Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive132

User:Bloodofox reported by User:Al-qamar (Result: No violation)

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)

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 ([1]) 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 ([2]). :bloodofox: (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

User:66.177.182.247 reported by -- Boing! said Zebedee (Result: no vio)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

User:Adrianbius reported by User:Native94080 (Result: Semi-protected/36 hours)

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: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6]
• 5th revert: [7]
• 6th revert: [8]

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)

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

User:Dougieb reported by -- Cirt (talk) (Result: Protected)

• 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)

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 [9].
• 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)

• 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)

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

User:HalfShadow reported by User:FanOfBackyard (Result: Declined)

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)

User:Andres rojas22 reported by User:Rjanag (Result: Warned)

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: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]

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)

Oh really?, i guess you're boy knows how to "comunicate constructively" since he didnt leave a single message on my talk page just ran to cry to mommy and get the article protected,HYPOCRITE.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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 whine 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 in a mature way.

— original comment of Rjanag

• 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)

User:96.237.120.38 reported by SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} (Result: No violation)

• 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)

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: [14]

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[15] for a portion of this history from 2009.

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

Are these four reverts? Or four stages of one revert back to a previous version? SGGH ^ping! 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Consecutive reverts count as one revert. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:Mdupont (Result: No 3RR violation, WOA given.)

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: [16]

• 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)

There has been no violation of WP:3RR here, this is a content dispute. I would advice messaging the user in question directly to reach some sort of consensus, or failing that request a third opinion, a request for comment or some form of dispute resolution. SGGH ^ping! 15:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Subtropical-man reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Declined)

• 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)

• 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)

Warning: First edition (12:19, 30 May 2010 "according to the government's sources") this is not revert, this is standard change, reverts take place after this edition. Administrators, do not let yourselves be deceived :) Subtropical-man (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [17] and this user undo my edit [18]. This is 3RR (4 reverts) with the help of a friend. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It sure looks like it stepped over WP:3RR to me, at least according to the diffs above. Disclaimer: if I'd seen this going on I'd have reverted you, as well. You should have started to discuss this much sooner - like after the first time you were reverted. TFOWR^propaganda 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Doesn't matter, you still breached the 3RR. Are you saying my report is a scam? I made a comment after they undid your revert, I in no way asked them to revert but rather discuss about your editing, so please to not make a claim which is false. Bidgee (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith would have been a smart move here. As you can see by the diffs I reverted your edit at 14:18 UTC,[19] but Bidgee didn't post to my talk page until 14:23 UTC,[20] so his comment had no effect on my decision to revert, which was based on your edit-warring at a prominent page that is on my watchlist. You might care to note that the three revert rule applies per person, not per group. It is sometimes necessary, if not necessarily preferable, for multiple editors to revert multiple edits by a single editor who is disruptively editing or vandalising an article in order to maintain the integrity of the project. As for your last edit not being a revert, WP:3RR states that a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Since your edit was a partial reversion, it's still a revert. As a final note, I'd like to point out that the edit summary that I provided encouraged you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page if you had a problem, something you still haven't done. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotation :"As for your last edit not being a revert, WP:3RR states that a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" - even if 4th edit is revert (although it is a compromise, at least I tried), this is not 3RR (4x revert). I did exactly the same number of reverts as User:Bidgee - three reverts. This notification on the page of WP:3RR is invalid. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you changed metropolitan area to something you wanted[21][22]. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Declined The first link is not a revert as I don't get the impression he intended to revert anyone there, but rather just make a simple change to the article. That being said, there were clearly some poor editing choices here (reverting three times in twenty minutes? seriously?) -- and not just from Subtropical I might add -- and I didn't want to give the impression that just because four reverts weren't made by a single person, that no one did anything wrong and no one could be blocked. But I gather that you all realize that now, and have apparently stopped. But I'll put the article on my watchlist anyhow. -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a comment on Subtropical-man's talk page about the changes being made (did you even look at Subtropical-man's talk page), this isn't the first time the editor has changed metropolitan to something they want and not the community[23][24]. Calling my reverting poor? I do not believe I made a poor choice since I was reverting to a stable version, I gave Subtropical-man a link showing that it is a metropolitan area. "I didn't want to give the impression that just because four reverts weren't made by a single person, that no one did anything wrong and no one could be blocked. But I gather that you all realize that now, and have apparently stopped." seems to be an accusation accusing me of asking another editor to revert?, again I NEVER asked AussieLegend to revert, I suggest you remove the accusation that I did, as well as your claim of bad editing. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"I didn't want to give the impression that just because four reverts weren't made by a single person, that no one did anything wrong and no one could be blocked. But I gather that you all realize that now, and have apparently stopped." seems to be an accusation accusing me of asking another editor to revert

No it wasn't. How on Earth did you deduce that? -- tariqabjotu 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:98.88.88.100 reported by User:Off2riorob (Result:12 hours)

Page: Geert Wilders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.88.88.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]
• 5th revert: [30]
• 6th revert: [31]
• 7th revert: [32]
• 8th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

IP is shouting and reverting and was requested to move to discussion but continued to revert to their favored position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

IP is also continuing to revert after the diffs reported here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Non-admin's comment. I asked for the semiprotection of the page, to avoids having to block the IP user... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours for 3RR and general incivility. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:SamsX reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Indef)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Phil Jones (climatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SamsX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 21:49, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Used more common name for controversy")
2. 21:50, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 21:55, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 365096855 by Stephan Schulz (talk)")
4. 22:03, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Removed empty/red link")
5. 22:05, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 365098829 by Yworo (talk) Clean up per WP")
6. 22:12, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 365099989 by Yworo (talk) undo 3RR violation")

• Diff of warning: here

Never mind, he's been blocked as a sock of banned user Scibaby. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:sirozfox reported by User:cindamuse (Result: indef)

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

violate WP:3RR

This page is confusing. User:sirozfox is the husband of the subject of the article Annie Lobert. His comments represent a conflict of interest, lacking a neutral point of view. He has been warned regarding COI and NPOV. He fails to respond to comments on his talk page, but rather continues to revert editing. Additionally, he threatens others from editing this page. He has reverted article four times now. Cindamuse (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. You also went over 3RR, Cindamuse, but it is clear to me that sirozfox is the instigator here so I'm not blocking you. Please be more careful next time. Tim Song (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd for legal threats after I saw this. Tim Song (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Androstachys reported by User:DVdm (Result:No vio )

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

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39] - after a significant number of sources was added
• 5th revert: [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire talk page Talk:Lindblad resonance, and specially Talk:Lindblad resonance#Dictionary and source say Resonances

Comments:

See also:

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Incivility by User:Androstachys - Note the summary at the top: "Subject is unreceptive to feedback - escalate to ANI or next step in dispute resolution (RfC/U) if it continues." - (talk) 08:38, 31 May 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? 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• I was going to close the same but commented that I locked the page for 3 days to force discussion. If you reach a conclusion then feel free to request an unlock before that. None of the above is recent enough to merit action and it does strike me that you are using enforcement of wikiquette or 3RR as a substitute for resolving the content dispute. May I suggest you see an article RFC to provoke further input into this and make the consensus clearer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:GiacomoReturned reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: Not blocked / stale)

Page: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]

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

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

Comments:
General WP:BATTLE issues, too. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 13:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok! leave your Admin's unpleasnt lies and inferrals wherever you want them. Somewhere nice and invisible - I surrender - give up - you Admins win, yet again - peddle your lies where you like.  Giacomo  13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If they are lies (and you restoring a comment in which you call Wehwalt (talk · contribs) a "deceitful and unfit admin" was not the deletion of a lie, anyway) then that is what dispute resolution is for. Not what edit-warring is for. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Admins must do as they think fit to defend themselves when guilty of peddling falsehoods. I would quite like an example of me willfully deceiving anyone EVER - do you have one?  Giacomo  13:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I found this edit you made, which looked like a personal attack towards . Also, this attack was kept in an edit summary. Fortunately that edit summary attack wasn't directed at any editor. Minimac (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

10 out of 10 for observation. It is indeed a comment directed 100% towards Wehwalt. Nothing ambiguous or deceitful about that.  Giacomo  14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wehwalt's post arguably was a personal attack, and one that Xeno subsequently pointed out was unfounded. Suggest closing this. --JN466 20:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  But we don't delete personal attacks, and we certainly don't violate 3RR to do so. Giano is not exempt from the rules, either. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 21:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  Still rabbiting on here are you TreasuryTag? Have you nothing better to do? I know, this section must have been a grave dissapointment for you, but, hey! life goes on.  Giacomo  21:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I am gravely disappointed that there appears to be a reluctance on the part of the administrators to enforce a very clear policy against you. I suspect that the reluctance is down, in part, to lack of patience for the fuss you make every time anybody dares hold you to account for your actions. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, TreasuryTag, I expect it more that (a) they agree with me and (b) they are reluctant for a slanging match involving an Admin defending the use of the word "cock sucker" as an insult between editors. Now, I strongly advise you to go and find something useful to do as I shall be doing. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not engage it little vendettas hours after the event has passed and I have decided to drop the matter. Don't you agree?  Giacomo  21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Stale - there is no current threat of ongoing disruption and though I don't endorse the user's behavior in this matter, I don't see a block as being a beneficial exercise here. The user has agreed to drop it and so there is no further disruption to prevent. --B (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:DoctorNeutralNoBias, User:94.193.216.80, and User:94.193.217.130 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Not blocked / sprotected)

Page: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

1. DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 94.193.216.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 94.193.217.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:48, May 30, 2010 as user

1. 11:43, May 31, 2010 as user
2. 15:38, May 31, 2010 as IP
3. 16:17, May 31, 2010 as IP
4. 16:31, May 31, 2010 as IP
5. 16:43, May 31, 2010 as second IP

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:47, May 30, 2010
2. 16:39, May 31, 2010
3. No, I haven't warned the 2nd IP yet. It doesn't seem necessary. However, he did start immediately after I warned the 1st IP.

I'm afraid not. However, I only reverted numbers 2, 3, and 4. Different editors reverted #0 and #1. I did make an unrelated revert 24 hours 55 minutes before the first one.

