Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive127

User:67.180.84.52 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comment:

Please see the comment in the report above.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst he did break the 3RR, I'm not going to block as he hasn't edited post receiving a warning.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:MikeWazowski reported by User:Xnacional (Result:Blocked 24 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:

Comments:

User has removed warning from his talk page:. Xnacional (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Xnacional reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:Blocked 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This has actually been going on since mid-January - the above reverts are only over the last few days. Xnacional (who has a history of edit-warring on other topics) has tried to remove any reference to "Red Dragon" from this article. He has been fought on this by several editors, and refuses to compromise, even after a solution was found which should appease both sides. He continually reverts to his preferred version, which is inaccurate. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xnacional is now edit-warring on my talk page as well - obviously going for WP:POINT now... MikeWazowski (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Professor Todd reported by User:Jonovison (Result:Both editors blocked )
Page:

User being reported: /

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

...
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 13th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User deleted half the introduction for Corporation, which is impeccably sourced. I've tried to discuss the edits in question, but the user makes personal attacks and won't engage in a reasonable discussion. 

The latest nonsense arguments and personal attacks:

Note, if you are reading the comments in the talk section, I recommend going over the diffs, because the user doesn't know how to format comments, and it's become a giant mess.

At this point, he himself is asking for action from an administrator, so it's over to you guys!

--Jonovision (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both editors had reverted at least four times in the last 24 hours and if you look over 48 hours, many more times. Both blocked.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:86.160.120.47 reported by User:snowded (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edits are not the same text on each occasion but they have the same intent. The editor has refused to participate in the discussion on the talk page referenced and has also vandalized the page deleting all the pictures at one point. -- Snowded TALK  15:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

- 2/0 (cont.) 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Owain reported by User:Jeni (Result: both advised)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User constantly removing maintenance templates without taking appropriate action, alongside constantly reverting edits made by other users on the same page. General ownership issues of this article. Jeni ( talk ) 16:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The first revert removes the recently-added template in question, but Owain also fulfilled a couple cns with that series of edits. In absence of any talkpage discussion except a couple warning templates on Owain's talkpage and their responses there, I am advising both editors to follow the first step in dispute resolution and discuss the matter at the Talk:Newport County A.F.C.. There is a simple disagreement regarding the meaning of refimprove, which should have been discussed or even resolved about five hours ago. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:81.141.18.128 reported by User:Pyrrhus16 (Result: )
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:

Comments:

This user continually adds his own research into the Thriller (song) article. He has been reverted by three editors and has been told why his edits are unacceptable.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 15:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No research involved. Just an EXTREMELY simple observation from a commercially available recording. It's the one of the focal points of the performance, so I'm not jumping to any conclusions at all. Besides, a reference does NOT just have to be a text link to a website. Books and DVDs are just as valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But the DVD doesn't say he used the cabinet escape. You are using your own research to come to this conclusion. It is unnacceptable.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your silence on the article Talk page doesn't seem consistent. Anyway, my approach has been show, don't tell - a direct, primary source (ie, being able to watch him disappear (eg at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jg6MXht-JU, ripped from the DVD) is clearly better than somebody simply claiming he did. You can't really argue with the video footage. Another thing - if you'd read my edits, you'd see that (1) there was other content/corrections/expansions than the live performance one, and (2) I added more and more specific sources each time, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I can argue with the video footage, and that's just what I will do: the magic trick at the end of the performance is not a cabinet escape. Why? Because he does not escape from a cabinet. The cabinet disappears with him inside it. Thus, it is not a cabinet escape. Secondly, you did not add more specific sources that said he performed a cabinet escape. You added links to unreliable sources that said jack about a cabinet escape. Thirdly, you blatantly violated the 3RR rule after a clear warning, which is why you were brought here.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 17:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your continued silence on the article Talk page speaks volumes. Anyway, please read what you are linking. "The cabinet escape is the classic escapology trick, where the magician is trapped in a cabinet and required to escape from it." That's what everybody sees when they watch the performance. He's stuck inside a coffin and has to get out. If he didn't get out, he would still be inside it for Billie Jean! It seems like you might be inferring another meaning into this term. Anyway, later on, I might also outline the HIStory Tour version, which is similar, but where the coffin gets spiked and burnt. Perhaps you might be happier if I used the generic term "magic trick"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your continued ignorance on this matter speaks volumes. Everybody does not see Michael Jackson escape from the cabinet. Anybody could have removed him from the cabinet backstage, therefore, it is not a cabinet escape. A cabinet escape involves the audience seeing the person come out of the cabinet unassisted. And, no, I would not be happier if you added "magic trick". I'd be happier if you stopped adding your own research and added a reliable written source that clearly confirms what you want added to the article.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 15:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can be as smarmy as you like, but your continued silence on the article Talk page really does speak fucking volumes. "A cabinet escape involves the audience seeing the person come out of the cabinet unassisted"?! Says who?? Hardly ever does a magician work unassisted. According to the article we are discussing, "These can end either with the performer emerging from the escape prop or appearing magically at another point in the performance space", which is EXACTLY what EVERYBODY sees. The fact that a performer appears elsewhere must mean that they disappeared at one point. Michael Jackson disappears while in the coffin (whether the coffin also disappears doesn't matter). Michael Jackson then reappears on the upper part of the stage. Therefore he has carried out an ESCAPE from the coffin (with or without assistance doenn't matter). Where's my radical leap of faith?
 * Note that you have reverted a 4th editor in your 8th revert, suggesting that your edits to the page are problematic, disputed and with absolutely no consensus. Learn that a coffin disappearing with someone inside it is not a cabinet escape. "These can end either with the performer emerging from the escape prop or appearing magically at another point in the performance space", means that the person has went into the cabinet (which is in view) and then magically re-appeared somewhere else on stage with the cabinet still in view of the audience. Again, the content of your edits has been disputed and reverted by 4 editors, so I suggest you get a reliable source that clearly spells out that Michael Jackson did a cabinet escape during his live performance of "Thiller".  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 17:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I have never made the same edit twice. Each one has successively refined text and/or added more references. Also, I think you're reading way too much into the definition of an "escape" = OR, even! Where have your sourced what you say about this illusion? Seems like you're just making stuff up when in fact you have no knowledge of this field- the article I originally linked says nothing of the sort. Anyway, in fact, it's clear from your reply that you haven't even read what I said most recently. I removed that term and replaced it with a simpler, more direct and factual version of the text. One that nobody could ever possibly disagree with. Consensus seems to have been reached, since (1) Nobody disagreed with me on the Thriller Talk page, and (2) the admin involed with the article seems in agreement with the essence of my update. It escapes me why you're still kicking up a fuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may have been slightly altered text but the message of the content is still the same and still based on your synthesis of the published piece. Note in regard to the 3RR: "A user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident." It does not matter if you have slightly altered the text in a failed attempt to game the system. And nobody, admin or otherwise, has expressed agreement with your edits to the page. Quite the opposite.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said previously, repeated here in caps, in case you miss it,  THE LATEST VERSION OF MY TEXT CONTAINS ABSOLUTELY NO SYNTHESIS WHATSOEVER . You get that? It is a mere literal description of what happens on stage (=onscreen). No interpretation, no conclusions, no opinion, no ambiguity. Furthermore, in contrast to your last sentence, the article has been left in exactly the same state by both UberCryxic and Arthur Rubin http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thriller_%28song%29&action=historysubmit&diff=351191781&oldid=351189163 . As you can see, both of these 3rd party edits leave my text intact. Oh, and fuck you on your comments about me trying to "game the system". If you're going to disregard the article's Talk page, and then go trying to paint somebody in a bad light in the hope of them getting banned, maybe you should think about whether you should be editing pages at all.
 * Your latest versions of text absolutely did contain original research. See this and this. How can you be sure it was Jackson who vanished in the cabinet and not a body double wearing a mask? It is a widely held opinion among fans that Jackson was not the one to vanish in the performance, but a body double. What you think you saw in the performance or what you believe is not good enough. Contentious material that is challenged requires exceptional sources that clearly verify what you have added. And nobody has explicitly stated that they agree with your edits. Two people have explicitly disagreed with you.  expressed disagreement with your edits as well; see here. Tell me, why do you feel it is acceptable to go against consensus and break the 3RR after a clear warning?  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 15:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Slowly but surely, we're getting there. I'd add the following: (1) You seem to agree, at least in principle, that this material should be in the article. It just seems like we're arguing about the actual wording. However, instead of doing anything productive, you're just childishly reverting point blank. Why not embrace the wikipedia spirit and collaborate on a better wording via the Thriller Talk page? Until you do make yourself heard on the Talk page, your opinion isn't valid on this matter. (2) "a body double wearing a mask"? Potentially, it's possible that it's a clever misdirection while Jackson leaves the stage prematurely to change clothes, etc. But that doesn't mean it's not a magic trick. In fact, that IS how most magic tricks take place! Besides, bearing in mind you seem opposed to using the most accurate language, how would you explain that on the page without getting overly wordy, and providing a spoiler? "Somebody dressed as Jackson, who may or may not be him, is seen entering a coffin"?! Thinking about it, the main impact of the act is actually that the coffin has disappeared, anyway! Again, it still qualifies as a stage illusions, so maybe we just use that, or one of several related terms. (3) What you say regarding others agreeing/disagreeing is false. As I said previously, two people have edited the section on this point, one of which made slight changes in and around what I wrote (in fact, to remove a reference), while both of them left the wording of what I wrote intact. (4) As for your last question, until you directly address anything I've said, instead of just spouting rhetoric, I'll hold back on my answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to add anything regarding the magic/illusions if it can be backed up by a reliable source that clearly states what has happened on the stage.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. As per the overview at Identifying reliable sources, the DVD itself is enough if we're just gonna say what can be seen. Seems like we are back full-circle to the beginning. You clearly have no interest in coming up with any content, so I will work on some text and update in a minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding what I am saying. Get reliable written third-party sources that discuss the magic trick, so that we can get a fair evaluation of the subject that is not based on one's interpretation of the performance.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not needed. The DVD itself is enough if we're just gonna say what can be seen. Just describe what happens onstage, and leave it to the reader to make up their own mind what/how it was done. I'm thinking something along the lines of "A person is placed in a glass coffin, which is covered in a blanket and subsequently disappears". These are more or less the words you used earlier. So now, off you trot. Go and find another article to police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, off you trot. You are the one who is editing the article against the consensus of other editors, not me. "A person is placed in a glass coffin, which is covered in a blanket and subsequently disappears", raises more questions than answers. People will ask "Who is the person?", "Why is the coffin covered in a blanket?", and "How does it disappear?". These questions should be answered in the article by reliable sources. If no reliable third party sources cover the magic trick, then it is not notable to the performance.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 11:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:212.187.2.81 reported by User:MrDolomite (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: diff 16:20, March 23, 2010
 * 2nd revert: diff 15:09, March 23, 2010
 * 3rd revert: diff 15:06, March 23, 2010
 * 4th revert: diff 14:59, March 23, 2010

Please see the History of Ulf Ekberg for other user User talk:Raymondinho (who has been permanently blocked in this diff) and IP edits of the exact same information. Unclear if same editors or not.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link 15:12, March 23, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Multiple editors have left warnings on this, and other user and IP talk pages.

