Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive120

User: Carlstar3 reported by User: michaelpholloway (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Carlstar3 has been in an edit war for years now deleting entries that are uncomplimentary to Dr. Gupta on the  page. He has not been discussing or working with other editors working on the page. At most he posts a short charge of bias and deletes. I'm more than happy to accommodate any legitmate concerns he has about accuracy and sources of this latest entry to the page, but he doesn't discuss either. Mike Holloway 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look at what Carlstar3 is removing and he's completely right according to WP:BLP. I strongly suggest you read WP:BLP and do not attempt to re-add the content without re-writing it with a neutral point of view and proper sourcing. -- Neil N    talk to me  04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

3 days. I see fault on both sides of this debate. There is nothing wrong with adding well-sourced criticism of Sanjay Gupta's views, provided it is not WP:UNDUE. It fails neutrality if someone says (in Wikipedia's voice) that Gupta is 'contributing to confusion' on the subject of brain death. Please use the talk page to negotiate an appropriate wording of the criticism of Sanjay Gupta, and try to form a consensus as to whether this criticism belongs in the article. Anyone who continues to revert the criticism section without first getting consensus on the Talk page may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Xero675 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: Indef)
. : Time reported: 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:23,  3 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 335617926 by 115.252.39.147 (talk) removing vedic trash")
 * 2) 20:06,  3 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 335676393 by Thisissparta109 (talk)")
 * 3) 20:12,  3 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 335681523 by 98.248.33.198 (talk) rm vandalism")
 * 4) 20:12,  3 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 335682016 by 98.248.33.198 (talk)")
 * 5) 20:18,  3 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 335682450 by Elockid (talk)")
 * 6) 20:26,  3 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 335683351 by Elockid (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: 20:25, 3 January 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is blatantly banned user Nangparbat. I've already left messages on User:YellowMonkey and User:SpacemanSpiff's pages. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * for 72 hours by SpacemanSpiff, who doesn't feel that Xero being a sock of NP is clear-cut enough. Jamie  S93  00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * SpacemanSpiff has extended the block to Indef, which appears sensible. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade reported by User:Shshshsh (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

A few months back, the user kept edit warring on this article saying the images do not comply with policy while this was an issue which was discussed on several other featured articles of living persons and on the article's talk page as well. Now the user is back at edit warring against consensus despite several users opposing to the removal of the images. The user started doing the same on the Cillian Murphy article, also an FA. The user was warned but keeps at the same. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved administrator I see four reverts by the editor on the Preity Zinta article over the course of three days:, , ,. WP:3RR stipulates "a few narrowly defined situations" in which edit-warring may be excused, which include "Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy". However, given that the fair use of the images had already been explicitly reviewed by knowledgable editors at the successful featured article candidacy, and that Seraphimblade was reverted by three experienced editors, it is clear that they cannot be considered clear or unquestionable violations of policy. This was a content dispute, plain and simple. I see no mitigating factors that might justify or excuse the revert-warring. I find it disappointing that an administrator would resort to such tactics, and deplorable that they would threaten to block a constructive editor with the aim of getting their way with the article. Skomorokh  00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade sees his four reverts as being covered by his admin role, in enforcing the WP:NFCC policy. I've asked him to respond here to explain his thinking. I agree this is not an open-and-shut case, so it may require a discussion. Seraphimblade might solve the problem by opening a thread at one of the image noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment Ed, but looking for and removing from articles non-compliant images is not a role particular to administrators, and even if it were it would not be a get-out-of-jail-free card for revert-warring against consensus.  Skomorokh   01:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the controversy, I'm willing to agree to perform no further reverts at this time, but I think the issue is one that needs discussed. Having had a look around, it seems this problem is more widespread than I thought, so I think a wider discussion will be more productive in any case. I hope that will resolve this here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * - Given the comments above, it would appear that any disruption to Wikipedia has ceased and therefore action is un-needed at this board. Discussion should most definitely take place if the matter is unresolved. In fact it should have taken place earlier, ie before it turned into an edit war! Experienced editors really shouldn't need reminded that multiple uses of revert on an article in a short span is only excused by clear vandalism, BLP issues, etc. I hope cool heads prevail and simple discussion leads to a consensus. If not, then make use of WP:DR or the numerous noticeboards. Cheers, NJA  (t/ c)  10:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Eclipse Internet IP user reported by Jc3s5h (talk) (Result: No vio)
IP user repeatedly changes spelling of the unit of measure meter to "metre" in articles where the former spelling has been accepted, without making corresponding changes to use the spelling throughout the article, without changing the article to UK spelling, and with no effort to discuss the matter outside of dogmatic edit summaries. This contravenes WP:UNIT. Warnings, including final warning, have been issued on the various user talk pages.

Edits with dates:

date: 3 January 2010

date: 8 December 2009

date: 8 December 2009

date: 7 December 2009

date: 6 December 2009

date: 6 December 2009
 * NJA (t/ c)  10:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rockgenre reported by User:Ibaranoff24 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user shows no regard for the overall brevity of sources, refuses to listen to reason and generally behaves in a completely uncivil manner in regards to editing disputes. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologized twice for rude behavior which I admit I was very uncivil. I was still very angry and I hope I have not offended you in anyway Ibaranoff. As for the Kid rock topic I believe it still needs to be debated because there are three I clearly mentioned on his talk page that refer to him as nu metal and another is in his infobox. RG (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

From the comments above, I gather that they will work together to discuss changes rather than pointlessly continue to misuse undo. If discussion proves difficult, the parties should consider dispute resolution, or page protection if needed. Regardless, they should not resume an edit war (or the offender will be blocked). NJA (t/ c)  10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Nickidewbear reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This was his first edit to the article. Please note that this edit was removed by 4 different editors, and as far as I know, none of those editors had worked together before.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * NJA (t/ c)  10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Theaveng reported by User:NJA (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Reverts on article within 24 hours:


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned prior to 3RR

Comments:

this user has five prior 3RR/edit warring blocks. I'd indef them myself, though I do edit the article in question from time to time and would prefer someone else to do the blocking. NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  16:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This user is also adding original research, incorrect, and duplicate information into the Prime Time Entertainment Network article. Immediately labelled my edits as "vandalism", demanded that his edits not be touched, and came *this* close to posting personal attacks on my user talk page. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Theaveng has six previous blocks. His behavior in the war at Compact fluorescent lamp does not suggest a sincere desire to improve the encyclopedia, or to work with others to find a compromise. His earlier misadventures have led to no improvement in his attitude. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Two edit-warring IP's (Result: Warned)
Can't really use the format for this case. We have to IP's and, most probably the same person and most probably a sock/meat puppet that has recently started edit-warring all over I-P articles. Has received warnings about his behaviour,  but to no avail. Not sure of the best approach, so I'm bringing this here to see if we can resolve this here. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The one IP has not edited since the warning. I've given the other (166.203.198.156) a final warning. Should they resume, report it at WP:AIV. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like the "undoer" has moved from the first IP to the second IP since yesterday, but I guess another warning makes sense for now.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:138.47.108.245 reported by Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  (Result: 31h)
. : Time reported: 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 19:14,  4 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
 * 2) 19:41,  4 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
 * 3) 23:09,  4 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
 * 4) 23:24,  4 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
 * 5) 23:29,  4 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
 * 6) 23:40,  4 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:70.239.3.74 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 02:11, 5 January 2010
 * 2nd revert: 02:19, 5 January 2010
 * 3rd revert: 02:53, 5 January 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:33, 5 January 2010 (Made after second revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 22:45, 4 January 2010 (Made after editor initially introduced the material)

Comments:


 * This is a WP:BLP violation as well. The sources provided have been determined to be unreliable, libelous sources.  This material is added a few times a year, every year. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nominated that website for addition to the blacklist. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another admin blocked 70.239.3.74 for 24 hours ‎for edit warring and recurring violations of WP:BLP depsite warnings. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  07:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now they have a sock at work. See report here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:151.81.135.236 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 31h)
. : Time reported: 05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 04:34,  5 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* History */")
 * 2) 04:37,  5 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* History */")
 * 3) 05:02,  5 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* History */")
 * 4) 05:08,  5 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* History */")
 * 5) 05:17,  5 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Authorized fan films */")


 * Diff of warning: 05:10, 5 January 2010

User edit warring over addition of advert linkspam for a fan film where notability has not yet been established.

