Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive129

User:Pyromania1967 reported by AV3000 (talk) (Result: Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 19:18, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "not necessary to include "between individuals"")
 * 2) 02:15, 16 April 2010  (edit summary: "No, I like the other version minus "between individuals" which is superfluous")
 * 3) 02:15, 16 April 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 03:35, 16 April 2010  (edit summary: "What's wrong with my middle way?  Some of you advocate for unnecessary details and others advocate for too much scarcity")
 * 5) 04:40, 17 April 2010  (edit summary: "State why you disagree with me here or on my talk page, nobody posts in discussion page (US centric et al. sections are ignored)")
 * 6) 04:45, 17 April 2010  (edit summary: "And you use the discussion page?  Have you responded to the US centric section?  I think not.  Where am I supposed to discuss this?")
 * 7) 04:58, 17 April 2010  (edit summary: "I can see, and that is why I want to remove "between individuals" because then all the opposing parties can be reconciled and we can move on, what's wrong with that?")
 * 8) 05:03, 17 April 2010  (edit summary: "I am not seeking consensus, I am making one, far from edit warring")
 * 9) 05:06, 17 April 2010  (edit summary: "O my goodness!  When will all you people learn what reconciliation and peace means?")
 * 10) 05:12, 17 April 2010  (edit summary: "I am not going to back down until somebody discusses this")
 * 11) 05:14, 17 April 2010  (edit summary: "Daedalus969, stop edit warring!")

—AV3000 (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24h. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 05:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LTSally reported by User:AuthorityTam (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions

2010-04-15 02:11, 2010-04-15 14:41, 2010-04-15 21:32, and 2010-04-15 21:53.

Comments:

The cited source ("Muramoto") had been inappropriately identified, and my correction of that was one of several simultaneous housekeeping edits I made to the article which were uncontested. In the course of reviewing links and external links, I came to believe that Muramoto had been misrepresented in the article. Instead of representing the source with yet another possibly POV interpretation, my edit quoted the source directly. The reverting editor claims that quoting the source 'hides what the source says' and is too "longwinded". Here are the two versions, one with an interpretation of the source and one with quotes from the source: I'd prefer Muramoto's quotes retained and see no encyclopedic reason to revert and hide them. --AuthorityTam (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the [HLC] committees' activities place pressure on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment and compromise the autonomy of Witness patients.
 * Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' interactions with Witness patients are a "cause of compromised autonomy" and one of several "factors [which] result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment".

--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC) While she frequently accuses others of personal attacks, she apparently allows it in her own criticisms; see here and here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Unlike LTSally, I've not expressed a religious preference or revulsion. My editorial motivation is improving encyclopedic quality. If Muramoto statements on this matter truly are "very simple", it makes sense to quote him rather than interpret him. An editor should be more quick to identify useful quotes and less quick to repeatedly revert cited quotes. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC) --AuthorityTam (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: The section in dispute refers to the activities of Jehovah's Witness Hospital Liaison Committees. Citing a paper in a peer-reviewed medical journal by Osamu Muramoto, I have written a sentence stating that Muramoto "has claimed the committees' activities place pressure on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment and compromise the autonomy of Witness patients". User:AuthorityTam has claimed Muramoto makes no such claim and prefers a wordy sentence incorporating two broken quotes and an explanation in square brackets in order to weaken his criticism. On the article talk page I have argued that the meaning of Muramoto's criticism of HLC intervention and coercion is clear. In this case a sentence paraphrasing his point directly is preferable to a wordy selection of quotes designed to obscure and weaken Muramoto's point. AuthorityTam claims I have incorrectly interpreted the paper and inserted my own point of view. However Muramoto's meaning is clear and unambiguous and supports a similar argument in an earlier paper (link provided on the article talk page), in which he directly accused church elders of placing pressure on patients to refuse blood transfusions. LTSally (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The matter is discussed more exhaustively at the article's Talk, but the source I seek to quote refers to "factors" and "elders" and resultant "pressure" on patients. The editor in question insists on interpreting this as 'HLC elders pressure patients'. But the source never says that. In fact, only about 1% of JW elders are on an HLC, so it is unwarranted to so grossly oversimplify this source to synthesize a point not explicitly made in the source. There is no encyclopedic justification for repeatedly reverting (hiding) actual quotes from the source, quotes which make a point that is strong, but apparently not strong enough to please a certain reverting editor. The editor reverts and reverts and reverts and reverts without explaining the unacceptableness of simple source quotes. The reverting editor frantically reverts to her preferred interpretation first and only later posts a token addition to the Talk thread, typically thick with accusations of ad hominem attacks and longwindedness and failing to move the discussion forward.
 * Incidentally, the reverting editor makes no secret of her antagonism against JWs; see here where she calls them 'sickening'.
 * As AuthorityTam knows full well from reading my user page, I am a "he", not a "she". I certainly have issues with the religion and its control of members, but I do not let that interfere with my adherence to Wikipedia policies on neutrality and use of verifiable sources. His latest comments are typical of this editor, who seeks to denigrate anyone who includes criticism of his religion in Wikipedia articles. As I've already said, Muramoto certainly identifies elders on Hospital Liaison Committees as those who place pressure on JW patients to obey the church's headquarters. The percentage of elders worldwide who are part of the HLC is irrelevant and part of his latest attempt to cloud what is a very simple issue. LTSally (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, AuthorityTam did not 'know full well' that the reverting editor (named "Sally" incidentally) is male.
 * My issue is not with the use of quotes. My concern is finding the best way to express Muramoto's concern that HLC elders place pressure on JW patients to refuse blood transfusions. A quote is not essential when the meaning of the source material is fairly and accurately represented. As another editor at the talk page agrees, you either misunderstand or are trying to distort Muramoto's statement. LTSally (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LTSally seems openly agenda-driven. He seems fixating on proving "that HLC elders place pressure on JW patients to refuse blood transfusions". That sounds like LTSally decided what point he wanted to make and then tried to figure out where and how to get that point from a usable source. It would be better to allow the source to determine the point, rather than to blindly and repeatedly revert quotes which wrinkle the packaging of the editor's imagined perfect point.
 * You may note the warning at the top of this page: "Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution." I don't think this is the place to discuss this. LTSally (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please note that to avoid tiresome confusion about my gender, I have changed my user name from LTSally to User:BlackCab. BlackCab (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - I'm warning both parties to pursue WP:Dispute resolution before reverting again. I do not see that either editor has achieved a talk page consensus for their position. It is possible that one or both editors could be blocked if they continue this fight before getting more opinions. Others have been recently active on this article; I see the names of Jeffro77 and Marvin Shilmer in the history. Surely their views could be sought. The most neutral way to bring in more participants is to open up a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gucci008 reported by User:PunkyMcPunkersen (Result: Warned)

 * User being reported:

Is a spambot locked on to the Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox article.


 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * Reverted spam it left on its own talkpage

As you can see, there really isn't much more that needs to be explained. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. He did not continue past a final warning. If this editor resumes, the account should be blocked indef. You can submit it at WP:AIV or WT:WPSPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:85.103.117.4 reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: No 4th revert, as in order for there to be one, I would have to violate the 3rr myself.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No real discussion -- the user won't reply to my messages, but continues to edit the article.

Comments:

The user continues to add a link to a non-official Youtube video with a likely copyright violation. S/he won't respond to my messages to attempt to resolve the dispute, but I can't continue to revert the edit without facing a 3rr violation myself. Thank you. GorillaWarfare talk 22:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned by User:CIreland not to keep re-inserting the YouTube video, which is an apparent copyright violation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Abductive reported by User:Crossmr (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: in the time it took me to file this he did it again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This study has 2 sections devoted to it on the article talk page, the user made one comment to them and came out of nowhere insisting that the author of a study which has it's own section in the article should be wiped from the section along with any mention of the university. Rather than continue to discuss, he's reverted over the limit. This is a particularly controversial article that often gets some people worked up.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:660gd4qo reported by User:Snowded (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is a slightly problematic case as we have an editor with poor command of English who self evidently has strong views on relationships between South Korean and the USA. Aside from the referenced changes on Anti-Americanism we also have: There are other examples as well, but that gives a flavor of the problem. I was concerned about WP:BITE but the editor has been around since November last year on Korean issues. While the edits above show minor changes each revert is substantially the same, namely the insertion of material about the strength of South Korean-USA relations in one section of a article on anti-americanism. The proliferation of similar material over other articles is also problematic. I'm not sure if a block is necessarily the right way, but the basics of seeking consensus on the talk page before making changes which are contested need to be established. --Snowded TALK  11:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fucking USA ( a protest song) amended to label the singer as "ultra-left" and "pro North Korean" along with the same material on South Korea and the USA used in Anti-Americanism. One revert here as well
 * Anti-American sentiment in Korea has identical material to that on Anti-Americanism, so far no reversion
 * South Korea - United States relations Significant removal of material on the Korean War, insertion of the same material as Anti-Americanism again
 * Iceland – South Korea relations deletion of references
 * Korean Nationalism Removal of material on anti-american sentiment


 * Excue me. You are also edit waring. This is not a POV or edit waring. The last two edits are not simply reverting as you claim. It change little by little. This is content dispute. here Talk:Anti-Americanism. He is the only person who abusing my edit. If you check my edits, I was not return to my edit. I did not revert to only my version. I reverted to Colin4C's 08:43, 17 April 2010 edit version. technically it was not count on 3rr. Also, not simply reverting as his claim. Again, I did not revert to my version. After He deleted all my edit without any reason, so i object to it. At least, My final edit including both side edit.(important) But, He is the only person who deleting whole part by no reason. And, If you want discuss other article topics, you should discuss there. Except for Anti-Americanism, You did not discuss any topic. If you want content dispute, You should provide counterpart evidence, discuss first, not by blocking user. If you want discuss each topics, I will provide enough materials of topic.660gd4qo (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fucking USA - I provide enough referecnes. Snowded's revert reason : "rv insertion of POV edits" (He think it looks like a POV edit -> it should revert? Is it really enough reason for revert?)
 * South Korea - United States relations ; no one disputed this. I settled stable version. It was not my edit. I did not edit its topic before. Some newbie account WilliamWater inserted extreme POV edit. Highlited only negative edit. Content forking I revert to stable version before WilliamWater's edit.
 * Iceland – South Korea relations ; no one disputed this.
 * Korean Nationalism ;no one disputed this. I removed exactly same content from Anti-Americanism in Korea article. I removed dupliacted and copy-paste content. And, Anti-Americanism and Korean Nationalism are Nothing relation each other.
 * If you really want dispute this, you should provide exactly WHAT is the wrong, and What is the inaccurated edit by evidences. You just want block & remove my all edits, not reach to agrrement. 660gd4qo (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 31h)
3RR violation on by

Ari is repeatedly removing or changing a sentence in the lead. The sentence is from Michael Martin, an academic, who writes that the existence of Jesus is taken for granted. Martin is arguing, against that, that Jesus might not have existed.

There was consensus on talk on April 16 to add this sentence; see here. Ari was the only one who disagreed. Ari either removes the part of the sentence that mentions "taken for granted", or in some other way edits it so that it makes no sense; slightly changes what Martin said, or removes the sentence completely. Six reverts in 29 hours, five of them just over five hours on April 18.


 * 1st edit: 03:15 April 17, Ari changes that Martin says the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted to a sentence that makes no sense.
 * 1st revert: 04:19 April 17, removes Martin writes that the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted.
 * 2nd revert: April 18, changes that Martin "writes that the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians" to "believes that ..."
 * 3rd revert: 03:50 April 18, removes "while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians ..."
 * 4th revert: 04:02 April 18, here he reverted, but didn't realize someone had slightly altered the sentence, so he reverted back to an earlier version of mine.
 * 5th revert: 06:04, April 18, removes "while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians .."
 * 6th revert: 08:29, April 18, removes the Martin sentence completely.

