Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive136

User:Petergriffin9901 reported by User:TEK (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:



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

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

Comments:


 * --  tariq abjotu  21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Diphosphate8 reported by User:TEK (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

See above.
 * --  tariq abjotu  21:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Taroaldo reported by User:Architecture and Interior Design (Result: No violation/reporting editor at 7RR/page protected for 1 day)

 * 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:

While viewing and correcting misleading information on the "complementary color" page, an individual who calls him/her-self "Taroaldo" repeatedly undid or replaced my correct material with his/her incorrect and misleading information. He/she did this three times accusing me of vandalism when I was simply removing all of the incorrect opinions and replacing it with verifiable facts. Honestly I had no idea that there was a 3 undo rule (or whatever you call it) so I continued to replace his erroneous and misleading information with factual scientifically tested and proven information. At this point he enlists help of someone who calls themselves an administrator referred to as Bart133. I learned about your "3RR" rule because Bart133 stated (as you will see on the revision history page) that he himself "...broke 3RR with that." Now I don't know what the heck a talk page is but they kept saying "take it to the talk page", But if that is some sort of rule then shouldn't they have followed the same rule without continuously deleting my correct information and replacing it with their misleading unfactual garbage?

So why is it that these vandals are allowed to repeatedly replace scientifically-fact-based information with their opinions? This is a VERY important issue because I have had students bring in "research information" that is completely incorrect that they have gleaned here on Wikipedia from these information bandits.


 * This will probably be removed due to not reporting anyone, but why did you never respond to any communication directed to you? Bart133 t c @ 20:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. What is this? The common denominator here is the one editor Architecture and Interior Design who has rebuffed ALL attempts at communication made by several other editors. While his adding of controversial content is not vandalism, his repeated section blanking and repeated removal of properly sourced material certainly are vandalism-related issues and so I do not believe the 3RR rule would even apply. Taroaldo (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Taroaldo did not exceed 3RR and was not warned. Architecture and Interior Design, you have reverted at least 7 times but I accept that you were unaware of 3RR. You have not discussed your concerns on the talk page. You really must do that and not edit war. I've only protected the page for a day, if the edit war begins again after that, anyone breaking 3RR is likely to be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The real common denominator here is that 4 individuals have ganged up on one person in an attempt to spread their incorrect information to the rest of the world. That is the ONLY common denominator here.  According to Wikipedia guidlines there is no difference in Taroaldo using his user name 3 times and then calling in his buddies to finish his work.  In essence he has used you to complete his 7 or 8 RR blah blah whateve5r you call it.  You can keep saying whatever you want but there is nothing right and nothing fair about what you people have done here today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Bart133 reported by Achitecture and Interior Design (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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


 * 1) (cur | prev)  19:49, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (3,364 bytes) (I broke 3RR with that, even though the edits are clearly unhelpful (HG)) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 19:46, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Take it to the talk page, and see WP:3RR. (HG)) (undo)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 19:44, 18 July 2010 Architecture and Interior Design (talk | contribs) (3,364 bytes) (Flawed sources and flawed information perpetuated by individuals bent on misleading the public) (undo)
 * 4) (cur | prev) 19:43, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (talk page (HG)) (undo)
 * 5) (cur | prev) 19:40, 18 July 2010 Architecture and Interior Design (talk | contribs) (3,358 bytes) (Undid revision 374180473 by Bart133 (talk)) (undo)
 * 6) (cur | prev) 19:37, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Reverted edits by Architecture and Interior Design (talk) to last revision by Bart133 (HG)) (undo)
 * 7) (cur | prev) 19:37, 18 July 2010 Architecture and Interior Design (talk | contribs) (3,358 bytes) (Undid revision 374180222 by Bart133 (talk)) (undo)
 * 8) (cur | prev) 19:35, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (use talk page for that (HG)) (undo)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] What is an "article talk page?"