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  07:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Elockid reported by User:Professional Assassin (Result: No action)



 * 3 reverts on this--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You deleted information without explanation including cited references. Please also see Sockpuppet investigations/Mani1. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone who reverts more than 3 times, says them same things. You didn't use the article's talk page and not even mine and just reverted 3 times. The case is clear enough :))--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: anyone can accuse other users of sockpuppetary. It is very easy. Ain't it?--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the reverts was reverting vandalism (restoring to data according to source). I made 3 reverts within a 24 hour period otherwise. Furthermore, I explained the reversions and you along with the accused socks have failed to address anything, not even a summary. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not allowed to revert by supposing others' edits are vandalism. By the way, I leave the rest to the Admins.--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the edits again. One of the revisions summarized as restoring to data from the source. This was done by an IP edit because they kept changing sourced info without any reason and in the process deleting valid references without reasons (removal of content). The 3 other reverts cited nothing about vandalism. If an admin does see this is a violation of 3RR, I'll be happy to self revert. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 20:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, I'm not an admin, but 3RR states a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period... is in violation of the rule. Also, I think admin intervention of some kind is required here.  ceran  thor 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that I self reverted the 4th revert and am currently seeking to talk to Mani1. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A dialog between the parties is occurring at Sockpuppet investigations/Mani1, and the submitter of that SPI report is asking for it to be withdrawn. This might be enough to justify closing the 3RR report, but I note that one of the participants, User:Mani1, has just done a page move on this article that looks very strange: List of languages by number of native speakers -> List of languages by number of native speakers according to two websites. The move was performed with no discussion at all. I suggest keeping the report open until it is clear that all the changes that are being made have consensus. Full protection is one of the options. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the talk page of the article, User:Ren Sydrick has stated he actually likes the page move and there's no stated opposition right now to the revert it back to the original title. Full protection might not be best at the moment since it seems as either it is going to go through PROD or AfD. I've agreed not to revert Mani's edit and discuss the issue with Mani in the meantime, who also appears to be mediator in the case. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 17:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - The parties seem to be discussing. No action at this time. Somebody has opened an AfD, where the article seems likely to be kept provided the name is changed back. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:24.93.148.252 reported by Walter Görlitz) (Result: Full protection)
. : Time reported: 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison ("compare"):
 * 1) 2010-01-05T11:47:31  (edit summary: "North American Soccer League (2010)")
 * 2) 2010-01-05T11:08:12  (edit summary: "North American Soccer League (2010)")
 * 3) 2010-01-05T10:12:09  (edit summary: "North American Soccer League (2010)")
 * 4) 2010-01-03T22:22:51  (edit summary: "North American Soccer League (2010)")

Diffs are listed from newest to oldest, dates are in UTC
 * Diff of warning: here


 * There is an article that indicates that the CSA is being asked to sanction the league. The other editor is respectfully disagreeing by stating that since the USSF is sanctioning the league it does not need to be sanctioned by the Canadian body. That does not change the fact that the Canadian body has been asked and must make their own decision. The Canadian teams must abide by the CSA's decision. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

—Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result -- Both warned . Both parties are over 3RR, but the IP has not continued to revert since getting a 3RR warning. The IP's edits don't appear justified by the sources provided. It is possible he has some inside knowledge and believes he is correct. Nonetheless, this pattern must not continue or blocks will follow. EdJohnston (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be warned since I didn't break WP:3RR. There is no warning on my page or the article's talk page addressed to me. I warned the IP. The IP has not provided any verifiable source to back claims. The article should be locked to anonymous editing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Fully protected one week. Since you reported a 3RR case here, you obviously know about the 3RR policy, and you don't need a warning. I count at least four reverts by each of you. The protection can be lifted early if you find at least one other person to support you on the article Talk page or at WikiProject Football. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did make four reverts, but not over a twenty-four hour period. I also finally modified the article to attempt to appease the other editor. Ultimately what annoyed me most was that the editor chose to remain anonymous and was only editing this one article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:66.147.238.166 reported by Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  (Result: Semiprotected)
. : Time reported: 04:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 02:33,  5 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
 * 2) 21:46,  5 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
 * 3) 03:01,  6 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
 * 4) 04:05,  6 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Exact same behaviour as 138.47.108.245 last night. — Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And the reverting continues. Bizarre. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result --- IPs are trying to force the inclusion of a Stephenie Meyer fictional character for which no source can be provided that this is an example of a psychopath. Article has previously been protected for the same reason. EdJohnston (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:24.186.76.184 reported by MrOllie (talk) (Result: blocked 1 week)
. : Time reported: 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 15:41,  6 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 18:05,  6 January 2010  (edit summary: "un did vandalism by miss "I need to shove both fists up my cunt to get off"")
 * 3) 18:29,  6 January 2010  (edit summary: "undid vandalism by some stupid old fart")
 * 4) 19:21,  6 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 19:37, 6 January 2010
 * 6) 19:40, 6 January 2010
 * 7) 20:19, 6 January 2010


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

This IP has just come off a 31 hour block for the same edit warring, and has also taken to using vulgar edit summaries and vandalizing user pages. - MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User was blocked by Fastily. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Torckey reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:57, 3 January 2010
 * 2nd revert: 20:16, 3 January 2010
 * 01:23, 4 January 2010 This is not a revert, but a rewrite, introducing much of the same information, violating WP:BLP
 * 3rd revert: 18:27, 4 January 2010
 * 4th revert: 19:57, 4 January 2010
 * 5th revert: 20:09, 4 January 2010
 * 6th revert: 05:02, 6 January 2010
 * 7th revert: 15:56, 6 January 2010

Diff of blp warning: 20:06, 4 January 2010 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:14, 4 January 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Ronz and Talk:Howard_Zinn

Comments:


 * BLP violations and edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would hope experienced editors will now make a concerted effort to discuss the issues rationally with the newer user. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hectorgaspar reported by User:chromatikoma (Result: 24h)
Page:
 * Three-revert rule violation

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (edit summary: "")
 * 2nd revert: (edit summary: "")
 * 3rd revert: (edit summary: "")
 * 4th revert: (edit summary: "")
 * 5th revert: (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is POV edit warring, but he also tends to completely break ref tags, remove the links to the article in other languages, or otherwise inappropriately edit as to break the functionality of the page. The crux of the matter boils down to WP:RS and was discussed here on RS/N

-Chromatikoma (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:StevenMario and User:Coffee5binky reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Full protect)
Page:


 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

StevenMario's reversions:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Coffee5binky's reversions:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to StevenMario:
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to Coffee5binky:

Comments:

StevenMario has been blocked twice in the last week for editwarring on cartoon related articles - he apparently has not learned his lesson - the 3rr report diffs are a mess, as both he and Coffe5binky are only reverting tiny portions of each others edits. Coffe5binky has started a series of borderline personal attacks on StevenMario in his edit summaries, and both editors are escalating this much too far over a content dispute. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have full-protected The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! for 24 hours. –MuZemike 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * StevenMario has been blocked for a period of indefinitely. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:70.57.228.12 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 48h)
. : Time reported: 06:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 03:59,  7 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 04:51,  7 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 04:56,  7 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 06:06,  7 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 06:19,  7 January 2010  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: 6:11, 7 January 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  09:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:71.75.202.139 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Informed the user in the above warning to start a discussion on the article Talk page, but user reverted without doing so.

Comments:

This anonymous user continues to add unsourced, non-notable POV material despite being warned that it violates Wikipedia rules and after being asked to discuss the material in question on the article Talk page and seek consensus for its inclusion. User wants to use terms like "loser", "inept" and include alleged fan chants of "limpdick" that cannot be sourced in the section of an encyclopedic article that deals with the history of the subject. Focus on individual player performance and single unremarkable games is not notable for inclusion in this section which summarizes over 100 years of sports history, but the anonymous user refuses to seek consensus for the edits they wish to make and continues to revert without discussion, making minor tweaks in an attempt to skirt policy violation. I'm admittedly new to this whole process, so I hope I've filled out the form correctly and provided the needed info. If any further details are required, please let me know and I'll attempt to provide them. I don't know if this user has violated 3RR blatantly, but I think it's clear that the user is edit-warring without any attempt to discuss contentious changes or seek consensus. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple IPs are now making unconstructive edits to this article, I'd like to ask for some sort of temporary protection in addition to a decision about the anonymous user reported here. Thanks again. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned reported by User:Heptor (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a WP:BLP issue. -- H eptor  talk 14:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I have brought a valid reference to the article this one, discussed it in the talk page, and has been removing it many times without discussion. I assume was of good faith however: I think he made the confusion with another previous non-valid reference. The reference is a conference held by activists, and the article just says he (the author, subject of the article) participated in it. No WP:BLP, and the ref is valid. So no need to edit-warring as Heptor did. TwoHorned (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The content was disputed and removed by multiple editors, nothing gives you the right to continually repeatedly reinsert it in an edit warring way. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You mix up different things. Explain why the new ref I brought is non-valid. You are referring to older discussions. And nothing is "fixed", as his qualification as an "historian" is very poorly sourced. TwoHorned (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And, BTW, others have removed without discussion stuff brought by . I just sourced Severino's edits. And correctly. So, everything is very much about content here, not WP:BLP. TwoHorned (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not mixing up anything, you have been edit warring to keep your desired content in the article, its correctness,value, the quality of the citation was disputed by multiple editors requesting you move to discussion but you just kept on stuffing it in anyway. Content disputes as I told you are decided by discussion not edit warring. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of "previous discussion" on the talk page, both with and without my involvement. I also posted a warning on an earlier 3RR violation on TwoHorned's talk page.
 * TwoHorned: if you are serious about doing constructive contributions, please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. You keep claiming that this article is not a BLP issue. Pardon me if I am wrong, but this strongly suggests that you are not familiar with this policy. Generally, when writing biographies of living persons, extra care must be taken both about sourcing and discussion of the content that is to be inserted. Also, please refrain from violating the WP:3RR in the future. -- H eptor  talk 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, this is a WP:3RR violation dispute, not a content dispute. TwoHorned, do you admit that you violated the 3RR, and if so, will you promise to edit less aggressively in the futre? Thanks. -- H eptor  talk 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TwoHorned is over 3RR, but there is some useful discussion happening on the article's talk page. I suggest we wait a few hours to be sure that reverting has stopped. If TwoHorned continues to revert, he should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. Peace and harmony have broken out, since the contending parties have agreed on an AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned is edit warring again adding content that is coatracking and has nothing to do with this living person, I have given him two more warnings to no avail, the last one was, please don't add it again or I will report you, he ignored that and added it back again. this is the tagging on he is inserting.. and which features Vlaams Belang, among others entities, as a "counter jihad" organisation. the detail has nothing to do with the subject at all it is simple coatracking. Here you'll see the two warning I have given him tonight. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's completely related to the subject as Vlaams Belang is one of the organization mentionned in the web site and conf in question in the article. The truth is that is discarding properly sourced information, and discusses poorly and badly in the talk page, with insults directed at me : here. TwoHorned (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 11:14, 6 January 2010
 * 2nd revert: 12:53, 6 January 2010
 * 3rd revert: 04:20, 7 January 2010
 * 4th revert: 08:31, 7 January 2010
 * 5th revert: 11:00, 7 January 2010