There has been a lot of reverting on this article recently, and many requests on talk for it to stop, which Ari has doubtless seen. He has been blocked twice before for 3RR, once in January this year and again at the beginning of this month. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * Considering the truly huge number of edits to the page in the last couple of days, I imagine most of us have undone a lot of each other's work. Rather than single Ari out, it would probably be better to just lock the page again while we try to talk things over. Eugene (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You did this the other day too, when you violated 3RR then rushed to have the page protected before you could be blocked, and it worked. I hope it doesn't work again. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31h. I really don't want to have to protect the page again; if this means multiple blocks for editors then so be it. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:CharlieJS13 reported by User:Kww (Result: 7 days)
Page: multiple Lady Gaga songs

User being reported:

This is an edit-war going across multiple articles. The essence of the dispute is simple: CharlieJS13 will not permit songs to be credited to Stefani Germanotta, despite that being the way the songs are credited at BMI. Editors placing sourced credits are being reverted, and even reported at ANI. CharlieJS13 was blocked for this earlier, and, upon expiration of the unblock, returned to the war, as shown here, here, here, here, here, and here.

He has also edited the ANI report about him to remove other editors comments.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 user talk page:

Comments:

CharlieJS13 has at least commented in a public forum, but it's hard to class it as a discussion: he reverted all the articles to his preferred version, removing sources along the way, and then says that everyone else is doing it wrong. He has already been blocked for vandalizing the user pages of editors in the dispute. &mdash;Kww(talk) 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a week, and warned that further disruption will probably mean an indef. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:82.24.163.100 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: 48h)
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:

i posted a comment on jakew talk page explaining why i changed his edits and asked him why he changed mine he replied with this

Thank you. It's very thoughtful of you to let me know. Jakew (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

this response does not give any insight into why he keeps changing my work

i believe that he is maliciously changing my work

circumsison is a matter over which many people have strong fealings. in the past wars have been fought over it and many people still do it regardless of what the law may say. for this reason i suspect that jakew may be sabotaging my work because he has strong personal fealings about the matter

jakew has posted a lot of articles, however due to the extreame fealings some people have regarding circumsision is suspect that he may be chanlengeing my edits which mostly opose circumsision because h has stong fealings about it himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.163.100 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I have advised the edit warrior to discuss at talk page, they brought this to WP:EAR I have no personal involvement in this dispute. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 48 hours for edit warring. This IP editor has reverted Circumcision and law 12 times since 25 March, and has never left a comment on an article talk page. (His change has been reverted by four different people). He doesn't appear to recognize that he needs consensus for his change. The block can be lifted if he will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

99.176.2.138 (talk) reported by JohnMorra (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments: multiple reverts of same edits (rv´s of promotional edits) without explanation--JohnMorra (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Warned. This user was never told about 3RR, and nobody has yet discussed his reverts with him. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci reported by User:Captain Occam (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and  here

Comments:

As far as I know, Mathsci has not actually violated 3RR on this article (although he’s come very close), but he’s clearly using aggressive editing tactics in an effort to win a content dispute. As can be seen in the linked discussions, at least three users have expressed the opinion that his preferred version of the article violates NPOV, and Mathsci is the only user who disagrees with us about this. However, when he’s responded to our efforts to discuss this it’s only been to brush us off, as in his reply to Varoon Arya’s NPOV concerns here: “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.” While rebuffing our efforts at discussion about these problems, he’s reverted efforts to address them from four different users.

Note Mathsci’s edit summaries, threatening all users who disagree with him about this with blocks. Also note that his three most recent reverts occurred within the space of less than an hour. The only reason this hasn’t continued for the past day is because Mathsci is now on the verge of driving all other users away from the article with this behavior, so at this point there aren’t many users left there for him to edit war against. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No 3RR violation. This article continues to get plenty of attention at ANI, and any questions about long-term edit warring may be pursued there. If you have complaints like 'Mathsci is driving other users away with his behavior,' an WP:RFC/U remains an option you may consider.  I note the possibility that you may have canvassed other users such as Distributivejustice and Mikemikev. Generally it is better to post a notice at one central location, like the talk page of a related article, than to request specific people to join a contentious discussion where you expect that numbers may be counted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Moretz reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: No action)
. : Time reported: 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: &

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


 * 1) 09:59, 15 April 2010  (edit summary: "added "Ozzie" demonym (same sources as "Aussie" demonym)")
 * 2) 11:29, 19 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356165454 by Merbabu (talk) Merbabu needs to read the citations for this term - BOTH include Ozzie and Aussie")
 * 3) 12:08, 19 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356966955 by Merbabu (talk)  decidedly not trivial - first biliing on source pages, so remove Aussie if you like")
 * 4) 12:17, 19 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356970846 by Merbabu (talk) the source support my change - do you have alternative sources?")
 * 5) 13:06, 19 April 2010  (edit summary: "added citations, including from the reliable Macquarie Dictionary")
 * 6) 13:35, 19 April 2010  (edit summary: "source has been deemed unreliable")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. There have been no further reverts on this topic in 18 hours, and it seems that Moretz's term 'Ozzie' has a chance of being accepted by the other editors. The use of the term is now supported by what looks to be a good source. (I read the Talk page discussion, and all parties seem to be working in good faith). Report again if the edit war continues. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Blahblah32blahblah reported by User:Acps110 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (not reverted)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Anonomous user 70.144.83.32, who started this edit war, should be dealt with too.

Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. Some IPs and new editors have been warring on the name of the stadium. They want it to be referred to as 'The House that Jeter Built', but without providing any sources. If these editors can get a consensus on the talk page in favor of their view, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:A.arvind.arasu reported by User:Kcowolf (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (first after final warning given)
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (latest)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Done by Antnee

Comments: User has been redirecting CSK to Chennai Super Kings. This has been going on since February and well past a final warning, though the most recent redirect was on March 19. First attempt at filling this out, sorry if there are any mistakes. Also, user has been notified.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcowolf (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2010 April 20


 * Result - Editor warned. Each time A.arvind.arasu replaces CSK with a redirect, it obliterates the entry for a Japanese company with the same time. He has not reverted since 19 March. He's been warned that he can be blocked the next time this happens. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Shmayo reported by User:ܥܝܪܐܩ (Result: Both parties issued final warning)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to (List of Syriac people):


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

Diff of 3RR warning:

Previous version reverted to (Names of Syriac Christians):


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

Diff of 3RR warning:

Previous version reverted to (Assyrianism):


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

Diff of 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user will not stop pushing a controversial merge proposal. The User:Assyria 90 who proposed this on the talk page a while ago and User:Shmayo are now under investigation. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The investigation is completed, and Deskana stated that the two editors are from separate countries. No sockpuppetry here. Tan  &#124;  39  14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tan, they're not from separate countries. They're both from Sweden. The third editor (who isn't mentioned in this edit warring report) is from a different country. --Deskana (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Shmayo and ܥܝܪܐܩ, both of you can consider this your final warning. Both of you have edit warred. If, after I post this notice, either of you continue to edit war (by making reverts, or otherwise), then I may block you immidiately per our policy on edit warring. Use talk pages to discuss your changes. --Deskana (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja reported by User:Salvio giuliano (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (link, because it's a long thread)

Comments: I realize that she only made three reverts, so she technically has not violated the 3-rr rule, but I think she has been edit warring nonetheless. Since the article is in mediation and the mediator invited all parties involved to follow the WP:BRD policy, the first editor edited the article, she reverted, but did not discuss it; her revert was then reverted and she wrote on the talk page, but did not apparently explain why she thought her version was better. Instead, she kept reverting to her version and making personal attacks or threats, as can be seen here, here, here and here.

She has explained her view on the article here Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio also recently made three reverts within 24 hours, but I did not file a complaint against him. Three reverts is not a violation of 3RR. I did not make a 4th revert.

I have engaged in no improper edit warring under the circumstances of this article. This newest complaint is just part of the filing of complaints and harassment against me that has been going on for weeks, in an attempt to get me banned or blocked so that both sides of the Kercher murder story cannot be included in the article. This Salvio and two other editors have been acting in concert in recent weeks to file numerous charges and complaints against me, and delete and revert my work, and have taken up a huge number of hours of my time with this endless harassment.

They are doing this today after I made clear to them that I could not participate much for several days since I am too tied up for the next several days. So they now file this latest harassment to take up more of my time. I have told them that their efforts to constantly revert or delete my work (they have deleted or reverted literally hundreds of my edits) to block or obstruct the defendant's side of the story from being included in the article, is resulting in the article being seriously defamatory against Amanda Knox. This whole article has been a lengthy edit war in which these three editors constantly delete my work to make Amanda Knox look as guilty as possible. I have told them that my next step is to report these efforts to defame Amanda Knox to the Wikipedia Foundation in the hopes that the Foundation will tell them to cease with these efforts to block and obstruct the defendant's side of the story from being included in the article.

What they are doing is engaging in all sorts of tactics, including deleting my work, provoking edit wars and filing numerous complaints against me, to remove information from the article which tends to show that Amanda Knox may be innocent, and to add information which tends to make her look guilty--even though she is still entitled to the presumption of innocence. By presenting her as someone guilty of sexually assaulting her female roommate and killing her by slicing her throat, the information they are including is defamatory if untrue. Since the truth of the charges against Knox is still unknown, BOTH sides of the story need to be included to avoid the article being defamatory. At some point her guilt or innocence will be finally determined, but we are months or years away from that.

In the meantime, they need to stop conspiring and acting in concert to constantly delete my work to block the defense side of the story from being included. The reverts I made were to restore MY own work, not to delete their work. The deletions they made of my work today involved deleting 20-30 of my edits, as part of an overall pattern of deleting hundreds of my edits. They also accuse me of being a lawyer for Amanda Knox or part of her support group. I am neither. I am an unconnected solo volunteer who does not believe that these people should be using Wikipedia to try to convict someone in the court of public opinion, before there has been a final judicial dtermination of guilt or innocence. Salvio and his cohorts need to stop constantly deleting the defendant's side of the story and provoking these problems. Thank you for listening. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User warned to cease edit-warring on this article. Blocks and/or protection of article may follow. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And I hope that applies as a warning to everyone involved in deleting and reverting in a contentious manner in this article. If my work was not constantly deleted--literally hundreds of my edits--there would be no need for me to restore my work. I note that it is very rare for me to ever delete another editor's work, since I show respect to the work of other editors. What I do is add information to clarify, or slightly modify, but I do not totally throw away other hours of people's work. So hopefully, if others stop constantly deleting my work to allow only one side of the story, there will be no need for these lengthy controversies. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by --78.13.165.121 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) (Result: Article semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (editor was warned))
 * 4th revert: (latest)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I've warned here user DIREKTOR.