Comments:

The second IP admits that he and the first IP were directed here by a third party (not necessarily the user making revert #1 above). The question of whether the edit was reasonable was not discussed by anyone (other than in the edit summaries removing reverts #0 and #1) until after revert #5. So it may be meat puppetry rather than sock puppetry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protected The page has been semi-protected by Crum375 so that should stop any edit warring using IP addresses. Because there hasn't been anything since the s-protection this morning, I'm willing to assume good faith for the moment. If the user (from his/her logged in account) starts reverting again, please open another request or let me know and I will block them. --B (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Breein1007 reported by -- Supreme Deliciousness (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

• Article: Gaza flotilla clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• User being reported: Breein1007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs:

Ads "paintball"

• 1[48]
• 2[49]
• 3[50]
• 4[51]
• 5[52]
• 6[53]
• 7[54]

Ads "occurred" and removes "was a raid by Israeli military forces"

• 1[55]
• 2[56]
• 3[57]

• Diff of warning: I have previously warned him when he was involved in an edit war and I was attacked and threatened: [58] When another editor warned him he removes the warning and says "ignoring comments from an unwelcome individual" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Manila davao ph reported by LK (talk) (Result: 72h)

• Edit warring and Three-revert rule violation on

Herbert W. Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Manila davao ph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Earlier edit warring from last week:
Edit warring last week was reported by SarekOfVulcan.

1. 01:35, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ redundancy&whoever unethically deletes this i recommend to be banned from wikipedia")
2. 01:47, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personality, personal conduct, and governance */ clarity&redundancy with two 'and' in one sentence")
3. 01:58, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Theological */deleted is nitpicking witch-hunting wherein other religions also profess their brand to salvation but Armstrong respected people@Ambassador International Cultural Foundation charities")
4. 02:15, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ i recommend the one who deleted these factual groups for slander or libel anywhere anytime and banned from wikipedia!")
5. 02:17, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ reformat")
6. 04:42, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personality, personal conduct, and governance */ see my reason for deletion of this redundant subtitle@talk page 7")
7. 00:43, 26 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */redundancy for WCG and don't delete these legitimate pro-Armstrong groups(3RR)")
8. 00:45, 26 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personality, personal conduct, and governance */ redundancy, wordiness (3RR)")

Current 3RR violation:

1. 14:39, 31 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ content needed to fully understand impact of the man to pro-groups")
   - 14:45, 31 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Theological */Armstrong disagreed with some Christian leaders but respected people on the personal level evidenced at Ambassador International Cultural Foundation so demonizations should be deleted")
   - 14:51, 31 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personality, personal conduct, and governance */this subsection is redundant and witch-hunting.It does not do justice to why Armsrong preached Seven Laws of Success and why some people are poor...")
2. 23:10, 31 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */additional information is to show how many groups will defend and provide unbiased reference on this man")
3. 02:53, 1 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */the man is 24years dead&cannot defend himself.let these pro-groups defend the man.be fair&ethical")
4. 03:27, 1 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ additional information")
5. 07:43, 1 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ additional information")
6. Another revert since the submission of this report: 08:11, 1 June 2010

• Diff of warning: here.

• User is well aware of 3RR, as he includes the term in his edit summaries: [59]

Comments:
This user is pretty much a SPA who has been POV pushing and edit warring intermittently on Herbert W. Armstrong and related pages since joining three years ago. As can be seen from his talk page, several people have tried to explain policy and resolve the difficulties with this user. I can discern no improvement in behavior or respect for Wikipedia policies.

—LK (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 72 hours. Any admin may lift this block if the editor will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou reported by User:jheiv (Result: Protected)

Page: Kappa Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

This is a continuation of this AN3 report. This WP:SPA refused to engage in the discussion on the talk page during the protection, yet immediately when page protection expires, again makes the same controversial edits he was warned about making without consensus. I'd also point out that many editors were involved in the discussion about how to improve the article, but he was not one of them. His motives are not to improve the page, but to insist on adding material and references that do not meet the standards and policies.

I reverted the page ([60]) to the state it was in during protection and asked him to seek consensus, but he refused and undid it ([61]). I would like to again revert the page to the state it was in during protection, and then begin to make the edits that were discussed on the talk page, but his vandalism and reverts are extremely disruptive and prevent coherent improvement of the article.

Please consider blocking this clear example of a single purpose account with no desire other than to disrupt article. jhe_iv (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TLDR summary: there are serious WP:OWN and WP:COI problems at the Kappa Sigma article.

User:Jheiv is a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity, the article in question's subject, one of several WP:COI editors active on their fraternity's article. He removed a Conflict of Interest warning tag from the top of the article, and even reverted simple grammar and capitalization changes. Despite my going to the COI Noticeboard for outside input, no administrator will pay attention to the obvious tag-team violation of the COI policy on the Kappa Sigma article. Instead, Jheiv "edit wars" with me and then uses his knowledge of Wikipedia's rules to portray me as "disruptive" when I have taken pains to provide references, grammar/capitalization corrections, and Talk page explanations.

Jheiv may know more Wikipedia policy than me, but I have read and I can see that WP:OWN and WP:COI are being completely ignored at Kappa Sigma. When I solicited additional input for the article at the COI Noticeboard, other uninvolved editors arrived to point out the obvious NPOV problems that have developed from extensive COI editing. I welcome any additional attention this discussion might bring to the situation at the Kappa Sigma article. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is excruciatingly simple. You were asked to seek consensus, you were warned by the admin who closed the last AN3 to seek consensus ([62]), there was an active discussion on the talk page during page protection that you refused to constructively participate in ([63]), as soon as page protection expired you immediately continued to add contentious material without seeking consensus ([64]). jhe_iv (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Invalid Note As far as I can tell this is a complaint about a single revert, accompanied by an accusation of bad faith. Editors are allowed to focus on whatever topic they like; the "single purpose account" label is not a grounds for blocking or banning. Shii (tock) 20:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who is involved in adding the same contentious material ([65]), if you are attempting to close this, don't you think you should at the least disclose this fact or conservatively recuse yourself?

Sorry, "the same" material? The material AEKDB is reverting to is not the same that I am adding. I don't have any problem with your questioning the reliability of my sources; I was going to bring the question to WP:RSN, but I decided maybe we should look for more publicly available sources instead. Shii (tock) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you go back, that source was continuously added by AEKDB -- and removed for WP:V and WP:RS among others -- but it if you disagree, it seems that WP:RSN would be appropriate. jhe_iv (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. I haven't been following this debate at all, I just occasionally add stuff to Wikipedia based on what I saw on Wikileaks. I'll be happy to simply forget about the Wikileaks page if this has already been discussed. Anyway, since I have been editing this page before I'll leave this unresolved for now and come back to the page tomorrow. Shii (tock) 20:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The only person who needs to recuse himself from contentious editing at Kappa Sigma is you, Jheiv. I would also note that User:Jheiv has in the last hour twice reverted the inclusion of Template:COI from the article despite being a COI editor himself. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the page that was under PP -- if you'd like, I can re-add that template next time you refuse to seek consensus before adding material. The fact is, that contentious material should be discussed on the talk page before being added. jhe_iv (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you not get it? You are a WP:COI editor who is making controversial changes, including the removal of sourced information and Template:COI, on the article of an organization you are a member in. YOU are edit-warring with serious WP:COI and WP:OWN tendencies, and need to recuse YOURSELF. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected. See next report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jheiv reported by User:Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (Result: Protected)

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70] (removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71] (no further response from Jheiv) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] (no further response from Jheiv)

Comments:

User:Jheiv, a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity who is editing with a WP:Conflict of Interest, has used his knowledge of the Wikipedia rules to WP:Edit waring against uninvolved/outside editors on the Kappa Sigma article in violation of WP:COI and WP:OWN. He has reverted myself and administrator User:Shii four times since the article was unprotected. I am tired of him demonizing me and filing reports left and right while not being held accountable to the policies that apply to his own editing. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. Removing vandalism or contentious material that wasn't discussed on the talk page (that you have already been warned about) on the talk page is not a revert. Please just follow the rules and seek consensus for contentious edits on the talk page. jhe_iv (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result -- Protected two months. The article came back to AN3 very quickly (see [73], from 20 May), showing that no lessons were learned the first time around. Though the talk page has been used, neither of the warring parties has been waiting for consensus before reverting. Use this time to try to get agreement. See WP:Dispute resolution for some steps you can try. Ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP if a compromise is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ja_62 reported by User:Westbrabander (Result: Both blocked 24 hrs)

Page: Battle of Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Ja_62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert: [76]
• 3rd revert: [77]
• 4th revert: [78]

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

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

Comments:
User:Ja_62 is very agressive towards me, and falsely accuses me of vandalism eventhough I have always explained my actions clearly and openly. I didn't want to report him, but he seems blinded by bad faith and continues to push his version prior and during the discussion on talk.Westbrabander (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually I was reverting obviously unconstructive edits by Westbrabanter when his edit summaries were obviously false, as he repeatedly refered to non-existent sections of article Battle of Britain from which he was persistently removing name of said battle in German language under various untrue rationales. Therefore, as I was been reverting obvious vandalism, 3rrule does not apply. Moreover I was completely in good faith, as he hadn't reacted positively to notifications on his talk page. On the other hand, his actions bear strong resemblance to misuse of procedures.--ja_62 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny breaking the 3-revert rule?Westbrabander (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to deny, as I hadn't broken it. See above, here and there.--ja_62 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly the 3RR rule does apply here since this is an editing dispute rather than "obvious vandalism", but ja_62 has not actually breached it (only 3 reverts in a 24 four period). However it is an editor's perogative to remove an unsourced edit. I recommend that ja_62 providea a source for his edit if he wishes to persist in adding it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked - both blocked 24 hours. I was beaten to the punch by EyeSerene (talk · contribs), but I was going to do the same thing. I have also removed Ja_62's rollback for abusing the privilege by using it in a content dispute. You may ask to have it re-added after some reasonable period of time of edit-war-free behavior (like a month). --B (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xnacional reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xnacional (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]
• 5th revert: [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
While this latest instance is not technically 3RR in a 24-hour period, Xnacional has a long history of ignoring consensus, WP:MOS issues, personal attacks in edit summaries, and edit warring on all three of the original trilogy Star Wars film articles (among others). He refuses to compromise or accept a consensus version, occassionally going away, oly to reappear at a later date to try and sneak his changes in again. This current instance has been continuing for several days. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours. As per the above, this is not a 3RR violation, but this user is repeatedly edit warring against a clear consensus across multiple Star Wars related articles. As the user was previously blocked for edit warring, I have blocked for 48 hours. --B (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:67.193.58.115 and User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:OpenTheWindows (Result: IP user blocked 24 hours)

Page: Thousand Foot Krutch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User(s) being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 67.193.58.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Revision reverted to

• 1st revert: [88]
• 2nd revert: [89]
• 3rd revert: [90]
• 4th revert: [91]

More: [92] [93] [94] [95] (diff users:) me (1RR) IP HelloAnnyong IP user

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Walter IP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a diff but a message to try resolving instead

Comments:

I and one other user have only did 1RR.