The third revert just barely fell outside the 3RR/24hr limit by just five minutes with an earlier revert at 04:15, 6 January 2010.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned in edit summary when I undid his 4th revert

Comments:

Sorry, I thought the revert rule only applied to the same material being reverted, not different material. I'll be more careful in the future.--John Foxe (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that this incident is not unique, and this editor in particular has a history of repeatedly rapidly reverting any changes made to the this article and those of the Latter Day Saint topic in particular, that he inclines to agree with. Although he denies claims of "owning" the article, he enjoys to make changes to his reflected opinion/style and then aggressively defend the articles from changes, whether they be minor or major. Its quite disruptive, and works to disregard and discredit the opinions of others. He's been doing this for quite a while, and his editing behaviour has indeed drew attention from professional external sources. Routerone (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Warned. John Foxe has stopped reverting, and many others have edited the article since. Open a new report if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:GSP-Rush reported by User:Bubba73 (Result: Warned)


Please comment on changes to the article Samuel Sevian and its talk page by this user. It hasn't gotten to 3RR yet. Please note his uncivil comments on the article's talk page. I think the user is probably a child. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First off stating that someone is child is discrimination witch i strongly doubt that wikipedia support it. Second, if you would of look at wat i did instead just the fact that did something... You would of notice that the change made were your personally recommendation. So basically i did exactly wat you ask me to do then you turn around and report me and call me a child.

It not very hard to understand who is child here. GSP-RuSh| —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Result - Warned. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I stated that I believed that the user was a child so that could be taken into account and a warning would not be tooharsh. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 15:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:163.1.111.131, User:163.1.111.41, User:129.67.172.146 reported by User:Chaosdruid (Result: semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:163.1.111.131 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:163.1.111.41 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:129.67.17.233 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:129.67.172.146 User_talk:129.67.172.146

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

Comments:

I have reverted the reverts to the original editors revert but do not want to fall foul of 3RR The main problem is the usage of edit comments to accuse me of vandalism and ignoring edit comments i have included to try and deflame the situation I have contaced the editor that made the first revert, but no answer as yet. It seems that the user is using different ip adresses or there are more than one user Chaosdruid (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to resize the text but cant - strange ! Chaosdruid (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Chaosdruid's report. These IPs are adding unsourced POV material to the article and are not discussing on Talk Page.  Page should be semi-protected.  (Taivo (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Semi-protected by Moreschi. No other recent problematic edits from any of these addresses, so closing this. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Fellin333 reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Warned about copyvio by an editor here as well. Got a weird return warning that the copyvio warning editor and I have been informed on at "florida headquarters" whatever that means .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

- 2/0 (cont.) 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Gantlet and User:Dewatchdog reported by User:Samaleks (Result: 12 hours each )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

... and the reverts goes on and on and on....

The same is the case with User:Dewatchdog

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Both the users are aware about the 3RR policy. Infact one of the user (Dewatchdog) placed the warning for the other (Gantlet). Later the warning was removed by User:Gantlet :

Also, both of their userpage seems to possess many baseless claims such as Novato and Ultimate Editor badges. :)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please block the users and semi-protect the article. --Samaleks (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 12 hours each. I wonder if its the same user playing silly buggers? If this resumes after the block expires it will be curtains for them. Semi protection is unnecessary as they are both blocked anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:SkagitRiverQueen reported by User:LaVidaLoca (Result: 48 hours)
Page: User being reported: Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: She has blatantly ignored warnings and talk page comments that her interpretation is not according to the sources and blatantly reverted, knowing she was warned about WP:3RR. If this does not violate the word of 3RR, it violates the spirit of it by waiting an hour past 12 hours and reverting anyway, even with editors objecting. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 48 hours as this is a second offense Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:119.152.x reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

...any many more
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, also on my talk page: , , ,

Comments:

This IP-jumping editor is edit warring on the List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan to add totals of the number of fatalities without any supporting citations. Without double-checking their addition, they state they are coming up with these totals themselves by adding up the numbers in all the incidents in the article (see here). They have been repeatedly asked to stop this blatant original research as it is highly unlikely that the list of reports in the article include all fatalities and don't have any double counting and various reliable sources provide total figures, but have ignored all requests and warnings. The IP accounts used in this particular edit war are, and. I note that this editor's conduct is similar to that of and his many block evading socks. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:Ajh1492 (Result: Both editors blocked for 3 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Viceroy]


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

User BilCat is repeatedly deleting over 10kb of article content including Russian Empire sections that have 2 references at the bottom of the article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Please lock the article down for 48 hours in it's state as of

Ajh1492 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've left a detailed explanation of the problem on the article's talkpage. That will be the extent of my interaction with this user, or this page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I count four reversions for each editor in the last 24 hours (diffs for User:Ajh1492 are, , , ) and so have blocked them for 3 hours and protected the article for 48 hours. As both editors are experienced and in good standing I think that a very short block is appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:174.106.0.122 reported by User:PCHS-NJROTC (Result:Informally settled )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * Created essay:
 * 1st edit by IP, removed my balancing point:
 * 1st revert by PCHS-NJROTC:
 * 1st revert by IP user:
 * 2nd revert by PCHS-NJROTC:
 * 2nd revert by IP user:
 * 3rd and last revert by PCHS-NJROTC:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Per WP:DUCK, the other party in this content dispute appears to be the same troll that's been stalking me for a while. MaxMind.com Geolocation places both 174.106.0.122 and 70.63.207.41 in the same city in North Carolina, as well as 174.106.14.236, which posted some WP:OUTINGish comments on another user's talk page; it's quite likely the same person as User:DaMo2010 based on the user's obsession with Conservapedia and me. I was going to WP:DENY, but it doesn't look like this one's going to let me with the edit warring. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

wp:duck is just an essay. to say "per (any essay)" holds no water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.0.122 (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cubfan789 reported by Sole Soul (talk) (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 14:32,  8 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 336595673 by Simone Jackson (talk)")
 * 2) 15:34,  8 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 336605183 by Simone Jackson (talk)")
 * 3) 16:47,  8 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 336617182 by Simone Jackson (talk)")

—Sole Soul (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I didnt realize it was my third revision until both of us had already made three revisions. I spent about a week (on and off) rebuilding that page to make it more organized and readable, then she just comes and undoes all my work. Im not mad at her, its just frustrating spending all that time and then having it deleted! I am sorry for breaking the 3RR rule.

cubfan789 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If possible, I retract my report. The 2 users are engaging now in the talk page. Sole Soul (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cub, I'm a boy, not a girl (I'm Italian). Anyway, i understand you, but when a person want to modifie all format of the page, is always better to talk.
 * Sole Soul, why only i have got a warning and not also Cub?

Simone Jackson (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I warned you so you avoid being reported here like Cub, which occasionally result in a block. I believe a block is an enough warning. Sole Soul (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No violation. It takes four reverts in a 24-hour period to break 3RR. In spite of that, anyone who continues to revert, without getting others to support their view on the Talk page, risks getting blocked.  EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

71.196.72.160 reported by User:Marek69 (Result:1 month )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Note that the IP has been blocked twice for vandalism and once the block expired, has continued to resume the exact same behavior that they were blocked for and despite warnings given by multiple users. The IP is also reported under WP:AIV. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * JohnCD first blocked the IP for two weeks for Vandalism: resumed as soon as prior block expired. JohnCD has since extended the block for the following reason: on second thoughts, based in rapid return after previous blocks, may as well go straight to a month. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:IP 69.156.x.y reported by User:Georg Hurtig (Result: Page Protection )
Page:

The IP is trying to set the article back to an old version from December; today for the third time. Only poor justification is given in the edit summaries. I suggest to restrict edit rights to registered users for a week or so. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, IP has done a 4th revert. Admins, please help. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This guy Georg Hurtig put certain tables and data which couldn't be verified at all since 8 DEC, 2009. Do you think this kind of revert should be considered acting against vandalism? 69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Both of you have gone over 3RR and I've protected the page instead of blocking. Edit warring isn't the answer, even if you know for sure you are right. You now have a week to discuss your differences calmly on the talkpage and figure out a solution to the problem at hand. It should be fairly straightforward if the main issue is verifiability. If you find you need help and would like the opinions other editors, you might want to consider getting a third opinion, making a WP:RFC or using some of the noticeboards e.g. WP:NORN etc. If you find a solution sooner than a week, let me know and I'll remove the protection. --Slp1 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Greenbird534 reported by User:Jackieboy87 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warned by user:N5iln)

User:Greenbird534 continues to add information about upcoming episodes to the page sourced from IMDb, which has always been treated as unreliable (for yet-to-air episodes) because the content on IMDb is user-generated. After user:N5iln warned him for edit warring, I left a note on his talk page about the reiability of IMDb, however, he never responded and went straight back to reverting.