Comments: User DIREKTOR revert me because he claims (against evidences and sources) that the region "Venezia Giulia" shall be named in English, just with the slavic name "Julian Mark". Using this pretence, he has reverted several others supported edits of mine. DIREKTOR is a multibanned user (for edit war and disruption).--78.13.165.121 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverts are very reasonable. The repeated addition of the Italian name by this IP above all other foreign language names has no defendable logic and is bordering on vandalism. DIREKTOR has asked for the page to be protected and I agree this IP looks very socky because DIREKTOR has been dealing with exactly the same sort of issue with User:Ragusino Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) reverts are not reasonable. See talk page and added sources (BTW I've used a SLOVENIAN scholar). The name is not "italian": again, just read sources and talk page. I've answered even in the protection page. 2) Am I "ragusino"? Present your evidences, thank (if I remember well, there is a procedure to check the IP).--78.13.165.121 (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It does look impossible that the two accounts are socks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ragusino are with south america IP address and this ip is in europe. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if he's not a sock of Ragusino, he's certainly pushing the exact same POV, and the guy's certainly not new to Wikipedia (it might not be him, I admit, but Ragusino has been shown to use a variety of IPs). The IP is pushing for the unequal treatment of the Italian foreign language name (for a predominantly Slavic-speaking region) in accord with the centuries old territorial "claims" of Italian irredentists. I pointed out WP:EN and did my best to explain the issue, yet the IP continues to edit-war to keep his edits in. It seems suspiciously like another calculated attampt by Ragusino or a buddy of his to get me blocked. Have a loom at what graced my talkpage a while back:
 * "Keep requesting blocks.....he will be back (like me and others)...meanwhile you have already collected 6 blocks and soon or later you and your MEATPUPPET Alasdairgreen will be banned forever......It is only a matter of time. CHI LA DURA LA VINCE forse lo diceva anche il tuo bisnonno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.133 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "
 * I will again recommend that the page be semi-protected to prevent the IP from edit-warring to push his edit. If this is not Ragusino or a buddy of his from itWiki then we'll surely be able to settle this through discussion more easily. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is neither the place to decide a "sock" or if I'm the mate of an unknown South American guy, nor the place for shilly historical forgeries (see the voice talk pages, for this!). The fact is that DIREKTOR did 4 reverts ignoring inserteds sorces, warnings and comments in talk page. For this reason he shall be blocked (for the 7th time, it seems!).--78.13.165.121 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For four reverts in three days? Especially as the last one was against the only edit of a very suspicious SPA account? I think not. No violation - article semi-protected. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The last agianst the SPA account, was not done by a different user. DIREKTOR did 4 reverts against me. He reverted back several referencied edits. BTW I've used a Slovenian scholar, so I didn't supported a suppesed "nationalistic" italian POV. In simply words, DIREKTOR is pushing a forgeries, in fact he has not presente sources. See talk page and read my edits, if you do not believe in me.--78.13.165.121 (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please throw this bad faith IP nonsense out it is clear from the comments above that the IP is actively tring to get DIREKTOR blocked because of a disagreement. This is nonsense. The IP is almost certainly a sock of one of the many users DIREKTOR has had to deal with in this tricky area. Polargeo (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DIREKTOR keeps pushing forgeries, that is one of the main reasons behind his six bans, and always is helped by his many MEATPUPPETS (like user:Polargeo or user:AlasdairGreen27). And he often defends himself with the usual excuse that he is attacked by sockpuppets, but this fact has nothing to do with his wrongdoing here: he has done the reverts! He deserves to be punished. The fact is that DIREKTOR did 4 reverts ignoring inserteds sources, warnings and comments in talk page. For this reason he shall be blocked (for the 7th time, it seems!). Justice in wikipedia has nothing to do with sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, it has to do with precise rules of wikipedia related to 3RR!L.R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.91 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Raaggio reported by User:Turian (Result: See below report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: It's too blurred to pick one.


 * 1st revert: (Also a very inappropriate use of rollback)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Shockingly, it is a talk page.

Comments:

This user has been nothing but disruptive; he himself has tried to use my words to validate is reverting. I do not have to be a member of the project in order to edit the page, despite what this user believes. –Turian  ( talk )  01:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not commenting directly on the underlying content issue, however - I just blocked Raaggio for another issue, so he cannot come here to comment himself. I have notified him of this report and suggested that anyone investigating this see any comments he leaves regarding it.  See User_talk:Raaggio   Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See report below Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Sigh)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: - archived an open discussion to cut off debate (with archive box)
 * 2nd revert: - archived the discussion again (with archive box)
 * 3rd revert: - removed the discussion to the talk page archive
 * 4th revert: - removed the discussion to the archive again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This came up recently at ANI, where Turian was given an option to speak to the subject but chose not to. The last that was said before he ended the discussion was that the discussion would be automatically archived once people had stopped commenting for 7 days. Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTPOLL, all I ask is that the discussion is allowed to run its course in exactly the same manner as any other discussion on the project talk page. Everything is automatically archived, and removing it only serves to stifle possible discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Pathetic. No-one comes out of this smelling good.  Turian has broken 3RR, but though it's no excuse that's partly because Raaggio and GaryColemanFan are tag-teaming him and then running to this page, Raaggio's "oh, you obviously didn't mean to come back here" edit summaries and reverts in this little episode are frankly a disgrace (I came very close to pressing the block button for that piece of disruptiveness before realising he was already blocked) and since there's absolutely no point protecting a talk page, I'll just link everyone to this.  Stop it and go and do something useful, all three of you; I'm pretty sure that next time blocking will be the only way of demonstrating how pointless this is. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Black Kite. This is lame to the point of outright stupidity. I suggest that if this foolishness resumes both parties should be blocked 24 hours to give everyone else a day off. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do believe I was the one restoring the consensus version of a page; if you wish to block me for that... –Turian  ( talk )  10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan reported by User:Turian (Result: See above)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Too blurred


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: An entire ANI telling him to stop.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's a talk page!

Comments:

This is more of a prolonged edit warring report than a 3RR report. Please see the above link that contains many users stating the same behavior performed elsewhere. Even after being told to stop, he has constantly continued to open and open and open and open a discussion which had reached consensus a long time ago. –Turian  ( talk )  04:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that the diffs span 7 days, and that leaving the discussion as-is (to be archived automatically) was the outcome of the ANI thread. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As JzG stated: "My technique would be not to engage in the long-term stonewalling tactics habitually used by GCF." This is a frequent behavior portrayed by GCF, and it is intolerable. –Turian   ( talk )  05:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * JzG can hardly be considered uninvolved . Ultimately, the discussions get archived automatically on the talk page, and forcing them to be archived sooner does nothing but cut off discussion. When Turian initially archived the discussion, I had commented only minutes earlier. My edits (keeping a discussion open until the page automatically archives it, as every other Wikiproject does) have been in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTPOLL, both of which state that discussion is a good thing. I'm finished with this issue, at any rate, since it's not worth the hassle. I do think, however, that it should be noted which editor is the common factor in the three most recent 3rr reports. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, only being reported by you. Not only were many discussions closed on the page, which you conveniently left alone. Also, Raaggio also manually archived closed discussions. The one you have only cared about is one that went against your opinion. Hoooooow ironic. –Turian  ( talk )  05:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't just commented in the other discussions, so they didn't concern me to the same extent. Certainly, I oppose any attempt to stifle a talk page discussion. Unless the discussion itself has turned uncivil, there is never a good reason to deny people the chance to finish a discussion. My major concern is that it was incredibly uncivil of Turian to archive the debate immediately after my post. What I have asked for (and was granted, per the outcome of the ANI discussion) was simply that the discussion be closed in a neutral manner, by allowing it to be archived automatically. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy to oppose this. In fact, as mentioned above, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTPOLL both strongly support the right of editors to comment during consensus-building discussions. This issue was apparently gone, as the thread sat for two days. Turian took it upon himself today to throw gasoline on the embers, however. Please also note the adminshopping:, . GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And how is that admin shopping? They have relevance to the matter at hand. GedUK is the admin that closed it and reverted your actions (which you whined about and reverted yet again), so his involvement in the matter is important. Also, JzG had made the comment I quoted, so I informed him to give him a equal field to state his opinions. Consensus was reached, you bitched about not getting your way (despite so many people telling you otherwise), and you have decided to not let it go. You say that it would be archived automatically if no one comments on it, yet you are always commenting on the archiving fact, not the actual matter of the discussion. The article was moved a long time ago (signaling a consensus), but you have acted childishly and have not let it go. If you really gave a flying fuck about the issue of the renaming, you would have just opened another discussion about it (as was suggested to you to possibly do). You tactics of a revert every few days or so is just what JzG stated, a stonewalling tactic. It is disruptive, and I advise you to get the hell over it. –Turian  ( talk )  05:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See above report. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deilami Language (Result: Incomplete report)

 * Page:

Some sentences had been entered in the article Deilami language. I explained in the talk page why these matters are not exactly related to the issue, but Revision history of Deilami language shows that it has been reverted two times without any discussion. Writing these sentences, in this manner, is first-hand research, because in the source which is used for this sentence, has not ever been referred to a language such as Deilami Language. there is not enough sources to prove this article and these original researches have been made in it. sicaspi (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Incomplete report. Not enough information to determine if edit warring has occurred. Personally, I share your doubts that the Deilami language exists, so I've proposed the article for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:125.22.58.2 reported by User:Aiken drum (Result: 2 weeks)
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:

Editor has already been blocked for repeatedly inserting this unreferenced list of non-notable alumni, and labelling its removal as vandalism.  Aiken   &#9835;   16:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 2 weeks by MuZemike. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:NoNewsToday reported by User:Oli Filth (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:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Reed–Solomon error correction

Oli Filth(talk&#124;contribs) 21:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. User seems inexperienced, and the 3RR warning barely preceded his last revert. If he continues, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

76.171.170.254 (talk) and others reported by JohnMorra (Result: Semiprotected)

 * Page:


 * User being reported: and others

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


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

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

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

Comments: Maybe somebody has a look on that page, there is edit war going on with reverting and re-inserting of promotional links


 * Result - Semiprotected. This has been going on for a while. Spam is coming in from a variety of different IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Idahoprov reported by User:Ism schism (Result:Warned/Article protected by User:Tcncv)
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:

Comments:


 * Note: Article has been protected by User:Tcncv and user has been warned. nat.utoronto 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja reported by User:Salvio giuliano (again, yes) (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Apparently, a joker thought it was a funny idea to start spreading the news that Knox had committed suicide. It was a hoax and was removed. Zlykinskyja, however, thought that to put some sort of a disclaimer in the article was necessary and she wouldn't want it removed. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

THERE WAS A MALICIOUS "BREAKING NEWS REPORT" ON THE ARTICLE FOR TWO HOURS THAT MS. KNOX COMMITTED SUICIDE. THIS HOAX CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF DISTRESS. I POSTED A CLARIFICATION SO THAT PEOPLE CLICKING ON HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION WOULD SEE THAT IT WAS NOT TRUE. As part of the unrelenting harassment connected with this article, including by Salvio, my attempt to post a clarification that Amanda knox was NOT DEAD was removed. This is is not a violation on my part. One of the exceptions to 3RR is when false information is posted that violates BLP. Certainly posting that Amanda Knox committed suicide violated BLP. I initially believed the report and was very upset that she had committed suicide, as I am sure others were upset. Other deleted my attempt to clarify that she was not dead as further harassment. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To remove the hoax would not have qualified as edit warring, that goes without saying; however, to insist on keeping a disclaimer in, when being told that it is not appropriate (Murder of Meredith Kercher), looks like edit warring to me. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 01:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I protected the article for 24 hours. As it is currently under mediation, it is my belief that further revert warring on this specific matter would further poison the atmosphere. I suggest everyone cool down and call it a day, then come back and consider whether a mention of the hoax is required and can be added properly, and properly sourced. MLauba (Talk) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a notice posted that Amanda Knox did not commit suicide for all those who saw the report or heard about it. Otherwise, people might continue to believe it is true. Can an adminstrator add that notice? It seems to me that if Wikipedia posts for two hours in bold letters at the top of the page a "BREAKING NEWS REPORT THAT AMANDA KNOX COMMITTED SUICIDE", to not allow a notice to be posted that she is not dead will result in additional unnecessary emotional distress for all those people who saw the notice or heard about it. I know that I was very distraught when I read it and I am sure others were too. Zlykinskyja (talk)
 * Definitely not. See WP:NOTNEWS. -- Neil N   talk to me  01:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I've warned Zlykinskyja as it would be punitive and not preventive if they are blocked since the article has been protected from editing. nat.utoronto 01:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dodo19 reported by User:Erikupoeg (result: 1 month full protection)
Page:

User being reported: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) ,
 * 2) ,
 * 3) ,
 * 4) ,
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)


 * Result - Fully protected by RegentsPark. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:208.54.4.19 reported by User:Cptnono (Result: 24h)
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: (2 warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion

Comments:

The user was just blocked so this is now stale.
 * Result - 24 hours for 3RR, blocked by Kuru. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Routerone reported by User:Duke53 (Result: Blocked until shows comprehension of WP:3RR)
Page: Linguistics and the Book of Mormon‎

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: Because of his hostile nature with me I have made the decision to NOT engage him in any conversation; this is an attempt to show him that he must follow WP rules, just like the rest of us. Other editors seem hesitant to call him on his behavior and he has, in fact, gotten away with 3RR violations in the past. Duke53 | Talk 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

These are his responses to my legitimate warning: Please take note of his edit summary.