OpenTheWindows, sir! 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was that other person who reverted once. I admit that page just got out of hand really quickly, but after my revert I started a thread on the talk page to try to work it out and left the anon IP a note to discuss. Further, Walter Gorlitz left a rather helpful note on the anon IP's talk page as well, and it seems to have stopped them from reinserting that text. Honestly I have no desire to be a part of that page anymore, but I will graciously apologize for my actions there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter has went to the talk page now, but IP maybe won't. OpenTheWindows, sir! 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The RFPP you requested was declined due to just one anon IP, but the closing admin left a note on the IP's page as well about it, so perhaps between all the warnings that was enough? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked - I have blocked the IP user 24 hours. I am not inclined to block User:Walter Görlitz as (1) I feel that his edits constituted removing original research pertaining to a BLP and (2) he is talking it out on the talk page and there seems to be no further threat of disruption from him. Any admin wishing to overturn that decision and block him or to unblock the IP user if he promises not to revert again is free to do so. --B (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:The C of E reported by User:Captmonkey (Result: Protected again)

• Three-revert rule violation on

North London derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 14:20, 24 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 363890716 by 77.75.110.130 (talk) rv vandalism, If you've not noticed, there is some pro-tottenham information in there")
2. 06:20, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364002396 by 94.193.106.168 (talk) rv vandalism, That section has pro-tottenham info as well")
3. 12:56, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364081997 by 77.75.110.130 (talk) rv vandalism it is accepted as fine to be in the article by other editors, take it up with the talk page")
4. 15:54, 26 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364314315 by Captmonkey (talk) That's not very encyclopedic though")
5. 18:39, 2 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 365682919 by Captmonkey (talk) Wait, be patient and wait for the admins toget back")
6. 19:03, 2 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 365686750 by Captmonkey (talk) It's already there so why remove it untill an admin says otherwise.")
7. 19:48, 2 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 365693814 by Captmonkey (talk) Patience is a virtue...We'll just wait for the admins word before any removals")

-20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Notes: Please take a look at the article's talk page - there's a little more to this than first meets the eye. Thanks. Captmonkey (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected - m:Wrong version protected. I have switched it to the version opposite the one that was protected last time lest the one party get the idea that edit warring is an acceptable way of getting their version protected. --B (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not edit warring, I was trying to keep a sourced paragraph which was cut down which Captmonkey seems to not want. Everything here can also be looked at from what Captmonkey's behavior was. I did not really want to be drawn into this. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My behaviour? Please! Now - find some notable, viable sources - or not - and we'll all move on. Captmonkey (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were both edit warring and trying to game the system by reverting exactly three times. Please take the next month to talk it out on the talk page or use third opinion to try and get other editors involved. If you come up with an agreement before then, feel free to ask at WP:RFPP for any admin to unprotect the article. --B (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: Duplicate)

Page: Thousand Foot Krutch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 23:38, 31 May 2010

• 1st revert: 01:03, 2 June 2010
• 2nd revert: 02:27, 2 June 2010
• 3rd revert: 19:15, 2 June 2010
• 4th revert: 19:37, 2 June 2010
• 5th revert: 20:07, 2 June 2010
• (another just over the 24hr mark: 19:21, 1 June 2010)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:47, 2 June 2010

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Thousand Foot Krutch/Archives/2014 1#Edit war

Comments:
It might be worthwhile to note this user violated 3RR on the same article (5 reverts between 14:12, 26 May 2010 and 22:55, 26 May 2010) and again at Victoria Day (4 reverts between 18:43, 27 May 2010 and 18:56, 27 May 2010). The user was notified of WP:3RR breach at Thousand Foot Crutch. He was also warned about 3RR at Victoria Day, and later the violation was brought to his attention, though not reported, as the edit war ceasaed, but he denies any wrongdoing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined - This is a duplicate of an above report - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:67.193.58.115_and_User:Walter_G.C3.B6rlitz_reported_by_User:OpenTheWindows_.28Result:_IP_user_blocked_24_hours.29. I looked at it and was not inclined to block him for the reasons I gave above, but if some other admin wishes to do so, they are free to do whatever they want. I would suggest keeping everything up there in the one thread, though. --B (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Lostorder and User:72.87.183.32reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: IP hard blocked)

• Edit war violation on Special Order 191 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lostorder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 72.87.183.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1st dif: [96]
• 2nd dif: [97]
• 3rd dif: [98]
• 4th dif: [99]

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [100] In preparing this report I determined that the first edit was not actually a revert -- for this reason this is being referred for edit warring rather than a 3RR violation..

A new IP editor introduced unsourced (and fringe, if not inaccurate) material which I reverted. DIF 1 above simply deleted, with no explanation two paragraphs. DIF 2 reverted a portion of the material that another editor had restored. DIF 3 reverted material restored by that editor as well as changing other material. Two subsequent edits made by the IP at [101] and [102] reverted some material and restored some unsourced info deleted after DIF 1. I then issued a 3RR warning (the other editor had also issued two vandalism warnings). This resulted in DIF 4 by a newly registered user that reverted material as well as restoring portions of the material added by the IP. Due to the similarity of the material added, it appears that the new user is a sock puppet of the IP. I have twice through edit summaries invited the user to take his/her issues to the discussion page w/o success.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I doesn't look like Lostorder made any violation. He only has one edit. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The point of the referral is that the IP and Lostorder are the same editor. If you compare the material that I reverted with this DIF [103] and the material added in Lostorder's single edit, there are obvious similarities -- not to mention the unlikeliehood that two new editors would suddenly show up at this particular article on the same afternoon, especially since the IP had just been told that he would be blocked if he continued to revert material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked - I have hard blocked the IP for 24 hours. (If the contention is right that the named user is one in the same, this block will cover the named user as well.) --B (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MicroX reported by User:Jamen Somasu (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Template:South American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MicroX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments: It is sad that is has come to this...really

Declined for now. Both of you have reverted exactly three times, so I don't know that there is a clear "innocent party" or "guilty party". Both of you seem to have stopped. Talk it out, figure out on a talk page whether the various editors of this topic like the old template or the new one better. --B (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments:

This user has insistently edited the article in a way to make the article emphasize the Communist period. 6 editors, including myself have oposed him, and try to make him understand that if the article was named "Flag of Yugoslavia", as it was back then, it should equally emphasize the monarchic (1918-1943) and communist (1943-1992) periods, giving equal treatment to both sets of flags. Direktor edited it in his POV way, and obviously, another user, User:Zscout370 , rightfully changed the name of the article to the current one, and proposed to make another article to the monarchic period. I´ve arranged both articles so each one contains the correcpondent flags, but direktor started reverting that because, from what I understand, he wants to opose the change, so a future merge of them can be made. Since now there is a separate monarchic period article, mostly because direktor failed and reverted any attempt to give equal treatement to both periods, he wants to intentionally keep the information repeated about the monarchic period on the communist flags article. He has been extremely disruptive on that article, he clearly has some issues regarding the monarchic period, he has been given months of chance to put the article right, and he even attacked another editor calling only because he wanted to edit the monarchic period. Please intervene and stop this behavior totally against all logic, against the project recomendations [109], and against all other editors of the article. FkpCascais (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined for now - I will warn the user. --B (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Geoffrey100 and 24.5.202.48 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 24 hours)

Page: East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Geoffrey100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.5.202.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

• 1st revert: [111] – 24.5.202.48 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 23:01, May 31, 2010
• 2nd revert: [112] – Geoffrey100 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 00:17, June 2, 2010
• 3rd revert: [113] – Geoffrey100 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 03:42, June 2, 2010
• 4th revert: [114] – Geoffrey100 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 04:59, June 2, 2010
• 5th revert: [115] – Geoffrey100 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 04:15, June 3, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [117]

Comments:

User:Geoffrey100 and the IP editor 24.5.202.48 appear to be one and the same person; somebody who wishes to replace the countywide definitions of East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area), San Francisco Bay Area, and San Francisco Peninsula with more centrally focused definitions, ones in which outlying cities at the far periphery of the involved counties are not considered part of the San Francisco Bay Area. This editor is not citing a single source in making the assertion, and is edit warring over all these articles in addition to ones related to TV and radio stations, as well as Transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area and Tri-Valley. Even though user talk page discussions have pointed out such authorities as the East Bay Regional Park District, the edit warring continues. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Same sort of edit warring on San Francisco Bay Area

• 1st revert: [118] – 24.5.202.48 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 02:37, June 1, 2010
• 2nd revert: [119] – Geoffrey100 removes cities such as Half Moon Bay and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 02:39, June 2, 2010
• 3rd revert: [120] – Geoffrey100 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 03:47, June 2, 2010
• 4th revert: [121] – Geoffrey100 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 05:01, June 2, 2010
• 5th revert: [122] – Geoffrey100 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 04:18, June 3, 2010
• 6th revert: [123] – 24.5.202.48 removes cities such as Concord and Walnut Creek. Revision as of 04:32, June 3, 2010

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs)

• Blocked 24 hours for edit warring, though not a technical 3RR version. --B (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Clownbreath reported by User:Native94080 (Result: not a 3RR violation, but possibly vandalism)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The diffs provided are from three different articles and only two of them appear to be reverts, so there is no violation of the three-revert rule here. This user's edits are clearly disruptive however, but only one warning has been issued so it would probably be inappropriate to block him at this time for vandalism. I also see he's a suspected sockpuppet, but there is no investigation open at the moment. For now I'd say keep an eye on him and issue warnings as appropriate. If he continues causing disruption, report him to WP:AIV. Bettia (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by User:NYCRuss (Result: )

Page: Template:New York metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [124]

• 1st revert: [125]
• 2nd revert: [126]
• 3rd revert: [127]
• 4th revert: [128]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

Comments:

This user is warping factual information across a wide array of articles, and has deliberately introduced factual errors to articles so that Connecticut is not linked to New York, such as replacing "Connecticut" with "Pennsylvania" as the core part of the New York metropolitan area: [130] [131] [132] [133] NYCRuss ☎ 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The diff link to an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is actually an invitation at Polaron's Talk page for Polaron to discuss it at the article Talk page. There has been no discussion opened at the Talk page. I've been at 3RR-type impasses with Polaron before, myself, but i have usually gone ahead and tried to open discussion at the relevant Talk page first. Polaron appears wrong for "communicating" by reverts rather than opening and participating in discussion. NYCRuss also seems wrong for not opening discussion at the Talk page, too though. But I haven't looked into this thoroughly. Offhand I can't understand justification for "Pennsylvania" is getting substituted in for "Connecticut"; that seems counter-factual / over the top. There must be more going on here. --doncram (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at more diffs, it doesn't seem like an edit war of flat reversions back and forth. There is content disagreement about whether "Litchfield Hills" should be included or not, and then if Litchfield County should be consistently mentioned in a different section. Seems like misunderstanding aggravated by Polaron and other editor's communicating by edits and edit summaries, when both should use Talk page instead. --doncram (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:69.119.65.117 reported by User:Qrsdogg (Result: Semi)

Page: Merrimack College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 69.119.65.117 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:69.119.65.117

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

Comments:

On the Merrimack College page, which has suffered from COI editing in the past, an IP has been repeatedly removing Citation Needed tags (without providing citations). I spoke to him/her about it on his/her talk page but these edits continued. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. IP continues to add promotional material and copyvios, removes citation tags, and never participates on the Talk page. Protection can be lifted if they will get consensus for their changes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr. Crisp reported by User:EunSoo (Result: both users blocked, 12h )

Page: Sooyoung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sooyoung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seohyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Im Yoona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hyoyeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunny (Korean singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tiffany (Korean singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jessica Jung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User being reported: Dr. Crisp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:

• I understand I made a mistake of doing the same on 1 page Sunny (Korean singer), so I will accept the consequences. EunSoo (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think blocking at this point is moot unless disruption continues from both of you. Dr Crisp has acknowledged my warning of 3RR on his talkpage, and you obviously know that 3RR exists since you are here. Syrthiss (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay he/she began the reverting first thus my edits should be reverted back and then we can discuss it, cause I am fed up that Dr. Crisp is removing simple edits I made on a few articles. EunSoo (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats also not the way it works. Start discussing now and try to explain why your version is better / cleaner / more adhering to the WP:MOS. Any attempt by you to revert will cause you to be blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And who is to say how it works? It is called being fair. I made the original edit thus it should be reverted back to it's original edit before discussion. Right now you are saying that Dr. Crisp deserves ownership of those articles. Are there rules on this cause this is so silly. EunSoo (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Dr.Crisp also seems to own these articles is that allowed?? EunSoo (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, but neither do you. If I may, forum shopping can also be viewed as disruptive editing. Crisp has not edited since I warned him, but you're still pursuing punitive actions. Syrthiss (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What? I never even presumed as to say "that I have been editing here for a few months so my edits are more important". As you noticed I edit other articles as well. And what's forum shopping? I have not edited any of those other pages either and what's this Sooyoung??EunSoo (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping is you taking this to my talk page, and to WP:AIV, and now here in an attempt to have the editor you are in conflict with blocked. Dr. Crisp has now been blocked for his ill advised edit at Sooyoung. I am advising you not to revert him there and to disengage. Syrthiss (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay I will try to be more careful when it comes to reverts as well and you can block me as well if needed. And I am sorry I am just kinda fed-up after the whole moves thing. EunSoo (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no sense in blocking you at the moment, you haven't reverted any of the articles since you've been warned. My best advice I can give is that Wikipedia is really not a big deal: if you find yourself getting upset with something here, please step back and go do something else for a bit. Its not worth getting upset, and there is no deadline to get changes in right this minute. Syrthiss (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks you.EunSoo (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Economy of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:52, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "there, if you're incapable of doing it yourself Madam")
2. 21:48, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "1. rephrased brochure language")
3. 21:50, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "2. repetition of material (longstanding issue is that the intro is too long)")
4. 21:54, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "accidentally removed preceding sentence!")
5. 21:55, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "the")
6. 21:58, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "way too much detail on the recent recession for an intro")
7. 21:59, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "such predictions should not be in an intro")
8. 22:00, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "may be inserted further down in "recent economic performance" section")
9. 22:02, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "intro now more in line with Wiki standards - template removed")
10. 23:05, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 365914465 by Australisian (talk)")
11. 10:28, 4 June 2010 (edit summary: "reverted to version prior to User:Australisian's revert, Jolly's contributions left in tact.")

(Note: edits 2-9 are a series of edits which effectively includes the same reverts as edits 1, 10, and 11)

• Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours. I caution Australisian that he is getting near a block as well, and his use of the term 'vandalism' is incorrect. Since this article has been protected three times in the last two weeks, it's time for the main editors to create an WP:RFC or use one of the other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Admins are unlikely to let this dispute run on indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've discussed this with him as some length on his talk page and the article talk page, bringing up both the points you mention. Yworo (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Guineveretoo and Elizabeth Symons (Result: Malformed report)

Guineveretoo is in breach of WP:3RR at Elizabeth Symons, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean. Haldraper (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. I looked at the page in question and there is not a technical violation of 3RR, though both of you are clearly edit warring. Guineveretoo at least seems willing to talk it out on the talk page. I suggest having a conversation there and possibly using WP:3O or a relevant WikiProject to get more eyes on the issue. --B (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Australisian reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Economy of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Australisian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:38, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 365878493 by Ledenierhomme (talk)User is now deleting even more content from the intro without consensus")
2. 22:31, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "Ledenierhomme, please stop removing large sections of the article without consensus, especially that which is supported by numerous sources. You have broken the 3RR rule so many times now.")
3. 23:09, 3 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 365919240 by Ledenierhomme (talk)Your lack of comment is a clear intent to vandalise")
4. 17:29, 4 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 365995301 by Ledenierhomme (talk)Needs consensus before deleting large ammounts of sourced info")

• Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours. Editor continued to revert war on the article after the closure of the previous 3RR case (see above). EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:BasketballHistorian reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Protected)

Page: American Basketball Association (2000–present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: BasketballHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SportsPHD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 66.214.129.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [145]

• 1st revert: [146]
• 2nd revert: [147]
• 3rd revert: [148]
• 4th revert: [149]

Many others

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150] but after this many edits the editor is quite aware. Specific warning [151]

Comments:User is from an IP, but two other accounts are editing too, all with the same edits. This has been going on for almost 2 weeks now, I am amazed nobody else has noticed it until now. The adverse editor is Mateinsixtynine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appears to be correct in those edits. Probably would be a SPI case if it weren't such a DUCK. I don't know if there's collateral damage, and if there is perhaps the SPI should be opened.

• I placed a 24 hour full-protection over at RFPP, but whichever admin handles this report- won't be me- should do whatever they want with that action. Courcelles (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• A sock case has been opened at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BasketballHistorian, but the result is obvious. Let's hope that this editor gets the message and does not continue to revert after protection expires at 04:22 on 5 June. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's possible that this is connected to an earlier SPI case I filed on Basketnews, as one of the suspected socks threatens to disrupt sports articles.Yworo (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - User:Courcelles protected the article 24 hours. BasketballHistorian and all socks may be blocked if this problem resumes. A note about our policy was posted at User talk:SportsPHD. EdJohnston (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MachoCarioca reported by User:RafaAzevedo (Result: Both warned)

Page: Bauman Moscow State Technical University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MachoCarioca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [152]

• 1st revert: [153]
• 2nd revert: [154]
• 3rd revert: [155]
• 4th revert: [156]

Editor is widely known in wiki-pt for his dislike of tags indicating the lack of proper sources in articles (especially in his articles), apparently decided to bring over here his "philosophy" by removing a tag indicating the lack of sources in Bauman Moscow State Technical University (the article only has external links to the official websites).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157] (the user was warned in the Portuguese wikipedia that he couldn't have this behavior here, on account of the 3RR - unfortunately we don't have it over there).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (can't see the need to use the discussion, since it was an obvious cross-wiki vandalism - the user knew he was wrong)

Comments:

RafaAzevedo ^msg 23:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - This is a war over the 'unsourced' tag on an article. Both parties have broken WP:3RR. If either party continues to revert, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're aware that WP:3RR says that "an editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." I have reverted him three times, so I don't see how I can possibly have "broken" it. The other party, on the other hand, reverted four. Removing a tag without solving the problem it presents is a form of vandalism (especially when the edit war is brought over from another project). RafaAzevedo ^msg 13:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I just had a quick look at this, and am not involved in any way. User:RafaAzevedo is correct - the article is not referenced, and hence adding {{unreferenced}} is quite legitimate. If you look at the article history, it is obvious that interwiki stalking and harrassment is occurring here, and what User:RafaAzevedo has done is reverting the actions of what can only be called vandalism on the part of the other party - it is NOT POV that the article is unreferenced! It is in fact not unreferenced. I think a warning, and perhaps a short block, to the other editor involved is warranted. WP:STALK can not be tolerated. And for the record, if the unreferenced tag is again removed, I will revert any editor who does that without question. It is vandalism. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Theremes reported by User:2over0 (Result: Blocked, 72h)

Page: 9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Theremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: 15:03 today
• 2nd revert: 15:47 today
• 3rd revert: 16:23 today
• 4th revert: 17:14 today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) at 16:30

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Left-handed or right-handed (section started at 12:37 today, no further comments as of this request. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff of notification of this thread. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked Theremes (talk · contribs) for 72 hours. Also notified of WP:ARB911. CIreland (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xnacional reported by User:EEMIV (Result: 1 week)

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

Blocked from previous 3RR complaint lapsed; editor immediately returned to edit warring, altering content against consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week - 2/0 (cont.) 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Paralympiakos reported by Slp1 (talk) (Result: decline - self-reverted)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Paul Daley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Paralympiakos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:00, 4 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 130.235.3.161 (talk) to last version by Wikipelli")
2. 13:36, 5 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 366123351 by Father Goose (talk) LISTEN in future, instead of charging in.")
3. 14:01, 5 June 2010 (edit summary: "not really. the statement was fine anyway as I've explained on my talk page. now i've sourced it; it stays") (Slp1 - comment: but has only sourced part of it, and the reference doesn't verify the content)

I did what was asked of me and without explanation, it was removed. No reason, so I reverted. That's not edit warring, its ensuring that info isn't removed pointlessly

1. 14:17, 5 June 2010 (edit summary: "well no...then it's a copyvio and also, you're cutting out the most important part about the ref reverted the point deduction, which was mentioned multiple times during the boradcast")

doesn't count. I was removing copyvio. 3RR isn't counted when I'm removed copyrighted material

1. 21:21, 5 June 2010 (edit summary: "removing changes by stalker IP") (a different revert, but a revert nonetheless)

you know full well this doesn't count. I made a completely different change and you're grasping at straws here

• Diff of warning: here

I've made one change to the page since then, which was unrelated to the cheating issue, so this doesn't count, as I've not violated 3RR after this (or for that matter, once)

• Multiple editors have disagreed with the addition on Paul Daley [158] and similar material on Josh Koscheck [159] where the same editor has also been editwarring (though only 3 reverts there). Consensus is against including this material, per BLP and Verifiability concerns, as discussed on the talkpage [160] and at the BLPN [161] which is where I got involved.