Comments:


 * Result - Greenbird534 broke the 3RR rule on January 8-9 by constantly re-adding the IMDB links. His last revert was at 02:15 on 9 January, but he has not continued since being informed about this 3RR report. We trust that the point has been made. If not, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Loverdrive reported by Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  (Result: 72h)
. : Time reported: 19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 17:50,  8 January 2010  (edit summary: "no no no")
 * 2) 15:33,  9 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 336792510 by Nouse4aname (talk)")
 * 3) 18:35,  9 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 336836680 by Nymf (talk)")
 * 4) 18:54,  9 January 2010  (edit summary: "Remove useless quotes.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Recently blocked for edit warring on same article. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

...and two three more reverts after this report. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 72 hours. User seems well-intentioned, but has continued past multiple warnings. He was previously blocked in December for edit warring. Block may be lifted early if he will agree to change his approach.  (Seems to be yet another example of a music-genre war). EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jbolden1517 reported by Eugeneacurry (talk) (Result: Voluntary article ban)
. : Time reported: 20:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 17:29,  9 January 2010  (edit summary: "haldrapper is right in his correction")
 * 2) 18:43,  9 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 336835916 by Eugeneacurry (talk), change is already rejected wait until it is accepted on talk")
 * 3) 19:37,  9 January 2010  (edit summary: "major scholars considering it a testable hypothesis, yeah wouldn't want to mention that now.")
 * 4) 20:03,  9 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy */ restore Freke and Gandy.  You don't think slashing one whole section on the actual authors if sufficient for a day?  I was going to let others object")
 * 5) 20:05,  9 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Earl Doherty */ restore Earl Doherty.  This chart and the others say different things.")
 * 6) 22:16, 9 January 2010 (reverts User:Eugeneacurry's edit of 22:16, 9 January 2010--diffs 4-6 are consecutive and should count as one revert)
 * 7) 01:54, 10 January 2010 (reverts User:Ari89's edit of 23:58, 9 January 2010)
 * 8) 02:48, 10 January 2010 (reverts User:Ari89's edit of 01:14, 10 January 2010)
 * 9) 02:51, 10 January 2010 (reverts User:Ari89's edit of 01:35, 10 January 2010)
 * 10) 03:04, 10 January 2010 (straightforward revert to the last diff)


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: Page was just released from lock, Jbolden1517 had threatened a one-month roll-back in the interim. —Eugeneacurry (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I added diff #6, but please note that diffs 4-6 are consecutive edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just comment those versions aren't remotely similar. Do diffs on those version. I've been editing all day. Those are not simply reversions you will see (very) large scale changes. This article is incredibly active today. I'

Specifically: For #6 you'll notice Category:Pseudohistory is in there, not reverted. For #5 You will see differences in the first pagragraph text They keep adding so the numbers keep changing. But I suggest the admin do a diff comparison. These are not the same articles I was aware of 3RR and trying very hard to not violate it by offering alternatives and not just reverting (again see the diffs). I may have gotten trapped by reverting different editors on different things. If I did cross the line on the "in part" criteria that was unintentional, and I'm sorry. ll agree to stop editing the article voluntarily for 24 hrs, since I would agree this is getting borderline (at the very least). I also would revert myself but I can't at this point since there are intervening edits. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added diffs 7-10. As for Jbolden1517's comment, let me quote from the top of the page: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, with the massive number of reverts to his credit, the clear obstructionism and obscurantism he's put on the talk page, his attempts at canvassing, and his general attitude of ownership regarding the article, Jbolden1517 has moved beyond a mere edit war and has revealed himself as a higly motivated disruptive editor of the Christ Myth theory page. Eugeneacurry (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Voluntary article ban. Jbolden1517 has agreed not to edit the article for a week. His restriction will expire at 04:26 on 18 Jan 2010. He can still participate on Talk, but I strongly urge him to start an RfC on at least one of the disputed points. There are many experienced editors working on the Talk page, but they are tripping over each other and making little progress.  If this doesn't work, there may need to be a long period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome reported by User:ArtistScientist (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dick_Grayson&oldid=333649000


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

Diff of edit warring:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Consensus is that a Robin image is more appropriate than a Nightwing image. The user keeps indulging in silent reverts. When I told him he was edit warring he said "don't care lamo". (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian_Boru_is_awesome&action=history) ArtistScientist (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no 3RR violation that I can see by that editor in the article's edit history. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming infringement of the 3RR, but edit warring. There's a difference, isn't there? ArtistScientist (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is, but even then the edit warring is very thin as the edits are days apart, and not that numerous. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. Brian Boru has been notified of this report. He has not edited the article in 24 hours. If he continues to revert, it qualifies as a slow-motion edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:216.26.203.220 reported by User:Fetchcomms (Result:24 h )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

 fetch  comms  ☛ 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the same as the request filed below by FisherQueen. Matter was discussed on the user's talk page and appears to be resolved.   delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 23:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was resolved, too- then he reverted again once more. Personally, I'm disappointed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:216.26.203.220 reported by User:FisherQueen (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

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

Comments: Pronoun use is not thrilling, unless the subject of an article is transgendered. Then simply following the manual of style becomes very upsetting for some people. Since I've already reverted this user, I'll let someone else do the blocking?


 * Slp1 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Bartłomiej Macieja reported by User:Bubba73 (Result: protected)
Page: Bartłomiej Macieja

I'm not involved with this at all, but there is an edit war going on at this article. I think someone needs to step in. One of the users primarily edits only this article, so may be personally involved with the subject of the article. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 03:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the admin for protecting the page and warning the editors. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 04:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rapido reported by User:Foetusized (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This article seems to have been caught up in a larger dispute about pirate radio stations, including the article Radio Jackie North wikilinked in the sentence that has been repeatedly removed -- Foetusized (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - rather than try to resolve the dispute, User:Foetusized decided on personal attacks out of nowhere (which he has ignored, and not apologised for) and User:Andy Dingley repeatedly makes assumption of bad faith (even after I requested he not do that some days ago). I contest any accusation of "edit warring", as I was merely deleting information that was either completely unsourced or from sources failing WP:SPS. Foetusized also falsely claims that I broke the three revert rule, whereas I had only reverted thrice (shown above as 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert) after the initial removal of unsourced content (erroneously shown above as 1st revert). If anything, I would suggest that Andy Dingley and Foetusized are the edit warriors for re-introducing unverified material, whereas all I am doing is removing it for lacking verifable sources. I understand that the information on the Eric's Club page was added by Andy Dingley some time ago, so I can understand why he might be disheartened by its removal, especially as he seems to be fond of the pirate radio station Radio Jackie North, however that does not give him the right to make assumptions about me, and neither does it give him the right to assume his edits take precedence over anyone elses. Rapido (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Rapido is warned not to violate 3RR. Technically, his first edit is also a revert since it undoes the work of previous editors. Since all these actions happened on 9 January, it is too late for a conventional 3RR block, but if warring continues, action may be taken. The people who want to keep mention of the radio station in the article are advised to look for reliable sources.  (The book by Whelan and Florek looks like a reliable source, and it may mention the radio station, if anyone can get hold of it). EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are right; after looking closely at the criteria for 3RR, it does say A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, so I apologise to all involved for my 4th reversion, and will ensure not to repeat such action in future. Rapido (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Smallbones reported by User:Igny (Result: Protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous versions reverted to:10000 killed soldiers and plan to kill 80 million


 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th

Also note relevant disruptions at my talk page by Smallbones here (an edit which I consider hypocritical and baiting) and consequent WP:HUSH violation here. (Igny (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC))
 * - There appears to be more than one party at fault here, and possibly a number of 3RR violations. Because of the complexity of the situation I decided the best course of action is protection. Seeing as this is an indefinite protection I recommend you work things out on the talk page.  Tiptoety  talk 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikieditorpro reported by User:Vexorg (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Two versions as interim additions made to article Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=332731202 Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=336928930


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=334754479
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=336598375
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=336915880
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=336974854

User:Wikieditorpro is engaged in an edit war and removing edits which adhere to Verifiability adn removing information which was acutalyl featured in the TV program

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

I took this to the talk pages yesterday, but User:Wikieditorpro has ignored that. I am actively try to improve the article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dispatches_%28TV_series%29

Comments:


 * As it takes two to edit war I agree to not continue the war. Vexorg (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As an additional note the editor User:heptor has appeared to come out of nowhere and as well removed disputed minutae has also removed this section with no rationale .. "Other groups featured in the program were the Jewish Leadership Council, the Zionist Federation, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Camera. " from the article. Given the circumstances I am impotent from restoring this as certain parties will use that as an act of edit warring against me. I am not unaware of the bias that is going on here. Vexorg (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Protected two weeks. The listed reverts are not in a 24-hour period, and this seems to be a long-running dispute. It looks to me that the article could be fixed by careful choice of wording, that goes no further than what the program itself states. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to you to work out a compromise. If an admin had a large amount of time to devote, he or she might walk you through this, but it seems you will be on your own. If an agreement is reached before protection expires, ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

98.203.142.17 reported by User:Mohammad adil (Result: IP is a banned editor)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and two time in here.

I tried inviting the above mentioned IP address to article's talk page but his behavior was rather rude and he avoided discussion on talk page of the article, i contacted him personally on his talk page which didn't helped, his tone was quite uncivil, he rather blamed me of hounding him from the article Umar, where he had some similar edits and when invited to talk page, he avoided me.:

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  15:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing claims such as that Umar's father was a "ruthless man and emotional polytheist [sic.]" would normally be considered uncontroversial cleanup, and I was disappointed to see Mohammad adil restore it. He then followed me to Glossary of Islam to restore this vacuous (and entirely unreferenced) characterization of Arabic as an unusual language in which extraordinarily enough words can mean more than one thing. A quick look through his contribution history showed him edit-warring to restore his own unreferenced judgment about at least one other prominent figure in Islamic history; I imagine that a more thorough search would turn up more of the same.
 * It might help if someone could explain to Mohammad adil the importance of supporting text using references to reliable sources, and of writing from a neutral point of view.98.203.142.17 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all try being civic, n stay cool, (may be thats why ur account was block earlier), for ur info i am a rollbacker and i check wiki articles for possible vandalism and do cleaning (unsourced edits/unexplained removal of taxt i.e POV) so be my guest and check my contibution history u will find hundreds of such edits as were in ur above given link of Abu Bakr.
 * Secondly, as for removal of santence from glossary of islam, not only i reverted ur edits but there were two other users as well who reverted ur same edits, it means ur removal of that sentance was unnecessary, also u avoid discussing it, if u were true in ur edits.