Message he left on my talk page.

Comments:

Note that this is now being discussed at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. alanyst /talk/ 17:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note, reverting a somewhat flawed and POV statement citing a youtube video as a source (unreliable) is not in violation of WP:3RR. That's all I did. Routerone (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is Routerone's third block for edit-warring, so it's indefinite until he reads WP:3RR, reproduces the exclusions on his talk page, and shows that he understands that "sourced to YouTube" is not an exclusion reason.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you happen to look at the page history and block the other editor that was in violation of 3RR? -Atmoz (talk)

User:Annoynmous reported by User:Fellytone (Result: fully protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Done by Fellytone

Comments:

User Annoynmous has been deleting my sourced contributions. Fellytone (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been doing nothing of the sort. I have been reverting edits that where basically plagarised from a partisan blog. It should be noted that Fellytone has been blocked in the past in regards to this article because of 3rr violations and using insulting language. annoynmous 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually anybody who has been through annoynmous's talkpage can see that this person has a lengthy history of 3rr violations. Also, the "reverted edits" which the user claims are "justified" are not sourced from any blog, they are sourced from books, memorandums and established media sources. Fellytone (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Both and  are guilty of 3RR here at Institute for Policy Studies. Both of them also have a history of edit warring and being blocked for it. The article has now been protected so the edit warring and petty bickering can stop. Brad 19:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Fully protected by RegentsPark. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:12.35.251.194 reported by User:5 albert square (Result: stale)
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:

--5 albert square (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:69.14.124.156 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:

User:69.14.223.147 may be a sockpuppet of User:69.14.124.156 because my revert was reverted and he was inserting the same objectionable material. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - The two IP addresses listed above along with User:64.134.162.105 which made the same disputed edit received 48 hour blocks from Cirt. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nacnikparos reported by User:Huldra (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

"Brand new user" (read: sock) is editwarring over several articles to remove the word "occupied" from articles regarding Israel/Palestine. Socks should be checked. Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Huldra, can you at least take the time and complete the formatting to this claim? You should AGF and not attack this new user as a sock unless you have evidence. Please remove that accusation and stay CIVIL. Last but not least, perhaps Nic passed 3RR, but you are an active member in that edit war, it was not merely one user stubbornly battling many. I think you deserve any restriction that this user might get. --Shuki (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by Shuki

Comment by Zero0000
 * I second Huldra's request for a sockpuppet investigation. As can be seen from the history, User:Nymechein made two edits on Apr 22 before being blocked as a sock of User:Drork.  Then User:Nacnikparos shows up the next day and starts making exactly the same edits.  Hello, hello...  Zerotalk 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Pantherskin
 * It seems that Huldra is also edit-warring on this article, although he or she was at least wise enough to stop at the third revert. I do not see any attempts by Huldra to resolve the issue on the talk page either. Looks more like Huldra is here using the 3RR to win an edit war. I am also concerned about the 208.54.7.175-IP that appeared out of nowhere to restore Huldra's preferred version. Hello, hello indeed. Pantherskin (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Comment by Huldra
 * Can some (admin?) please close this report as "resolved"? User:Nacnikparos has been inddeffed blocked as a Dork-sock, (after the whole of 16 edits), and Quds Day have been fully protected. To Shuki and Pantherskin above (and for any uninvolved reading this: these two editors are, like myself, participants in the I/P-field). Seriously, a "new editor" appearing, who suddenly after 4 edits find his way to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues..after 10 edit already show good knowledge of other regular editors in the area....it was screaming out loud: "I´m a sock!".  WP:AGF does not mean, (I hope!), that you have to have an IQ of 55. And, Pantherskin, just for the record, that IP is in the US (I´m in Scandinavia). And if I have to editwar against these silly soon-to-be-banned socks, I simply wait until they are banned, and then I revert them. (As I did here). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does not look resolved to me given that you were edit-warring here too, even assuming that you are unrelated to that IP. Pantherskin (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "I simply wait until they are banned" - it seems that you did not do that, you edit-warred (with four reverts in one day) and won the edit-war because they other party was banned. And then you have the guts to complain here on this noticeboard about other editors edit-warring. I am sorry, but that does not look like you are acting in good faith here. Rather that you use all venues possible to get the opposing party blocked or banned in order to win your edit war. Pantherskin (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Not even a warning for edit waring with a user who was not at the time banned. Of course not blockable but "Hey, waiting for someone to get banned before making a fourth revert may not be the best idea in the future" might have been appropriate. Good thing Huldra asked you on your user page. Silliness.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Silliness indeed. Some ducks insists on quacking extremely loudly. Btw, I did not in any case break any wp rule, AFAIK, as I, (unlike the ducky sock), did not revert any single article more than 3 times. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User reported blocked indef as a sock of. for Huldra, as reverting edits by a topic-banned user is exempt from 3RR. Tim Song (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:128.163.229.36 reported by User:Marauder40 (Result: 31h)
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:Raymond Arroyo see section on Heritage Foundation and original research

Comments:

This user logs in every so often and constantly adds POV things to several articles. They include Eternal Word Television Network, Raymond Arroyo, Catholic League (U.S.)‎. They always do this from various anonymous IP addresses, usually Univ of Kentucky addresses.

Added: User is now also going after John Corapi page, doing the same thing.
 * by . Tim Song (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Adraeus reported by User:AzureFury (Result: resolved)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 10:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A discussion took place after this report was filed. I don't think any action needs to be taken.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 13:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)



User:UnnotableWorldFigure reported by User:Ttonyb1 (Result: full protect)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5-17th revert: There have been 17 reverts by this user in the last 24 hours. Please see the articles's revision history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Unfortunately this user has ignored the attempts to help him navigate Wikipedia guidelines. He has blatantly refused to "play-nice" and continued to engage in edit warring. The user has also ignored the comments in ANI - Greg Tseng and disruptive editing  ttonyb (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See <span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> ttonyb  (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Without meaning to fully exonerate UnnotableWorldFigure or condone his approach, I would note that in the "play-nice" edit linked above, he gave justification for the reversions arguably in line with the spirit of WP:BLP, a permitted exception to WP:3RR. Though I certainly don't agree with his reversions, they at least seem to have been made in good faith.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 17:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result Fully rotected for 3 days by Cirt. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DD2K reported by User:William S. Saturn (Result: )
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: DD2K made five reverts in one hour to the page, and is showing some WP:OWN behavior. For example: while reverting a copy edit by User:Boromir123 he stated "You need consensus to CHANGE the article - not to keep it the same - -stop CHANGING it." I warned him and told him that I would not report if he reverted his last edit, but he declined. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate to see that Saturn is replicating the same bad-faith tactics that he once used to bait me into a 3RR block last year. This user will embark on a series of increasingly absurd and POV-violating, albeit wholly separate from one another, edits.  The pattern becomes;


 * Absurd edit #1
 * User A reverts
 * Absurd edit #2
 * User A reverts
 * Absurd edit #3

...

No, "User A" should not be reverting that much, regrettably as I found out that is not a defensible position in itself. His reverts get connected to one another to form a 3RR violation, while the other person's do not since they keep intruducing different tangents to the article. But as I found out last year, I was under the mistaken impression that a 3RR violation would only trigger if it was a reversion of the same material, but I was told that the revert itself is what is bad, regardless of what is being reverted. If there is to be a sanction here, I would urge that the reviewer of this case apply the same standard of "different but, when taken altogether, the same" to the filing party here. This "let's try inserting this material", "let's try inserting some other material", etc...style of baiting should be considered just as much a case of disruption as the 3RR itself is. Tarc (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On this page I made only one revert today, and it was not a revert of DD2K. I genuinely believed the insertion of "Independent" would forge a short-term truce between DD2K and Jerzeykid. I was wrong. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: DD2K reverted his revert of the copy edit. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Otepoti history reported by User:XLerate (Result: stale)
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 fourth revert was directly after the 3RR Warning, without resolving any of the issues on the talk page.


 * also, 3RR is more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Tim Song (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the board for 3RR AND edit warring, and isn't edit warring defined as not restricted to 3RR? Weakopedia (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Kostja reported by User:StanProg (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) vandalism (removes "the Unifier")
 * 2) vandalism (removes "the Unifier")
 * 3) twisting a source the source does not support the "at the time" claims
 * 4) vandalism & twisting a source (removes "the Unifier" and support the "sometimes styled" claims with source that does not specifies if it's "sometimes")
 * 5) vandalism & twisting a source (removes "the Unifier" and adds "sometimes" claims with source that does not specifies if it's "sometimes")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments: The fourth revert was directly after the warning, without resolving any of the issues on the talk page. The user is constantly removing a wide spread term without pointing any reliable sources and specifying the sources which does not confirm the claims (twisting of sources).


 * User:Stan Prog obviously doesn't understand the meaning of Vandalism or Edit warring. Removing controversial, uncited information is not vandalism. And of the claimed reverts, only two are actually reverts: and .  Between these two reverts I inserted the alternative title in the lead in a way that doesn't make it seem like it were universal. Meanwhile, this user reverted the page three times:,  and , so his accusation seems astonishing to me. Kostja (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that the first edit, apart from not being a revert, was two days ago. Kostja (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also - I count 3 reverts from each, so there's no 3RR breach anyway. StanProg: please reread WP:VAND. Tim Song (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the board for 3RR AND edit warring, and isn't edit warring defined as not restricted to 3RR? Weakopedia (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Luitgard reported by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) (Result: fully protected)
. : Time reported: 00:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 05:47, 23 April 2010  (edit summary: "Needs dispute resolution.  No more abusive language pls. Undid revision 357767181 by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk)")
 * 2) 23:33, 23 April 2010  (edit summary: "Disagree.  Let's take it to discussion. Undid revision 357902627 by Effie.wang (talk)")
 * 3) 23:36, 23 April 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 00:11, 24 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 357924936 by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk)")

—UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments: This page was apparently deleted prior to October 2009 and Luitgard put it back up with the explicit intention of smearing the CEO of Tagged and getting his smear content to the top of Google, Bing, and Yahoo search listings. A couple days ago someone (correctly) hit it with the orphan designation and Luitgard's response has been to go around adding Tseng's name to various lists, creating in-links to justify the continued existence of the attack page. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Both User:Luitgard and UnnotableWorldFigure are guilty of warring. I have reverted the article back to a version prior to the back and forth edits and have asked both editors to step back and calm down before starting  up again.  In addition, I have asked both to discuss any proposed edits on the article talk page and get consensus before making the change.  I would suggest the reviewing admin not suspend either of the editors unless there is further warring.  Perhaps a comment on their talk pages in support of the talk page consensus with a stern warring that any further warring will be dealt with accordingly would suffice. Hopefully, they will be able to work out the differences without much effort.  <span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> ttonyb  (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a thread at ANI concerning the same two contributors. Following Ttonyb's excellent assistance I suggested marking both threads resolved in this edit at ANI.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've since retracted that suggestion. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Given User:Luitgard repentant behavior and comments, I would suggest User:Luitgard not be banned; however, UnnotableWorldFigure has continued their disruptive editing. AS such I have opened the item below concerning UnnotableWorldFigure.  <span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> ttonyb  (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, disruptive? Luitgard and I agreed to leave a certain version of the page up for a couple days, then you came along an hour later and put the word spammer back up in the head of the Google listing, so I undid that. That's disruptive? UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result: Fully protected for 2 days by Cirt. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Savant1984 and User:Zargulon (Result: Full protected)
Page:

Users being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

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

The problem is that these two editors insist on a certain spelling, which previously wasn't the spelling used in this article, and they ignore my arguments on the talk page. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Page fully protected for three days. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please let the record reflect I have only reverted this article once, in tandem with argument on the talk page. While I am attempting to assume good faith, I do not think I can plausibly be accused of 'edit warring' nor of 'ignoring arguments on the talk page.' Full protection seems like an overkill response to this dispute. Savant1984 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Savant, I don't think this protection is an endorsement of Debresser's position or accusations.. the record clearly shows no-one has breached 3RR (not even Debresser). Notwithstanding Debresser's provocative verbiage, I think it is quite a good idea to protect the article page so we can all focus on the discussion on the talk page. Ultimately we will probably need third party input so it is as well to have the discussion in full. Zargulon (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bokpasa reported by Omar-Toons (talk) (Result: fully protected)
. : Time reported: 19:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 13:56, 23 April 2010  (edit summary: "I use your own source of information, if you do not like, write which part you think it`s incorrect.")
 * 2) 14:54, 23 April 2010  (edit summary: "False information!")
 * 3) 01:11, 24 April 2010  (edit summary: "To Resolve")
 * 4) 09:58, 24 April 2010  (edit summary: "Vandalism")
 * 5) 10:04, 24 April 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 17:13, 24 April 2010  (edit summary: "Please Do not vandalism")

—Omar-Toons (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
 * There was a consensus, the article History of Morocco was written and everything was fine, before the coming of.
 * Non-linked maps were added, example
 * NPOV template was added even if the article didn't contain any POV. (I don't think that NPOV template should be putted in every article that doesn't match a specific user's POV)
 * I'm sorry for the edit war, I recognize that I was wrong by reverting 's edits before reporting them.
 * I already asked to put a protection on the article History of Morocco to avoid an edit war in the future.
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Last modification by Bokpasa:
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Disinterested third party I have posted warnings to both users' talks to respect WP:3RR and not claim that one another's good-faith edits are vandalism. I have no idea which version is more correct, nor do I want to assign blame for who is edit-warring more, but I would like both users to recognize that this back-and-forth will never result in anything positive, whereas posting to talk and providing citations for your additions will make the article better. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result: Fully protected by Excirial. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Flax.creed reported by User:Dryon32 (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

Comments:

I am David Ryon a current candidate running for U.S. Congress. Factual information is being deleted such has my honorable discharge, my military awards, and my educational achievements. Non-factual information is being added such the city I live and that I ended my military enlistment with a medical discharge with bogus information and citiations in the updates. This is politically motivated to try to damage my character. I am requesting a Full Protection status for 14 days until this can be worked out using an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.22.119.183 (talk) at 06:04, 14 April 2010 or can you make me (dryon32) primary editor with the requirement of any edits requiring my approval first? You are welcome to contact me by phone or mail David Ryon, 5035 Magnolia Blossom Blvd. Columbus, OH 43230-4068 or 614-890-1362. I would like to note in both cases Flax.creed and Tippytoes4k1 have never contributed anything except revisions of this one article and I believe that Flax.creed and Tippytoes4k1 are the same person. I believe more fake accounts will be created solely to edit this article in the future which is why I am asking for Full Protection for the next 14 days in hopes this will discourage any further vandalism. Thank you for your time and consideration. David Ryon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryon32 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 25 April 2010

There is no violation of 3RR. I also note that the article was created as an autobiography by a political candidate who is requesting protection or control of his article until after the primary election on May 4th. Dryon32 is welcome to take the editors to SPI, it might be wise also to consider the edits by.
 * Please sign your posts using the four tildes. Weakopedia (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ruin Cireela reported by Cnilep (talk) (Result: stale)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Revert one: 15:23, 25 April 2010
 * Revert two: 18:16, 25 April 2010
 * Revert three: 20:52, 25 April 2010
 * Revert four: 22:19, 25 April 2010 (reported by Cnilep (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Diff of warning: here

See also ANI at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

—Cnilep (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * . Report back or let me know on my talk if edit warring resumes.

User:Wiki Historian N OH reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: 31h)
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: see edit summary

Comments: Users WP:OWN behavior was addressed on ANI here. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 22:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. 7 reverts now. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Kuebie reported by User:Sammyy85 (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Editing wikipedia required neutral point of view, for example, different nationalist views. A domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts to some Chinese-Korean and Japanese-Korean dispute pages over a few years they become biased. Revision on those edits and contributions from other nationalists would restore their neutrality.Sammyy85 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:85.107.38.237 reported by User:Anothroskon (Result: 1 month semi protect)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The use of the word genocide has been debated to death in the artcile's talk pages yet there are always people who object and without first going through the arguments seek to impose their views without first reaching consensus in talk as per Bold Revert Discuss. The article should be placed under lock so that only established users can edit it. This will prevent further sockpuppetry. In addition the user should be IP checked as it is very likely (based on editing style and content) that the user is a sock of a previously banned user.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We are not here discussing the usage of the word `genocide` in the article, in fact we are not discussing anything since you simply revert the article to its previous versions by deleting the sourced content without presenting any reason for doing so. The quotations might perhaps need shortening, but still they are relevant as they come from academicians whose work in the massacres of the Ottoman Empire are widely cited and well known. --85.107.38.237 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP Special:Contributions/85.108.187.152 is the same user, so together it's something like 9R already   . Athenean (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Shadowjams (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result Semi protected for 1 month by Jayron32. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Canada Jack reported by User:The Devil's Advocate (Result:no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

This does not fully account for the changes made by this editor as some long-standing material was also removed in the fourth part.

These would likely be considered one revert, but I have each part listed:
 * 1st part of the revert:
 * 2nd part of the revert:
 * 3rd part of the revert:
 * 4th part of the revert:

Here are also two recent reverts of his before the latest incident:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [

Though I have not discussed this specific instance it is a response to several issues which were discussed prior to the revert here and here. I should add, discussion of past incidents has on occasion only lead to this editor taking an even stricter position. This most recent incident is more or less an example of that.

Comments:

I have tolerated this editor's behavior for a while, but his latest actions have compelled me to pursue this route. The editor performed a revert of a great deal of cited material, a substantial portion of which he did not show any signs of disputing until he reverted it.

The fourth change listed is one of the most significant as it consisted of material Canada Jack had shown no objection to before, but then decided suddenly to revert. I should also note the first change was of an edit that I explained in my edit summary was about the timeline-like appearance of the section. However, Canada Jack construed this as some plot to insert a conspiracist POV.

This appears to be his primary justification for his persistent edit-warring, though his own explanation for his actions suggests it is more about pushing an agenda. In his own words he said: This is precisely what I've been arguing from day one - there is and never has been a specific proposal for anything resembling the EU in North America, at least not from anyone of any influence, and certainly not by that name. It's simply the paranoid imaginings of the consequences of applying some proposals like Fox's.

...

What is truly remarkable here is you've actually done readers here a service by underlining what the skeptics have said all along - the move towards a or the NAU emerged completely out of paranoid fantasies from certain quarters.

My contention is this editor is trying to push this argument to return the page ultimately to its original form which was essentially a hit piece on conspiracy theorists, filled with unverifiable claims and inaccuracies, and resists changes which seek to make the article about the actual legitimate concept, indeed he has resisted the very idea that it is an actual legitimate concept. At least one change suggests a move in that direction.

Though, the most worrisome element is Canada Jack rarely makes an effort to rewrite or discuss the material beforehand, but instead simply removes anything he doesn't like on a whim. At the same time, despite the numerous significant changes he made without discussion he insists that I must discuss every change I make before making it demonstrating a sense of ownership towards the article.

In disclosure, I was previously blocked for edit-warring on this page, though without being notified that I was reported, and I gave my objection on my talk page with more examples of this editor's edit-warring. Concerning that the following editors, all admins, are likely to back up Canada Jack: User:Kralizec!, User:Orangemike, and User:Arthur Rubin though it should be understood they have previously been involved in essentially tag-team edit-warring on the article and adhere almost exactly to the same POV concerning the subject as the editor being reported here. So any argument about consensus will likely refer to an agreement amongst these like-minded editors.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is complete and total nonsense. How can the "3R" rule apply when I only in one instance removed all the material in question? The editor above has repeatedly made substantial changes to a contentious page, always without previous consultation or notification despite the controversial nature of the page, and always at odds with almost every editor on the page, as he admits. In the current situation, I made a change after I pointed out that an inclusion was POV - and he subsequently ammended what I did, re-inserting text amended along the lines I had suggested, thus implicitly agreeing with what I had reverted. That was a week or so ago. But he then added substantial material to create a "history" of the concept of the North American Union, a history, I pointed out, no historian or published author has spelled out, or at least, no such source was ever supplied. It is therefore Original Research. That material I removed, after I pointed out it was Original Research, and that's all I've done. I've not done it multiple times in recent days.


 * One section, which had been removed many months ago was re-inserted by him, and that was also removed. I brought this up on the discussion page several times before I removed the material, that his edits and the section in question constitute Original Research as the purported "history" thus set down does not emerge from any source which specifies a series of events which culminates in the North American Union, rather it is simply, it would seem, the editor's own personal view that these various mentions of concepts constitutes a "history." The one section left to stand is not Original Research as it is written and includes sources which state the sequence of events as it relates to the allegations and development of the North America Union, the entity which the bulk of the remaining article describes.


 * His approach, I have pointed out, gives the misleading and unsourced impression that early talk of a North American union in the 1990s and early 2000s culminated in what is now understood to be that entity as described in the bulk of the article.


 * I have had no contact with these other editors in terms of an alleged "tag-team" in dealing with the above editor. Indeed, he has drawn the ire of the others for labelling entries as "biased" or "POV" even when they were clearly identified within the article as being the opinions of those who see the North American Union as a conspiracy theory. In contrast, I have invited Devil to include sources which support his contention that the NAU has been years in development. None were ever forthcoming, and this has been going on for about two years. Instead, he has found sources which mention various concepts, some described in comparison to the European Union as being a North American union, some described by other sources as being a "North American Union," but no sources which make any connection between these ideas and the North American Union as discussed in the bulk of the article. Canada Jack (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You need not violate the three-revert rule to be edit-warring and this is not a place to dispute content. Also, even if the other editors were neutral on the subject (they aren't), it is not a justification for edit-warring.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. The Advocate is unique in attempting to re-shape this article in a direction more fitting to conspiracist theories, and persists in his edits pushing the WP:FRINGE position that there is really such a move under way sub rosa. Jack has been the one watching this article most closely, so he's done the most edits; but if I happen to notice a fresh WP:FRINGE edit (usually either by a drive-by IP or by the Advocate), I will tend to reverse it unless it can be defended as legit and WP:NPOV.-- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no 3RR vio here, nor do I see any reason this case of edit warring reaches the level needing blocks or protection. I think you all know the drill. Discuss, use DR, and possibly have a trip to the Fringe theories noticeboard, since apparently that's at issue here (I've avoided reading too clearly what the dispute itself is about to guarantee my neutrality). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:96.251.153.184 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: First insertion of YouTube, PajamasMedia and other non-Reliable Sources into a BLP


 * 1st revert: 19:12, 25 April 2010
 * 2nd revert: 21:25, 25 April 2010
 * 3rd revert: 21:53, 25 April 2010
 * 4th revert: 22:41, 25 April 2010
 * 5th revert: 23:03, 25 April 2010
 * 6th revert: 23:50, 25 April 2010
 * 7th revert: 00:01, 26 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Annabel Park -- He has also been informed by other editors that his YouTube and other sources were in violation of WP:BLP sourcing requirements.