—Slp1 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

You know what, you're just as bad. People are removing it whilst discussion are going on. That is not how things should work. I'm not edit warring as I'm trying to discuss and if you didn't goad people into these changes, it wouldn't happen. Now I'm making any more changes, so just drop it here and in future, please discuss before making changes. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. No goading here. Per WP:BLP, editors (and in this case in it is multiple editors) are required to remove poorly sourced material from articles, and editors who wish to reinsert it are required to get consensus first. --Slp1 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then discuss it first. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the matter and I don't want to "edit war", not that I am anyway if you read my explanations of the edits above. I sourced the summary as was asked, yet it was still removed without explanation. What would you like me to do in that instance? Ignore it?

Also, how can you warn me, then report me in the same moment? I've not reverted since the warning, other than reverting WITH source, which I wouldn't count as being under a 3RR bracket? Is there any reason then that I'm being reported because I don't see the reasoning whatsoever now that I've explained. Once again, if people are willing to discuss, then I am more than happy to, but people aren't. They're just blindly removing content, which cannot be allowed.

Anyway, I won't be making the changes anymore, so I don't believe there's any need for further action. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable about this, Paralympiakos. I am leaving a little more advice on your talkpage. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Marknutley reported by TFD (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 18:48, 5 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Socialist Republic of Romania */ add to the article")
2. 23:08, 5 June 2010 (compare (edit summary: "/* Socialist Republic of Romania */ missed a "")

(The second edit above combines several consecutive edits.)

• Diff of warning: herereply here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162]

Comments:
This article is under a 1RR restriction[163] which was pointed out to and acknowledged by User:Marknutley (see "Diff of warning" above). Although the user added text and then restored it when it was reverted, the material added was substantially the same as material that had previously been added and deleted[164] and is the subject of the ongoing RfC.[165] —TFD (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I added new material, i did one revert, don`t waste peoples time like this mark nutley (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment For the first diff to be a revert, it must be the re-addition of material (or very similar material) previously added. Looking at the history, I cannot find the material in recent versions. Consequently, I am minded to decline to block here, unless reversion can be demonstrated. CIreland (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The material added by User:Marknutley is essentially the same as that deleted on at 14:15 June 4.[166] It read:

Following his removal from power, on 25 December 25, 1989, the communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu was tried by a military tribunal and convicted on charges of genocide, the murder of 60,000 people, and other crimes and sentenced to death, in a trial deemed a kangaroo court by many independent observers. Ceausescu and his wife were executed by firing squad shortly after the sentence was handed down. In 1990 Ceausescu's brother was convicted of incitement to genocide, and four aides to the former dictator were convicted of complicity in genocide.[167]

The new edits are similar:

On the 22 of December 1989, Romania's communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown in a revolution. Both he and his wife Elena Ceausescu were executed on the 25 of December 1989 by firing squad for the mass murder of 60 thousand people over the course of the Ceausescu regime. Romanian State Television said the charge of Genocide covered the deaths of 60 thousand people. In his novel Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes William Schabas wrote, The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime".[168]

Note that the earlier edit used the same page from the Schabas book. Furthermore how or whether to include the details of the Ceausescu trial are the subject of the RfC: "How should allegations of genocide against Ceausescu be described? Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians? Should we give equal weight to both?"[169]

TFD (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - I would call this a 1RR violation but it seems that CIreland would not. Since it's murky, the case should be closed with no action. Marknutley is certainly not helping the process along by making his own changes to the article which bypass the RFC. I invite him to propose a draft for the Ceausescu paragraph on the talk page and try to win consensus for it there. It is hard to see that the article can avoid all mention of the 60,000 alleged deaths, even if later historians do not substantiate that number. Let's hope the RFC participants can agree on something. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Protected)

• 3RR violation on Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1st dif: [170]
• 2nd dif:[171]
• 3rd dif: [172]
• 4th dif: [173]
• 5th dif [174]
• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [175]

This is a highly contentious article -- the edit in question was previously discussed on the discussion page. His position seems to be that reliable sources, in this case, should be ignored. In an edit summary he accuses me of a BLP violation, but no individual person (or even organization) is mentioned in the text under dispute. In the space of of one hour the editor in question has reverted three different editors four times. This editor has been blocked five times in the past. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The material reverted essentially labeled people and/or their organizations as hate groups. That would be okay if they appeared on the USA list of hate groups, but they do not. They are only on the list of hate groups produced by the page's subject, SPLC. Calling them hate groups when the USA does not classify them as such is clear libel. Libel is an exception to 3RR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I also see no BLP violation (or libel, which was another of this editor's claims). He has been reverted by 3 editors, including me, but continues to insist he is right. Dougweller (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That is an absolutely absurd excuse for edit warring, there are no BLP violations. It's an article ABOUT the SPLC, and the SPLC is a well respected organization and used in many media outlets, even having relationships with various popular outlets(YouTube, etc) to try and teach tolerance and combat hate on the internet. Your personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant. Stop edit warring on sourced material. Dave Dial (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, DD2K, let me clarify/explain. Some of the groups being labeled as hate groups are actually individuals. Anyone who knows the groups involved also knows the individuals. By labeling the groups, you are effectively labeling the individuals. Hence, WP:BLP is directly involved.

Libel is not my "personal opinion". How would you feel if I called your self-run group, if you had one, a "hate group", then Wikipedia made it appear as if what I said was the actual truth? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DD2K just restored the libelous material!!!! I reverted again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not libel and the SPLC is a well respected group. If SPLC labeled a group I belonged to as a 'hate group', I would more than likely get the Hell out of that group. Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This may be libel. For example, SPLC labeled a certain group run by a single individual as a hate group. You can't do an end run around WP:BLP by the mere technique of referring to the person's self-run group instead of the person himself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DD2K just restored the libelous material a second time!!!! I reverted again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

North Shoreman just removed my comment from this page. These people apparently stop at nothing to continue ensuring Wikipedia is used as a soapbox to label people and their groups as hate groups. See here. I said, after the 5th diff, "Comment, this one came as a result of the restoration of the libelous material while this Talk and SLPC Talk on the topic is ongoing. I will continue to revert libelous material in accordance with 3RR." Indeed I have had to act again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected I believe that the contention that the edit is problematic with regard to the biographies of living persons policy is plausible but not that the case has not been compellingly made. Because LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) has made a superficially credible assertion that he/she believes his reversions are exempt from sanction and because that assertion is, whilst uncertain, at least plausible, I have decided to protect the article rather than block any editors. I will list the article at WP:BLPN and ask that interested editors pursue dispute resolution with as little delay as possible so that the article can be unprotected quickly. CIreland (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Silverandblack reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [176]

• 1st revert: [177]
• 2nd revert: [178]
• 3rd revert: [179]
• 4th revert: [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:JaMarcus Russell#2007, 2008, 2009 Seasons; Weight; and "quickest release", Talk:JaMarcus Russell#The quality of this article is terrible, Talk:JaMarcus Russell#This Article Should be Unprotected: References to weight, games, "quickest release" and "legacy" should be removed, Talk:JaMarcus Russell#The Section on "Impact" should be removed, Talk:JaMarcus Russell#Reference to Acquisition of Jason Campbell is relevant / vandalism by Ringerfan23

Comments:

The user also socked using Fingers2424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

67.185.181.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also a sock. This guy's moved from stubborness with a hint of good faith, to pure vandalism and personal attacks. RF23 (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Vianello (Talk) 03:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:111.220.249.29 reported by User:Lear's Fool (Result: Semi)

Page: Patricia Petersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 111.220.249.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [182]

• 1st revert: [183]
• 2nd revert: [184]
• 3rd revert: [185]
• 4th revert: [186]
• 5th revert: [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but made attempt to discuss on user talkpage [189]

Comments:

111.220.249.29 (talk · contribs) has been continually reverting to an unsourced, favourable version of this BLP, using edit summaries calling the newer, sourced version "vandalism" and "potentially libellous". I placed a friendly note warning about the three revert rule on their talkpage prior to the third revert.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. A dynamic IP has been edit-warring to get material in which is favorable to the article subject. There is an AfD running, but it seems likely to end in Keep. In their edit summaries, the IPs refer to defamation, but I can't see any. Please raise any WP:BLP problems that you see on the article's talk page or at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Historiographer reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: protected)

Page: Internet in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Historiographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [190]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194] this editor has been blocked a few times regarding edit warring, and is very aware of rules regarding it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195] (my comment on the article talk page) [196] (another editor's comment on the article talk page)

Comments:

Before someone points out the obvious, yes I do realise that there have only been three reverts, not four within a 24 hour period. It would be very easy for me to be an asshole and bait the other user by reverting the article again (with me remaining within 3RR) and wait for the article to either be reverted (making four reverts and an easy 3RR report) or have the other user realise that he is one revert away from breaking the 3RR and force them to accept my version. However, given the block history of this editor, this [197] edit summary in which content was removed, but the edit summary was rather deceptive, stating that only a title had been changed and the fact that these edits have been disruptive, I think this warrants action.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and - after re-reading my above comments, I would like to make it clear that being an asshole and baiting the other user, is not something I was planning, suggesting or threatening to do. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protected Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tim Song (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

89.210.* reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: indef/1 week)

Page: Ethnic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Pomaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PoamkRomani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and dynamic IPs