 * As for reversion of ur edits from Umar, then it made no sense simply, the sentance was necessary for describing umar's father's personality which had a great impact on umar's childhood and thus on his character, removal of that sentance means a removal of valuable knowledge of umar's childhood. i invited u for discussing it so that i n other users may know wht really is the problem with nature of sentance, but u avoided and rather chosen an aggressive way of edit wars.
 * I usually follow up ip addresses to know whether their contributions are constructive or not, becasue serious editors make a user account, not ip addresses which r usually vandals.

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  12:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - IP blocked one month, since he admits on his own talk page that he is an editor banned by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mladifilozof reported by User:Tadija (Result: Digwuren notice)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: undid vandalism
 * 2nd revert: Undid revision 337060610 by 81.18.52.169 (talk)
 * 3rd revert: undid repeated vandalism.
 * 4th revert: do not vandalize, discuss on talk page
 * 5th revert: article extended
 * 6th revert: article extended

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: but with no respond...

Comments:

User reverting all that is not in his POV. Not just this, numerous other articles. --Tadija (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Defense
Dear colleagues, please, look carefully history of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Serbia&action=history

I was working on the article Kingdom of Serbia for few days and I expanded it from 7,203 to 12,668 bytes. I was not reverting anyones contributions, but user:Tadija and other user:FkpCascais (reported for vandalism) continualy deleting my referenced contributions, without any explanation on talk page.

I was wrong because I undid vandalism by my self. Maybe I should only report vandalism, as I did also. Anyway, user:Tadija wrongly presents my contribution as reverts, although it was regulary expansion of the article:


 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

I hope that we can discuss any controversial issue on talk page, not just deleting someones few days work.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * P.s.While I was writing this, they have reverted all my work, but I am not going edit warring. Please, resolve this fair.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are they? I didn't do that. --Tadija (talk)


 * P.s.s.See also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tadija&diff=337081870&oldid=336979362.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems like an interesting post towards User:Mladifilozof. <small style="background:#000"> kedadi al  01:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. Very much. FkpCascais (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to reviewing admin: There was a previous attempt to resolve this situation at WP:WQA, but it seems to have failed. You may want to consider the various incivility issues brought up here as well when reviewing this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Mladifilozof went way past 3RR on Kingdom of Serbia, but another admin has full-protected the article in the mean time. I've notified Mladifilizof of the Digwuren Arbcom case which allows admins to impose discretionary sanctions for disruptive editing on articles in Eastern Europe, and urged that he limit himself to one revert per day on this article in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Igny and others (tag team) reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: The Four Deuces Jan 5
 * 2nd revert: Simonm223 Jan 5
 * 3rd revert: Paul Siebert removes basic text Jan 5
 * 4th revert: (related) Paul Siebert removed source in footnote Jan 5
 * 5th revert: Igny Jan 6
 * 6th revert: Igny Jan 6
 * 7th revert: Igny Jan 11
 * 8th revert: Igny 11 Jan

A tag team has claimed that a Harvard Prof is not a reliable source and simply removed the sentence repeatedly, I've asked them from the start to take it to WP:RSN and they have refused. I let the threatened edit war die for about 5 days, but I have every correct reason to insert the summary of a relevant reliable source. Today Igny has revert it twice. I've taken it to WP:RSN myself. I've formally warned Igny about edit warring on his talk page twice, and he has twice removed the warning. Last week I warned the tag team members that they were edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see User talk:Igny history messages from Smallbones

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A whole section from talk Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

See also RSN

Comments:

Smallbones (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Obviously, if accusation in tag teaming is applicable to any of the parties, then Smallbones and Bobani are to be blamed in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Initially, the text has been removed per BRD. However, instead of discussing the issue, User:<Smallbones launched an ad hominem campaign. Igny correctly pointed out that, regardless of reliability of the source used, the proposed text seems to be not supported by the source. User:<Smallbones didn't address Igny's criticism and continued to re-insert almost the same text. In my opinion, the User:<Smallbones's behaviour fits a criteria applied to edit warring.


 * Technically, tag teaming is a very serious accusation, and I do not think Smallbones has the evidence to back it up. This particular edit war should be considered not as team on team battle, but edit-warring against consensus. Any impartial observer could see for himself what party is being unreasonable and disruptive here. (Igny (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Result - Article has been protected by Tiptoety. See the next report for his rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:66.65.9.220 reported by FLobotomy (talk) (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 11:11, 10 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 01:52, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 03:38, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "vandalism")
 * 4) 04:22, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "vandalism")
 * 5) 04:35, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 6) 10:54, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "vandalism")
 * 7) 15:29, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "vandalism")


 * Diff of warning: here

—FLobotomy (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IP editors are encouraged to discuss the link to reach consensus whilst the page is protected, so then once it's unprotected they will not continue to disrupt the page. Further disruption after protection will likely result in blocks. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  07:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Iaaasi reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: the original form


 * 1st revert: first
 * 2nd revert: second
 * 3rd revert: third
 * 4th revert: again
 * 5th revert: again
 * 6 th revert: and again

Furthermore, diruptive edits (POV pushing an 3RR) at article John Hunyadi too. See history.-- B@xter <sup style="color:red;">9 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Already warned by other user. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In other disruptive cases. See this or this. No effect.

Comments:


 * Result - 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Afaprof01 reported by Ben (talk) (Result: Stale)
. : Time reported: 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 22:51, 10 January 2010  (edit summary: "Lede. "account" "narrative"  in lieu of "myth" reached consensus earlier â€¦using wikEd"). Reverted by me here.
 * 2) 01:12, 11 January 2010  (edit summary: "Provided page numbers for Nelson. See paragraph "Broad-based religious rejection of literalism". He does a good job of avoiding myth, account, etc. Uses narrative only once, and no other identifier. â€¦using wikEd"). Reverted by me here
 * 3) 03:17, 11 January 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Ben Tillman; IMO, this version trumps "myth". Further, "myth" instantly puts Creationists, Christians, Jews, and Islamics on the defensive. (Shapiro, Arthur M. "A myth is a"). Reverted by User:Aunt Entropy here.
 * 4) 04:18, 11 January 2010  (edit summary: "reword first sentence to avoid POV characterization â€¦using wikEd"). Reverted by me here.
 * 5) 06:34, 11 January 2010  (edit summary: "Lede and additional material â€¦using wikEd"). Reverted by an 24.183.47.163 here.
 * 6) 06:12, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "Lede open and two different creation accounts â€¦using wikEd")


 * Diff of warning: here and here

—Ben (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit war was approx 49 hours ago with no recent edits by the reported party. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  07:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:173.55.80.176 reported by dave souza, talk (Result: 24h )
. : Time reported: 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:48, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Reception */  Added critical content, with reverences")
 * 2) 18:37, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
 * 3) 19:39, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
 * 4) 21:52, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
 * 5) 22:08, 12 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Reception */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—dave souza, talk 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the backlog, and continued reverting of various editors, I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. Review welcome. Thanks, dave souza, talk 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection to this block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:74.13.131.121 reported by User:69.171.160.222 (Result: None )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I keep trying to post links to Emergency Air Organizations for the Haitian Earthquake and this guy keeps removing them (he ius edit warring):


 * So are you. Stop edit warring, and try talking to the people who are reverting you, either on their talk pages or on the article's talk page. It's hard for anyone to communicate with you as your IP address keeps changing. If you keep it up, the page will be protected so that unregistered editors such as yourself can no longer edit it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My IP isn't changing and I did talk to him several times. I don't know how to fill out this form to show you the rest of the conversation. People are dying in Haiti tonight and there should be links on the Earthquake site to aid organizations. There is nothing in Wiki guidelines against that. Why are narrow rule interpretations taking precedence over human life here?

69.171.160.185 (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your IP is clearly changing as your current one has never edited the article. As for the rest, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Humanitarian concerns do not take precedense over building an informative encyclopedia. Your changes have been opposed by other editors, and you are expected to follow the same standards of dispute resolution as everyone else. It doesn't matter that you're trying to do good. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are almost uniformly amoral. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I did edit the article with that IP address, you are not reading it correctly.

Wikipedia is not amoral. An encyclopedia is not an amoral thing. There is nothing that excuses being amoral either.

How do I appeal over you? What is the next step?

