Page: Namadhari naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lingisticgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Attempt to resolve the matter amicably. [6]

3RR Warning: [7]

Comments:
The user started out by editing out info from the page claiming it didnt have reliable info. Even after proiding with the link,discussing about it and repeatedly reasoning the user is bent on editing out the page as he thinks its contrary to his interests. The user was offered neutral adjudication and the page put up for peer review. But still the user continues with his editing under the false claims of 'hoax' and 'unverifiable facts' which clearly amounts to war-editing. The user has even served up a warning for putting up 'wrong facts' though the info has been absolutely verifiable and from dependable sources, hence harassing and hounding the editor. Certain ideas put up by the user on the talk page shows his 'racial'and narrow bent of mind devoid of scientific logic, which doesnt augur well for wiki.

Tej smiles (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is this some sort of a joke Tej smiles has only been editing the page namadhari naik and related pages and has been invovled in pushing naga/scythian origin pOv in articles when clearly the community has different origins.his citations are pretty much unverifiable blogs to be precise.secondly his edits pushing this scythian pov or hoax on article ahichatraand [nagavanshi]] has been reverted by other known contributors too check the edits history and he has reverted them too.now this does not qualify as edit warring.i understand the three revert policy so i wouldn't revert anymore and charging me of racial bias well the man is himself not ready to accept the racial origins of the namadhari naik community which i think he belongs to and his hence pushing the pov of being scythian.he also clearly admits in my talkk page that his addition on pages indo-scythian were wrong.15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

1rst. There are no blogs as citations at all on the page.They are all authentic books, mostly govt. publications (how can one miss it?!!!) 2nd. The Naga-Scythian theory has been mentioned as just one of the three theories in 'Origin' section and NOT as an accepted theory, unlike the Users page (and with wrong citations too!) 3rd. I did agree on my editing on the Nagavanshi page being kneejerk ,not the Indo-scythian page (see the 'respected' users talk page) 4rth. Just have a sample of the deeply prejudiced mindset of the 'esteemed' user when he claims the Havyaks looking down upon Halepaiks and blatanly goes on claiming proto australoid feature for all of them. He also claims 'Aryan', 'Scythian','Naga' features belonging to same race as Caucasian!! well did somebody talk about anthropology? it has taken a toss in this case. and he talks authoritatively on the racial origin of others!!!funny 5th. The User does display highly misconcieved and misappropriate notion of racial purity and superiority. The truth being that there is hardly one particular 'race' in India. Doesnt augur well for Wiki standards. see my talk page for a sample. 6th. maybe the user was lacking on some info/knowledge on the subject. it was duely provided and stage set for clearing all doubts through a meaningful discussion (see the arguments on talk pages of both users). but alas, that was not to be. the User chose to resort to edit-war and also place warning on the editor in blatant misuse of wikipedias actions to further his stereotype agenda. 7th. i have restricted myself to editing the above page only as i am extremely interested in it. I have had authentic answers for all the claims of respected user, but havent posted it to avoid offending others. I should mention here that such far-fetching and false claims takes one nowhere. it is necessary to have a balanced and tolerant view in history. nothing is permanent and fixed. i wish him good luck.

Tej smiles (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stale -- tariqabjotu 10:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Herbert W. Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Manila davao ph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 04:28 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• 1st revert: redundancy&whoever unethically deletes this i recommend to be banned from wikipedia
• 2nd revert: i recommend the one who deleted these factual groups for slander or libel anywhere anytime and banned from wikipedia!)
• 3rd revert: redundancy for WCG and don't delete these legitimate pro-Armstrong groups(3RR)
• later edit to article talk: Requesting {{editprotected}} full page protection for Herbert Armstrong from a biased organization and people who have problematic family histories who insist on unethically proving subject person wrong and villifying him.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, only commented in edit summaries

Comments:

Not a strict 3RR violation shown above, but there have been edits to other parts of the article that may carry him over and may carry me over as well. However, considering he felt it necessary to insult my family above... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stale -- tariqabjotu 10:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Abstinence-only sex education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.139.38.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]
• 5th revert: [13]
• 6th revert: [14]
• 7th revert: [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

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

Comments:
SPA anon made 7 opposed revisions within 24 hours, trading revisions with myself and a few other users, anon was warned by another user. Discussion has been opened up on the article's talk page, the anon has not contributed, so far unanimous support exists for the previous version. - Schrandit (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Schrandit has been POV-pushing to remove categories, content and even sources without any consensus and edit-wars to re-remove without explanation until other parties step in. On Abstinence-only sex education not only was the category supported by the article I added a cite when requested. User:Schrandit edit wars first then chooses to try to block others rather than figuring out if the category is right for an article. They are pushing an anti-homosexual agenda and are compromising articles. Another editor has some examples of Schrandit at work [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.85 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all. Since I was linked to here, I feel I should speak for myself. It's true that Schrandit brought up the topic in discussion, but it's also true that 71.139.19.85 fulfilled the demand for a citation. Let's be clear here: Schrandit has a long, long history of edit-warring while 79.139.19.85 is a complete noob. Cut him some slack and target the guilty party: Schrandit. NotAmyFuller (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Complete noob" with the edit summaries used? Nah. Nor do you appear to be a "noob" as a matter of fact. Collect (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing any articles, so my status is irrelevant. As for the noob, he doesn't even know how to sign, and everyone who edits is prompted to fill in a comment. Good job violating WP:AGF, though.

What's particularly glaring is that you've said nothing about Schrandit and your edit history reveals you to be entirely sympathetic to the conservative POV that he pushes. You are hardly a neutral party.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: so long as Schrandit pushes POV here, this will lead to edit wars. You can bite every noob, but more will take their place. NotAmyFuller (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was that you are not a "noob" nor is the IP a "noob." That is hardly a reason to attack my "edit history" which has no relationship to the facts at hand. Further, you appear not to have really looked at my edit history, else you would know that my concerns over BLP are dominant in my edit history. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times are we going to do this dance? Like anyone, I make mistakes, and when I make them here they are corrected by other editors. You are the only one who thinks I am pushing POV, you are the only one who tries to war with my edits. The community sides with me during every one of these protracted debates, you see a conservative conspiracy, occam's razor is handy, use it. - Schrandit (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited on and off for a while but rarely have I seen the contemptuous POV-pushing as Schrandit has done. Check out his work on Equality Mississippi article. He deletes sources then demands them to be sourced. I ask him not to delete sources and of course he edit wars over this. Other admins have been much nicer and appreciated my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.85 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those links were dead and had been for a while. What other work? - Schrandit (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I have no care if Schrandit has a Catholic lifestyle or any other religion but using that as a springboard to delete content through slow deterioration, constant tagging, removing sources, et al is compromising the quality of articles. Those dead links should be updated not removed, even I know that. You don't remove an entire source because the hyperlink is stale or moved, you find the new one or an archived version. But you don't remove sources. And I have no interest in playing a deflect game here. You were editing warring on multiple articles to remove a homosexuality-related category and multiple people reverted you. Don't pretend there is anything else going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.85 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, this has been covered ad nauseum in the other spotfixer-related dramatics, in short - Wikipedia:Citing sources - read it. - Schrandit (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should re-read. It clearly states not to delete but to find ways to keep sources. If your yawn means your incorrectly used this argument to justify edit-warring before then you are wrong again. Showing utter disrespect for the rules and other people is horrible behavior. 71.139.19.85 (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Shrandit has been edit warring on several articles and that's being ignored now? 71.139.19.85 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one making that allegation. - Schrandit (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles speak for themselves, just look at Equality Mississippi. You removed sources after being asked not to again and again. The only reason you stopped at Abstinence-only sex education was you were warned to stop. Do you really have to be warned before you stop blindly deleting? 71.139.19.85 (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, you were clearly edit warring, so you are hardly someone to talk about "showing disrespect for the rules". Schrandit was also edit warring, but to a lesser degree. It's been over two days, so I'm not thinking there's much good to be had in blocking anyone now, but seriously, you (and I'm talking mainly to the anon here) need to stop with the constant reverting or you're going to end up blocked eventually. I plan to close this as stale shortly. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined Just so you know, I read through absolutely zero of the comments written above. Why edit-warriors find it useful to continue their battles on AN3 is beyond me. Those types of reports inevitably lead to either no action or blocks for both parties. -- tariqabjotu 10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see article Equality Mississippi, [19]. Schrandit points out Wikipedia:Citing sources as a reason to delete sources but Wikipedia:Citing sources states exactly the opposite. As soon as this case was marked declined he returned to edit-war again on multiple articles. If someone would be willing to have a look I think his delete until caught, edit war until warned strategy have been repeated many times. 71.139.19.85 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Inflation (cosmology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 131.215.195.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 131.215.7.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here and here