Comments:

While viewing and correcting misleading information on the "complementary color" page, an individual who calls him/her-self "Bart133" joined "Taroaldo" in an editing war as I repeatedly attempted to correct incorrect information that they insist on using to mislead the general community. Honestly I had no idea that there was a 3 undo rule (or whatever you call it) so I continued to replace their erroneous and misleading information with factual scientifically tested and proven information. I learned about your "3RR" rule only because Bart133 stated (as you will see on the revision history page) that he himself "...broke 3RR with that." Now I don't know what the heck a talk page is but they kept saying "take it to the talk page", But if that is some sort of rule then shouldn't they have followed the same rule without continuously deleting my correct information and replacing it with their misleading unfactual garbage? If the Wikipedia system didn't "warn" this Bart person that has nothing to do with me. Must be a failure in Wikipedia's software or something. I saw notes that said something about "talk pages" but what the heck is that and how do you access it? All I know is jerks were intent about passing off erroneous information as fact and that is never good. If they know how to use the system against a novice users well good for them, but there needs to be a system in place to protect the novice from these computer geeks that somehow learned and understand this "Wiki" language. I guess it's obtained through osmosis or something. Maybe if I start living and breathing Wiki I'll get it someday. Please, for God's sake tell me what the heck "3RR" and "7RR" is. Can't you people just speak clear and plain English?
 * Bart not warned, and reporting editor is at 7RR. I'm hardly going to block anyone else without blocking Architecture and Interior Design. See aboveDougweller (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't warn users; users warn users. 3RR is a policy against reverting a user's changes to an article (in most cases). When Dougweller said you were at 7RR, he meant that you had reverted the article seven times. Bart133 t c @ 22:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So basically what you are saying is that it is completely fine for you all to do that to me but it isn't OK for me to defend what I know to be correct. You people are not honest and you are not fair. I didn't get any warnings either but you seem to be just fine with that.  I guess it's just because I'm not on your level as haul monitors - Wikipedia Bully or whatever you want to call it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I'm not an administrator. Bart133 t c @ 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Katanalder and 94.192.142.230 reported by User:Ncmvocalist (Result: 24 hours)

 * User being reported: and

warning

Reverts (removing sourced content):
 * They're almost certainly the same person, but I only blocked the account (since the autoblock will hit the IP as well). -- slakr \ talk / 06:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jenaveev18 reported by User:Oncamera (Result: Nothing for the moment )
Page:

User being reported:


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

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


 * 1) 17:08, 18 July 2010  (edit summary: "headers are set to standard for articles")
 * 2) 03:49, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "seemed fine nothing was drastically changed, just minor move arounds")
 * 3) 04:08, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "see your talk page")
 * 4) 04:22, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "please see your talk page; their was nothing wrong with the changes made by the IP")
 * 5) 04:38, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "headers are the exact same")


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On their talkpage, my talkpage, and a previous discussion on the article's talkpage about the organization of headers.

Comments: Account is single-purpose only, as well...

— on camera (t)  05:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User seems to be well intentioned, and says he/she won't revert again. Try to introduce them to the way things work. Prodego  talk  05:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I also spoke to this user (IRC live help) and believe their intentions to be good; we had a chat about the need to discuss and reach consensus, and how to do so. I do not think any further action is required.  Chzz  ► 06:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If they have an understanding now, then I'll change the headers back and see what comes out of that.  on camera (t)  15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:JohnAlabamaNestroy reported by User:Meco (Result: 12 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result - Blocked 12 hours. Editor broke 3RR, and would not respond when asked to promise here to stop edit warring. He has never participated on the article talk page, where an RfC is running about some of the material he is changing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mhym reported by User:Meco (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apologies. I try to wait out 24 hours until reverting the third time. With half a dozen reverts by User:JohnAlabamaNestroy, I must have fogotten that it's been less than a full day. Mhym (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Promise to be careful in the future and never make 3RR. Mhym (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You forgot nothing. You willfully pushed the limit as your post on the article's talk page clearly reveals. And you were caught out. How about a little more honesty? __meco (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks is a good policy. I will not be responding to such insults.  Mhym (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action. Editor has agreed not to violate 3RR in the future. He has also been a participant on the article talk page. He should try not to invite others to revert for him, however. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Laveol reported by 79.117.148.221 (Result: Warning, two semiprotections)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Arguments for inclusion of the Romanian name: (79.117.148.221 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

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

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

Comments:


 * Sorry, but the annon is being quite disruptive here. He's involved in two distinct edit-wars (the other being at FC Timişoara (see the history) and even started wikistalking me on Talk:Southern Dobruja. Further, he's doing the reverts from different IPs, clearly trying to game the system. I'll not perform any reverts and I did justify my edits when this started to look like an edit war (with a proxy IP involved). -- L a v e o l  T 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Laveol warned not to violate 3RR again. Tutrakan and FC Timişoara are semiprotected due to disruption by a language-warring IP. All parties should read WP:Naming conventions, and should beware of discretionary sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN.  Removing alternate versions of place names for nationalist reasons can lead to further admin action. Pay attention to the advice from Anonimu about this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Asher196 reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 03:23, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 374166732 by Jayjg (talk)")
 * 2) 23:52, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "This is a nice little edit war we have here.  This sure looks well sourced to me...")

Comments: While User:Asher196 has only reverted twice, this is classic edit-warring. After being recruited to revert by the other editor in the dispute, he has shown up on the page and reverted without ever participating in the lengthy discussions on the article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Issue appears to have been diffused on Talk:7&6=thirteen. --  tariq abjotu  05:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Noloop reported by User:ari89 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1 revert:
 * 2 revert:
 * 3 revert:
 * 4 revert:
 * 5 revert:
 * 6 revert:

Four of the most recent reversions of the article were in a window of ten hours. Comments: Editor refuses to gain consensus - and has been reverted by multiple editors. They are also edit warring on Jesus. --Ari (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Um...those are 3 different content disputes spread out over a couple of days. You are, in essence, simply refusing to allow me to edit the article. I can't add info about the sources for the readers. I can't object to your addition of sources. I can't add balancing material from skeptics. I'm not allowed to edit without your approval. Only the last content dispute is ongoing, not a violation of 3RR, and it is based on people mass-deleting referenced material without even starting a discussion on the Talk page. At least I had the courtesy to start a thread and explain myself in Talk when I made my initial edit that you opposed. Noloop (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are in violation of the 3RR, trying to mislead about this (especially where you reverted and falsely claimed that you were reverting vandalism) is pretty convincing evidence that you are aware of 3RR and actively tried to conceal it.
 * On the claim that they are "over a couple of days" your last four reversions (04:03, 20 July 2010, 02:04, 20 July 2010, 22:06, 19 July 2010, 18:50, 19 July 2010) were in a ten hour window. That is a lot less than a couple of days. --Ari (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mass deleting referenced material seems like vandalism to me, especially when done by an IP with no discussion in Talk. The four reverts you mention are not the same edit, or even in the same paragraph, or about the same ideas. And, the point was that you listed six edits, not four. It would generally be helpful if you addressed the concerns instead of attacking me on every issue, across multiple pages. Noloop (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Even after being reverted and warned by another editor, there seems to be no stopping them. (+ 6th revert) --Ari (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  05:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:67.164.224.243 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC) ''

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''
 * 1) 22:33, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legacy */")
 * 2) 22:47, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legacy */  It's in other articles and it deserves mention. I suggest you go to the Wikipedai article at Encyclopedia Dramatica and learn to stop being a pedantic cunt.")
 * 3) 23:01, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legacy */  I'll refrain from trolling this time but I'd like to see better justification than whiny pedantry. I have as much justification putting it in as you do taking it out and I'm not budging")
 * 4) 00:05, 20 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 374390755 by CZmarlin (talk) - revert revision by CZmarlin; please offer a better reason than trolling.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:31, July 19, 2010 (edit summary: "add template")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19:06, July 19, 2010 (edit summary: "an unscientific opinion made 26 years after the fact is not an appropriate reference for the car's history")

Comments:

This user also made personal attacks on my user page as follows:


 * 1) 22:48, 19 July 2010  (edit:  "This user needs to read up on moar Encyclopedia Dramatica. It'll help, trust me.")
 * 2) 22:50, 19 July 2010  (edit: "Trust me, Encyclopedia Dramatica is way more constructive than this place. Unglue your lips from Jimmy Wales' dick, plz thx")
 * 3) 22:51, 19 July 2010  (edit: "Whoever reverts this is a Cunt. ED ruelz!")