Comments:

An entry had been made at WP:RFPP for temporary semi-protection for Ulf Ekberg diff 15:16, March 23, 2010 though it remains unacted on at this time. As the user had made yet another edit well after the uw-3rr, thought this would be an appropriate escalation point. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 00:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Article semi-protected by GedUK. Minima  c  ( talk ) 05:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:59.160.210.68 reported by User:ManasShaikh (Result: Protected)
Page:

and Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: |link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It seems that the same person has been involved with several other violations, and I suspect that the same person is also reverting the same articles using different DHCP IPs. After first warning, user responded by blanking the warning. User Talk:117.194.197.31 and User Talk:117.194.192.93 ManasShaikh (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Article protected by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rscottms reported by User:Work permit (Result: Warned)
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:

New single article editor keeps trying to add non-notable writer to article, using wp:sps as reference. Two editors have attempted to discuss and warn him on his talk page, and directed him to article talk. Further warning given before 3RR warning above.--Work permit (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. Rscottms does not appear to have consensus to add an entry for Anthony Colom to the list. He restored the entry at least four times on 24 March, which breaks the 3RR rule. If he continues to add this entry without first getting consensus on the talk page, he may be blocked. It is now more than 24 hours since his last edit. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ܥܝܪܐܩ reported by User:Sinharib99 (Result: Warned Sinharib99)
Repeated removal of additions to the article on Assyria (that are supported by independant, non pov/biased links). The problem seems to be that the reverter is a Suraye, and as such objects to the term Assyrian in the context of the existance of Assyria and Assyrians post 612 BC..The reverter has failed to engage on the discussion page, and failded to provide external links or research to back up his position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would refer Administrators to the discussion board on the Assyria article. I have attempted to engage with this person, and had minimal response. I have provided links and cross references to my additions, the person reverting me has not provided any independent references to counter them. I also feel the "real" issue the reverter has is more to do with the modern Suraye Vs Assyrian naming debate, and is utterly irrelevant to the article, and does show a degree of bias. As far as i am concerned people can call themselves Suraye, Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean etc at will.

Finally, i know of few other ethnic groups who have to continually defend their very existance in this way. I feel there is a degree of racism displayed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This user has had their nationalist edits reverted by several editors, previous to myself. but since I'm the only one to have subsequently spoken to him, his response has been to accuse me of racism, and being a Suriac, which I am not. His editing is viewed as disruptive, which is why people have reverted it (on Assyria). He was also undoing other people's editing during his earlier reverts on Assyria. I probably would not have reverted his edit, had others not already done so. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sinharib99's editing in general is highly POV and unreliable. In my interactions with him he has consistently considered fringe websites on a par with reliable sources and it has been clear that he doesn't completely understand the subject matter, but sees what he wants to see without considering and evaluating the source of any comment that he calls a "reference".  He has a serious POV that is not supported by mainstream academic sources.  In reading through his user contributions, his edits are unreliable and his sources highly suspect.  (Taivo (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC))


 * These two users are a mirror images of each other. They have both not contributed positively and are only editing one word to another in these meaningless edit wars. Suspend both of them. Iraqi (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Sinharib99 is warned against edit warring. This is starting to look like fringe nationalist POV-pushing. Starting on 24 February, Sinharib99 began editing the article on Assyria to promote his thesis of modern continuity of the Assyrian identity, suggesting that the term continues to be meaningful after Assyria was conquered in 612 BC. Other editors complain that his view is unsourced. If he continues to revert, before getting any support from other editors, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Hermosillo123, User:Hermosillo1234, User:Hermosillo12345 reported by User:Gppande (Result: Indef)
Page: Template:Coup d'état

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has been blocked once. But still continue to add the same stuff again and again using puppet account. See User_talk:Hermosillo123. Multiple warnings have been issued. See User_talk:Hermosillo1234 and User_talk:Hermosillo12345.

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

Comments:

User is adding same stuff again and again despite warnings and block. It has become a routine for me and many other users to keep a watch on the template. Need to put a permanent stop to this. -- GP  Pande  09:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC) -->
 * Result - Hermosillo12345 is blocked indef as a vandal-only account. The other two accounts were previously blocked for the same thing. Appears to be a deliberate hoax - adding a link in the template to point to a non-existent coup d'etat. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandert reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (note: postdates last revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion at Talk:Keith_Briffa

Comments:

Result - Article protected by User:Beeblebrox. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note apparently intemperate allegations of vandalism. There are BLP concerns here, noted on the talk page, which this new user is ignoring William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

72.184.232.81 reported by 162.6.97.3 (Result: Semi)

 * Article:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: [15:58, 24 March 2010 72.184.232.81 (talk) (15,633 bytes) (Undid revision 351775561 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) irrelevant to the article) (undo) (Tag: references removed) ]
 * 2nd revert: [00:34, 24 March 2010 72.184.232.81 (talk) (15,633 bytes) (undo) (Tag: references removed) ]
 * 3rd revert: [16:28, 23 March 2010 72.184.232.81 (talk) (15,633 bytes) (undo) ]
 * 4th revert: [16:27, 23 March 2010 72.184.232.81 (talk) (15,719 bytes) (Undid revision 351566868 by 162.6.97.3 (talk)) (undo) (Tag: references removed) ]

This appears to be a minor dispute between anonymous IP editors, but 72.184.232.81 is not engaging in the debate and demonstrates a clear bias in edit history of this page.

162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected one month, due to general edit-warring and BLP concerns. The circumstances of a staff member's departure from the show have been debated for more than a year on the talk page, and the quality of the sources for this departure have been argued. The IP filing this report wants to use linkedin.com for some info about this staff member. My semiprotection is an experiment to see if it will result in calming down the dispute. I'm aware that we can't single out the IPs as being the only source of problems without more study. If consensus is reached on the talk page about the outstanding issues, including the BLP problems, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:FactStraight reported by User:Editor8888 (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:

Comments:

FactStraight is repeatedly deleting any description of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, including the link to its page, even when supported by authoritative references. I first tried to get Editor Assistance (see here). I have varied the wording to make it more reasonable, but any edit of mine is reverted by this user. I should add that user Yopie (talk) has issued me a retaliatory 3RR warning. This is despite the fact that I have not amended the current reverted version of article since it was changed by FactStraight again. I note that at the top of Yopie's talk page there is a message of solidarity from FactStraight. This may suggest Yopie is not necessarily impartial. I have to ask, why would Yopie warn me 3RR before contributing at all to resolving the discussion and 5 mins after I warned 3RR to FactStraight? Furthermore, Yopie removed one of my additions to the text that was well supported by evidence in footnotes:.

Editor8888 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - The four reverts listed above do not fall within a 24-hour period, so they don't break WP:3RR. I caution the submitter that he seems to have no support for his view on the talk page. If he continues to revert to his version before he gets consensus, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Phoenix of9 reported by User:Someguy1221 (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: Talk:HIV Comments:


 * Result - Warned. I take note that Phoenix of9's last edit to the article was a self-revert, otherwise he might have been blocked. This is an extremely controversial article, and he seems to be ignoring the great amount of care and negotiation that has gone into the current form of the article. If he continues to make large changes to the article without getting any support on the talk page, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:80.254.146.132 reported by User:Jeffro77 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

(See also same user's edits on 16 March and 18 March.)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User has been requested to discuss edits:
 * 
 * 

Comments:

After (as a result of) this notice, the user has started discussion at the article's talk page. However, there is a strong element of POV in the user's comments. Please review the user's edits to the article and their current comments at article talk.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected by another admin. Besides breaking 3RR, the IP has been using reverts to push his own POV into the article. Our article is not intended to be a religious tract. His preferred opening sentence is "THE Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses consists of dedicated men who are anointed servants of God". If he shows himself willing to follow our neutrality rules, and can get consensus on the talk page for his changes, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Silver seren (Result: See report below)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User has been requested to discuss edits:
 * 
 * 

Comments:

This user has been trying to make drastic changes to the article, stating that the sources, already known as reliable, are not so and changing wording because they "do not reflect the sources", even when they do, along with changing viewpoints in the article that do not go with the sources being used. Any attempt at discussion in the talk page with this user has been met with statements that original research is being used and that the sources do not reflect what is said in the article, with no evidence to back up his/her statements. The user has been reverted by multiple editors when he has tried to make his changes, not just one, and has recently (see revert #3) tried to redirect the entire article without discussing anything on the talk page. It is a clear case of edit warring. Silver seren C 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be a -fourth- revert to be -more- than 3 reverts?   Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I was putting this up for 3RR, yes. But I am not, I am putting this up for edit warring. Silver  seren C 19:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional: This user, through a series of edits, has now completely changed the stance of the article to something wholly negative and one-sided, without showing both sides of the topic like the article did before. This appears to be a case of POV pushing, further undermining the integrity of the article. Silver seren C 22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are at least 4 reverts. I will get it. It should also be pointed out that the user has completely ignored the result of his unsuccessful AfD for this article. He performed a "delete by redirect". Mitsube (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't take any action yet, admin. Silver seren is likely not aware of what happened before he began editing today. I will provide a more complete picture of ScienceApologist's behavior at AN/I. Mitsube (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There were five (counting consecutive reverts as one), reported here. Mitsube (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - See a second report below about ScienceApologist for possible actions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Nutriveg reported by User:Jack Merridew (Result: Appears resolved)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 12:56, 25 March 2010:
 * 18:55, 25 March 2010:
 * 19:02, 25 March 2010:
 * 19:15, 25 March 2010:
 * 19:30, 25 March 2010:

Warning re 3RR is at: User talk:Nutrivegdiff

Discussion is at Talk:Vitamin D and the next section, too

NV's issue seems to be a preference to not use standard citation templates and to fight with Citation bot. Multiple other editors have undone his reverts. And, most important, the version he's reverting to breaks the page because of excessive template transclusion.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nutriveg has broken 3RR and is warring against a bunch of people. On his talk page I've proposed that he should agree to a 1RR for 30 days in lieu of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Pseudo edit conflict) I was thinking voluntarily refraining from related edits until that discussion winds down, but EdJohnston's solution looks good. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot about this report. It seems Nutriveg sees the light at this point; His last edit to the talk page states "I'm likely following the wrong path." Anyway, less reverting would be best. I do hope he sees the template expansion issue. I'm hoping for understanding, not a block. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Result - Both parties think this is resolved. Closing the 3RR complaint with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That issue was resolved long ago in the article talk page. Thanks for your attention.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Peterm4589 reported by Mlpearc  MESSAGE  (Result: Warned)
. : Time reported: 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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


 * Diff of warning: here

— Mlpearc  MESSAGE  00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I need someone to look into this for me.It feels like it's going to go places I don't want to be, it has to do with these people showing up at California Jam II. I keep undoing the edit and stating that some kind of cite is needed, one, for the fact they showed up on a greyhound bus, and second who are these people ? I've never heard of them. The editorUser talk:Peterm4589 did try to cite something once (today) but it was garbeled. Anyway I keep undoing thier edits, they keep puting them back. Please check the page history. Thanks
 * Comments:

P.S. Below is the edit in question.
 * Peter Marchesi,Arby Girard and Bob Millard were also in attendance via a Greyhound Bus from Boston.
 * Result - I warned the editor that they may be blocked if they continue. It is best if you give the person a uw-3rr warning yourself before bringing a complaint here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I know I should of got more info before comming here. I built my statement in my sanbox without knowing the format here, I was caught off guard. But thanks for your help I'll be more perpared next time  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  05:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:Lanternix (Result: both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert: (please note that this revert was done after the reported user was made aware of the current 3RR violation report).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

BLP exemption. In fact the reporting user should be blocked for repeatedly pushing in unreliable sources into a BLP and removing information from the only reliable source discussing the material. I'll also note that the editor who initially added the information agreed with the way I modified the material (see here)  nableezy  - 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is your problem that the name of the website has the word Jewish in it? Just asking. --Geewhiz (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, unlike you I dont have a history of using a racist propaganda site so I dont know why you would ask that. And my beef is with using WND in a BLP. And why are you here? And arent you topic-banned?  nableezy  - 12:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy: Some of these reverts do fall under the BLP exception, including (for the reason given in the edit summary). But in most, such as, the change that is being edit warred over consists in removing an unreliable source (which is fine), adding a presumably reliable source (which is also fine) and adding new text (which is not). Instead, the reverts should only have removed the problematic material. To the extent these reverts also add new text, they constitute disruptive edit warring about a content disagreement. That disagreement is not covered by the BLP exception. In response, in enforcement of WP:ARBPIA, Nableezy is blocked for 48 hours and made subject to a one revert per page per day restriction with respect to all pages or content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the next three months. Obvious vandalism and BLP violations are excepted from this restriction.  Sandstein  14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix: has edit-warred in violation of WP:BLP to include unreliably sourced material in a BLP (e.g., ). In response, he is blocked for 72 hours and warned about possible WP:ARBPIA sanctions.  Sandstein  14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and another one. Gilabrand, signing as "Geewhiz": The above comment violates your topic ban. In response, you are blocked for two weeks (escalating from one week for your last infringement), and in addition, the three months topic ban is reset to begin anew today.  Sandstein  14:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Mitsube (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

The diffs are complex. Here is the story. I originally posted a report at AN/I, but the admin who read the report there was unwilling to act on it because he isn't familiar with blocking users for edit-warring, and he asked me to report ScienceApologist here. The report at AN/I also has many other combative edits of his that are not edit-warring but I would still like an admin to look at that and give some sanctions. Here is a condensed version of that report:

A month ago, ScienceApologist nominated this article for deletion. The result was keep. Since then numerous well-discussed changes were made, especially in the last few days.

1st revert: Today ScienceApologist showed up and reverted some of these changes (version reverted to here, my changes to it were discussed here but ignored until many hours later. ScienceApologist notes: This is not a revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In this same string of consecutive edits, he restored material to the introduction that I had removed (the use of the word "pseudoscience"), and carefully explained (in the “Described as pseudoscience” section of the talk page). ''ScienceApologist notes: The claimed "edit war" here is the inclusion of a single word: "pseudoscience". `ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

He furthermore undid the addition of a new section break that had been added by User:Sacca here. ''How can this be said to be edit warring? I see no objection to this at all in the talkpage to this cosmetic work. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

These are consecutive.

2nd revert: undid previous edit. Note that he hadn't used the talk page at this point (which was full of justifications for the things he was undoing). ''ScienceApologist notes: The talkpage is full of justifications for the types of edits I was making. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

3rd revert:. This again undoes my changes to the introduction as in the first string of edits, and again removes material that he initially removed in his first string of edits, and which was twice restored. That sentence is "although it is possible that only some, but not all, people reincarnate, or that the conditions necessary for remembering a past life are specific enough to narrow the population which can do this". ''ScienceApologist notes: An acknowledged partial revert. This is the second and last revert I did. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

I told him that this was his third revert in two places and asked him to finish the discussion we were having about a huge chunk of the article he removed against consensus. ''ScienceApologist notes: it's a bit difficult to take someone who is edit warring with you seriously when they warn you about edit warring. WP:POT and all that. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

4th revert: He then deleted all the content of the article, thus ignoring the result of his unsuccessful AfD, and redirected the article. With this edit, he removed numerous additions I had made to the article, including the second sentence of the introduction ("Most mainstream scientists have ignored or dismissed this work") which used a new source I had found, the other new content I had added specifically to better represent his opinions. He also removed two other large chunks of material I had recently added. ''ScienceApologist notes: and attempted bold redirect. Didn't stick. Sometimes these things do stick. No one had tried this before, so it's not a revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

I noted on the talk page that this was his fourth revert. Silver seren reported him for edit warring soon after. ''ScienceApologist notes: It is interesting that Silver screen never told me that I was reported, though they did template me. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

Fifth revert: In his next string of edits he performs a few reverts.

He reverted (version reverted to here) away yet again my "Paul Kurtz believes that deducing" language I had argued for on talk. ''ScienceApologist notes: these are different versions. Not a revert. Just because you argue for a particular wording on the talk page doesn't mean that no one is allowed to change it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

He again removes the next subsection divider that had been added by another user and twice restored. ''ScienceApologist notes: Seriously? That's what you're upset about? Why didn't you tell me? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

He again reverted away the "although it is possible that only some, but not all, people reincarnate, or that the conditions necessary for remembering a past life are specific enough to narrow the population which can do this" language as before. ''ScienceApologist notes: I moved the sourced sentence to a different part of the article. This sentence is not now and never has been sourced. Is this considered a revert (removing a single sentence?) If so, then that's number three. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

This again is in sum his fifth revert. And the time between his first and fifth reverts is about 22.5 hours. I would really prefer it if the responding admin would look at the longer version with more of his disruptive behavior at AN/I.

I hope that he will be blocked for a considerable period. Furthermore the fact that he cannot respect the results of an AfD shows that he should be banned from this article for a considerably longer time. Mitsube (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that ScienceApologist has been edit-warring, and I've asked him to accept a 1RR/day restriction on this article for 30 days. If he agrees I think this report could be closed with no additional admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With his long record of disruptive editing and edit-warring, and 5 reverts in 23 hours, doesn't he deserve a long block? Ignoring the result of the AfD alone deserves a block. And his rudeness toward me that I chronicled on the other report deserves a block too. Mitsube (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocks are preventive, not a form of punishment, so the question of whether or not someone "deserves" a block is usually not germane. The rudeness to which you refer was hardly egregious, though if ScienceApologist agrees to a 1RR restriction but then problems continue I would encourage you to bring it to ANI. If the 1RR solves the problems then there's nothing to worry about. Also this report somewhat duplicates a report above. Really it should not have been refiled (I don't know why it was since on ANI I suggested adding to the other one) but in any case they should be closed together. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose placing only SA on 1rr. That's just presenting Mitsube with the ability to brute-force "win" his content dispute. Hipocrite (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, and respond to my question for you on the talk page. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded to your passive-aggressive question in the appropriate location. Hipocrite (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let this one slide. Mitsube (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mitsube, consecutive edits count as a single revert for the purposes of WP:3RR. Often when articles are being edited heavily it makes the history easier to read if edits are broken up into logical chunks. You are treading on very thin ice with respect to the WP:VALID section of the NPOV policy. Please consider this next time you decide to incite an edit war and attempt to use this board to further your interests in a content dispute. As an uninvolved but WP:INVOLVED editor I would recommend locking the article for a few days - let the sources play out and calmer voices speak without Mitsube's aggressive disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2/0, there were five nonconsecutive reverts, some of which consists of a string of edits. In my report, I counted consecutive reverts as one. Please read the report thoroughly before using such dramatic language as "you are treading on very thin ice". About your other accusation, I have displayed only a desire for consensus and amity as the longer report shows. I am glad that you are recusing yourself. That is the honest thing to do. Mitsube (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is now stale anyway, so moot, but a large part of the problem is Mitsube trying to skew content towards a WP:FRINGE view of the topic. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been just watching this article from afar except for one edit I made at the talk page. This is a request for User:Mitsube to refactor a comment made about User:Verbal forgetting to sign in and editing as an IP. I found what was said to breach WP:Civil and WP:NPA. The user didn't see it and asked me about it but I chose not to continue the discussion and to let it pass. Then I found the AN/I discussion leading to here and took note that another accusation of socking was made at User:ScienceApologist here asking this user 'Are you sharing this account with someone else?" I think that Mitsube is editing tendentiously and in the extreme.  Other editors are also reverting this editor's edits.  I think that this all goes a lot further than just an edit war or 3r since the article is in need of balance.  The personal attacks though need to stop as does the tendentious editing. As for SA, he is using the talk page during all of this and explaining his edits.  That Mitsube doesn't agree with them, that is the issue here.  This is a content dispute and maybe 2/0 is correct, that protection is the best way to handle this at this time. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that protection is the best way to go. Though I would like to note that Mitsube also explained his/her edits on the talk page, as can be seen by the copious amounts of topics started by him on there. He has always listened to other arguments and put forth evidence for his viewpoint, while those on the other side rarely put forth evidence for theirs. Silver  seren C 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have annotated Mitsube's ridiculous diatribe with my comments above. Edit warring? Yes. Was I the only one participating? No. I will abide by 1RR if the other side does too. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ridiculous diatribe" sounds close to a personal attack to me. Please be civil in this discussion. Silver  seren C 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have finished my detailed count of the reverts by all parties, in the period beginning 23:00 on 24 March, and I've added the results at User talk:ScienceApologist. SA is the only editor to reach four reverts, and he's the only one I'm proposing to sanction at this time, unless he accepts a voluntary agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, SA is not, however, the only editor edit warring, and to sanction only SA seems ill advised to me as it essentially gives an advantage to the "other side" who do not, based on my reading of this situation and some comments above, seem entirely blameless in this affair. Imposing a 1RR on the page for awhile seems a good idea, though I'm not sure that's technically within the purview of a single admin. If the relevant parties could simply agree to that (SA already has) that would obviate the need for any administrative action for now, and simply seems a better solution. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept no sanctions. I have done nothing wrong. If someone accuses me of something show me the diffs. Mitsube (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist has now moved on to the main reincarnation article, where he is reverting away. He removed the mention of reincarnation research from the intro, back to Cenarium's version from a few days ago. And he insulted religions believers in his edit summary at the same time. This is why I felt a block was needed. Mitsube (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Article protected two months. Originally I had a plan for resolving this, but a number of admins have commented and I don't think my first plan has enough support for me to pursue it. Until 20 March there was a reasonably effective process working on the talk page, and both sides of the dispute were trying to make progress through negotiation. ScienceApologist's arrival on the scene at 23:16 on 24 March seemed to cause a general breakdown, and for the next 24 hours both sides behaved badly. Full protection will allow changes to be processed through editprotected, which will force discussion before edits are made. As usual, my protection is open to review at WP:AN. Thanks for the comments that people have made here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Artefactual reported by User:Lanternix (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