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Inflation_(cosmology)#Removal_of_Philosophy_of_cosmology

Comments:

The material the IP is attempting to delete has been on the page for months and has been reinserted into the article by 4 different editors in the last 24 hours.[25][26][27][28] Clearly there is no consensus for suppressing the material in question. Eugene (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be consensus to remove the offending section, there is, however a reason to do so, the reason being it's bollocks of the finest water. 128.226.130.123 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reinsertion by 4 different editors is a reinsertion by fly-by editors who did not bother to read the Discussion page. If those editors had read the Discussion page, they would have known that WP:Complete bollocks applies to the section that User:Eugeneacurry wants to keep. PYRRHON  talk   21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't the place for this but I suppose that I should mention that Wikipedia:Complete bollocks is merely an essay (not a policy, nor even a guideline) and thus has no force here. Also, the section which PYRRHON et al. think is "bollocks" is largely concerned with material written by the well respected and fully tenured philosopher of science John Earman, material that was printed in the peer-reviewed academic journal Philosophy of Science, a journal published by the University of Chicago. Further, Earman's article was peer-reviewed by at least one physicist prior to publication (two of the reviews are anonymous): Allen I. Janis. Wikipedia editors are of course entitled to their personal opinions regarding these men and institutions, but Wikipedia articles require more than such opinions to guide their creation. Eugene (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To gauge the standing of any hypothesis in science one must look at its reception. Paper is patient, anyone can make any statement, much slips past peer review, in the end what counts isn't the place of publication but what those in the line of business think about those statements. Good theories are built upon, bad ones are mostly ignored. It should be quite obvious by now that those who know about physics think the disputed paragraphs ought to go. So far not one person who actually knows about the subject matter (as opposed to well-meaning but clueless drive-by editors) has argued the Earman stuff should remain. 128.226.130.123 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the quality of academic work is found in its reception, and if such a reception can be gauged by whether others have "built upon" a given idea, I note that Google scholar indicates that Earman's paper is cited by 29 distinct publications, with many of those appearing in other peer-reviewed academic journals such as Philosophy Compass, Synthese, the Journal for General Philosophy of Science, the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Metaphysica, Science in Context, Inquiry, Astrophysics and Space Science, and Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. But, of course, this report concerns a policy violation (WP:3RR) not a content dispute. Eugene (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is getting blocked over this is has to be Gene for fighting in the workplace. This issue had been concluded on the discussion page, there was no need to carry it here. 128.226.130.123 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There may not be consensus to remove the offending section"[29] vs. "This issue had been concluded on the discussion page".[30] Which is it? Eugene (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless the material is rubbish, just like the CTMU material that has also been removed. It has no place in a technical article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the very first sentence of WP:V- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (emphasis original) Eugene (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia permits editors to remove vandalism without regard for the 3-revert rule (See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions.). The editors about whom User:Eugeneacurry is complaining appear to have treated the insertion of drivel into Inflation_(cosmology) as an act of vandalism. I suggest that treating the insertion of drivel as vandalism is appropriate because there is no substantial difference between writing in an article "Earth is a cube" and writing "I hate school." Since 3RR does not apply to instances of vandalism, the complaint by User:Eugeneacurry is without merit. I suggest that the complaint be dismissed with the advice to User:Eugeneacurry that he is misconstruing WP:V and that Wikipedia is not a repository for drivel. PYRRHON  talk   21:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work published by leading academics in mainstream peer-reviewed journals is drivel? PYRRHON, you get an "A" for effort. Eugene (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA. Polywater. N rays. Hendrik Schoen. Plenty others. 128.226.130.123 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources that specifically refute the material in the section in question feel free to add that information. Given that "citation needed" tags languished on the unsubstantiated claims of such refutations for months I rather doubt, however, that they will be forthcoming. I'm not trying to be unreasonable; I'm merely noting that the unsubtantiated opinions of Wikipedia editors (who, further, lack consensus) are not enough to exclude RSes from the article and certainly are not enough to justify edit warring. Eugene (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Earman material is so far out that it just becomes subject to Broad & Wade's "invisible boot". 128.226.130.123 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene, this is a severe violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE - The works in question were not published by physicists but rather by unrelated scientists in unrelated scientific and science related journals. Lack of followup within mainstream physics community venues indicates that the ideas are not felt to be significant or relevant by that community. Calling the works drivel is unkind and inappropriate, but is an overreaction in the direction that policy supports strongly.