69.171.160.185 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:DR. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Krm500 reported by User:Ohms law (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 12:01, January 13, 2010


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Krm500

Comments:

I hate to do this, but I've run out of "good faith" here. I started a Requested move at Talk:Patrik Eliáš, and this tendentious editing is the effect. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issue with the user on the article's talk page, but they apparently are unwilling to reply to me. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this question be taken up at WikiProject Ice Hockey and not on an individual player's article? After all, the blanket rule is favored by the project, so should it not be discussed and/or overturned there as well? Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why User:Djsasso didn't close this, but he's essentially already acted on it (I question the efficacy of the solution, but that's not an issue for here. Or anywhere else really, aside form the brief discussion we had on his talk page, if it's up to me.) As for the WikiProject comment, if such a view is really so widespread that it's being brought up here then it's likely time for an RFC about the issue (assuming that you're not a member of the Project in question, which I'm fairly confident of). — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, I've got no dog in this fight. Just saw the link to the project on the talk page.  An RFC is probably a good idea, especially if there may be general community objections to a specific project's decision. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Fully protected for three days by User:Djsasso. There were just three reverts listed in this report, so it is quite unlikely any admin would have thought a 3RR block was appropriate. Djsasso's advice to take the matter to the talk page is well taken; consider an WP:RFC on the wording of the lead. I see that the dispute involves a war about diacritics. This is one of the most dreaded of the Style Wars -- run away quickly while you still can. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Snalwibma reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Comments:

Editor is not only edit warring but is also article Squatting. Vio of 3RR and WP:Own. Editor has at least had a conflict with three editors on article in past week.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludicrous accusations. I have been attempting to improve the article. I have deleted several different unjustified additions to the article. I have been expressing my concerns on the talk page. I have broken neither the spirit nor the letter of 3RR. I am still waiting for a reply to the points I have been making about the misuse of the article for POV-pushing. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Protected one week. It might seem difficult to write a neutral article on this topic. I hope the editors will try harder, and will use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Some WP:Synthesis appears to be going on, and one party wants to lay crimes committed by Nazis and Communists at the feet of the militant atheists, whoever they may be. (According to the article title, I guess this is a well-defined group). I suppose the other side should be totting up the number of dead in the Wars of Religion. A recent edit tried to add this article to Category:Religious persecution, perhaps on the theory that such persecution is something done by atheists rather than by the adherents of rival religions. I hope the participants can work something out on Talk, and will consider getting advice at the WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No one was suggesting that militant atheists were responsible for the crimes of the nazis. The questions were why one standard is applied to the Nazis (who are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, but not to militant atheists, who are responsible for far more than 100 million deaths.  Bring up religious wars all you wish, total the dead from all of them, and they come no where near that number.  You cannot talk about Nazism without talking about the death toll, and you cannot talk about militant atheism without talking about the much larger death toll. 70.240.191.191 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to correct several inaccuracies in Lovemonkeys statement above: First of all it is not several editors, it is one editor, namely me. Second, as should be pretty obvious from the dif Lovemonkey has so graciously provided, I have not said anything even remotedly similar to the "interpretation" above. I stated that I would refrain from commenting on any of his comments that was not related to the subject of the article in question. Which leads me to my last correction which is that his claim that I "wish to be bold but not allow other editors the same standard" is entirely false as that would entail that I had made actual edits to the article, which in fact I have not. I have made one edit which has not been contested by anyone and is unrelated to the edit war involving Lovemonkey. I have in fact tried discussing the matter and establishing consensus before I would engage in any actual editing of the article, so far it has been in vain as far as Lovemonkey is concerned, as he continuosly shy away from discussing the subject and instead resorts to unfounded allegations about individual editors as his preferred method of "debate": 1, 2 & 3. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then as an act of civility I remove and or will strike out the above comment. I retract the statement and apologize for any misgivings. Anyone wishing to read it can consult the article history. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Now editors are removing deleting my comments from the talkpage while also editing the comments. Which is another disruptive tactic. The editor who was reported here for the WP:3rr has removed and or moved my comments on the article talkpage and then also tried to engage in article discussion on my account talkpage while at the same time also on the article talkpage which potentially will lead to even more confusion. All of this while not offering me nor editor User:Frjohnwhiteford any assurances that they will actually accept sourced information into the article and will stop edit warring removing information and engaging in disruptive editing. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is getting very silly, and it's also quite hurtful. I have been trying to discuss the right way for the article to go, and every comment I make is met with a barrage of attacks from User:LoveMonkey. It's all at Talk:Militant atheism. The comments that another editor removed from the talk page consisted entirely of a series of unfounded attacks on my comments and my presumed motives, not to mention simple repetition of what has been said here, and were a clear breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Is this something that I should take to Wikiquette alerts? Or somewhere else? Or should I just ignore it? I haven't had an experience like this on Wikipedia before. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The kind of personal attacks used by Lovemonkey, as far as I can see with no other purpose but to preserve a POV-version of an article that he is apparently incapable of defending by neutral argumentation, is extremely disruptive, and in my opinion is enough to warrant a case for Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Snalwibma continues to post messages outside of the article talkpage. This message was posted to my personal talkpage today.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC) -- Cooperation

Hi, LoveMonkey - Would you please stop attacking contributors, and instead deal with the issues? We (the five or six editors who are currently taking an active interest in Militant atheism) need to work this out between us. It really does not help if every time someone expresses a view that is contrary to yours, they are treated to a tirade accusing them of various wiki-crimes. Having checked back through the record, I am happy to concede that I technically breached 3RR a couple of days ago (though I would still maintain that it was not a breach of the spirit of 3RR) - but that hardly justifies what looks like a sustained attack on me and my motives, and on anyone else who expresses a point of view similar to mine. Let's work together. Let's try and work out how the article should be developed. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 13:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC) --- Why is this person allow to wholesale violate policy and not keep to the article talkpage and instead try to divert the attempts at discussions to multiple locations? For the sake of cohesion I would like to request that someone of authority please address the editor. I mean this editor violates WP:3rr and no not one admin calls him on it? But all of the sudden I'm the bad guy? Could there be alittle even handed treatment in this. Has any admin even told the editor that they where wrong on their talkpage? I mean they state in this message above they did not violate the 3rr. Could somebody clarify? Please? Why is this person getting treated different? I mean I post to the wrong notice board a 3rr and get banned for 24hours for forum shopping. And this editor don't even get called on their obvious violations. Why is that?LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:Jeffro77 (Result: Warned)
Coming here following a suggestion from here.

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps making edits stating that Nebuchadnezzar II was Bahrani at Bahrani people (and previously at the Nebuchadnezzar article itself), and will not take part in any discussion or provide any response to requests for a source. I have requested that the user provide a source at User_talk:Ashrf1979, Talk:Bahrani_people, and in edit summaries.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've notified Ashrf1979 that he risks being blocked for edit warring on this article. I suggest that the closing admin wait to see if he will respond. He has never contributed to a user talk or article talk page, and may need some advice on how we do things. EdJohnston (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unless otherwise advised, I will hold off editing the article until there is some response or other outcome. -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reconsidering, I've changed the article back to remove the unsourced detail (and re-sorted list of villages). Leaving the other version retains unsourced details and will not encourage user to participate in discussion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. Ashrf1979 is still coming up the learning curve with respect to our policies, and there is a language barrier. I will see if a solution can be found.  EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Minutae reported by User:Nutriveg (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Result - Protected one week. Both Minutae and Nutriveg are edit-warring. Try to get outside opinions on this matter; consider WP:Third opinion. A long back-and-forth dispute on a single passage looks bad for both of you.  It  would be logical to block both parties. EdJohnston (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your evaluation, asking for a WP:Third opinion, doesn't reflect reality. There were a number of people involved, Freikorp, 2010 Duncan, NickPenguin, all opposing Minutae, which, against consensus and ignoring the warnings, kept adding his original research to the article. I ask you to reevaluate that.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rockgenre reported by User:Ibaranoff24 (Result: None)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Despite discussion and rationalization against user's edits, this user has continued to edit-war on this and related articles, despite being warned repeatedly. Attempts to discuss the issue have proved futile. User will not listen to reason and refuses to accept a valid compromise that had been repeatedly offered without being taken. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there are no dates on the diffs above, I just wanted to point out that this isn't a 3RR violation, just a edit war that's going on over the course a couple of weeks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both parties are actively participating in the dispute. WP:DR highly recommend by all involved. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Drrll reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 01:48, 13 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 337505913 by Bkonrad (talk)See talk")
 * 2) 03:01, 13 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 337520539 by Bkonrad (talk)Your opinion is in the minority")
 * 3) 19:00, 13 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 337525428 by Gamaliel (talk)True w/being a part of ETSU + 8% CPB funding")
 * 4) 21:04, 13 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 337662964 by Gamaliel (talk)Concerns already addressed in Talk")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 8 September 2009 Comments:


 * Final warning given on their talk page. Should they do any more reverts that don't have a consensus let me or any admin know (possibly at WP:AIV). <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:7savant7 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 06:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 05:14, 14 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
 * 2) 06:32, 14 January 2010  (edit summary: "information of BAC")
 * 3) 06:35, 14 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
 * 4) 06:38, 14 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
 * 5) 06:41, 14 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
 * 6) 06:47, 14 January 2010  (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")


 * Diff of warning: 06:43, 14 January 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * - Spaceman  Spiff  06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Littleolive_oil reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverts happened too fast to give a warning until after user got to 4. Fladrif (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the user has warned others about 3RR, it may be assumed that she is aware of the policy.   Will Beback    talk    20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of edit warriors, Fladrif has often been warned, whereas Olive doesn't usually revert more than once. Fladrif himself exceeded 3RR a little over a month ago, but I didn't report it.    Of course, Fladrif was right in there edit warring with Olive today, reaching 3RR.   TimidGuy (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Without attempting to condone my editing in a situation when I should have walked away, (I have a1RR rule for myself and try never to go to 2RR), my understanding is that I was at 3RR rather than 4RR since my first edit was not a revert to an earlier edit but was a rewritten version of the content I was dealing with. I then reverted Fladrif's deletions of my edit
 * Original content:


 * Pared down content here   and my edit added to create what I saw as context and neutrality here


 * 1st revert to this edit following Fladrif's undo


 * 2nd revert


 * 3rd revert

(olive (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)) Result
 * Whilst there may be some edit warring, there wasn't a technical breach of 3RR (ie 4 reverts). For an edit war, there needs to be more than one party. Thus both parties advised to get serious about talk page consensus rather than pressing undo. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mark Osgatharp reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

In addition, recent reverts by 67.142.130.17, 67.142.130.32, and 67.142.130.33 are also very similar to those made by User:Mark Osgatharp over the past few days. The history indicates that anon editors from 67.142.130.XX and User:Mark Osgatharp have been making similar disruptive edits in spurts for several weeks.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Comments:

The talk page gives a sense of the acrimony. And the user has been warned several times over the last several years on his talk page.