in my defense, i would like to say that User:Lanternix is exhibiting in my opinion religious bias in his re-edits of the article Copt. all i have been asking him to allow is that the percentage of copts be written as "6-20%" since the actual percentages can not be determined from the present facts espoused by all parties. some parties argue a lower range, while others argue a higher percentage range. however, all parties can also reference there percentages to reliable sources (as well as more biased sources). therefore, i have sought the middle-ground by arguing for the complete percentage range to be included for the meantime- untill an undisputable source can be produced. once again, i believe User:Lanternix is making an unneccessarily large comotion over an issue that should have been easily resolved- if the objective spirit of wikipedians had been employed.Artefactual (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC) i would also like to say that i am still learning the ins-and-outs of wikipedia policy. i honestly had no knowledge of this 3 edit rule thing- which i am still trying to fully understand. sorry for transgressing wiki procedure.Artefactual (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Note For admins editor has actually self-reverted, though hasn't used an appropriate edit summary and is seeking to use WP:DR to sort the problem. Seems a genuine misunderstanding but may be worth a look at the other party for gaming the system? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No action. Both have edit-warred. Artefactual has self-reverted, which makes this dispute no longer live with respect to him. Please use the procedure described at WP:DR in the future. Lanternix has since been blocked for another edit war. There is accordingly no further action required.  Sandstein   17:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Birdlover777 reported by User:Snowmanradio (Result: User blocked for 48 hrs)
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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has changed a lot of other pages that will need checking, some after warning. All edits now corrected by at least 3 editors. An administrator has now blocked the user for 48 hrs probably without seeing this page. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Fanoftheworld reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: indef)
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:

Fanoftheworld is an account with a history of promotional edits for Steinway, as well as removing references to competitors brands. Previously blocked three times for similar behavior. This is just another case of that, where the editor ignores consesus and/or references. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked as an advertisement-only account. A review of recent contributions reveals that Fanoftheworld is an account that is, at least recently, almost solely dedicated to promoting Steinway & Sons and reducing the visibility of their competitors' products in Wikipedia. He does so notably by edit-warring with others about the inclusion of brand names in articles. As Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Fanoftheworld shows, this is not a new problem. Fanoftheworld is therefore indefinitely blocked.  Sandstein   17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rkitko reported by User:Snek01 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:


 * Result - No action. Nobody has written anything about this dispute on the article's talk page, and I don't see that you gave a 3RR warning to the other party. (See instructions at the head of this noticeboard). If you have an article dispute, try to work it out through discussion before reporting here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Fanoftheworld reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: indef)
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:

Fanoftheworld is an account with a history of promotional edits for Steinway, as well as removing references to competitors brands. Previously blocked three times for similar behavior. This is just another case of that, where the editor ignores consesus and/or references. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indef-blocked. As above.  Sandstein   17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:82.12.115.218 reported by User:VernoWhitney (Result: Semi)
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: NONE
 * I have repeatedly asked the user to discuss on the talk page, but the only communication they have provided is via edit summaries and warning other users involved.

Comments:

Even after different wording has been found, the editor is insisting upon keeping it a certain way, again without talk page discussion:
 * 
 * 

I admit I have gotten too involved in this edit war, but I am now bowing out of the situation and removing the page from my watchlist in order to allow cooler heads to come to a consensus on the page. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. The IP is warring to add information about a sex scandal to the article. Though the info is referenced, the wording the IP has used risks being defamatory, per WP:BLP. Suggest that the IP get consensus on the Talk page or at WP:BLP/N as to the correct form in which this could be worded. If that is done, the protection could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Historiographer reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: the user has already been blocked for edit warring on this article, so is fully aware of the rules and consequences.


 * Note: I (uninvolved) gave a warning Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

The above editor seems to be quite keen on removing the word "Takeshima" from the article, the editor has been reverted twice by myself and has been reverted by another editor - I would prefer for this to be dealt with here, than see yet another long drawn out edit war.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24h.  Sandstein   16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:80.47.85.227 reported by User:Pigsonthewing (Result: Semi & blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article talk page and edit summaries,

Semi-protected by Black Kite. Minima c  ( talk ) 18:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And IP blocked for other reasons than the edit-warring. Black Kite 21:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:86.178.142.233 reported by User:The C of E (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

The problem with this user is that this IP seems to have a problem with a statement in the article however he has reverted 3 times and may need a warning to prevent him going over the 3RR The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please update or re-report if there is any further trouble. - Vianello (Talk) 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: RfC at WT:ACTOR, not closed, still open.

Comments: There is a RfC open at WT:ACTOR concerning the use of color table headings, spearheaded by the editor I am reporting. He was incivil to another editor in that discussion and when she responded to it, he began going about removing the color and font coding, which has been used as a matter of practice on actor articles. The RfC has not been closed. Thge first edits he made were hidden under deceptive edit summaries of "tidy" and continues to hide his edits under deceptive summaries. When I reverted his first edits on this, he posted an ultimatum to me to answer questions on WT:ACTOR if I wanted him to stop. When he reached the 3rd revert on the Anna Kendrick, I warned him about 3RR. He did the same to Corey Haim. I noted in reverting that there was no consensus to remove the coding, which again was used as a matter of practice. He then went to WT:ACTOR to move to close the RfC and began removing this from the other articles. He didn't directly violate 3RR on the Kendrick article, but after being warned, he proceeded to remove it on other articles. I believe this violates the spirit of 3RR as he forges on to remove it. The discussion is not closed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not like I've not tried to discuss this with WHL; there's 129 kilobytes of discussion at WT:ACTOR about this, most of it not to her liking. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the RfC is still open and this removal continued even after being warned about 3RR. It isn't required that the reverts all occur on the same page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You've reverted just as much (or more) than JM has. Seems a bit odd that you're reporting him, since logically if any action were taken, it would affect you as well, or perhaps you solely... J.delanoy gabs adds 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A huge percentage of WHL's edits are reverts. Most of the diffs to my editing on offer above are not reverts at all; they're just edits she doesn't like. The discussion is thataway. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time that Jack Merridew has made snarky comments about my edits. I do vandal patrol a great deal of the time, yet he continues to speculate about the percentages regarding my edits. And for the record, I stopped after I saw the wholesale manner in which he was approaching this. I revert it twice on three articles, so no, I did not revert it as much or more than he did and I'm not sure where you're getting that "as much or more" from. And Jack, when you've reverted the same thing over and over on 7 different articles, for something that is still under discussion, it's reverts. You'll find lots of other reverts in my contributions, but you won't find pointy edits, the object of which are still under discussion, hidden under false edit summaries like "tidy". Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack shouldn't have started it to begin with. Bait, much?  —  Mike   Allen   06:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * nb: User:Pinkadelica has joined-in.  . Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I most certainly did "join in" because Heidi Montag is on my watchlist. After the deceptive "tidy ;)" edit summary, I checked your contributors to see if you did your idea of "tidying" on other articles and lo and behold! As MikeAllen has stated, you shouldn't have started this crusade to begin with. There's no consensus for theses changes that you and you alone are pushing for, and certainly not after that bait and switch joke of an RfC you began on WT:ACTOR. If you hadn't noticed, I didn't revert your other edits because it's obvious you're playing a game. I haven't earned a block yet and I'm not about to get one because you're bored and want to play games.  Pinkadelica ♣  07:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Anna Kendrick page continues to ping-pong back and forth. That RfC needs review and a close by an uninvolved admin. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Planeshift rpg reported by Tuxide (talk) (Result: - Vianello (Talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
. : Time reported: 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1) 21:54, 27 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352410003 by SpigotMap (talk) Number of quests are not a news but a fact.")
 * 2) 22:00, 27 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352411772 by SpigotMap (talk) Being sorry is of no help. I understand you are a vandal of wikipedia, you will not win.")
 * 3) 23:13, 27 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352421271 by SpigotMap (talk) You are not a trusted user. See your talk page. you cannot edit this page anymore.")
 * 4) 23:32, 27 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352425118 by 72.40.145.111 (talk)")
 * 5) 23:52, 27 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352428126 by 72.40.145.111 (talk) Stop vandalizing the page.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

I (uninvolved) gave him three NPA warnings. Also, after reading these comments from him I didn't think it would be constructive to bring it up on the talk page. This is clearly an "I don't like the guy" thing, not a content issue. Tuxide (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both SpigotMap and the reported user have violated 3RR in this case (at different times). A block has been passed down for both. - Vianello (Talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Barneystimpleton reported by User:ttonyb1 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 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:

Comments:

Editor was previously blocked for the same addition to the same article.  ttonyb (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting because there is no ACTUAL reason why a very notable person should be removed. I checked most of the other ones. The "10 foreign articles" thing did not apply. Barneystimpleton (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A policy being broken in one place does not make it acceptable to break it (and 3RR) in others. Please see WP:ALLORNOTHING. "The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article." WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is also relevant, even if we're talking list items and not articles. - Vianello (Talk) 04:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Only three reversions made on this particular spree, eight days since the previous one, and the user has now desisted. If another administrator still feels this qualifies sufficiently as edit warring despite that, they may overturn my judgment on this if they see fit. - Vianello (Talk) 04:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:71.74.95.254 / User:Nonrevisionis reported by User:Newross (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: /

Previous version reverted to: 14:00, 25 March 2010


 * 1) 23:16, 25 March 2010 (edit summary: )
 * 2) 19:58, 26 March 2010 (edit summary: )
 * 3) 15:20, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: )
 * 4) 22:14, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: )
 * 5) 01:01, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: Undid revision 352423812 by Ja 62 (talk) based on his own text (quoted), many DID/DO believe him to be communist)
 * 6) 12:58, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
 * 7) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: Undid revision 352556521 by Newross (talk) Right, I read that he is not a Marxist - I am stating a fact due to his writings as quoted)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 19:52, 28 March 2010 (71.74.95.254)
 * 2) 19:54, 28 March 2010 (Nonrevisionis)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) 00:27, 28 March 2010 (User talk:Newross)
 * 2) 16:14, 28 March 2010 (Talk:Saul Alinsky)

Comments:

Repeated addition by 71.74.95.254/Nonrevisionis of a partial quote from Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals deliberately taken out-of-context to reverse its meaning and combined with the uninformed, unsubstantiated personal opinion of 71.74.95.254/Nonrevisionis. Newross (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:DecZXZ reported by User:Dudesleeper (Result: - Vianello (Talk) 04:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:03, 28 March 2010


 * 1) 19:52, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
 * 2) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
 * 3) 20:56, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
 * 4) 21:04, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 19:24, 28 March 2010