I believe that there's a clear consensus that the material doesn't belong and that you're mistakenly applying policy here. There has to be some degree of sophistication about handling sources - a source which is undoubtedly reliable regarding topics of the philosophy of science may have no reliability at all regarding cosmology or other key physics areas.

I'm closing this request - followup to the article talk page, but it's not actionable here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Carl Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Botendaddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I had politely asked him to use bonafied journalistic citations to back up his questionable edits but he just reverts to the versions using his questionable citations.

Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this and reverted Botendaddy's last as POV. While the above diffs are only three, I've just stepped through the editing of this article over the last three days and Botendaddy is clearly edit warring over this point. It is also an undue weight issue as military service is not required in any way for the roles he performs; indeed, it is consistent with the whole concept of civilian oversight of the military.

Jack Merridew 02:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Tariqabjotu re my revert: reverting it was the editorially correct step, IMHO. I also left a comment on the article talk page, and comments in the threads at WP:BLP/N and WP:EAR. I warned the user on their talk page, too. Thanks; hopefully user will revert less tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours I'm not sure how you think reverting the user again would have resolved the matter. -- tariqabjotu 07:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The still blocked Botendaddy wishes to seek arbitration, if you read his talk page, which I think he will lose as no one agrees with him so far. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found an acceptable way of mentioning Levin's lack of military service using his own words from a CQ Roll Call article that was newly found. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Malta Boat Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported (has used three accounts):

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

Phil marcella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

• 1st revert: 12:00, 25 April 2010 (user 98.225.175.227 blanked section)
• 2nd revert: 12:05, 25 April 2010 (user Phil marcella blanked restored section for second time with edit summary “See also: Mark Gerban is NOT a member of the club.”)
• 3rd revert: 15:35, 23 May 2010 (user 108.2.200.127 blanked restored section for third time)
• 4th revert: 20:18, 27 May 2010 (user 108.2.200.127 blanked restored section for the fourth time)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User 108.2.200.127, but cross-posted on User talk:98.225.175.227 and User talk:Phil marcella.

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

Comments:

As detailed in the warning/discussion, this editor has used three accounts to make the same edit without discussion. While this slow edit war is not a violation of the 3RR, it is clear that this editor will continue to delete the See Also section and appears to be deliberately trying to prevent others' editing. The apparent motivation is to prevent readers from linking to a biography of Mark Gerban, a former member who had a negative interaction with the Malta Boat Club. Further dispute resolution seems futile as this editor has ignored my attempts to communicate and the edits of two others here and here.

