
• 2nd revert: [342]
• 3rd revert: [343]
• 4th revert: [344]
• 5th [345]
• 6th [346]
• 7th [347]
• 8th [348]
• 9th [349]

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

Comments:

• I am restoring the above report, since I already asked User:Hammy64000 to respond here. The dispute has been going on for months. I urge both parties to suggest how it might be resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The dispute has not been going on for months. In fact, the article has not even existed for months other than a redirect to where the content was merged. --Ari (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is true, the dispute has been going on since April 13 when Ari merged Virgin birth (mythology) over my objections. I tried to get help but finally let it go until just recently when I tried to find the original article and it was blank. Ari had done it. I reverted it--I did not start the dispute. He did when he merged Virgin birth (mythology) with an unfinished Miraculous births article. My reversion just put it back where it used to be.Hammy64000 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) No, the dispute has not been going on as the page did not exist for 3 months except as a redirect. You were aware of this fact. (2) The page was not blank, it was merged with Miraculous births three months ago. (3) Your reversion restored an unverifiable content fork. --Ari (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

On the diff--that was on my user page. SpigotMap has been harrassing me in various places. He watches my page and scolds me when I make comments there. He also harrassed me when I was defending against Ari's merge on the Miraculous births discussion back in April. His talk page was full of warnings and blocks but he mocked me for being blocked in Patriarchy. So I pointed out his own talk page. [351][352]Hammy64000 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea what this has to do with anything. --Ari (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Fully protected two months. Protection can be lifted if editors reach consensus on whether a separate article should exist, instead of a redirect to Miraculous births. Use {{editprotect}} to ask for changes until then. The parties might consider finding an uninvolved admin to close the merge discussion at Talk:Miraculous births. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Korean Teachers & Education Workers' Union
User being reported: User:Melonbarmonster2

Previous version reverted to: [353]

• 1st revert: [354]
• 2nd revert: [355]
• 3rd revert: [356]
• 4th revert: [357]
• 5th revert: [358]
• 6th revert: [359]
• 7th revert: [360]
• 8th revert: [361]

User talk:Melonbarmonster2#Korean Teachers & Education Workers' Union

Talk:Korean Teachers & Education Workers' Union#Violation of 3RR rules

The user reverted other users' edits, mainly User:Soman's, 8 times on June 29, 2010

Hkwon (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many consecutive edits, so as far as 3RR is concerned - there certainly are not 8 reverts. Also, this seems a little stale, despite Melonbarmonster being reverted on June 30th, he has not edited the article since June 29th - I don't see anything being gained by blocking this user. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, seeing this posted by the same user, about 20 minutes after the above 3RR report was rejected, is a little worrying. 3RR should be used to protect Wikipedia articles, not used as a weapon to wield when you have a personal problem with an editor. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Stale --B (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Monty Hall problem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Glkanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [362]

• 1st revert: [363]
• 2nd revert: [364]
• 3rd revert: [365]
• 4th revert: [366]
• 5th revert: [367]
• 6th revert: [368]
• 7th revert: [369]
• 8th revert: [370]
• 9th revert: [371]
• 10th revert: [372]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [373]

Diff Links of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [374] [375] [376] [377]

Comments:
This is essentially a continuation of the same edit warring for which this user was recently blocked twice (see the three reporrts archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive133#). The format of the information has been changed from table to tree, but the content is actually the same. Having been blocked, twice, the user is now being careful to avoid reverting 3 times in 24 hours - but is definitely edit warring. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note - the article is in formal mediation which is currently on hold pending the assignment of a different mediator. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems as if the editor concerned has learned from previous blocks and is ensuring not to revert more than three times in 24 hours - to be blocked for breaking 3RR, learning your lesson and then get blocked, even though you have stayed within three reverts would be rather harsh. If he is guilty of edit warring, then I would suggest the same applies to all the editors who are reverting the article more than once. Perhaps an admin could protect the article, while discussion continues. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by involved editor Martin Hogbin. There is a long running (over 2 years) dispute on some technical issues in this article in which a group of editors seem to be exerting some degree of page ownership (it was an RfC on this subject that bought me to the page years ago). Bearing in mind that this is a FA this is understandable but it seems that some are too quick to revert Glkanter's edits without proper discussion.

I suggest that blocks and article protection are not the way forwards and that a request to all editors to discuss the issues involved is the best action. What has happened is that those who want to keep the article as it is are getting frustrated with continual discussion about changes, and those who want changes are getting frustrated at the lack of progress. Mediation has stalled and frustration is starting to cause personal attacks and edit warring.

Despite the above, some progress has been made with potential for more. Everybody concerned wants to keep the FA status but some want to expand the scope of the article to address alternative approaches to the subject. The only thing we can do is keep on talking and maintain good Wikipedian standards. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected Yes, Glkanter was a -- and maybe the -- major instigator, but everyone needs to stop reverting. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)