Talk:Ewood_Park

Comments: Warned by a couple of users, and has now reverted for fourth time, despite having WP:3RR brought to his attention. He doesn't seem to be checking diffs, because my last edit wasn't connected to the edit war. -  Dudesleeper  talk  01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mkdw reported by User:Philly jawn (Result: no action)
. : Time reported: 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1) 02:42, 28 March 2010  (edit summary: Undid revision 352453395 by Philly jawn
 * 2) 03:00, 28 March 2010  RV: Please follow wikipedia procedures as described in the A7 as well as the process to contest maintenance tags rather than assuming bad faith and reverting these changes
 * 3) 03:07, 28 March 2010  restoring the maintenance tags - please don't remove them unless you can assert that the concerns have been resolved


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Edit warring and bad faith in editing. There has been an article about Joseph Rowbottom that has existed for about nine months. Rowbottoms were spontaneous gatherings where some mayhem ensued. I added this to the article on flash mobs, User:Mkdw and I traded reversions. Mkdw just upped the ante by nominating the first article for speedy deletion. In an act of retribution, Mkdw just put a warning on my talk page ... after putting the speedy tag back on the article. Would someone please intervene? Philly jawn (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No action. The listed diffs do not exceed WP:3RR, the edit war is presumably over now that the article is at AfD and you, Philly jawn, have made roughly the same number of reverts as Mkdw, but also removed deletion tags out of process and assumed bad faith, so if I were you I would not invite admins to take a closer look at this.  Sandstein   06:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mkdw was completely driving an edit war, and was being vindictive. Three isn't always the threshold, I thought about including the edits from flash mob but chose not to. You'll see that the article in question has been transformed by an enlightened editor. This kind of behavior needs to be noted, especially since the speedy was in bad faith and an editor not trying to be a bully would have found a better way. Philly jawn (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You instantly reported me for restoring a tag that was removed "out of process" and never made an attempt to discuss it when I posted on Talk:Flash mob... Mkdw talk 07:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * These are not reverts in each edit new information was added to the article or some quotes trimmed. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, each time started with your reverting the edit I made and then, as I said, you added a little bit of content. That doesn't take away from the fact that it included reverts of the same content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor falling back on old issue. I have cleaned out the addition of blank parameters from the citations he has added, removed use of excessive subtitles from old newspaper articles and removed excessive quotes from cites that basically copy and paste every single bit of content from the newspaper link. He has repeatedly used undo to eliminate my clean-up and has hidden his actions beneath deceptive edit summaries that do not mention his reverts. My issue with him regards the subtitles and the source content that is already accessible through the link to the source, not the ones that have no link. He just hits "undo" makes a few small edits and hides it behind a false edit summary. His last response to me included a personal attack aimed at his perception that my ignorance astounds him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pointing out someone's ignorance of Copyright Law and the concept Fair Use is not a personal attack, I always assume good faith. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am astounded, as I was 2 years ago when this issue was settled by Arbcom. The quote parameter is there to use in the citation template, and I am using no more text than Google is already using under fair use, and what the New York Times uses in their abstract. There are over 3M articles and somehow Wild is insisting on imposing his personal style guide on this one without citing any Wikipedia rule. I am going through old articles made before the NYT abstracts were available by the NYT and adding links, and the newer citation templates. Previously the NYT was hosted by ProQuest. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to re-argue removing the quote parameter from citations, lobby for a new policy guideline. Don't arbitrarily remove a few of them from a few articles on an ad hoc basis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point here, Richard. This is not the place or the purpose here. The point is that you willfully violated the 3RR bright line rule. And you did so by reverting first and in some cases made a few other edits and hid it under a deceptive edit summary to try and slip by the revert. That's a violation of 3RR and you were warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, Richard. As I said, my issue is with your deceptive editing practices and violating 3RR while doing so. The underlying issue is with returning blank parameters, inserting needless subtitles and sticking in quotes that merely serve to parrot what is in the reference. Redundant, needless and basically beside the point of 3RR and personal attacks. And as you've been told in the past, make an effort to discover someone's gender before just assuming I'm a "he". Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the fourth time, can you cite a written Wikipedia rule, instead of imposing your arbitrary personal taste in how you want Wikipedia to be formatted.

That isn't the issue here, Richard. Your hiding reverts behind deceptive edit summaries while you violate 3RR is the issue here. This is the second time you've implied that I was a part of an ArbCom case involving the use of the quote parameter. I was not, so do yourself a favor and supply links to such a case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said "[you were] a part of an ArbCom case involving the use of the quote parameter". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point here, Richard. This is not the place or the purpose here. The point is that you willfully violated the 3RR bright line rule. And you did so by reverting first and in some cases made a few other edits and hid it under a deceptive edit summary to try and slip by the revert. That's a violation of 3RR and you were warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

deceptive edit summaries? not that i saw. rich, coming from someone notable for their poor edit summary usage.cite Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The retention of citation template parameters even when no value is given, are an affordance to future editors who may be able to provide the information but who may not know the parameter name or how they might go and look it up. This is especially true for missing information that we really would like to have, thus a missing value acts to encourage editors to contribute to the project. This is kinda core to the wiki-process; in theory, at least.


 * Blank template parameters for the author's name from a newspaper article where there is no author named? Baloney. That content will never miraculously appear when it isn't already there on 40 or 50 year old articles. And the use of deceptive edit summaries have been a mentioned issue with you too, Jack, on this very page. When you do one thing and call it something else, that's deceptive. And how did Jack get here or to the Albert Fish article, where he's never previously edited until tonight? From following around my edits, which others have noticed as well. Inserting one's self into another editor's issues is sort of par. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wild appears to be the common factor in the two ongoing edit controversies over arbitrary style changes on this page today. The handling of the quote function was ruled on by Arbcom about two years ago, when attempts was made to remove quotes from citations. 07:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point here, Richard. This is not the place or the purpose here. The point is that you willfully violated the 3RR bright line rule. And you did so by reverting first and in some cases made a few other edits and hid it under a deceptive edit summary to try and slip by the revert. That's a violation of 3RR and you were warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If Wild wants to limit titles to one sentence this needs to be argued globally, and not enforced prior to a rule being set, and not enforced on an ad hoc basis. Google truncates book titles in Google Book Search so it is not unprecedented, but consensus needs to be created for the move here in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here, Richard. This is not the place or the purpose here. The point is that you willfully violated the 3RR bright line rule. And you did so by reverting first and in some cases made a few other edits and hid it under a deceptive edit summary to try and slip by the revert. That's a violation of 3RR and you were warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If Wild wants to create a rule that any unused parameters in citation templates must be removed from all articles, I will support it. But again, we should not be removing them on an ad hoc basis from some templates in some articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again, you seem to be missing the point here, Richard. This is not the place or the purpose here. The point is that you willfully violated the 3RR bright line rule. And you did so by reverting first and in some cases made a few other edits and hid it under a deceptive edit summary to try and slip by the revert. That's a violation of 3RR and you were warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Your most recent post here, pastes the text: "you seem to be missing the point here, Richard. This is not the place or the purpose here. The point is that you willfully violated the 3RR bright line rule. And you did so by reverting first and in some cases made a few other edits and hid it under a deceptive edit summary to try and slip by the revert. That's a violation of 3RR and you were warned." into this page *5 times* How is that not trolling this discussion? Seriously, Jack Merridew 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the same response to everything he's said on this that tries to obfuscate the bottom line reason this was brought here, which was violating 3RR and trying to hide it behind deceptive edit summaries. And just because you don't like me gives you no basis for claiming trolling. The response to everything he's tried to muddy up on this board is the same: He violated 3RR after being warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Theres seems to be a lot of reverting from both parties, although one of the editors has taken care to not violate 3RR on a technicality. Since there is some effort to resolve this on the talk page, I would suggest that neither editor is censured here, and that both editors immediately desist in editing altering the disputed material and request a Third_opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My analysis indicates that this is a 4-against-3 revert situation, with RAN having made the larger number. I've begun a discussion at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to see what RAN would accept as a method of finding consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would note that RAN has made up a list of questions, which are posed from his own POV of the issues involved here, but has failed at all times to notify me, you or respond to your questions. I will not participate in a "consensus" call formulated in this manner and based on his POV, which do not in any way address the issues I brought up about this. In that, the questions are quite genereal and are designed to bring a specific response without covering the particulars. He has yet to respond to direct questions from EdJohnston and has still reverted 4 times after being warned about 3RR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:bsw123 (Result: No vio, reporter warned, page protected )
Page: Anne Widdecombe

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Widdecombe&oldid=352422882


 * 5th revert: 21:30, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,482 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Bsw123; Content is synth and not in the citation, opinionated addition. (TW)) (undo)
 * 4th revert: 21:23, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,482 bytes) (Reverted 4 edits by Bsw123; Synth uncited content. (TW)) (undo)
 * 3rd revert: 21:16, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,482 bytes) (→Work outside Parliament: remove op ed comments) (undo)
 * 2nd revert: 21:06, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,339 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Bsw123; It is opinionated and uncited . (TW)) (undo)
 * 1st revert: 20:56, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,339 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by 78.86.8.181; Op ed comment uncited. (TW)) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I have tried to engage with Off2riorob through: my comments directly on the user's talk page; encouraging Off2riorob to discuss this on the article's Discussion page rather than simply undo edits; and by providing detailed explanations in my edits. Off2riorob has failed to engage with any of these appeals. The user initially claimed the edits were removed because the contribution was uncited; a citation was added and the user continued to undo edits. Off2riorob claims he/she is attempting to prevent editorialising but his/her own edits appear to indicate an intention to bias the article.


 * Comment by uninvolved user. Complainant User:bsw123 has attempted to place unsourced and potentially defamatory material on a BLP. User:Off2riorob has correctly removed it in accordance with WP:BLP policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC).
 * No violation. Absolutely. The page is protected now anyway, but Off2riorob was quite correct to remove such WP:SYNTH from a WP:BLP and I would suggest that User:Bsw123 be blocked if they attempt to re-insert it when the protection is lifted. Black Kite 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The material was sourced (Express columns webpage) and linked (to Richard Desmond), and so was fully verifiable in respect of both of the two parts of the statement (AW writes a column; in a newspaper published by a publisher of pornography). It was also factually accurate. Bsw123 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And it was synthesis. Read my comment on WP:ANI if it's not clear why this type of personal opinion isn't valid in a WP:BLP. Black Kite 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:68.98.60.87 reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 00:35, March 29, 2010


 * 1st revert: 00:35, March 29, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 01:33, March 29, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 04:13, March 29, 2010
 * 4th revert: 14:23, March 29, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:28, March 29, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 04:29, March 29, 2010

Comments: This text was originally added by User:68.194.254.7, a known sockpuppet of indef blocked user User:ObserverNY. After that IP was blocked for three months following an SPI report, this user started undoing the text. I'm not really sure if it's meatpuppetry or what. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by User:Nableezy (Result: both warned)
. : Time reported: 06:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 04:28, 30 March 2010  (edit summary: "restoring deleted references and removing the one contested link") rv of this
 * 2) 04:33, 30 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352890597 by Nableezy (talk)") labeled as a rv
 * 3) 04:39, 30 March 2010  (edit summary: "restoring sources, per talk page") rv of this
 * 4) 06:37, 30 March 2010  (edit summary: "") rv of this
 * 5) 06:47, 30 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* Relationship with Coptic Christians */") restores the problematic sources and continues to use the same problematic language as the first three reverts. Further explanation below