Ciricula (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation -- tariqabjotu 10:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Cher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Vt-88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36] - giving the deceptive edit summary of "combined labels, removed odd links", which effectively hid that he had taken up reverting again.
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]
• 5th revert: [40]
• 6th revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cher#My edits and Talk:Cher#And it continues

Comments:
EdJohnston semi-protected this article because of edit warring by a person using a dynamic IP and couldn't block the account on May 23. Miraculously, the editor "remembered" he had a registered account after the semi-protect and immediately posted a complaint of the semi-protect being "unfair" at WP:AN/I. Last night, the editor make a semi-attempt to discuss on the article talk page, at least until he quit posting there. He only posted to the article talk page tonight after he had reverted for the 4th time and received the warning about this report. Then he only repeated the same things that had been discussed last night. He combines two separate recording contracts that Cher had for the US and the UK branches of Warner Bros., removes the Warner Bros. artist page link and her officially sanctioned fan club site. I explained the issue to him, that I see content on the Warner Bros. page, that her official fan club is fine and that she has two separate contracts with two separate spheres of operation. He either doesn't listen, read or understand, but he continues. Basically, what we have here is the return of an IP editor with a registered account, that would have been blocked for 3RR violations if his IP wasn't dynamic, edit warring the same content as the registered account. He slid in on a technicality to be able to continue his POV content removal. He reverted a 5th time when another editor reverted his changes and then reverted the 6th. This guy has no intention of stopping and he has no intention of responding here or on the article talk page or on his own article. This has crossed the line into being tendentious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can address this report to you as well. --Vt-88 (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing more than two reverts by Wildhartlivie. Could you provide diffs of Wildhartlivie's 3+ reverts? N.B. I'm of several editors who have reverted Vt-88. TFOWR^propaganda 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that she is always speculating and present me as a conflict starter. I don't know if I or she first did 3+ reverts. I answered you on my talk page also.--Vt-88 (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of thirty-six hours -- tariqabjotu 10:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Zisa (goddess) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bloodofox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364537591]

• 1st revert: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364578238]
• 2nd revert: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364627134]
• 3rd revert: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364627673]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:
The point for Bloodofox´s reverts is, that he claims, my claim is to dismiss Stephan Grundy as a neopagan person. As a fact, this writer is a neopagan man, and I see no problems behind it. I think it is essential in the article about the assumed goddes to mention this fact. Well, about, we can discuss. But I did also some changes and brought some citations, which Bloodofox with his revert has deleted.

Besides User Bloodfox´s has an earlier change in this article of his hand reverted. His behaviour against me is very bad and ashaming. I am not e native speaker of English and instead of correcting the grammar he starts to ridicule about it. Also he is not willing to discuss on a friendly and scientific level. --al-Qamar (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll just copy and paste what I last wrote to Al-qamar here: "Do it—it's clear that this article could use more eyes. Again, claiming a specific scholar that you disagree with (and makes your point of view inconvenient to push) is a "neopagan representative" is absolutely inappropriate. Again, the cited work comes from a scholarly publication, as is quite plain to see, and makes it clear that not all scholars dismiss the source in modern times, unlike what the unsourced paragraph you've introduced claims." (From talk page)

With that in mind, take a look at the edit history ([43]) of the article and the situation should be plain enough. And for what it's worth, I'm sure that we can all agree that the business about "unthrustable" "hole"s is pretty epic ([44]). :bloodofox: (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No violation -- tariqabjotu 10:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now given in the discussion of Talk:Zisa (goddess) what I think about it. The administrator was in my opnion to fast and did believe all the denunciations of Bloodofox against me, without waiting for a fruitfull discussion, I have startet. Now the only point of view written in the article about Cisa is Bloodofox´s view!