Novaseminary (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess I could round up some people to put warnings on your talk page and then you would have warnings on your talk page. But I don't play that way, I just deal in facts.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All but admitting that he has no intention of heeding multiple warning from multiple users, User:Mark Osgatharp posted this on my talk page. Novaseminary (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Any further editing warring on the page, whether 3RR violations or not, should be reported here with reference to this note. Thanks, <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  09:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Simpleterms reported by User:Tbsdy lives (Result: Two editors blocked per the SPI case)
Page: David Tweed

User being reported: User:Simpleterms and User:Unsecretspy (suspected to be same editor).

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Tweed&oldid=337485161


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Tweed&diff=337485161&oldid=336401636
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Tweed&diff=337861642&oldid=337547287

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simpleterms&oldid=337547686

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Tweed#Wholesale_revisions_to_this_article
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unsecretspy#David%20Tweed

Comments:

Editor has created a new account I feel to solely whitewash the David Tweed article. Happy to discuss changes, but they don't appear to want to go to the talk page. I also suspect that they are editing as Unsecretspy, I have asked them to discuss their edits as well. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I've raised a few concerns on the talk page of the likely (stale) sockmaster. I've placed a note with a link to these concerns on the currently active puppet's talk page. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  09:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, you might also want to look into the editing of SmoothWallsSam as well. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's two socks, thus I think this is appropriate. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Simpeterms and Unsecretspy have been blocked by Juliancolton per Sockpuppet_investigations/Unsecretspy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Unitanode reported by User:RyanGFilm (Result: Submitter warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit warring is taking place on the article talk page located here

Comments:

User:Unitanode started a new section (Educating RyanGFilm on Policy) under a section we were having a debate on (the RfC section). We then continued the debate under the new section. I had to file a report to the Mediation Cabal for assistance since the user would not discuss the issue at hand except to only say "You're wrong." I informed him of the request for mediation to which he replied that he would not go along with any mediation. I had earlier informed him of the edit war policy to which he told me that he didn't care because admins don't have any more power than regular editors do.

Anyway - I moved Unitanode's "Education RyanGFilm on Policy" below the main discussion and moved the debate in the "Edu. RyanGFilm Policy" back into the RfC section so that any user/mediator who wanted to comment would not be confused, thinking that they were two seperate discussions. I explained this to Unitanode. This is when the edit warring began. He would revert my edits and say "You can't do this" and made personal attacks against my judgement. I informed him that I would be happy to oblige to what he wanted if there was a policy stating that moving user comments in this situation was against policy. He simply replied, "No. You can't do this." This is why I finally decided to get an admin involved. My only concern is that it won't do much good since he has several different Wikipedia user names. RyanGFilm (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Submitter warned. Moving talk comments around is a form of refactoring, and WP:REFACTOR provides that "..if another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Regarding the issue being disputed in the RfC (the nationality of the actress, Irish or American), one way to settle the matter would be to ask at WP:AN for an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:UrbanisTO reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Warned)
. : Time reported: 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 22:34, 15 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 338075219 by Scjessey (talk)under Cdn law Rachel Maddow is a Canadian citizen through her Canadian mother")
 * 2) 22:45, 15 January 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 338080477 by Threeafterthree (talk)How?  see paragraph 6")
 * 3) 23:34, 15 January 2010  (edit summary: "removing synthesis - reference does not state Maddow is American")
 * 4) 00:01, 16 January 2010  (edit summary: "previous edit description false - does not describe HER as American")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Not strictly a technical violation of 3RR, but definitely edit warring to prove a point in violation of WP:BLP. The user in question has also edited as. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not been previously involved in this dispute, but after seeing this report and looking at the details, I support Scjessey's report (I have just left a comment to that effect at the article's talk page). It is pretty clear that User:UrbanisTO is engaged in a combination of edit-warring, WP:OR and POV pushing and a block for disruption is definitely justified. Nsk92 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Warned. The extreme biteyness of reverting a user talk message as vandalism makes a warning appropriate. Rd232 talk 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Scjessey reported by User:UrbanisTO (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [(cur) (prev) 18:35, 15 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) m (22,077 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 98.17.131.48 identified as vandalism to last revision by Ln8r. using TW) (undo) ]

* (cur) (prev) 00:19, 16 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) (22,077 bytes) (Undid revision 338092286 by UrbanisTO (talk) - BLP revert of false information) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 00:01, 16 January 2010 UrbanisTO (talk | contribs) (22,067 bytes) (previous edit description false - does not describe HER as American) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 23:39, 15 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) m (22,077 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by UrbanisTO; Rv removal of cited information. Sources in the BODY of the article cite her as "American". using TW) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 23:34, 15 January 2010 UrbanisTO (talk | contribs) (22,067 bytes) (removing synthesis - reference does not state Maddow is American) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 22:49, 15 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) (22,077 bytes) (Undid revision 338080758 by UrbanisTO (talk) - citation irrelevant in this case) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 22:45, 15 January 2010 UrbanisTO (talk | contribs) (22,151 bytes) (Undid revision 338080477 by Threeafterthree (talk)How? see paragraph 6) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 22:44, 15 January 2010 Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (22,077 bytes) (that citation does not prove/verify her Canadian citizenship. There are many ways listed on that cite that would NOT make her a Canadian citizen....) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 22:34, 15 January 2010 UrbanisTO (talk | contribs) (22,151 bytes) (Undid revision 338075219 by Scjessey (talk)under Cdn law Rachel Maddow is a Canadian citizen through her Canadian mother) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 22:13, 15 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) m (22,077 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 204.40.1.129; Rv "canadian" huh? Born in California.. using TW) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 22:12, 15 January 2010 204.40.1.129 (talk) (22,086 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (prev) 18:35, 15 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) m (22,077 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 98.17.131.48 identified as vandalism to last revision by Ln8r. using TW) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]Pasted it on his page, but he subsequently deleted it.

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

Comments:I'm not an expert here, and not super-familiar with code and technical terminology to describe problems, so I apologize if the above is a bit messy. (for example, I don't know what a diff is). Essentially, I've been attempting to engage this gentleman in a discussion of where to draw the line on what counts as synthesis, and whether a source I cited in support of an edit actually supported it in substance. Before and rather than attempting in good faith to engage with my arguments on point, he's been baldly reverting my edits, and my proposed compromises, again and again. When I took a break and tried to have a more private discussion with him on his talk page, he aggressively insisted that I never post on his page again. He's been (threatening?) me with various sanctions etc., when all I've been doing is trying to leave the edit "out there" long enough for several independant third parties to chime in. I'm not honestly not trying to fight, or to impose my view by mere weight of obsession. I made my edit, frankly, in passing, and was simply taken aback by the rude response. If this type of aggressive behavior is allowed to go unchecked, then Wikipedia will be left with only the most aggressive (perhaps even obsessive) people as editors. I submit that would undermine the whole model of Wikipedia.

Result: declined. Scjessey can reasonably draw on the WP:BLP exemption from WP:3RR here. Such issues should be settled on talk, and not left "out there" in the article. If the matter can't be settled on the talk page alone, there is dispute resolution. Rd232 talk 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:24.186.76.184 reported by Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  (Result: Redundant)
. : Time reported: 04:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 01:13, 15 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 07:05, 15 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 21:55, 15 January 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 23:16, 15 January 2010  (edit summary: "revert to Ajjradatz")
 * 5) 01:11, 16 January 2010  (edit summary: "(Revert to last MrOllie)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Started edit warring soon after block expired — Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: redundant: user:Fastily blocked the IP for 3 months for repeated vandalism.

User:GreekStar12 reported by User:Greekboy (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 03:34, January 15, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 04:50, January 15, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 05:18, January 15, 2010
 * 4th revert: 05:45, January 15, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: User is taking out inline templates. I initially added some of these (not all) because some statements needed clarifications. I admit I too have taken part in edit waring, but the user seems reluctant to any change in the article as you can see from the pages edit history. She is constantly reverting most changes from different editors citing that either things are sourced (with some questionable/potentially unreliable and POV sources, but that is a whole other story), a previous peer review did not pick up on those problems, or that other articles take a similar approach. I have not tried to resolve this dispute on the article talk page, but I have talked to the user via private correspondence about various issues with the article. The outcome was not the best as is clear by the edit history. Greekboy (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Warned Greekstar12, who broke WP:3RR on 15 January, but has not continued since then. Further reverting of tags by either party may produce sanctions, especially if they won't discuss their concerns on Talk. It might be less trouble to look up some references than continue this fight about whether there are enough references. If editors won't cooperate, full protection could be the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Perry mason reported by User:Rd232 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

On 13/14 Jan, Perry mason reverted 4 times in 10 hours: I asked him to revert himself; he declined. All of this in a generally uncivil tone, and in the context of a discussion on the article talk page where myself and another user had agreed several days previously that the edits were unjustified, but Perry mason hadn't bothered to participate.
 * 1) ;
 * 2) ;
 * 3)
 * 4)

I let that go (partly because in the midst of that 4RR, on a message to his user talk page I accidentally pointed him at Talk:Guardian, where he posted in error), and reverted again today, and we now seem to be back to the same edit warring pattern (article history), though this time since I reverted first, he won't be breaching 3RR unless someone else gets involved. Leave alone the uncivil tenor of the talk page discussion, and the severe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he seems to think that by default the content should stay, until it is demonstrated to his satisfaction that he is wrong: consensus be damned. Rd232 talk 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. User:Perry mason was pushing the limits of proper editor behavior back on 13-15 January, both on the article and on the talk page, but has not edited since. If he continues warring, sanctions may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Zodiacww reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: as of 13:41, January 15, 2010
 * 2nd revert: as of 14:20, January 15, 2010
 * 3rd revert: as of 14:40, January 15, 2010
 * 4th revert: as of 16:21, January 15, 2010
 * 5th revert: as of 16:46, January 15, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as of 19:15, January 15, 2010