• IPs involved:
  • 89.210.38.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 89.210.58.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 89.210.51.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 89.210.39.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 89.210.44.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • PoamkRomani (talk · contribs)

1. 5 June 2010, 20:17 (two successive edits, undoing this)
2. 5 June 2010, 21:12
3. 6 June 2010, 11:53 (rv intervening compromise edit [198])
4. 6 June 2010, 12:11 (subsequent with the preceding; undoing yet another unrelated edit without explanation)
5. 6 June 2010, 15:51
6. new rv following this report: 6 June, 19:39

Warning and attempt at discussion: [199] (prior to rv #3)

Parallel rv-war on Pomaks:

1. 1 June
2. 2 June
3. 5 June, 00:15
4. 5 June, 20:04
5. 5 June, 21:11
6. 6 June, 11:56 (rv compromise edit)
7. new rv following this report: 6 June, 19:40

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: continuing reverts on both articles, now through 89.210.44.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked: account indef'd; 89.210.32.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked one week. Tim Song (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mk5384 reported by User:Montanabw (Result: No violation)

Page: Thoroughbred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Standardbred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Hambletonian 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st article with two reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standardbred&action=historysubmit&diff=366412561&oldid=361388502 (2 reverts)
• 2nd: [200] (2 reverts)
• 3rd revert: [201] (3 changes)
• 4th revert: [diff] Self-reverted own work, so avoided 3RR violation

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

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

• [202]
• [203]
• Which was followed by this: [204]

Comments:

A capitalization debate, editing against consensus that is growing nasty quite quickly, see last comment on my talk page, where a vulgar term was used. Not quite a 3RR yet on any one article, but this editor is now changing multiple articles, including a featured article (Thoroughbred) where the issue was resolved during FA review. This needs a neutral admin to supervise as the editor is failing to understand a longstanding consensus at WikiProject Equine (WPEQ) on the capitalization of horse breed articles and fails to understand the use of terms of art in place. Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And I reverted MYSELF. Read, "self revert to avoid an edit war". Please find something to do.Mk5384 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation - nothing resembling 3RR. --B (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I believe that others are on board here to review the situation, my plea for some additional eyes has been heard, so my thanks and sorry if this wasn't the right spot to report. Montanabw^(talk) 03:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hayek1818 reported by User:E. Ripley (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Dino Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Hayek1818 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [205]

• 1st revert: [206]
• 2nd revert: [207]
• 3rd revert: [208]
• 4th revert: [209]

(There are prior reverts as well.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [210]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [211]

Comments:

Edit warring to keep edits on a BLP that are peacockish, possibly improperly sourced, and in his most recent iteration, that includes commentary directed at other editors who are reverting him, inside the body of the article. I was reluctant to bring a report here because this user appears very new and most likely doesn't understand Wikipedia's policies entirely, but his last revert came after I tried to warn him about 3RR. His next edit was to revert again. He has made no effort to engage in dialogue except for the strange commentary he's edit warring to keep inside the body of the article itself, which basically accuses good faith editors reverting him of working for his political adversary. He needs something to really get his attention, I think. — e. ripley\^talk 22:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have issued a 24 hour block. WP:BITE has a limit, given WP:CIR (which I agree with and act upon). One editor with direct disruptive activity, block is more appropriate than protection. Some BLP advice and some links to WP:BLP in a talk page message might be of some use to this user. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:76.30.16.93 reported by User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 (Result: 31h)

Page: Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 76.30.16.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [212]

• 1st revert: [213]
• 2nd revert: [214]
• 3rd revert: [215]
• 4th revert: [216]
• 5th revert: [217]
• 6th revert: [218]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [219]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [220]

Comments:

IP address user has continued to add uncited information to the article that main contributors are reverting on-sight. Not only are the disputed statements the user is adding uncited, they are dubious and have not received significant coverage from any media sources that have written about the game. User has ignored attempts to discuss on the article's talk page and his/her talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contribs)

• Result -- 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeremy 414 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Not blocked)

Page: William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jeremy 414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [221]

• 1st revert: [222]
• 2nd revert: [223]
• 3rd revert: [224]
• 4th revert: [225]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [226] Also informed in edit summary: [227] to which he subsequently responded.

Concerns addressed here: Talk:William_Lane_Craig#Evangelical_Christian. Re-addressed, and edit warring noted, here: Talk:William_Lane_Craig#Evangelical_Revisited

Comments:

User's 3rd revert may have been unintentional. Some good faith edits from both him and me resulted in undoing the lead. Therefore, I don't believe he's intentionally violated WP:3RR. He is, however, edit warring, despite being warned. These changes have been added (and subsequently reverted) numerous times over the past week, culminating in the diffs listed above from today. The user has yet to respond to sources listed on the talk page. Thank you. Jess ^talk _cs 00:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Also worth noting, the edit warring has been going on for longer than today, including:

• [228]
• [229]
• [230]

...and others. These were prior to being informed of WP:EW and warned, so may have been innocent. We've subsequently engaged in discussion regarding the lead on my talk page and the article talk, but little progress has been made, and his edits are becoming hostile. I believe any clarification from a 3rd party (particularly an administrator) would be helpful in him understanding policy. Thanks for your help. Jess ^talk _cs 02:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined based on the user's statement on your talk page. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and this user has stated that he was ignorant of the rule, understands it now, and will not continue to edit war. Sounds like the problem is solved. --B (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on his recent edit, it seems like it is! I'm going to re-revert the changes to the article based on consensus, and continue discussion on the talk page. Thanks for your help. Jess ^talk _cs 02:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would caution you that you are approaching 3RR yourself. Also, please see my comments on the talk page ... I'd be happy to help with sourcing if I can. I'm not that familiar with Craig, although I do have one of his books around here somewhere. --B (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:ManasShaikh (Result: Both blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IHH_(%C4%B0nsani_Yard%C4%B1m_Vakf%C4%B1)&oldid=366379787

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff (This one was not done using "undo" link. Manually deleted all contributions, and made allegations violating wp:agf. Despite repeated requests, refused to engage on the talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: User is known to be disruptive. He was recently blocked for 12 hours and immediately after the block was over, he started edit warring. Refuses to engage despite repeated requests. Provides false edit summaries (marks significant changes as minor), makes unfounded allegations etc, and removes warnings on his talk page.

(More details on this page )

ManasShaikh (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Back-to-back edits are generally counted as a single revert, even if both of them reverted or undid different aspects of the article. By my count, there are only three reverts. I'm looking at the rest of the history, though. (3RR obviously is not an entitlement.) I should also point out (1) removing warnings from your own talk page is permissible - it is taken as a sign that you have read them and (2) templating a regular user with anything other than a pro forma template (eg, notifying them of a pending deletion) is considered rude. Personal messages are best when dealing with a regular user and in particular, using a template that says "welcome to Wikipedia" is very rude. --B (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi B, thanks for reviewing this. "[R]emoving warnings from your own talk page is permissible- it is taken as a sign that you have read them". I agree. However, the edit summary provided ("removing threats by user pretending he's an admin") shows the difficulty of engaging this particular user. I never "pretended" that I am an admin.

About the second point, I was trying to be polite. But if it's considered rude, then I'll try to refrain from using it. ManasShaikh (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I counted reverts ... both of you are at four reverts ...
    • 4 by Plot Spoiler:
      • 23:26, 6 June 2010 Plot Spoiler (13,240 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by ManasShaikh ...
      • Two back-to-back edits "restoring appropriate lead info" and "Undid revision 366485047 ..."
      • Plot Spoiler (11,323 bytes) (Reverted to revision 366418822 by Plot Spoiler; ...
      • Three back-to-back edits from 15:41 to 15:44
    • 4 by ManasShaikh:
      • Two back to back edits - 23:21, 6 June 2010 ManasShaikh m (12,979 bytes) (Undid revision 366485723 ...
      • 23:04, 6 June 2010 ManasShaikh m (12,979 bytes) (Undid revision 366480622
      • ManasShaikh (12,970 bytes) (restoring the page.)
      • 13:22, 6 June 2010 ManasShaikh (12,676 bytes) (update about substantiating the claim)
    • Accordingly, Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours --B (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Anufriyev reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: Indefblocked)

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

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

• 1st revert: [231]
• 2nd revert: [232]
• 3rd revert: [233]
• 4th revert: [234]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235]

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

Comments:

User is repeatedly inserting spammy links to "cup puzzle" software and has now been successively reverted by three different editors. SpinningSpark 09:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked - indefblocked as a spam only account. --B (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dennisjuris reported by User:Native94080 (Result: Indef blocked )

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: Blocked – for a period of indefinitely BLP, 3RR, vandalism-only account, call it what you will- it's just trolling. Courcelles (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:GreenGov2010 reported by User:Gregbard (Result: username blocked/48h)

Page: California Proposition 14 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: GreenGov2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [239]

• 1st revert: [240]
• 2nd revert: [241]
• 3rd revert: [242]
• 4th revert: [243]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning / User was advised: [244]

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

See:[245]

Comments:
User has stated specifically on user page that the account creation is for the purpose of political campaigning. Insists on inserting irrelevant and inflammatory claim about David Duke.