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Al-Muizz_Lideenillah, WP:RS/N

Comments:

Lanternix has repeatedly added information claiming that al-Muizz, the Fatimid caliph who conquered Egypt, witnessed a "miracle" that involved the moving of a mountain by a Coptic patriarch and then converted to Christianity. Lanternix was using as sources various Coptic websites and publications of the Church. I rewrote the text using thrid-party sources here. Lanternix in the #5 above restores the same problematic sources that multiple editors have objected to on the talk page. Lanternix also removed the information on the source calling this story a "legend" later propagated by Coptic writers and continues to present this story as fact.  nableezy  - 06:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will leave this to the judgment of the administrators. I tried my best to discuss the issue and to come up with compromises (see my latest 2edits on that page). Many of the above claimed "reverts" are nothing more than attempts to reach common grounds and to present the story in a neutral manner. To re-insert documented references among large editing attempts of compromise cannot be considered as reverts. -- λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ [talk] 07:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The first four reverts are straight reverts, and in the last you reinserted the problematic sources and phrasing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both warned. A look at the edit history of Al-Muizz Lideenillah shows that both editors have been edit-warring since March 25 notably over the inclusion of a section entitled "Final Days" and the category "Converts to Oriental Orthodoxy from Islam". A break in the edit-warring occurred only as a result of my blocking both of them for edit-warring in another article. This is ... discouraging. I would like to remind both editors that (a) edit-warring is prohibited, (b) this also applies if you are right and the other person is wrong, and (c) this also applies if your sources are better than the other person's sources (cases of WP:BLP excepted). Now, ordinarily I would just double the most recent blocks of both edit-warriors; however, recent events are slightly more encouraging: Nableezy was the first person to stop edit-warring and also opened a thread at WP:RSN, which is at least a hint of following WP:DR procedure. (Making a report here does not give extra credit, though: this board is not a constructive part of the dispute resolution process.) Lanternix has at least stopped the mindless reverting and proposed a new version of his text without the contested category. For these reasons, in the hope that dispute resolution will work at last, I am at this time refraining from issuing blocks. However, should any of these two editors make even one revert of the other in this article within the next week, I may consider that a continuation of the present edit war and apply blocks. Consider yourselves warned.  Sandstein   20:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Soxwon (Result: stale 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Dif of warning: Dif of trying to resolve dispute on the talkpage:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Notice the users use of "fanboys" to refer to those who have reverted him. He also proceeded to take someone's comment on the talkpage way overboard and blanked the section when he did not get his way. Soxwon (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) No edit warring in the last 10 hours or so, so I'm hesitant to hand out a block now. If edit warring resumes, re-report here or leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Tim Song (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting that 4 different editors have reverted him. This isn't a simply battle of 2 people disagreeing. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * , as the edit warring resumed. Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Shmayo reported by User:ܥܝܪܐܩ (Result: Page protected.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This nationalist user is causing repeated disruption and edit-warring with everybody he encounters. . ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the only one that's not discussing. Please join the discussions before you revert. Shmayo (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been conducting a nationalist rampage and unilaterally reverting everything without discussion or support. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected&#32;for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Cirt. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:75.253.201.112 reported by User:Kelseypedia (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 02:45, 29 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352614506 by Kelseypedia (talk) You don't own Wikipedia, asshole.")
 * 2) 04:16, 29 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352668160 by Kelseypedia (talk)")
 * 3) 04:42, 29 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352676355 by Rrius (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User appears to be editing from a few different IPs and seems to think inclusion of this information is bad because it's "propaganda" and "some people are only looking to confirm their beliefs" or some other reasons related to inclusion only because of bias. The material in question is two sentences. One sentence is uncited, but the other has a citation, and the user takes no issue with lack of citation for the first statement - only something with how the human mind works. Since user appears new, I tried explaining in edit reasons why the material was fine, and user's issue with its inclusion were not reasons to remove it - in the process I may have been considered edit warring, but rather than take it straight to the board here, I thought user would begin to understand why it was fine. User does not seem interested in listening, so I've stopped reverting and instead taken it here. It was not my intention to edit war. Kelseypedia (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tim Song (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand this. Since the user was repeatedly removing information that had been in the article for quite some time, I was under the impression that I was to stop reverting in order to "not edit war" - so if I didn't continue to edit war, it'd be declared "stale"? I just tried to restore the information that had been present for quite some time and the user again snidely removed it under a different IP.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_DeMint&curid=599391&diff=353073596&oldid=353061531


 * I'm to accept that the user will continue to remove information that had been in the article because I don't continue to edit war? I'm sorry, I'm just very confused. Also, if you look at that user's userpage, you will note that they received their final warning for disruptive edits. Kelseypedia (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Undefeatedcooler reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: protected)
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:

Comments:

I have tried working with this User, not taking a side, just trying to hear them out and stop the edit warring. Their editwarring was so bad that an Admin locked the article for a week. This was good as it allowed users to bring forth sources. We arrived at consensus, as soon as the sourced material was introduced, the user began edit warring again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me add that Undefeatedcooler
 * is a pure single-purpose account only active at Bruce Lee and directy related pages.
 * has been warned for calling me repeatedly a racist and has started name calling again.
 * although he reverts aggressively, is actually the only user on Talk:Bruce Lee who has never ever provided a single reference to support his views; his approach is unconstructive to the core. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...he reverted four different users. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Protected for 2 weeks by . I would have blocked had I seen this first, so consider yourself lucky. Any attempt to resume the edit war after the protection expires will be looked upon very unfavorably. Tim Song (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello? What kind of trade-off is this? You let the edit warrior from the hook and justify it with blocking the article which actually harms half a dozen users working on it. What about the opposite approach? Block the single-purpose account and reopen the article. I know you guys do your best to keep a balannced view, and I respect your work, but if Undefeatedcooler is not blocked for a crystal clear violation of 3RR, I will file a formal protest. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk to Tan, not me, sorry. If Tan is agreeable to unprotecting, fine, but handing out a block while the page is protected is punitive. Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tanthalas39, I'll admit this probably should have gone to AN3R, not here, and now we are penalized because this was reported erroneously. What recourse would you suggest that gets the page open for editing and still deals appropriately with the SPA? Padillah (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have contacted Tanthalas39 for a clarification/modification of his decision. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:24.3.220.206 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: 31h)
Page: Every member of Congress article.

User being reported:

and about a dozen more.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Comments: The IP has been adding "The honorable" to every member of congress (or attempting to). The IP has been undone a few times (once by me not knowing it was part of a wider campaign) and a number of other editors. The user's then proceeded to undo all of those RVs, a process which has repeated a few times across a number of articles (and still going). User:Triesault attempted to engage the editor, as did I, and maybe others, but the behavior's only continued.

Shadowjams (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bporter28 reported by Vegaswikian (talk) (Result: stale )
. : Time reported: 05:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 22:06, 28 March 2010  (edit summary: "Moved discussion to Talk Page. See Picture 2010. I want to get this resolved, please no negative gestures or hostility. If you want to comment please feel free to do so.")
 * 2) 21:16, 30 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352987480 by Traveling Man (talk) See talk page.")
 * 3) 05:22, 31 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 353101845 by Andrewlp1991 (talk) See talk page. We are attempting to meet a consensus.")

Also note that this user may also be editing as 200.91.74.146:
 * 1) 02:11, 30 March 2010  (edit summary: "I would still prefer a better picture, such as the one that shows what Las Vegas is famous for. We can discuss on the talk page. But this one is of higher quality for the time being and only shows LV.")
 * 2) 05:04, 30 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352872617 by Vegaswikian (talk)")
 * 3) 05:04, 30 March 2010  (edit summary: "")

Also note that this user may also be editing as 68.224.84.185:
 * 1) 08:30, 28 March 2010  (edit summary: "This picture shows the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area. It has been explicitly stated that this picture also shows Paradise and the Strip, but it allows the reader a better city view as a whole.")
 * 2) 15:27, 28 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 352535572. What justifies that picture as being "better"? That picture shows only a few downtown hotels. While the downtown area is in Las Vegas, the city limits also expand beyond that")

—Vegaswikian (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Drac2000 reported by User:FellGleaming (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Three-revert rule violation

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


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy&oldid=353044583
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy&oldid=353050761
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy&oldid=353186229

Have also requested editor assistance at the WikiPhysics project page. Editors there appear to agree with my assessment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drac2000&oldid=353191051#Edit_Warring_and_3RR_Violations

Talk discussion I started here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy#Article_Quality

Comments:

Article appears to have several issues with verifiability, original research/synthesis, and unreliable sources. The basic premise of the article itself (whether or not any controversy over hafnium emissions even exists in the scientific community) isn't documented. As it stands, the article has a strong "conspiracy theory" slant.