Comments:

Single purpose IP. He's been reverted by multiple editors. Note: This BLP is about a political person covered in an article that just came out today. I suspect this may be just the first wave of edit-warring spawned by the recent publicity; maybe a temporary semi-protect of the article would be warranted.
 * But do let me know or re-report here if the IP comes back again. Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Jstriker reported by User:Snowded (Result: blocked 72 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An idea of the tone of this editor can be gained from one of the first versions of his user page here, comments on talk pages are filled with accusations against "leftists" etc. Although a fairly new editor there is a flavour here of someone who has edited before. Whatever, edit waring, failing to use the talk page etc. etc. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any edits to a user page are irrelevant to the matter at hand. The "newness" of an editor should be irrelevant to the matter at hand. I am not sure what relevance the unsupported suspicions of whether I am "new" or not from the above have. One can "lurk and learn" without participating actively. As can be seen - the discussion on the talkpage has been civil throughout, though perhaps marked by some slight obfuscation on the part of the above. "Filled" is perhaps a slight exaggeration as can be seen by anyone who takes the time to read through the discussion here: Template_talk:Socialism_sidebar. As can be seen - my offer (as a more junior editor!) to go through dispute resolution processes was ignored. Jstriker (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have suggested three times that Jstriker self reverts, each of those suggestions has been ignored. If s/he does that and agrees to await consensus (or dispute resolution if it ever gets that far) then I am happy to withdraw this report.  Its worth noting that the first edit ever made by this user was an Afd nomination  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  13:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi - again incidental. There is no crime in requesting an AFD. This report must be judged solely on the matter at hand - this is not a witch hunt. Let's try and keep all discussion on the original discussion page too - Template_talk:Socialism_sidebar - I think it will make it easier for the admins involved if everything is in one place. I will agree to this if you will? Jstriker (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3RR is a basic Wikipedia rule Jstriker, its very difficult to discuss issues with editors (however new) who not only break that rule, but refuse multiple invitations to restore the position prior to their edit warring. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  13:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shall we keep all discussion here Template_talk:Socialism_sidebar to make it easier for the admins or not? Jstriker (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jstriker blocked for 72 hours: properly warned, continued with edit war regardless.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmed shahi reported by User:Tajik (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: As you can see in this diff-link, the user is also deleting a referenced quote/work from the academic and authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam and replaces that with wrong information "backed up" by an unreliable Pashto entertainment website ("Sabawoon").

Tajik (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian reported by User:Aspects (Result: 12h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:51 25 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 358237222 by Qdiazissipom (talk) there is no consensus")
 * 2nd revert: 02:55 26 April 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by MarkMc1990; Consensus from three editors who have no prior involvement with the project? Not consensus. (TW)")
 * 3rd revert: 21:38 26 April 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by AT40Reviewer; There is NO consensus.. (TW)")
 * 4th revert: 21:54 26 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 358501823 by AT40Reviewer (talk) Revert again if you wish to be reported, there is no consensus")
 * 5th revert: 22:22 26 April 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Aspects; No consensus. (TW)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:19 26 April 2010 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning deleted: 22:21 26 April 2010

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:American Idol (season 9)

Comments: There has been discussion for the past month about the colors to be used in the elimination chart and now that a consensus has been found to use a certain color, but Turian keeps reverting back to his preferred color/version claiming "No consensus" but making no argument how a consensus has not been found. Turian was previously reported here eleven days ago on the exact same article,, has reported other people here and in this discussion has warned another user, , so Turian obviously knows the 3rr but somehow thinks his edits do not apply. Aspects (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this has to be one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen., and I'll protect the page if the edit warring happens again. I would have given a 48 hour block but this is just so...lame. Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Annoynmous reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


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

The original above diffs seem to have been SNAFUed (for which I apologize), and the proper diffs are now reflected both immediately above and in the Stellar input below. The points still stand. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diffs of canvassing by Annoynmous:,  , , , ,

Comments:

I think the talk page discussion and edit summaries capture the nature of the dispute. In short, a lot of "idontlikeit" deletion of RSs, without consensus support for doing so. As can be seen by his 8 prior blocks, he is an 8-degree black-belt-level edit warrior.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by Epeefleche.


 * I haven't violated the 3rr, so I don't know why epeefleche is bringing that up. Epeefleche has not only removed edits, he's removed NPOV tags from the article even though a final consensus hasn't been reached on the talk page. Another editor John Z agrees with my edits and yet epeefleche has continued to ignore that. The sources epeefleche mentions are far from respectable and in some cases there were better sources for the same passages and yet epeefleche insisted on having these biased sources in the article. annoynmous 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is John Z agreeing with my edits:

Well this is exactly what I afraid when I started to make edits. Instead of trying to reach a consensus on the talk page Epeefleche decided to arbitrally remove the majority of my edits and remove the tags and declare the debate over. Apparently several people on this page are confused on the purpose of tags. The point is that the tags are supposed to saty up until a mutual consensus is reached. Sense that hasn't happened removing the tags is unjustified. As for the supposed RS sources Epeefleche claims I removed, I ask again how are Sean Hannity and Bridigitte Gabriel considered respectable sources for quotes. This is especially ridiculous seeing is how there is already a New York Times article source for some of these same quotes in the article, so why are these books necessary. Also, once again how is a book that claims there was middle eastern connection to Oklahoma City considered reliable. I'm going to restore the tags and my edits, but if this type of behavior continues I'm going to simply just give up and only restore the tags and hope other editors will come along to improve the article. This type of behavior is exactly why I avoided editing, but I took the bait from Stellarkid that people would be reasonable. annoynmous 07:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Was about to shorten the lead again when I saw you did; the longer version has too much puffery. The first sentence should tell a reader what he does and is known for. It would be better not to overrely on Sugg/FAIR, to track down and use the sources that Sugg cites. I just did a little cleaning up and cutting. Article doesn't look too bad now to me, not sure if there was material Epeefleche wants restored. G'night!John Z (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So it is not I who has been violating consensus.annoynmous 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Annoymmous, you neglected to mention that you had canvassed John Z (which is not to say that this is not his honest personal opinion) however here are the diffs to that: Also- I don't know if this is the appropriate place to make this known, but here it is. I will strike it if it is not appropriate here. Stellarkid (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * april 26 "would appeciate if while I get some shut eye you could keep an eye on this article and make sure no one reverts my edits while I'm away from my computer. "
 * If you know any like minded editors who feel like I do I would ask that you please notify them. April27
 * If he reverts my edits again will you please try and restore them.
 * Epeefleche is once again using intimidation tactics on me. He has reported me on the edit war noticeboard even though I haven't violated the 3rr. I mentioned your name in the reply if you could please speak on my behalf when you get a chance.
 * attempt to canvass another user
 * attempt to canvass the noticeboard


 * Furthermore, to supply some context: The Sugg/FAIR entry (which John Z suggested not be over-relied on) was one that Annoymmous was insisting on putting in.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes that's why I also added the criticism by Salon magazine. You neglect to mention that earlier in the article that John Z posted about discussion hed had on talk page about whether Fair was a legitimate source. The conclusion was that as long as it is stated as there opinion and put in the proper section, like a criticism section, than Fair was a legitimate source.


 * Yes I advocated for FAIR as a legitimate source in the criticism section. Whereas epeefleche thought that legitimate sources for quotes were Sean hannity and Bridgitte Gabriel. annoynmous 06:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I asked John Z to help me out because Epeefleche was leaving intimidating posts on my talk page about how I'd better leave the article alone or else I might be in violation of 3rr. I also asked him to protect my edits when I got tired and wanted to bed. John Z was involved on the talk page before I made any edits and had expressed the same concerns I did.


 * Same thing for Carolmooredc. He expressed the same sentiments I did months ago, that the article had essentially become an advertisement for emersons views. I merely asked him if he wanted to contribute.


 * As for the Israel/Palestine noticebaord, I was simply trying bring up what I felt was an important issue in regards to epeefleches edits for the last several months. I wasn't asking anyone to go an edit an article, all I wanted to was inform people on what I felt were biased edits.


 * Furthermore I don't see how this is relevant seeing is how this discussion is about whether or not I was edit warring. As I showed above I wasn't, and I might add if anyone has been engaged in consensus violation it's Epeefleche. In fact if you read the talk page you will see that I went out of my way not to edit at all because I was afraid of getting involved in an edit war. In fact Stellarkid was the one who suggested I go ahead and make some edits and that if they were reasonable there would be no reason to revert them. Well I made what I felt were some fairly reasonable edits and John Z agreed with me, but as I predicted epeefleche decided to revert them.


 * Further more I have asked epeefleche repeatedly about this source which he considers respectable:

^ "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, Jayna Davis, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005, ISBN 1595550143, accessed January 29, 2010". Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=UasfK4zQnecC&pg=PT43&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=52#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010.


 * I removed it because I would think it would be absurd to consider such a source RS.

annoynmous 21:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) 1st revert: By the way this is Stellarkid, not me.
 * 2) 2nd revert: [2] Once again this isn't me, it's an editor named Welsh making some minor cleanup edits.
 * 3) 3rd revert: [3] Again not me, this is John Z making some minor edits.
 * 4) 4th revert: [4]John Z again, not me.
 * 5) 5th revert:


 * Epeefleche it seems has rather deceptively stuctured these edits. In this first two for some reason he put's himself as the previous version when it wasn't. only one of the edits baove was actually made by me.


 * The first edit isn't a revert, It's stellarkid making some edits after mine. He didn't revert my edits. The second edit isn't a revert either, it's an editor named Welsh making some minor cleanup edits after I made some more edits. The other two edits are edits John Z made after I reverted epeefleche's revert of my edits. John Z agreed with my edits in that regard and all he was doing was removing the advertisement tag which he felt had been solved by my edits


 * I don't if it's due to error or dishonesty on epeefleches part, but I would suggest that before any admin makes a decision that thet should look at the actual page to see the true context of the edits. annoynmous 23:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that it appears that you are correct about these edits. Somehow these do not seem to be the correct diffs.  I just did try to check them and here is what I find along with your edit summaries.  All of these were done on the 27th.  I only get 4, not 5.

Stellarkid (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "once gain restored edits that have been agreed to by 2 editors on talk page"
 * 2) "Have given several reasons why tag is approprite. Please stop removing until consensus is reached."
 * 3) "restored tags and edits.  Please to not abritrally remove or revert until consensus reached)
 * 4) removed material


 * But that last one isn't a revert. I was simply trying to properly format Richard Clarkes picture in relation to the passage that mentioned him. I restored the section that I took out right after that. I removed and then put back things several times in an attempt to get his picture in the right position. So don't characterize that as a revert when it wasn't. annoynmous 04:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Further more how can it be a 3rr when I'm reverting myself. I reverted the removal of my edits and then I went on to make some more edits. Any way you slice it I didn't violate the 3rr. annoynmous 04:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I might add that the order of these edits is wrong. The 3rd edit is the first edit. Then the 4th. Then the 2nd and then the 1st. The 4th wasn't a revert of anything, it was some additional edits I made in an attempt to format a picture. In the trial and error process I took stuff out and then put it back in.annoynmous 04:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to address this issue of canvassing. First off neither John Z or Carelmoore DC qualify as mere random editors. John Z contributed to the talk page before I ever posted on his talk page. He agreed with my edits and I asked him to protect them from reverts when I went to bed. I also asked him to help me with intimidating posts left on my talk page by epeefleche.


 * I posted two messages on The Israel/palestine messageboard. The first was about the articles on Emerson and Sami Al-Arian. Carelmooredc had objected to edits epeefleche made on the Al-Arian article before and I asked him if he wanted to contribute. He agreed with me that the article was biased, but said he didn't want to get involved just yet. I then added tags to both articles.