Don't forget to vote tomorrow in CA! Greg Bard 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User Greg Bard has repeatedly argued in favor of the proposition and is working to keep facts off the front page which are highly relevant. A primary argument made by it's creator is that it will remove the polarization of the campaigns by favoring moderates. Fact: Louisiana elected David Duke using the same voting method as Prop 14. User Greg Bard doesn't want voters to know that. It's a single phrase inserted into a single sentence and is factual. GreenGov2010 (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You will notice that my version is entirely neutral. The whole Duke thing is obviously pretty ridiculous. Nothing in the article claims any such thing as favoring moderates or anything like that. There is no need to address the issue in the article. Wikipedia isn't part of anyone's campaign "gov." Greg Bard 01:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the "whole Duke thing" that Prop 14 introduces is important. If you can show how that election is somehow impossible in California under Prop 14, you should do so. Both elections use the same method. That you did not mention anything about a central claim of the proposition's creators and backers is not anything to be proud of. If someone wants to read the legislative text they can do that at ca.gov. Average voters need to hear how analysts, advocates, and opponents see that the Proposition may change things. GreenGov2010 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as the Wikipedia article goes, no it is not important. Pehaps in the course of you r OTHER campaigning it is a big deal. However the article make no claims about electing moderates. Therefore it is not something that needs to be addressed in the article. You joined Wikipedia what a few days ago? Why don't you read some of the discussion about what is and is not appropriate to include in articles. Tendentious material is left out. Furthermore, your belief that you are somehow warning people that some Nazi could get elected is delusional. Please take a step back and think about it. Even furthermore, it is very irresponsible to suggest that somehow the people of Louisiana had nothing to do with Duke's election. So then I guess racism just isn't the problem then. Is that the brilliant analysis you glean from the fact that Louisiana uses a simple majoritarian system? You are caught up in partisan campaigning, and that has no place on WP. Relent. Greg Bard 06:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef for a username vio. If the edit warring starts again, either re-report here or let me know and it will be dealt with. Tim Song (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The username is now fixed. GreenIn2010 (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

...and is apparently up to the same hijinks. Am I going to have to make another report, or shall we just tack it on to this one. This person is continuing to be a tendentious editor under the new name. Greg Bard 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And so Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Tim Song (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:O Fenian reported by User:Qwerta369 (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Overseas Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: O Fenian (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [251]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [252]

Comments:

User:O Fenian appears to have an issue with the flag used in the country data of the Northern Ireland flagcountry template. I have pointed out to User:O Fenian that the issue was discussed at length at Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland. The consensus is that the current flag should remain. User:O Fenian's issue appears to be with the flag contained within the Northern Ireland flagcountry template and not with the flagcountry template itself, yet rather than discussing the issue on Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland, User:O Fenian continues to remove the template. Qwerta369 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest looking at the history carefully, the first "diff" is from 5th June. And you will also note the warning came after the so-called 4th revert, but as I am already aware it is irrelevant but it shows this editor's sloppiness when it comes to this report. As I have explained repeatedly, the claim I need to amend it on Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland is wrong. In the first discussion on that page an administrator says "If you think that the flag is inappropriate for that set of articles, just remove the string from {{Northern Ireland elections}}. You don't need to change anything else", meaning it can just be removed as inappropriate without amending the template. He also says "I still maintain that the best course of action is to patrol the pages that link to this template and replace the inappropriate instances with {{noflag}} (or outright removal), than it would be to edit ~2500 pages to install a variant label". That is exactly what is done, a change to the template has been ruled out as unwieldy so inappropriate instances like this are removed instead. I have pointed this editor to WP:IRISH FLAGS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations, and to reliable sources saying Northern Ireland not having a flag, because it does not. All I get is a refusal to listen and claims I need to amend it on the template, when a change to the template has been ruled out and we have been told to remove inappropriate instances instead. O Fenian (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment: my reading of Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland, particularly the List of countries by intentional homicide rate and NI Flag template descriptions sections is that (a) Northern Ireland doesn't currently have its own flag (since 1973), (b) {{noflag}} would be an appropriate alternative in such situations, and (c) there is a suggestion to fix {{flagicon|Northern Ireland}} to address this very issue. I'm maybe missing it, but I'm not seeing the consensus Qwerta369 mentions. Regardless, wouldn't {{noflag}} be an acceptable compromise until the "proper" template is fixed? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I was using simply "[[Northern Ireland]]" rather than {{noflag|[[Northern Ireland]]}}. I would not care which was used, as long as an unofficial flag is not used. But if you read the "discussion" on Talk:Overseas Chinese all I got was a non-discussion with a fingers in the ears repetition of "you need to amend it at the template". Change to the template itself has been ruled out as unwieldy and we have been told to watch out for inappropriate usages instead, but then we get editors saying "you need to amend it at the template". It seems to be a bit of a Catch-22 situation. O Fenian (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  I thought cab's comments were helpful, to be honest. However, they were directed more at Qwerta369 than yourself.

  O Fenian, regardless of the merits or otherwise of your reverts, I would recommend that you try and avoid repeated reverts, and discuss earlier.

  Qwerta369, would you be prepared to accept {{noflag}} at Overseas Chinese and all relevant infoboxes?

  TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR. My opinion is that, since all countries in the infobox in question are represented by their national flag, Northern Ireland should not be exempted. I accept, however, that the "Ulster Banner" which is used in {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}} is no longer the official flag of Northern Ireland and so I agree that it is incorrect that this flag remains in the country data of {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}}. My view is that the best course of action is to amend the flag within the country data of {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}} if a consensus to do so is reached. Qwerta369 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to use an amended {{flagcountry}}. If O Fenian was prepared to discuss this with you further (at, say, Template talk:Flagcountry or whatever venue you both felt was appropriate) would you be prepared to withdraw this edit warring report? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR. Yes I would. If I may, I'd like to suggest that the issue of the flag contained in the country data of {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}} is discussed at Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland. Thank you. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for being so accommodating. So long as you two discuss this somewhere, I'm happy ;-) I'll leave a note below. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, CaliforniaAliBaba's comments were helpful, but seemingly Qwerta369 ignored my knowledge of the problems regarding use of the flag and kept trying to pass the buck by making me get the template amended, which has already been ruled out. I generally try and avoid multiple reverts, but on this occasion I slipped up. However I also feel obliged to point out that a slightly inaccurate picture has been painted, in that the flag has not been present in the article for some time, except when random unaware IP editors and one registered editor added it (which you will see me reverting over a period of months), until Qwerta369 added it on 6 June. This morning I received what I deem to be a hostile message with ownership overtones, and then a general refusal to discuss in any meaningful way on the talk page. And now, I must go to work. O Fenian (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  My hope here would be that you can both resolve this amicably, without any recourse to anyone being blocked (I'd regard a block as punitive if it was clear that you were discussing the underlying issue). However, since I can't block anyone, and since there are no doubt editors watching this who can, I can't make any promises. I'd like to wait for Qwerta369 to comment further. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally O Fenian, I should like to add that there was no hostility intended in the message to which you linked and I apologise if it could be perceived that there was. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Qwerta369 is graciously prepared to withdraw this complaint against O Fenian, and both parties are prepared to discuss the issue further. I've warned O Fenian to avoid repeated reverts in general. I have not looked at the reverts described here, and have no comment as to the validity of this report (I consider it irrelevant in light of Qwerta369's withdrawal of the complaint). Could someone uninvolved close this? Or is further action needed? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Declined - Not blocked as there is no ongoing threat of disruption. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. --B (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Prem555 reported by User:Doniago (Result: 72h)

Page: Terminator Salvation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Prem555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [253]

• 1st revert: [254]
• 2nd revert: [255]
• 3rd revert: [256]
• 4th revert: [257]
• 5h revert: [258]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [260]

Comments:
User has failed to discuss edits or stop making changes despite repeated requests. Doniago (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours 3RR is not an entitlement. Tim Song (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Checker Fred reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Checker Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 15:56, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Series overview */ said in preview for break up in pairs some of the episodes are counted as two episodes.")
2. 16:33, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 366812479 by AussieLegend (talk)HER'S A SCOURCE")
3. 17:10, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by AussieLegend; There is no copyright here plus I added up the episodes this is an hr long and lost at see is as well there are 28 episodes add them as 2 and you get 30 epis")
4. 17:25, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Series overview */ a commercial on tv and it said the season finaly")
5. 17:28, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Kww; C fred said it was fine. (TW)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• In all fairness it should be noted that #3 and #4 are consecutive edits, but that still leaves five reversions. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)(The original #4 was removed)
  • Only one (#4) was? Note to Admin: I have removed #4 from the list. Bidgee (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. The others were individual reversions. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protected Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tim Song (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• And the user gets off? Others like myself have been blocked (even though I really shouldn't have a blocklog) for less? Right makes lot of sense, not! Bidgee (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be ongoing on the talk page, and since the user reported is participating in the discussion, I'm not minded to block. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether they are part of the ongoing discussion or not the editor clearly breached the WP:3RR by making not 3, not 4 but 5 reverts. They will now think it is ok to breach it (3RR) and that they can get away with it. No wonder why we are losing good editors as the seem some treated better then others.

and what is the point on having WP:3RRNB when we have Admin's just protecting pages? We may as well just have WP:RPP. Bidgee (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. When the user has started participating in discussion, a block does not prevent anything. Tim Song (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What about some cases above or even in the archive? An example is Prem555 case above were you stated 3RR is not an entitlement, another case handled by a different Admin is the Plot Spoiler case where both editors were blocked. Checker Fred never took it to the talk page until it was at the point of no return, what you have done as Admin was being bias by telling and blocking one editor that 3RR is not an entitlement but yet another editor abused the 3RR, doesn't get a block and also protecting a page where it have been captain obvious that other editors has began to discuss the problem. Bidgee (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Prem555 never attempted to discuss over the several days of edit warring. I can't speak about the Plot Spoiler case. Tim Song (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is several days or a few minutes, Checker Fred never attempted to discuss on the talk age after the third or even fourth revert, what you have basically done is allow a user to abuse the 3RR and allowed the 5 reverts as an entitlement. Infact Checker Fred even misused a warning template [261] during the edit warring, if the user could do this then why couldn't they raise the issue on the user talk page or the article talk page. Bidgee (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sovietia reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 48h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [262]

• 1st revert: [263]
• 2nd revert: [264]
• 3rd revert: [265]
• 4th revert: [266]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [268] [269]

Comments: User is repeatedly inserting a piece of unsourced (and inaccurate) trivia into a BLP, despite objections from multiple editors. User appears to be the same as the IPs making the same edits. The bottom line is that in-universe "facts" about fictional characters should not be treated as facts about the actors who portray them; deliberately editing to that effect is vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Tim Song (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000 reported by 97.92.44.231 (Result: Protected)

Page: Amateur_Radio_Emergency_Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps attempting to link to an unrelated article. User is likely a developer of the software which the unrelated article is about.