It s a shame, user Bloodofox call s me ridicule since my first contact with him, says my English is bad (o.k. he is right, but I am not a native speaker), he says I am not capaple to write Wikipedia articles (allthough I am administrator in the Alemannich Wikipedia), he states that I tries to settle my point of view. But in contrary to him, I never have deleted a statement of him in an article!!! So the only one who tries to settle his only opinion is the Bloodofox, who deletes all edits in his article about Zisa and tries to page an edit-war. It is not true at all, that I have somethig against Stephan Grundy, I have now idea why he thinks that, and claiming this is pure denunciation! --al-Qamar (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on

Calvary Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.177.182.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 23:51, 27 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364465529 by Tubby23 (talk) revert false positive")
2. 11:35, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364597275 by Tubby23 (talk) I strongly disagree")
3. 11:42, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Revert false positive - source issues had been previously discussed on talk page!")
4. 11:47, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Sorry...I have played by the rules and had explained that sources from wiki's and blogs are not suitable (not alone on this on talk page)")

• Diff of warning: here

IP is complaining that the reference given is inadequate, but appears not to be amenable to discussing it on the talk page (note the article itself has a number of optional extra references provided in comments). Despite the IP's insistence comment at my Talk page here, I don't see a consenus to remove this material -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - my reverts of edits by Tubby and Boing were based on what appeared to be reversions by them without knowledge of the previous discussions on the talk page regarding sources from wiki's, blogs, etc. It seemed that 3RR would not apply in that case since the user adding material had been notified of verifiability standards in the past but continues to add content from poor sources.

Additionally, it seems appropriate to notify editors to be very careful of throwing out the 'vandalism' claim, as reversion of poor sources and reversions based on good-faith efforts should not constitute vandalism.

Regardless, I will abide by any admin punishment deemed necessary. The content in question does relate to biographical information about a living person and I feel strongly that sources (positive or negative) should be of the highest caliber in that regard. Take care! 66.177.182.247 (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about punishment - the WP:3RR rule is about preventing edit-wars. Whatever your personal judgment of the actions of others, you cannot simply decide that your own opinions override everyone else's and keep reverting edits contrary to the actions of three other editors. If you disagree on a contentious issue (and this one is contentious - there was no consensus on the Talk page, and you cannot simply assert that your own judgment overrides that need), you must not act until you achieve consensus, and the current consensus in the edit history appears to be against you. I will be happy to start a discussion of the contentious references on the Talk page, but not until you agree to stop edit-warring and agree to abide by whatever consensus is achieved. (I'm actually undecided on the issue of the actual text under dispute - but that's not for this forum - all I'm trying to do here is stop you abusing the rules and guidelines that have guided Wikipedia so well for so long) -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to close this as no-violation due to BLP 3RR exemption. However, I have instead chosen to revert the article to remove the poorly sourced material and so will not be closing this report myself. I would still recommend that the unregistered editor receive no sanction and direct interested parties to the report at WP:BLPN. CIreland (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if there is a genuine case for a BLP exemption here, and the contentious claims really are judged to be potentially defamatory and inadequately sourced, I'll be happy to go with that decision (and I will also be happy to strike the warnings I issued to User:66.177.182.247) -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No violation Falls within the BLP exemption to 3RR as poorly sourced controversial material. Tim Song (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to accept that decision, and will now make good on my promise to strike my warnings and will offer an apology at User Talk:66.177.182.247 -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Chaz Bono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Adrianbius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]
• 5th revert: [49]
• 6th revert: [50]

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

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

Comments:

Page protected -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of thirty-six hours -- tariqabjotu 01:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on

Sharron Angle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dougieb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 21:57, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Did some major cleanup and reorganizing. What a pile of garbage this article is. Looks more like a slam piece. Could use some MAJOR monitored editing")
2. 22:12, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364741648 by Cirt (talk) Agreed - this edit should stand until section is rewritten though.")
3. 00:04, 29 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364754694 by Cirt (talk) Not true. I removed citations for irrelevant drivel.")
4. 00:16, 29 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364757694 by Coffeepusher (talk)")
5. 02:08, 29 May 2010 (edit summary: "Happy now? Chronological.")