I have attempted to put inline templates for the material that is uncited or appears to be original research. A regular editor of the article has thrice reverted out these citation requested, and accused me of vandalism for inserting them. FellGleaming (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: after I warned the user for 3RR, he immediately removed the warning, and placed a 3RR warning on my talk page, though I've only reverted his reversions twice (his final revision is the current page)
 * This complaint seems overstated. Ever time I was attempting to meet "Gleamings'" complaints, he would make some sudden change of requirements without any real discussion on the talk page. As can be seen from the entire talk page, there has been a lot of controversy and before Gleamings, issues were always settled through WP:AGF. I recommend we continue on the talk page.
 * --Drac2000 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As can be seen from the history, I set no "requirements", but merely started a talk thread, and added source request templates. You repeatedly reverted my changes, accused me of vandalism, and improperly added a 3RR tag to my page, despite my not having violated 3RR. FellGleaming (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In its current form the article is better than it was before Gleamings' actions because it has three new references that respond to the first 3 of the tags he had introduced. I would think that would be a good result to balance against the observation that the responses were provided in less than 24 hours. Probably we all have other responsibilities and pursue the improvement of articles as a voluntary but limited committment to the ideals of the Wikipedia. So, would it not be better for the articles to be edited incrementally? To repeat what seems to have been overlooked, I recommend we get back to work on the talk page as time permits in a way focused upon a selected number of "next issues." So far that method has had proven efficacy,even up to the present.
 * --Drac2000 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Drac, the references you added were tangential and don't address the concerns with the article. Nor does it condone your 3RR violation, or worse, your attempt to intimidate me by falsely accusing me of 3RR and vandalism.  FellGleaming (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FellGleamings' last dictum before obsessing about his "maltreatment" was to propose that the page in contention had no place in Wikipedia. I agree and propose that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy be deleted entirely.  Unfortunately, I do not know how to propose that recommendation, but imagine that at this high level of authority someone could do it. Please do it. Of course, there is the hazard that FellGleamings will shy away from such an actual consensus with me now that I have caught up with him in agreement and will want yet something else. FellGleamings do you agree to deletion of the page?
 * --Drac2000 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Drac2000 has just posted on my talk page that he now agrees with me and the other editors about the article. If he is indeed serious, I see no need for further action. Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action, since the parties have agreed to negotiate. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mister Flash reported by User:HighKing (Result: )
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 one, together with Intra Airways, is strightforward. User:HighKing and User:Snowded insist that all cases where British Isles is being removed have to be discussed at the so-called "SE page". But look at the entries for these articles on that page - Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples. You'll see that in each case Snowded unilaterally decided to remove British Isles and was backed up by HighKing. When I came along to discuss the matter - alright, a week later, but so what? - they tag teamed edit reverts on each article in a clear attempt to force me into a 3RR violation. I have tried to discuss the topics, but look at the comments and how their enforced consensus is being used. They are both as guilty as me of edit warring, even if they haven't theoretically violated 3RR. Mister Flash (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How does one get forced to breach 3RR? Doesn't one have options? GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case we have a single purpose editor who simply says no to any change and blind reverts. The Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples was set up to resolve issues.  A simple review of that will show that Flash does not engage, s/he simply says no preventing any progress being made.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, no need to bother with that ridiculous s/he construct. I would have thought my username gave you a clue, but since it hasn't, I can confirm here and now that I'm a male of the species -- don't bother, I'll say it for you - "what species?" ha, ha, very funny - the same species as you. Mister Flash (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will comment then, that snowed and High king and good day are the majority contributors to that worthless POV pushing discussion page and then they move off creating edit wars at every page they try to push a non existent consensus for change, the change being that they want to eradicate the united kingdom from the whole wikipedia because they don't like the association with irish independance, totally tiresome nationalistic contributions, they then tag team to raise a report against editors like Mister Flash who dares suggest there is no consensus at all.Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a record of supporting inclusion and removal of BI in about equal proportions Off2Rio, no block history for edit waring and have never attempted in anyway to remove the UK. Rants without substance don't help, you might want to consider withdrawing -- Snowded  TALK  19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. I'm Irish, Snowded is from Wales, and GoodDay is from Canada.  A simple check of the SE page will reveal that not once has a nationalistic argument been used when discussing the appropriateness of any term (by either side).  The lack of AGF in your comment above is breathtaking.  This 3RR report is simple.  It is not about the appropriateness of "British Isles", but rather the edit warring by Mister Flash.  If you've a problem with any other issue, file at ANI or somewhere more appropriate.
 * Although I am wondering why this 3RR report is taking so long to be dealt with... --HighKing (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GoodDay's been creating edit-wars at every page? trying to eradicate the UK from Wikipedia? has been tag-teaming with HighKing & Snowded? Anybody got smelling salts for me? GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All your worst nightmares come true! You should keep this at your "Memorable Quotes" page.  And if don't have one, now you have a great starting point! --HighKing (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The three of you are the highest contributers to that page, the whole issue is to remove UK from the whole wikipedia, nationalism for whatever your reasons, I don't care what they are, I despise nationalic issues. The three of you again came here together to push for a block against an editor that resists these unsupported consensus claims. I am simply stating my views on what is gojing on, there are two sides to every issue.Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, when it comes to stating your views, it helps if you remain civil and try to keep some foothold in facts. We're not concerned with your views, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  This 3RR reports concerns Mister Flash and it doesn't help his case if wild allegations and conspiracy theories are part of a 3rd parties' reasoning as to his motives.  --HighKing (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please stay civil, here is the edit history from the reported article, a couple of IP accounts come along to start the issue off and then there are more than one editor involved in this edit war, also the edit war was started by the desire to insert a disputed nationalistic edit, all I am saying is that there are multiple issues here and pointing the accusatory finger at one editor is not correct. It is also a fact that this exact same issue is repeated at multiple articles, clearly more discussion between the parties is required. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but stating that the edit war was started by the desire to insert a disputed nationalistic edit is not correct, a breach of AGF and CIVIL, and a transparent attempt to divert this discussion into nationalistic realms when all we've done is point out a simple breach of 3RR. Unless you're saying that Mister Flash was *justified* to revert 4 times?  --HighKing (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see that he has now continued his reverts without discussion on reasons concerning content by reverting me 6 times over three articles, here and here at Stout, here and here at Polka, and here and here at Skyrunners. --HighKing (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he is correct to revert, it is a disputed nationalistic (territorial) edit without a consensus, please move to discussion. AGF is not a close your eyes and trust all, it is a clueocracy here, I see what I see and comment on it in a good faith way, I am recommending more discussion in preference to blocking for this report, look here and see the four editors that are the main contributors to that so called task force discussion page, you will see all the editors that are here, there is a clear need to discuss more and I would say, to assert a consensus for such disputed changes a wider opinion pool would be preferable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is *never* an excuse to breach 3RR for a content dispute. --HighKing (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever done so yourself? Mister Flash (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused as to why Off2 is accusing myself (and HK, Snowy) of wanting to delete United Kingdom from Wikipedia. If anything, 'United Kingdom' is being added to articles. Also, why am I getting poked in the eye over the SE page? I haven't opinonated on any articles brought there, in weeks. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean, yes but, you are the second most commented editor on the desired alteration that created this reverting,here, scroll to the top. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A recent contribution from User:Jackyd101. it gives some background to the dispute:

''All of the reverts of Mister Flash that I am aware of were made while the articles were under discussion at this page and as I made clear above, they were permissable as I understood it because they were both a) controversial and b) under discussion. The reverts you [HighKing] made were permissable as you considered the original changes to be controversial, but I was and remain seriously concerned by your failure to bring them here for discussion after making the revert, especially given that in articles like stout both "Great Britain and Ireland" and "British Isles" are perfectly correct and therefore there is an obvious need for discussion to determine which should be used. I also did criticise MF above over reverting your changes without discussing them here, so you wild accusations in that vein are nonsense. Note also that I attempted to start a discussion on guidelines here and you [HighKing] couldn't even be bothered to comment.  I am thoroughly disgusted with this entire debate and unless someone takes it upon themselves to interfere in articles I am working on or interested in I do not intend to contribute further - I've wasted quite enough time on this ridiculous fuss already. Mister Flash, you are combatative and disruptive and HighKing you are wilfully gaming the system in an absurd crusade to remove a perfectly acceptable term that you happen not to like. You are both as bad as each other and I have better things to do. Goodbye--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) ''

Mister Flash (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been harping for weeks, that articles be left as they are. Don't delete or add British Isles anymore. But, my suggestion continues to get ignored. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Anesleyp reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (via multiple edits)
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments: Anesleyp, who was previously given a one-week block for edit warring via sockpuppetry on a different article, is insistent on inserting a large bloc of dubiously sourced material of questionable value into the Kesha article, despite the opposition of multiple editors, including myself. Her response to edits he/she disagrees with is typically simple reversion, often with edit summaries falsely asserting the material has been sourced, never attempting to justify the content under BLP/RS policies. Fixer23 may also have crossed the 3RR line in responding to Anesleyp's editing, but several of his edits are based in part on sourcing problems. I also have two reverts in the page's recent history, of different material, over BLP/sourcing issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Article protected one week. I agree that Anesleyp's edits over the past month are getting close to disruption, but she has lately begun adding sources for her material. The one week of protection will give editors a chance to negotiate on the talk page, for example, to decide if the spray-painting rumor belongs in the article. Meanwhile, use editprotected to get changes made that are supported by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Rkononenko reported by User:Taivo (Result: Article protected for one week. Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 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:

Rkononenko continues to delete a common English name for this city for nationalistic reasons despite the fact that three different editors have reverted his deletions. (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
 * By this diff user admits to being willing to use socks to continue his edit war. (Taivo (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

User:Nix Hansen reported by User:DAJF (Result: indef)
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:
 * . Obvious sock is obvious. Tim Song (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:AgadaUrbanit (Result: No violation)
Page: Gaza War

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * revert:

I report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached. Considering content of discussion on the Article talk page discussion and Phrasing discussions/dispute resolution there is a reason to believe that  nableezy  is acting in  disruptive and non-productive way and reverting in order to try to win, manipulate, or stall the discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Article talk page discussion Phrasing discussions/dispute resolution
 * Agada has repeatedly tried to force in material into the lead of the article with multiple editors objecting to both his interpretation of the material and the insertion in the lead. He has attempted to push this material in, after having been reverted by multiple editors. The reverts are, , , , . Multiple editors have asked Agada not to return the material to the lead but, with not one other editor on the talk page supporting the reinsertion, Agada continues to reinsert the content. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding here, nableezy . I regret you're not as verbose in your phrasing proposition sticking to "no, it is not" argument. I hope we don't descent into Big Bang discussion, edits you have mentioned are not covered by this discussion and maybe relevant to this: Let's just say that number of editors mentioned in talk page archives terms such as edit warring, disregard of civility and massive reverts, which reminded events which led to the Gaza War article lock up. I just want to discuss content and Wikipedia policy application without being personal. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No violation. And to be honest, even if there had been, there's clear consensus that Agada's addition shouldn't be in the lede of the article. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your resolution. I understand April 1st day tradition, but looks like your ability to input info on discussion talk page really fast is incredible, I'm amazed. Generally, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. Do you imply there was a decision that Agada's addition shouldn't be considered for inclusion in the lede of the article by discussion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:151.205.196.152 reported by User:SamEV (Result: Semiprotected)
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:

The user may be using a range of IPs, as his/her edits are similar to these, and, by. SamEV (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. Edit-warring by a dynamic IP who keeps adding unsourced claims to the article about the nationality of the group or the musical style. The IPs may be socks of Minie01. Editor is inclined to ethnic boosterism regarding the Dominican Republic. At some point it may be worth filing a sock case, especially if the editor expands their interests to more articles, and keeps using their current sourcing strategy.  EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ed!
 * Now, to play devil's advocate and in the interest of fairness, I should add that I'm sure the IP is not Minie01. However (and forgive me if I'm out of line for saying this), Minie01 is overdue a block, IMHO; she was blocked for the same kinds of edits this year and displays no desire to change. SamEV (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:AgadaUrbanit (Result: No action, duplicate report)
Page: Gaza War

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * revert:

I report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached, for the second time. Considering content of discussion on the Article talk page discussion and Phrasing discussions/dispute resolution there is a reason to believe that  nableezy  is acting in  disruptive and non-productive way and reverting in order to try to win, manipulate, or stall the discussion. There is also recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus just as revert is being performed. I regret nableezy  is not as verbose in phrasing proposition sticking to "no, it is not" argument. I hope we don't descent into Big Bang discussion, edits that nableezy  mentioned are not covered by this discussion and maybe relevant to this: Let's just say that number of editors mentioned in talk page archives terms such as edit warring, disregard of civility and massive reverts, which reminded events which led to the Gaza War article lock up. Generally, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. Hope I do not abuse this forum appealing for the second time. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Article talk page discussion Phrasing discussions/dispute resolution
 * Agada has repeatedly tried to force in material into the lead of the article with multiple editors objecting to both his interpretation of the material and the insertion in the lead. He has attempted to push this material in, after having been reverted by multiple editors. The reverts are, , , , . Multiple editors have asked Agada not to return the material to the lead but, with not one other editor on the talk page supporting the reinsertion, Agada continues to reinsert the content. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those belong to different discussion. Current phrasing was coined Per WP:LEAD opening paragraph using nableezy  clarifications:  a b AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of a report a couple of sections above. See Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Why Agada decided to post this again is not a question I can answer. That report was closed by Black Kite with the comment ''No violation. And to be honest, even if there had been, there's clear consensus that Agada's addition shouldn't be in the lede of the article.'' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A summary: The single-purpose account AgadaUrbanit (almost no edits other than Gaza War) inserted something into the first paragraph of the article which is obviously inappropriate there and Nableezy removed it. Unable to get his/her way on the article, AgadaUrbanit plans to get Nableezy instead and comes here with this "report". The result should be that AgadaUrbanit is given a punitive block for abusing this page. Zerotalk 03:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. This report is a duplicate of the one above, already closed by Black Kite. Since Nableezy has not edited the article since the first report was closed, there is no new evidence for us to consider here. AgadaUrbanit should consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if he can't reach agreement with the other editors on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

There are two main points of contention in the edit war in progress; placement of "(Part 1)" and "(Part 2}" and use of the phrase "or have they?" in an episode summary.
 * Article version before the edit war
 * Diff of first change of (Part 1)/(Part 2)
 * Diff of first removal of "or have they?"