Problem began when contributor's added their opinions as well as statements that were not supported by the original reference in the introduction. Tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page: Other editors have also removed opinions and the personal interpretations presented as facts. CZmarlin (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Zodiacww seems to want to continue to battle by stating on the talk page that "I will file some sort of grievence against you for partisainship and mischarachterising the truth, and vandleism if you ban me." (as of 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)) CZmarlin (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: user warned. The user is a new contributor, and the 3RR warning post-dates the edit warring. Rd232 talk 12:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * rd232, Thank you for your observation. However, apparently you have ignored the reverts by several others of the edits -- and tangential detail inappropriate for BLP lead that is not supported by the references provided -- that have been introduced by one contributor: Zodiacww. On addition to mine, these include the following: (1) Revision as of 14:36, January 15, 2010 by Fat&Happy, (2) Revision as of 15:58, January 15, 2010 by Fat&Happy, (3) Revision as of 19:05, January 15, 2010 by Abrazame, (4) Revision as of 05:50, January 17, 2010 by Brothejr. Please also examine Zodiacww's contentious edits on the talk page. Moreover, Zodiacww has violated the 3RR. I think you need to reconsider to whom you should direct your warning. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Volcanopele reported by User:Noren (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: initial change made on Jan 10, prior to period of edit war


 * 1st revert: 02:25, 13 January 2010
 * 2nd revert: 03:05, 13 January 2010
 * 3rd revert: 06:13, 13 January 2010
 * 4th revert: 07:20, 13 January 2010
 * 5th revert: 08:48, 13 January 2010
 * 6th revert: 09:13, 13 January 2010

Each of the above edits changed the discovery date in the infobox to January 7.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is a somewhat stale report, but I was surprised to find that this had not already been reported. This edit war was on the page that was currently Today's Featured Article, one of the most visible pages of that day. Both involved editors are experienced. This edit shows that User:Volcanopele was aware of the rules but he hypocritically proceeded to break 3RR immediately and then two more times in the following hours. The dispute seems to now be resolved, but given the location and timing of this edit war I think an official response would be in order. --Noren (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Warned, due to staleness of report. Rd232 talk 12:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Katydidit reported by User:Noren (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: change made on Jan 10, prior to period of edit war


 * 1st revert: 01:44, 13 January 2010
 * 2nd revert: 02:16, 13 January 2010
 * 3rd revert: 02:37, 13 January 2010
 * 4th revert: 06:08, 13 January 2010
 * 5th revert: 06:56, 13 January 2010
 * 6th revert: 08:19, 13 January 2010
 * 7th revert: 08:55, 13 January 2010

Each of the above edits changed the discovery date in the infobox to January 13.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is a somewhat stale report, but I was surprised to find that this had not already been reported. This edit war was on the page that was currently Today's Featured Article, one of the most visible pages of that day. Both involved editors are experienced. The dispute seems to now be resolved, but given the location and timing of this edit war I think an official response would be in order. --Noren (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Warned, due to staleness of report. Rd232 talk 12:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Sdiver68 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Result: 24 hours. Rd232 talk 11:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:81.187.71.75 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has been reverted by multiple editors and ignored a neutral outside opinion. Editor is also a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor, see Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City for details. O Fenian (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: blocked 24 hours by User:JamieS93. Rd232 talk 11:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cloonmore reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Cloonmore, January 16, 4:22
 * 3rd revert: Cloonmore, January 16, 17:23
 * 2nd revert: Cloonmore, January 16, 22:38
 * 4th revert: Cloonmore, January 16, 23:16

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, Talk:Feminists for Life

Comments:

Cloonmore and I have been going round and round about this article, and the conflict came to a head regarding one particular quote of Susan B. Anthony which Cloonmore wishes to include in the article without comment and which I wish to take out of the article unless the quote is given context relative to Feminists for Life (FFL). Here is the lovely quote by Anthony:

"'Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.'"

Cloonmore's stance is that FFL uses the quote prominently and so should the article. My stance is that the quote is offered on this FFL webpage without comment by FFL, so we cannot know how their organization interprets the quote. Furthermore, my stance and that of mainstream Anthony scholars and also that of FFL scholar Mary Krane Derr is that the quote is about a hoary old inheritance law that Anthony and her compatriots were able to overturn. As such, it is my stance that the quote has no relevance to modern times nor to the article about or the mission of FFL. We two editors have talked this over quite a bit on the article page as well on my talk page, but no settlement is in sight: User_talk:Binksternet. I would appreciate some content support here, so I will also be heading over to WP:Content noticeboard. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Page protected for 3 days. You're both equally guilty of edit warring, and since you're the only participants in this dispute (and the only editors of the article in the last week) blocking would be unhelpful. Use dispute resolution as you suggest, and remember that the 3RR rule does not care if you're right or wrong. Rd232 talk 12:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:71.77.20.26 reported by User:Dr.enh (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.77.20.26&diff=338135623&oldid=335409920

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * I did not make more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. Furthermore, has reverted as much as I have. If there is any edit warring, I believe we are both equally guilty. His 3RR report here is simply his way to try to stir up problems for me because of his content dispute with me. And please note how  selectively links only his "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"; he conveniently omitted my replies. And please note that  has been warned several times on his talk page about previous edit warring. If an admin decides that edit warring has occurred here, I'll accept my warning or block without argument, but I ask that 's edit history in this matter also be examined carefully. Thank you. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Result: declined. No breach of 3RR (and note that a link to user's contribs page instead of diffs is not helpful, and doing it multiple times as if the links were diffs even less so). Also an RFC on the content issue is now in progress. Note: the disputed content should be left out until RFC consensus becomes clear. Rd232 talk 12:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker and Omarcheeseboro reported by sdiver68 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

See history page, too numerous to link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Miklasz&action=history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Miklasz

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Miklasz

Comments:

Apparently, these users do not understand that original content from Bernie himself are reliable sources when discussing Bernie. I suspect these 2 see themselves either as Wiki police or are Bernie Supporters trying to paint the best possible picture of a man of many controversies. I've offered to let them rewrite and edit the content as long as they do not remove the pertinent information altogether, but instead what I've gotten is a series of undos. Sdiver68 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I had already begun filing a report on Sdiver68|Sdiver68 below, I'll let that stand for the other side of this discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Declined. You were edit warring against consensus; they were trying to stick to the WP:3RR rule, and did so (and if they hadn't, WP:BLP exemption would have applied). Use dispute resolution if necessary. Rd232 talk 11:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Sdiver68 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Duplicate report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (editing as an IP, edit claimed here with this comment )
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Editor is well aware of the policy, as he has threatened other editors with being reported if they revert his edits.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Discussion on talk page began, but reversions continued.)

Comments:

This editor is deadset on adding a section on controversies to this article, even though the material he is adding is a) poorly sourced, and b) not very controversial. I explained my edits on the talk page, but the user continues to revert and ignore the points made by myself (and other editors). Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dayewalker's done an excellent job in trying to explain to Sdiver68 why the content should be removed. I've tried as well to explain Wikipedia's guidelines on wp:rs and self published sources on the article talk page and my talk page, but to no avail. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Duplicate report; user already reported for same edit war (albeit this report notes further reverts). User already blocked 24 hours for this edit war. Rd232 talk 11:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:174.7.14.105 reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22:01, 16 January 2010


 * 1st revert: 22:16, 16 January 2010
 * 2nd revert: 22:28, 16 January 2010
 * 3rd revert: 22:46, 16 January 2010

Previous version reverted to: 22:38, 16 January 2010


 * 4th revert: 04:22, 17 January 2010

Previous version reverted to: 04:44, 17 January 2010


 * 5th revert: 07:09, 17 January 2010

Previous version reverted to: 02:56, 8 December 2009


 * 6th revert: 21:41-21:43, 17 January 2010

Page:

Previous version reverted to: 01:58, 17 January 2010


 * 1st revert: 21:37, 17 January 2010
 * 2nd revert: 21:50, 17 January 2010
 * 3rd revert: 21:58, 17 January 2010
 * 4th revert: 22:11, 17 January 2010
 * 5th revert: 22:18, 17 January 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 04:17, 15 August 2009
 * 18:06, 26 August 2009
 * 18:06, 26 August 2009
 * 20:40, 1 November 2009
 * 09:02, 14 November 2009
 * 01:42, 26 November 2009

Attempts to resolve disputes on article talk page:
 * Talk:Prime Minister of Canada
 * Talk:Prime Minister of Canada

Comments:

This is an odd case, as the anon user initiated an edit war, against all warning not to do so, and breached 3RR in the process, but then nearly completely reverted all his edits, anyway. Technically, one cancels one's reverts out by self-reverting, but this user's actions were still highly disruptive to the article. This is pattern behavior on this individual's part; he has been warned numerous times, by bots and living users alike, not to make edit tests or disrupt articles in this fashion, and has been blocked more than once for it, yet the revision history of Prime Minister of Canada clearly shows he's choosing to continue the same behavior. Some of his comments in edit summaries, on talk pages , and on user talk pages also demonstrate an unwillingness to abide by policy and guidelines. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  08:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems he's returned and has begun reverting again at Prime Minister of Canada and edit warring at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Patients is a virtue & my virtue is being tried. IP continues to be cobative with reverts at Prime Minister of United Kingdom article. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A 24 hour block has been applied for now. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:AnneFan1 reported by User:Gigs (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to restore material that infringes copyright to Anne Murray, user has claimed that their edits are "approved" by Murray and are therefore not subject to consensus. The article is rife with close paraphrase plagiarism and blatant copyright infringement due to AnneFan's activities. Gigs (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Block was issued separately from this report for persistent copyright infringement and edit warring. User has also uploaded a number of images, claiming to hold rights to them, when copies on the web are available showing a clear all-rights-reserved license. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)