 * After that I looked at some more edits epeefleche had made and in my opinion they were just as biased as the two artcles listed above. I then posted these concerns on the messageboard in the hopes that other editors would want to contribute to these articles. I never advocated any action against epeeflech personally or made any attributions about his motives. I simply wanted to start a discussion among like minded people about what I felt were biased edits. As I explained on the page, the problem sometimes is that you get left alone fighting for change on certain articles because other editors aren't aware of what's going on at certain articles. I simply wanted to alert people on a specific noticeboard dealing with certain issues with what I felt were biased edits. annoynmous 06:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a block will help matters here. There was no "canvassing". Annoynmous complained to someone, perhaps someone they trust (people do that all the time in content disputes), and it is up to him to ignore the complaint. Not going to block over that. The fourth revert is not a valid revert because it was consecutive with the third. They're both considered one revert. No block here. --  tariq abjotu  15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Samkamangar reported by User:Fiftytwo thirty (Result: 12 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I think that the edit summaries have made it crystal clear that this user needs to stop reverting my additions here and also a few times at various articles that I have requested speedy deletions on. This user seems to be set on advertising this company, and has created many copyright violations and has made this article very spam-ish. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:209.244.42.199/User:209.244.42.199 reported by User:Jonny2x4 (Result: semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: (anonymous user who also used the IP numbers  and )

Previous version reverted to: link


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link

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

Comments:


 * I have tried to cooperate with this IP user and he refuses to even justify his edits. Judging from his editing history, he seems to have a history of uncooperative behavior with other users.. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result Semi-protected for 4 days by Tariqabjotu

User:70.127.202.77 reported by User:Splatterhouse5 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I should note that User:70.127.202.77 has also edited using the name User:NewsBot01, but after being blocked for violating username policy he's just been editing without logging in.

I've tried to discuss this on the talk page, initiated dispute resolution under User:Prime_Blue's recommendation, and finally edited the page to a neutral version until consensus is reached. User:70.127.202.77 continues to insert his theory into the article and fraudulently lists "sources" that don't even mention the information they allegedly support. At this point, I don't believe he's interested in discussion (other than personal attacks), he's simply and inexplicably determined to see his theory promoted in some way in the article, no matter the cost.

You may also want to look at the history of his talk page, where he removes warnings placed by other users and swears at them. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're an ass. You know that? Prime Blue made the original revision until you started to remove them. He has said NOTHING about allowing a "neutral version", hence I reverted your edits.





And using my previous account username (which was a mistake) and my reverting warnings (which is allowed if you would kindly check the rules) as a demeaning character analysis is ridiculous. You should be blocked, not me. However, If an ADMINISTRATOR says that there should be a "neutral version", than I'll stop reverting edits. And if an administrator wants to block me, that's fine.--70.127.202.77 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No violation. Edits spread across multiple days.  Please discuss issues on talkpage before persisting in reverting. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:The Cat and the Owl reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments:

Judging by the history of the article hadn't edited the article since at least a year ago, but yesterday he was "invited" by  to edit  and he reverted the article to Athenean's preferred version. Later he was edit-warring with, who has been warned that if edit-warring is continued reports will be initiated. After breaching 3RR The Cat and the Owl asked from Athenean to revert to his version.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * is almost certainly a sock or meatpuppet, possibly created by the reporting user so as to circumvent 3RR. The account exclusively reverts to the Zjarri's preferred version, who incidentally refuses to participate in the related discussion which I initiated .  Athenean (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that she has been editing other times and frankly I wouldn't say that someone is a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet without evidence. On the other hand you asked from a user who hadn't edited in a year an article to join a discussion and he chose to revert to your version exlusively and later asking you to help him in reverting. I should also note that in the past you were also sure that, and many others (including me) were sockpuppets/meatpuppets while in all cases results was against your assumptions.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 17:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, this was not a revert so I did not violate the three-revert rule! Please next time have a better look and don't hurry to accuse me ... :) The Cat and the Owl (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not the only one who thinks Tina Trendelina is some kind of sock or meatpuppet . Athenean (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Admins: The dispute here is part of a related thread at WP:AE .  Athenean (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In all of the reverts The Cat and the Owl made sure to omit the word Chameria, which is properly sourced, and I had to restore it with this last edit. Clearly a break of the 3RR and should be sanctioned as such. And this is a dispute that is not directly related to user:athenean's last report. --<font style = "color:white;background:navy;">SulmuesLet's talk 19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you know what revert means?? If yes, then where exactly did I violate the 3RR? And since you care so much, how come you don't accuse User:TinaTrendelina for such edits? O tempora, o mores! :) The Cat and the Owl (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anywhere mentioned that Tina is a meat/sock actually you're included in that too in the same category.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Read again, more slowly this time. Also interesting the Tina Trendelina account stopped just short of violating 3RR, very unsual for such a new account. Athenean (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The user was warned to stop in case you didn't check it.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside comment: what we have here is more fully described over at WP:AE. A "travelling WP:CIRCUS" of two tag-teams fighting each other continually across multiple articles, always the same three or four people on each side plus occasional sock/meat reinforcements. Sometimes the one side is right, sometimes the other, but in any case they all revert too much and too quickly. What we need is discretionary sanctions for the whole lot of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:ScriptusSecundus reported by User:Grsz11 (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: There is ongoing discussion to resolve issues such as original research and primary sources. There is consensus that these issues exist, thus the tags are appropriate. Scriptus disagrees about these issues, and has engaged in edit-warring to remove the tags.

Comments:

 Grsz 11  22:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:StanStun reported by User:Tariqabjotu (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22:53, April 26 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 03:25, April 27 (as User:78.176.118.187)
 * 2nd revert: 12:25, April 27 (as User:78.176.118.187)
 * 3rd revert: 16:32, April 27 (as User:StanStun)
 * 4th revert: 17:50, April 27 (as User:StanStun)

Earlier reverts
 * 14:05, April 24 (as User:88.251.76.242)
 * 22:50, April 23 (as User:88.251.96.196)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:41, April 27

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * I posted a lengthy comment providing rationale for my changes at Talk:Istanbul on April 24.
 * I have repeatedly tried to point him to the discussion on the user talk pages he uses (April 25; 15:02, April 27; 17:35, April 27) as well as in edit summaries (e.g. here). He has not responded or commented anywhere, neither on his talk pages or on the article talk page; he simply reverts.
 * I have also tried meeting some of his requests. Even though, as I say to him, I had great difficulty finding English-language sources that corroborate a claim he makes (regarding Istanbul in the Copper Age), I nevertheless found a source today and added it to the article. But that still wasn't enough: he reverted all of my edits simply because he didn't like that I wrote "c. 660 BC" rather than the precise "667 BC". I explained to him why we shouldn't use exactly 667 BC -- sources give various estimates, even if there are some tertiary sources that act like 667 BC is an agreed-upon date -- and then wrote a rather lengthy footnote explaining this. But that still wasn't good enough for him, and he reverted everything without explanation (save the reference to the note in the infobox).

Comments:

I have gone to great lengths to try to talk with him about why I made certain changes to the article and why it is not acceptable to repeatedly use a Turkish-language encyclopedia as a source over English-language secondary sources, but he has not responded to any of my comments anywhere. All he does is revert. And it sure doesn't help that he jumps between IP addresses and, now, a username. Perhaps a block would encourage him to engage in some kind of dialogue. --  tariq abjotu  18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * StanStun is almost certainly a sock of User:Shuppiluliuma. Identical interests, same MO   . Athenean (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked indef by Future Perfect at Sunrise. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:69.47.181.248 reported by User:Sguffanti (Result: Declined)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: [13:45, 23 April 2010 69.47.181.248 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=358398551]
 * 2nd revert: [ 12:58, 26 April 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=358398551]
 * 3rd revert: [04:33, 27 April 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=358575500]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Only 3 edits, only edits of IP, appears dormant.Tznkai (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nmate reported by User:EllsworthSK (Result: Full protected for 2 months)
Page:

User being reported:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Comments:

Repeated removal of the sourced material and also ignoration of the consensus on the disussion board by the Nmate. --EllsworthSK (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure whats going on here so I've opted for full protection (2 months). If blocks were to be handed out, both would probably be blocked.--Tznkai (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthfulPerson AKA User:207.29.40.2 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported: (also uses the IP )

Previous version reverted to: Insertion of: "Can this pickle get more fans than Nickleback?"


 * 1st revert: 17:50, 27 April 2010
 * 2nd revert: 19:05, 27 April 2010
 * 3rd revert: 21:32, 27 April 2010
 * 4th revert: 13:33, 28 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning diff - this editor has numerous previous Edit Warring and Disruptive Editing warnings, on both of his talk pages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Coffee_Party_USA - His combative stance is demonstrated in almost every talk page sub-section, and other editors have actually requested that he calm down, refrain from making personal attacks, and cease using article talk pages as forums. He specifically asked me, and other editors, not to address him anymore.

Comments:

This edit confirms and  are the same editor.

UPDATE: Now this is just getting weird. A previously uninvolved editor is now edit warring to remove a warning from TruthfulPerson's talk page. Please see this and this. I'm not sure if this is a sock or meat puppet, but his actions are certainly not helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to point out wiki etiquette, but shouldn't you have advised TruthfulPerson of this conversation on his/her talk page? It could have gone a long way to inform other editors of the situation, and maybe that user could have formed a defense. I've seen you BOTH go back a forth and you [Xenophrenic] issuing 3RR warnings is quite, ironic. You can't blame me for spotting an abuse of warning templates, right? MookieG (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I issued you the general (Template:Uw-3rr).
 * In this DIFF I advised you of your three reverts all today as per your request. You did three reverts of another editor's standardized warning to User talk:TruthfulPerson. If you had a problem with the warning, you should have left a message on both editor's talkpage and brought the issue here to WP:ANI. --Morenooso (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, this is not WP:AN/I. Second, I understand WP:3RR. What point are you trying to make? I am truly confused. MookieG (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we are talking about Xenophrenic's use of the 3RR warning template. I was not aware that he posted a grievance here beforehand. I was going by the one revert [witnessed by me] that TruthfulPerson made to Coffee Party USA today. MookieG (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine was a typo. You did three separate reverts of a standardized warning left by another editor to the indicated talkpage. On your talkpage and even here, you don't seem to understand that each are separate actions. You claim they are a single revert of disputed content. Unfortunately, they occurred as at three separate times because you chose to make a revert and the system logged each as a revert. This indicates you don't understand 3RR because they all occurred today. --Morenooso (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PLEASE READ MY TALK PAGE. I was talking about TruthfulPerson's three edits only counting as only one revert [which is true]. All this other bullshit about me and what you think is after the fact. I do not dispute making three valid reverts of what I believed to be abuse of warning templates. What part of this are you not getting? MookieG (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to shout by using caps. Second, you don't need throw a BS flag. I am not sure what reverts you are talking about re: TruthfulPerson. If TruthfulPerson did three reverts, that is another matter. However, you did three reverts. You don't get to say, "Wait, time-out. That was one revert." And it is not to you to do those reverts anyway. If you had a problem with them, leave a message on both talkpages and take it to the appropriate noticeboard. --Morenooso (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought this section was titled User:TruthfulPerson AKA User:207.29.40.2 reported by User:Xenophrenic. Clearly I am the one that is confused. MookieG (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, TruthfulPerson and Xenophrenic are the "matter"s here. Also, I am so sick of clarifying to you. I hope you're just busting my balls. MookieG (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And you became part of the mix with your three reverts. No one is doing what you suggest. You are not showing comprehension or good faith. --Morenooso (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are we talking about? MookieG (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize that I'm not in violation of the three revert rule, right? MookieG (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet. That is why you received the general warning. Again, you fail to read all and understand generalized warning templates as explained to you. And, that was explained to you on your talkpage in this DIFF. Another revert before 17:50z will put you over 3RR. And, if you understand what was said here and your talkpage, you should realize you don't do that type revert. You're driving yourself down in a spiral. Relax, take a break and get some air. --Morenooso (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you dense? It's not a personal attack as much as an honest question. I've told you over, and over again that I fully understand the 3RR, I also know how to post diffs [unlike you]. I need no warning from you. I was merely enforcing a clear [at that time] abuse of warning templates. Where you factor into this, I have no idea. MookieG (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, after all actions today, I do consider it a WP:NPA. Comment on actions not users. And you deserved a 3RR advice for your actions. This will be my final on the "clarifications" are going on and on. --Morenooso (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, what are you waiting for? There is wiggle room for sensical editors when referring to the nonsensical. MookieG (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for this. This appears to involve behavioral issues, so take to AN/I.--Tznkai (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as this AN3 report is concerned, it is Tim Song (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:24.69.78.165, User:24.69.86.188, User:24.69.83.19, User:24.69.231.92, reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:   