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * It was at this point that I warned the editor


 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Two warnings were given.
 * 1)  (deleted as harrassment.)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edit war over the placement of "(Part x)" is ongoing. Concern over "or have they?" is new. User:Drmargi is an established editor who should know better but still managed to make six reverts in this war. After I warned both involved editors (the first is reported above) there was a period of less than 25 hours before Drmargi made his 6th revert. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. Even if the other party turns out to be a sock, these reverts don't look good, especially from an experienced editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:76.170.30.67 reported by MythSearcher (Result: page semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] none, but at least tried to state in edit comment, in which the editor ignored.

Comments:

The user had a few vandalism edits, at least one related to this article(the author of the manga) before adding in info that is totally incorrect into the article(which is countered by the link in the paragraph, the episode list) the user was reverted but not warned per AGF, since s/he might simply be mistaken. However, s/he ignored the edit comment and reverted the article with no explanation persistently even being reverted by 2 different editors. I can ABF and just give the 4th lv warning or report it here, I guess I will do it here for a better assumption of faith. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Page semi-protected - this is a bit stale for a block now, so I have semi-protected the page for a week. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:138.28.128.188 reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: Semi, warning)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert, by newly registed account Jojus

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff or unsourced addition and original research warnings:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Because the sources are in Spanish, I will explain. The IP and later a newly registered account Jojus is adding text, sourced to a Venezuela gov't release, that says Golinger's credibility is called into question because she is funded by the Ven gov't. The source does indicate she is funded by the Ven gov't, and although that certainly does affect her credibility, the source does not say that-- the IP/Jojus is adding original research and opinion. The information from that source-- that Golinger is funded by the Ven Gov't, is already in the article, from that source. The IP/Jojus are using the source to add original research, saying that her validity and credibililty are called into question because of the funding-- while probably true, unsourced original research and personal opinion unsupported by the source, which merely reports the Ven Gov't funding. They have now received five warnings, but continue. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Article semiprotected. I am warning Jojus not to add negative material to a BLP unless it is supported by an exact reference. The IP has made seven reverts over the last three days and it is believable that Jojus is the same editor as the IP. Jojus, a brand-new account, has made only one edit to the article so far. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:216.239.82.80 reported by User:LiberalFascist (Result: 48h)
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 has been pasting virtually the same comment into the article for a few days now. He also seems to be editing as, which has done similar reverting and pasting.

—Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Both IPs blocked 48h.  Sandstein   19:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:10, 31 March 2010
 * 2nd revert: 15:50, 31 March 2010
 * 3rd revert: 15:54, 31 March 2010
 * 4th revert: 16:57, 31 March 2010
 * 5th revert: 17:40, 31 March 2010
 * 6th revert: 17:11, 31 March 2010
 * 7th revert: 17:58, 31 March 2010 (user was warned of 3RR violation after this edit)
 * 8th revert: 18:22, 31 March 2010

Just a bit of explanation, the issue at hand here is about whether spoilers belong in wikipedia pages. Last night, the WWE's World Heavyweight Championship changed hands at a taping which will not air until Friday. Naturally, some users have been adding these events to pages, while others feel that we should wait until the change airs. Turian feels that it is vandalism, but it's really just a content dispute since there is no obvious vandalism. Both sides have a point, there are sources for it, but some believe we should wait until the change airs. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  18:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:12, 31 March 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I myself haven't been heavily involved in the dispute, but there are discussions currently at WT:PW and Talk:Jake Hager

Comments:

Removing perfectly sourced information is vandalism, and I will revert it every time I see it. I even added three more sources so people would shut up about 'ruining it for other people'. I discussed it with people, yet the IP continued to bother the situation. If you wanna block me for putting in the facts, then expect something to be done. (Not a threat, just saying that this is a very fine line for administrators.) It is not a content dispute either, since Wikipedia doesn't mourn the ruining of the moment (WP:SPOIL). –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to mention that it is stated everywhere else where it can be, yet people only go to this page to revert it. It's simple vandalism, and I reverted it. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by NickCT This debate essentially centers around whether Turian can insert "spoiler" info into the article in question. I think Turian's reading of WP:SPOIL is correct here, and the content he's trying to put in can be legitimately included; however, Turian has been overly agressive in trying to include this material against the wishes of multiple editors and has clearly crossed 3RR. I suggest a symbolic 1 hour block for Turian. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocks are meant as a preventative measure, not a mere punishment measure. Stating that I should be blocked for being right is absurd. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  06:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Stale. It's over 24 hours since Turian's last revert, and several others have edited since, so there is no need for a block to stop an edit war. If this happens in the future, a block may occur, since restoring a spoiler is not immune from the 3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverting vandalism is not a violation of 3RR, and I will continue to revert vandalism as long as I see it. Removing well sourced information because you don't want to spoil it for everyone else is a violation of WP:SPOIL and is vandalism. So no, I won't be blocked for such behavior. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  12:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the policy issue, WP:VANDAL makes no reference to removal of spoilers. So if someone raises a new 3RR complaint about you on a similar topic, you should expect that you may be blocked. If you don't like this situation, you are welcome to try to get removal of spoilers added to the WP:VANDAL policy. The page entitled WP:SPOIL is a style guideline, not a policy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Removal of well sourced content is vandalism. They just happen to be spoilers. Content, then spoilers. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian   ( talk )  00:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not according to current policy. Under your theory, how would an article ever be shortened to improve its style? Normal editing sometimes causes well-sourced content to be removed, in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a different case than just removing. It was a current event, and people doubted the validity of it, despite it being sourced. Just because you don't want to believe it, does not give you the right to remove it. I don't give a crap about spoilers or anything similar. Removing content as in this situation is vandalism, and I will revert it still. And if I violate a rule, I'll just use IAR as my reasoning to maintain the quality of the wiki. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  05:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, making Wikipedia subject to broadcast times is absurd. I agree with Turian that willfully removing information so the article becomes less informative is vandalism. No-one is disputing that the content is notable and verifiable enough for inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:CoralRosie reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

There are two main points of contention in the edit war in progress; placement of "(Part 1)" and "(Part 2}" and use of the phrase "or have they?" in an episode summary.
 * Article version before the edit war
 * Diff of first change of (Part 1)/(Part 2)
 * Diff of first removal of "or have they?"


 * 1st revert: (also introduced errors)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * It was at this point that I warned the editor


 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edit war over the placement of "(Part x)" is ongoing. Concern over "or have they?" is new. User:CoralRosie's talk page states that she is a long term Wikipedia editor, so this isn't a case of a new editor not understanding the rules. After I warned both involved editors (the second is reported below) there was a period of less than 21 hours before CoralRosie made the 7th revert. CoralRosie is the subject of an open SPI case. She is most definitely a sock but the evidence is starting to lean toward her actually being the sock of another editor who is involved. Regardless, the fact that concerns us here is that she is actively edit-warring and shows no sign of stopping. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Article semiprotected. It appears likely that CoralRosie will wind up indef blocked due to the currently-open sock case. The semi will stop the reverting for four days, which may be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CoralRosie blocked indef per SPI by yours truly. Tim Song (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:FreddyPickle reported by User:Turian (Result: Warned)
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: ; Post warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is getting insanely ridiculous. It isn't a straight 3RR, since he is doing it over a period of time of 3 days. Despite being shown a map, and despite having the article American South showing that Arizona is not in the American South, he continues to be disruptive. Multiple editors have told him he is wrong. Multiple people have reverted him, yet he continues. He then tries to call us vandals, when he is blatantly ignoring the facts shown to him. I highly doubt he is going to stop, so a week block, I believe, would suffice for now. This is definitely not a content dispute, since it is well sourced (although the information is dated, which I tagged as such a month ago). –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  12:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems like a content dispute that both editors can equally share the blame for. The reported editor made three reverts in a three hour period, while the reporting editor made three reverts within an hour. For them both to leave the article alone (either voluntarily or by means of a short block) would give them both time to calm down and decide that the talk page is a better place to resolve this than ANI. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There is consensus, so please stay out of things unless you know what is going on. It is not a content dispute. Multiple articles defending my position define that. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  14:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, four editors have reverted his edits, so I am definitely not edit warring. Check your facts please. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  14:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. You made 3 reverts in less than an hour, but you are not edit warring, because you were right. I see, point made and understood - thanks for clearing that up.(note: sarcasm, for those who were not aware) カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't "right". Arizona is clearly in the southern United States. Anyone with any sense in their head can see this:

http://www.map-of-usa.co.uk/images/usa-politcal-map.jpg

I'm sure you could quiz 2nd graders and they could tell you that Arizona is in the South.

Turian started this edit war, and he is clearly wrong. Its a verifiable fact that Arizona is a southern state, something this internet troll refused to admit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreddyPickle (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one degenerating my argument to baseless insults. If you would actually look at American South, you will see that Arizona is not a part of it. As I have stated many times beyond measure, Arizona is in the southern part of America. It is not a part of the American South. Someone please block him to teach him a lesson. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  00:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And since you seem unwilling to look at the article:


 * Do you see Arizona listed anywhere in that list? –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  01:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Arizona is South Western, not The South, I do believe some type of block should be carried out to prevent further disruption. Afro  ( Blah Blah Here ) - Afkatk 01:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you see "please continue you content disputes here" anywhere on ANI? take it to the article talk page. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not ANI. And he reverted way past the 3RR against consensus. He needs to be blocked. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  11:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Warned. FreddyPickle has not continued to revert the article since 03:51 on 3 April. If he resumes, without getting consensus first, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, he needs to be warned - and so do you. You also need to adjust your attitude. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * News flash, I wasn't vandalizing the page. So drop it. Go it? –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  04:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Go it? duh. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)