• Additionally, as well as all of the above, Dougieb (talk · contribs) added completely unsourced material to the article, with the latest edit [51].
• The latest comment on the talk page by Dougieb (talk · contribs) strays close to violating WP:No legal threats, with, "I would sue for defamation seeing as Wiki has been duly advised that the citations are bogus.".

• Diff of warning: here

—-- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Result - Protected three days. BLP makes this murky. If consensus is reached, ask for unprotection. Due to the harsh language in his comments ("irrelevant drivel", "pile of garbage", "removing bias") one might suspect that Dougieb is editing in support of a political POV. If this continues it could draw sanctions, since we strive for neutrality here. Editors don't have an unlimited right to insult one another. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of The Backyardigans episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: Revision as of 19:28, 29 May 2010
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:44, 29 May 2010
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:14, 29 May 2010
• 4th revert: Revision as of 22:27, 29 May 2010

I am trying to make article better, but he changes it back before I can fix it.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I have told him that I am trying to make it better. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

It is me, FanOfBackyard. I don't want a block too, I just want to add newest episode without other person changing it back.

• Declined You made no attempt to discuss these edits at the article talkpage. You yourself have reverted just as much as HalfShadow, so if I were to block anyone I would block both of you. Finally, to be honest your edits are just bad; they're not vandalism, but leaving a bunch of blank space in the article is not constructive, and HalfShadow was perfectly justified in removing it. If you disagree, discuss the issue at Talk:List of The Backyardigans episodes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Dorgon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Andres rojas22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Andres rojas22#Dorgon

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

Comments:
Blatant edit-warring behavior. Andres was starting to edit war with User:Colipon (first two reverts), and I went ahead and protected the page and invited him to discuss at the talk page. This was 5 days ago. During the interim he made no attempt to post a single message at the talk page and instead focused his efforts on my talkpage to complain about how I was playing favorites. After the page protection expired, he showed up and made another unexplained revert. User clearly doesn't get how collaborative editing works, and is incapable of communicating constructively. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Result - Warned User:Andres rojas22 that he may be blocked if he reverts the article again before getting consensus on the talk page to support his change. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 96.237.120.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 01:06, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Meaning of "well regulated militia" */ restored original content")
2. 01:15, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* English history */ cite states "nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from "the common law."")
3. 01:22, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Meaning of "well regulated militia" */ restoring well sourced original content - SB- at this point you may be in an edit war.")
4. 01:33, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* English history */ restored wiki links - seek OK to me")

• Diff of warning: here

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

Also, note that the AnonIP which geolocates to the Cambridge Massachusetts area has a long history of disruptive tenditious editing at this article, see this[57] for a portion of this history from 2009.

—SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [58]

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

There are a series of edits that he is reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have repeatedly asked the user to not revert my edits.

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

Comments:

I would like some advice on this issue. Our goal is to include the albanian names in addition for the articles in kosovo. there should be no problem with this, and would like some advice on how to deal with it.

Please give me some advice on how to proceed. James Michael DuPont 10:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Subtropical-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. 12:19, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "according to the government's sources")
2. 13:56, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Please read WP:SOURCE - government's sources write about Statistical Division - according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, this is not subject to discussion. I'm sorry.")
3. 14:04, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "This article is not about a metro area. Name is "Sydney", not "Sydney metropolitan area". Government's sources write about Statistical Division, Wikipedia also.")
4. 14:13, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "compromise")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First edition "# 12:19, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "according to the government's sources")" is not revert. This is my normal change. Please check. It is therefore not 3RR. Four edition "# 14:13, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "compromise")" is compromise, mix my on User Bidgee version. I made the only two reverts, not four. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a compromise as myself and another editor clearly do not agree with the edit, you have breached the WP:3RR (Look at the listed edits you made above). Bidgee (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a 3RR. Does not agree with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. First my edition is not revert, this is normal change. Four also, four my edition is compromise. Is this a scam? User:Bidgee make three reverts and write to User:AussieLegend [59] and this user undo my edit [60]. This is 3RR (4 reverts) with the help of a friend. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]