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor hasn't violated 3RR but has persisted in altering sourced content over a period of three months on the basis that he knows the source is wrong because he went to school with the subject. I don't think he's a vandal and could be correct because there are several birth dates out there for this actress, but all the reliable sources I can find state the later date, so obviously that's the one the article has gone with. Tried to explain to him that the date has to be sourced but he just ignores me. Betty Logan (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will try to deal with by messaging Betty Logan.Tznkai (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the editor periodically returns to the article and changes the sourced date to an unsourced date. I've checked for the other date and while it's on a few celeb sites I can't find a reliable source to back it up.  I've tried asking the editor to desist in altering the date unless he can find a reference, he then goes away and comes back again a few weeks later.  Semi-protection would be useful if the alterations were sustained over a few days but I don't think it would be much use in this case because the edits are usually over weeks. Maybe a stern warning from an admin might do the trick?  Betty Logan (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll drop a note if (s)he remains on an IP long enough to receive a warning.--Tznkai (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Janun reported by User:Maañón (Result: Malformed, declined)
Page:

User being reported:

My request is basically to label the page as auto-publicity(remove?) and to watch this user

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


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

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

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

Comments:

The contributions of Janun have been to publicitate Ferran Lagarda Mata. In the wiki-es the page of this author has been marked as auto-publicity--Maañón (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tznkai (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the information is there, the vandalism is there, if the reason for not to act is the format of the request .. forget it. Pity of having been losing my time losing your time.--Maañón (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:WWGB and Donaldd23 reported by User:Sterlingbishop (Result: Full protection 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The reverts by WWGB currently and by Donaldd23 in the past to keep Suzan Lewis from her rightful listing as one of Jerry Lewis' children has become unreasonable. The narrow view of the facts presented by the revisions should not be allowed to continue. If the family members have no problem with Suzan, why should these two editors? Gary Lewis has declared that Suzan is his half-sister, why should an 84 year old Jerry Lewis have to face the pressure of the press only to repeat what his son Gary has already stated. Sterlingbishop (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: The DNA tests applied to Ms Uchitel and Gary Lewis were not conclusive. The report states "Without DNA from Jerry Lewis himself it's impossible to be 100% sure that Susan [sic] and Gary are brother and sister". The policy WP:BLP requires that we exercise sensitivity and restraint towards a living person. To claim Jerry Lewis fathered an illegitimate child without absolute proof is grossly inappropriate. (By the way, the alleged "edit warring" involved no breach of 3RR and occurred over a period of 17 months.) WWGB (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of the possible BLP related issues, I've opted for full protection--Tznkai (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dearieme reported by SimonP (talk) (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: European sovereign debt crisis

Comments: I might be over the limit myself here, but Dearieme is certainly over and a general calming would be helpful. The page in question is linked directly from the Main Page, and is a bit of a mess, so that might have pushed me to go a bit far. It's been a few years since my last real edit war, but if you feel the need to block both of us I'd understand. - SimonP (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now. Re-report if situation deteriorates. Tim Song (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:212.112.167.85 reported by User:Sigma 7 (Result: Full protection, 1 week )
Page: and

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Amanat&diff=prev&oldid=359288974
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ozi_Amanat&diff=prev&oldid=359290047
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ozi_Amanat&diff=prev&oldid=359291617
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ozi_Amanat&diff=prev&oldid=359293201

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:212.112.167.85&diff=359293086&oldid=359289457
 * Reply was removing controversial and marketing self-promotion. However, the original version had more references, some of which were more easily verified.]

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

Comments:

--Tznkai (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Morenooso reported by User:Mamalujo (Result: Nothing )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is plainly aware of prohibitions on edit warring and appears to ignore them, attempting to game the system. From his comment on the talk page: "There was no consensus to delete the controversy section. Since I had performed two reverts, I did not want to be caught up or accused of a 3RR situation. Tomorrow I will restore the section as no WP:CONSENSUS existed to delete it existed. --Morenooso (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)" Despite his own reference to 3rr, on April 30 he reverted three times in less that 24 hours (8th throug 10th revert). Despite my attempts to discuss the matter, specifically that a claim of pedarasty is an exceptional claim which should have strong sources, which this does not, and that none of the biographies even mention this, the user refuses to discuss, simply claiming there is "no consensus" despite the fact that a number of users seem to think the section should be deleted and he is the only one who, without justification or discussion, thinks it should remain.

Mamalujo (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have this page under Watch due to a report I was part of yesterday. This editor is caught up in the same edit war. And, he was 3RR himself yesterday. From the citation diffs he has provided, it can be seen that he had no consensus to outright delete the section. In fact, a neutral editor, NatGertler, in this DIFF suggested a rewrite with the section header changing from Controversy with the terms, pederastic tendencies. This is disputed deletion caused by two editors who tried to whitewash this section. There are three admins and one other page patroller, Bradjamesbrown, on this article. Despite the claims of user:Albeiror24 and User:Mamalujo, none of us and in particular, Bradjamesbrown, would let unsourced material slip into this article.
 * As can be seen by the NatGertler's neutral rewrite, the suggested rewrite would have two citations that support the controversy or whatever title should be used for that section. That indicates to me that Mamalujo is the one who edit-warred on this article because prior to his deletions/reverts today, he went against all the talkpage discussions that indicate the material was under dispute and removed maintenance tags reflecting that status. He knew that there was no WP:CONSENSUS to remove the disputed section but yet he did several times.
 * This dispute stretches back to 2006 as mentioned on Bosco's talkpage and was settled in this WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Notice_board/Archive_2 archive and this LGBTdiff. Since Mamalujo chose to delete the section again contra all the admonitions placed on the talkpage in thisDIFF, I reopened the dispute at WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard with this POSTdiff. In addition, I went back to the disputed talkpage and stated I had reopened the dispute in this NoticeboardDIFF.
 * I am a Page Patroller and my reverts were done because disputed material has been arbitrarily deleted. I know 3RR is a fine line that should not be crossed. I have attempted to follow Wikipedia rules and policies to the best of my ability. In truth, I wish this controversy had never been deleted in this manner but it appears from the suggested neutral rewrite that the section should exist in some capacity. --Morenooso (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it this OtherEditorDIFF, user:Philly jawn suggested that Albeiror24 "bullied his way" on this article. I am unsure if Albeiror24 brought Mamalujo to the article as the revision history, BoscoREVISTIONhistDIFF, does not show him from Jan 2010 until now. That record does show that I have acted as a Page Patroller especially from the end of January 2010 to March 2010 when the article took some major vandalistic hits. These editors may have the article on Watch as they claim but did not reverts of vandalism during the first four months of 2010 as I have. --Morenooso (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, this report was filed by Mamalujo at 0017 but yet he did not notify me that he had brought this issue to this noticeboard as common courtesy suggests. Had I not had this noticeboard under Watch because of the incidents I have been a part of here, I would still not know I had been reported here. --Morenooso (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The suggested neutral rewrite was brought to the attention of the LGBT noticeboard in this DIFF. --Morenooso (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple points. I was not 3rr - I made one revert on the 28th and 2 on the 30th (I also made a routine "revert" of an unrelated vandalism on the 30th), then bowed out realizing Morenooso won't discuss and has been edit warring with others as well for two weeks. Morenooso's wild accusation that I was brought to the article by Albeiror24 is totally false - never had any contact with that editor nor know who he is. I've been editing the article since 2007 and probably watching it since about that time. I do know that the proposed "neutral" rewrite was elicited by a message from Morenooso to that editor. Mamalujo (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be nice and not block anyone. However, this was very much edit warring. From WP:3RR: "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Comments like "Tomorrow I will restore the section" indicate that edits are being made when it is known they will be objected to - edit warring. Discuss it on the talk page. As a side note, Mamalujo, your efforts to engage Morenooso in discussion probably should have been a bit more aggressive, and you probably should have done that rather than reverting him when you could safely presume he was going to revert any edit you make. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:91.46.191.162 reported by User:ari89 (Result: Both blocked 48h)
Page: New Testament User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: to


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has been warned, and on the talk page has stated they intent to continue edit warring.

Both clearly violated 3RR. Tim Song (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Original


 * 1st revert: 06:10
 * 2nd revert: 14:43
 * 3rd revert: 16:13
 * 4th revert: 18:25

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Direct explanation

Comments: This editor has now cited his continued intent to edit war based on his interpretation of policy.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Page fully protected. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin A Kuntz reported by User:Imalbornoz (Result: Stale)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Justin is involved in an Arbcom case. IMHO, even though he has made many contributions (mainly in British Overseas Territories articles) he shows a significant case of lack of self-awareness about his battleground mentality (assuming bad faith, accusing others of POV pushing, reverting sourced edits...) I hope that the result of this report helps him to calm down, view his battleground mentality from a more objective POV and start to act more collaboratively. In this sense, maybe just acknowledging that he violated the rule (4 reverts of 2 different edits from the same user in the same page in less than 24 hours) and issuing a warning would be enough. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Worth mentioning that the diffs are all nearly 24 hours old now, and that Justin has since tried to discuss the issue on talk.


 * You say: I hope that the result of this report helps him to calm down, view his battleground mentality from a more objective POV and start to act more collaboratively. You seriously think that your following Justin - with whom you were involved in a bitter dispute over Gibraltar - to other articles and reporting his errors there is likely to do that?  The opposite: it's likely to inflame the situation and make future consensus far more difficult.  It's likely to spread the battleground mentality over Gibraltar - for which you are at least partly to blame - away from Gibraltar-related articles to other articles.  I hope that this report does not mark a precedent because it is deeply unhelpful. Pfainuk talk 10:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin has edit warred (for the nth time), and broken the 3RR: those are the facts. If nothing happens, he is going to be reinforced in his behaviour (does anyone really think that ignoring someone's abuses is the best way for that person to improve?) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You miss the point completely. Again.  Maybe he did break 3RR - twenty-four hours ago - and maybe he could and should have been reported at the time.  But you accept that the only interest you have in the article is Justin's presence.  In these circumstances, given your history of dispute, your reporting this can only serve to inflame the dispute over Gibraltar.  You are not the image of perfect conduct in the Gibraltar dispute, and it's high time you realised that avoiding fanning the flames of that dispute would be a good idea. Pfainuk talk 12:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The reverting seems to have stopped, so I don't think there's anything to do right now. --  tariq abjotu  08:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I inadvertently crossed the line whilst engaging with a newbie user making good faith edits but contrary to our policies, this never needed a 3RR report and certainly not 24hrs later. I engaged a newbie on the article talk page and both their and my user pages to direct them toward policy guidelines.  Two other editors have agreed with me (and by Imalbornoz's standards being Argentine the opposing side).  Yet Imalbornoz feels compelled to make an utterly misleading 3RR report.  I do happen to think there is something that needs to be done and thats to take immediate action against an editor who is stalking another.  Please.  Justin talk 12:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)