Comments:
I've fully protected the article for 3 days and asked for talk page discussion in lieu of blocking both parties for what appears to be around 6RR behavior; neither may have understood edit warring policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec - but agree with above action) I agree with the IP editor on the merits as a content issue (and the comment GWH left on the article talk talk page[270] to that effect), but: (1) both sides are edit warring when it is better to seek dispute resolution; (2) this is a days-long slow speed revert war, not a 3RR type of thing, and (3) Dawnseeker is a productive good faith editor, not an WP:SPA, so I see no reason to assume a conflict of interest. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Dawnseeker is the person who pretty much wrote the whole DSTAR article. Conflict of interest is assumed from that and his failure to justify linking to a pretty much unused and proprietary technology. 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the D-STAR article a few months ago. I added quite a few sources and helped to conform the article to the manual of style, but there isn't any conflict of interest here. I'm not sure why the ip user thinks this. I'm just an average Wikipedian trying to improve articles. I've been doing this for a few years. Dawnseeker2000 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm aware of the 3 revert rule and am being careful here not to cross it. I have asked for a third opinion to help resolve this situation. I've used the talk page to state my stance and would like a third person to look at what is there. Dawnseeker2000 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • 3RR is not an entitlement. You can be blocked even if you only revert exactly three times. --B (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Page protected above by Georgewilliamherbert. --B (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We're constructing an article here and are looking to build content. There is this tool that relates to this emergency service. There are sources. I cannot understand why there is resistance to building the article. If someone were to start a section on methods of the ARES or how they go about their business, it would be lacking without a mention of D-STAR/D-RATS. I dunno, I'm a little confused about this. A person should not have to quarrel in order to build an article. I'm merely doing to this article what I did to the D-STAR article. Here's the before and after. That article improved a bit in terms of sources and quality content.

I don't see how I haven't shown the relationship. There are not many thousands of articles that are related in this way. Dawnseeker2000 22:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• QST article
• D-RATS brochure

DSTAR is a widely unnacepted and unused technology in ARES. While the DRATS section is great in the DSTAR article it frankly is not of significance in ARES organizations to warrant placement. ARES teams use a wide variety of tools including flashlights, raincoats, antennnas, cars, microphones, coax, etc. Should we link to those as well? 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As this report has ended, discussion of the article and the validity of edits should move page to the article's talk page. IP, please weigh in there. Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:24.113.255.64, User:Pypr, and User:WagnerCliff reported by User:Gregbard (Result: Protected)

Page: Rick Keene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 24.113.255.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pypr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WagnerCliff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Please just look at: [271]. This has been going on for a while.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I have attempted to moderate: Talk:Rick_Keene Comments:

Political campaigning.

• Result - Fully protected at an old version for two weeks. The latest version seemed to me to violate WP:BLP, with language such as "In 2009 a website was launched tracking Rick Keene’s exaggerated claims and fact checking him. It can be viewed at www.KeeneFacts.com". I arbitrarily picked the last version by Gregbard since it seemed to be free of gratuitous non-neutral language. If anyone prefers a different way to fix these problems, please make a proposal on the talk page and use {{editprotected}} to get the attention of administrators. Take a glance at the comments in the edit history to get the flavor of the political warring that is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • They also seem to be fighting over Doug LaMalfa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --B (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• The article on Doug LaMalfa has been protected one week. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It might seem fair to leave some of the political opinion regarding In 2007, Keene authored AB 735 to permit undocumented immigrants in California to have valid in-state work permits. The act appropriated $250,000,000 to give undocumented immigrants ID cards and included a tax increase of 8% on workers to pay for the program. Except the bill never had a hearing it did not apporate anything. Leaving up the outright lie without any cite or reference "Supported and voted for a $33 million dollar subsidy to pay for abortions in the 2008 health budget trailer bill." is justified how? And the DUI bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pypr (talk • contribs) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:92.11.165.71 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 92.11.165.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edited under: 92.4.91.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [272]

• 1st revert: [273]
• 2nd revert: [274]
• 3rd revert: [275]
• 4th revert: [276]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold#Marilyn Manson/Misleading use of quote

Comments:

• Not blocked because (1) the IP user is talking it out on the talk page and (2) the IP user is pretty unquestionably correct in that the quote was falsely putting controversial words into someone's mouth and thus a BLP violation. Rollback removed from requestor for using rollback in an edit war. After some reasonable period of time of demonstrated behavior of not edit warring (eg, 1 month), please feel free to ask that I or another admin restore it. --B (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say this was an incorrect decision, not particularly the rollback, but letting the IP slide on his overt 3RR violation. And let's not overlook that the IP did in fact break 3RR without providing a source to support his contention and other editors have commented that what was meant is subject to interpretation but now he gloats that he didn't in fact exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours, when if one looks at the diffs above, he mostly certainly did. The IP was asked to provide a source that can reliably support his statement. He has not produced such a source and continued on to revert. Unless the reviewer here has his own reliable source to support that the IP "pretty unquestionably correct in that the quote was falsely putting controversial words into someone's mouth and thus a BLP violation." and is prepared to treat the IP equally, I'd say the conclusion is biased. It's beyond me how anyone can state that the IP is right, without supporting that, and make a decision based on something unknown. It is clear from talk page discussion that what is meant by that answer is subject to interpretation, and it is in no way a BLP violation to interpret that Manson meant the killers. The IP kept contending that to say Manson meant no one listened to the killers was saying that Manson supported mass murder and the killers. To state no one listened to them is in no way a violation of BLP. That is quite a speciou claim. Without a reliable source that isn't YouTube, I stil maintain he meant that the killer's early conduct and behavior was a way of asking for support, which was ignored. One isn't breaking BLP to say that.Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Murderdan537 reported by Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Scouts-in-Exteris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Never figured out how to make those diffs work properly, so... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouts-in-Exteris&curid=3752790&action=history

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

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

Actually, given the user's history, I have also had to take this to ANI and WP:Vand, but for this specific article, this goes here. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked by Cirt (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for vandalism --B (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Nutriveg reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

This user has removed reference three times in the last 24 hrs:

Here [278] Here [279] Here [280]

Edit warring also occurred on June 8th

Here [281] Here [282] Here [283]

User was warned by three different user here [284] here [285] and here [286]

I have linked this report on the users talk page here [287]

Talk page discussion was ongoing.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, this article has a high number of different edits, it should also be observed that many of the diffs provided omit intermediary edits, or large single edits that removed content that were reverted to restore such removed content but the changes of such large single edits were later added.--21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutriveg (talk • contribs)

(Involved editor) While there is probably not a technical 4-reverts-in-24-hours bright-line violation, there is definitely a serious and ongoing problem with edit-warring on Nutriveg's part which violates WP:EW. I'll put in a plea for administrative intervention of some sort, because he has basically rendered the article un-editable, to the detriment of its actual content. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly not an edit war case, since I've taken an effort to resolve those issues on the talk page and I'm impressed to see how that section evolved in quality since I first edit it. It's not my problem if we have many people making many different changes to the article and they prefer do bold edits instead of discussing the changes first so a large number of reverts is naturally expected.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because you haven;t made 4 reverts inside a 24 hour period doesn't mean there wasn't an edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never said it was a problem of numbers but I only reverted a lot because a lot of people boldly made a lot of different changes to that article instead of discussing those first, what I don't see as problem if they acknowledge that bold edits of problematic text are likely to be reverted, but I was always open to discussion on the talk page and most of those changes in the end were added to article.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find yourself single-handedly reverting "a lot of people", then you should at least consider the possibility that you are acting against consensus. If your objection is that the edits haven't sought your approval before making their edits, then please take a look at WP:OWN. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen WP:Consensus being defined by how many people are involved in an edit war since I understand that as a discussion process and those reverts were many because there were many distinguish changes. I didn't say it was a matter of approval but of people addressing problematic text by making bold edits instead of discussing those problematic issues and listening to the other part, to later complain they were reverted because of those same bold edits they earlier decided to make.--Nutriveg (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There was another recent block at the same article.[288] I'd urge that extra care be taken so that blocks are not handed out to only one group of editors and not another. If conduct is reviewed as part of this report by User:Jmh649, then the conduct of all editors at this article ought to be considered, and that includes admins too.[289]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Nutriveg for 24 hours for edit warring; the reverts are not acceptable, and the tenor of the discussion on the talk page is not constructive. If there are issues with other editors' behavior, those should be pointed out by further submissions to this board or dealt with through dispute resolution, but at this point I do not believe that any other editor on the article merits blocking. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I concur with the above. A 24 hour block is not unreasonable in the circumstances and, with the article protected for the time being, I see little to be gained from further blocks but that's not to say they won't be swift and possibly lengthy if the edit warring continues after the protection expires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mentuhotep23 reported by User:Tim Shuba (Result: 24h)

Page: Cheikh Anta Diop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mentuhotep23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [290]

• 1st revert: 06:07 10June
• 2nd revert: 05:03 10June
• 3rd revert: 22:40 09June
• 4th revert: 14:38 09June

Plenty more going back days:

• 01:49 09June
• 19:28 08June
• 19:05 08June
• 12:05 08June
• see page history for more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [291] [292]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [293] and associated section. Tim Shuba (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to get him to read 3RR after he accused me of edit warring after just one revert, and he's now had 3 warnings. He just continues to revert, although 3 editors (now 4) disagree with him and he has no support on the talk page either. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 24 hours. Edit warring over several days, plus a technical WP:3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Greensburger reported by User:DavidOaks (Result: protected)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genealogies_of_Genesis&oldid=366765594

• 1st revert: [294]
• 2nd revert: [295]
• 3rd revert: [296]
• 4th revert: [297]
• 5th revert: [298]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [299]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [300]

Comments:

I kind of hesitate to report, as I'm not sure the user is understanding quite what's at issue, but I also don't know of another way to make it clear that the material is WP:Fringe whether it's sourced or not. DavidOaks (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected This appears to be a good-faith dispute with plenty of discussion. I have locked the article for now to encourage discussion without the distraction of the edit war. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sugar Bear reported by RG (Result: 1 week block)

Page: List of nu metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Sugar Bear (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

Snot's inclusion on the list was discussed earlier as well as the other groups Sugar Bear (then known as Ibaranoff24) disputed.

Comments:
Sugar Bear is consistently edit warring on this article. Others bands who that he didn't want on the list included Hed PE, Incubus, System of a Down, and Rage Against the Machine. The consensus was always to keep these acts, but the edit warring kept continuing for months. These conflicts are really becoming disruptive. It's also important to note that Sugar Bear has been blocked in the past for 3rr relating to Mudvayne. RG (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• For one thing, there's no violation of 3RR. There are two different edits being reverted to. Secondly, none of the sources refer to the band Tons, but to Snot. Continously adding sources for a different band is vandalism. Reverting vandalism does not equate to any 3RR rule. Secondly, I never violated 3RR, and any previous activity by any editor is irrelevant. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
  • I should point out that Rockgenre/RG actually has violated 3RR. Repeatedly. In addition to vandalising this and other articles. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

• Blocked Blocked 1 week. Has had previous blocks and deleted this report twice. Vsmith (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)