Reported by: CZmarlin (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you.


 * --  tariq abjotu  05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:12.204.194.66 reported by User:Lisa (Result: compromise + full protect of 6 hours to allow discussion)
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:

Although there are different IP addresses, it appears clear from the comments that this is a single editor. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikemikev reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:43, 17 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Brain size */ This has been reproduced. No counter data exists.")
 * 2) 12:58, 17 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 373969281 by Verbal (talk) This controversial fact has been discussed ad nauseam. Why don't *you* discuss it?")
 * 3) 17:26, 17 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Brain size */")
 * 4) 09:26, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Brain size */ per WP:NOTCENSORED")
 * 5) 09:13, 20 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Brain size */ Consensus is not about strength of numbers. Sources contending these figures have not been produced.")
 * 6) 12:52, 20 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 374485687 by Mustihussain (talk) You don't remedy "undue weight" by unsourced rewriting of facts towards your POV.")

—Wapondaponda (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev is involved in a low grade edit war on race and intelligence. Mikemikev's edits have been reverted by multiple editors, yet he appears unwilling to compromise. The article is currently on a 1RR restriction, which Mikemikev has violated at least twice. Links to 1rr restriction

Mikemikev is knowledgeable about edit warring restrictions as he recently filed an edit warring complaint here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Wapondaponda (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the 1RR has yet been approved, but this is ongoing editwarring and needs to stop. Verbal chat  10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It takes more than one to editwar. Which editors have been fighting with Mikemikev about this? (I have not checked the diffs.) David.Kane (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * David, you really should check the diffs: you're right about it taking more than one to edit war, however. It seems that several (more than two) editors have indeed reverted Mikemikev on this issue (his intended insertion seems in gross violation of NPOV and significantly alters an otherwise reliable source).  This article is definitely a "hotbed" for edit-warring, BTW - how could it not be?  "Race and intelligence".  Small wonder... Doc9871 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if you glance at the article history you will see multiple editors have reverted him with valid rationales. I see no one fighting with him, just one editor trying to force an edit into the article. Verbal chat  12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which specific "valid rationales" are you referring to? As best I can tell, Mikemikev wants to include average brain size data by race. Brain size data is discussed extensively by secondary sources, see Mackintosh pages 234-236. Mackintosh even cites (approvingly!) Rushton. As best I can tell, Mikemikev has addressed the arguments raised. It is not clear to me that the editors who argued about this last week remain unconvinced by the subsequent discussion. So, to make progress, we need a list of the editors that, you claim, still object to this edit and the reason(s) that have for objecting. David.Kane (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you take that to the article talk page? The matter being discussed here is his editwarring against multiple other good faith editors. Verbal chat  12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Cough) A "list" of editors who object, and their reason(s) why? Really?  Consensus doesn't work like that, I'm afraid (thank God)... Doc9871 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing: Another revert with uncivil edit summary diff. There can be no argument that he hasn't gone beyond the point where he should have attempted to engage in discussion now rather than continued reverting. Verbal chat  13:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have unaddressed arguments on the talk page. It's odd that those who are telling me to discuss are not discussing. mikemikev (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't discuss and editwar, and discussion doesn't involve calling other editors POV warriors. The protection should be lifted and to prevent further disruption Mikemikev should be blocked. Verbal chat  13:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this remains unaddressed, I assumed the discussion was over. mikemikev (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) You mean, "You are, however, an afro-centric POV pusher."? I guess that is unresolved.  This needs to go to another board... Doc9871 (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

--  tariq abjotu  13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid solution, you are punishing all editors and, naturally, protecting the "wrong version" of an uncivil edit warrior. Please unprotect the page and address the actual issue. Verbal</b> chat  14:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a valid exercise of admin discretion. I do think, though, that regardless of whether or not 1RR exists, this user is asking for a block. --B (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Arlen22 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) July 19
 * 2) July 19
 * 3) July 19
 * 4) July 20


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments Repeated page moves against consensus and edit warring over the word "myth". Further edit warring and EW warnings (other than diffs above) occurred.

— <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 13:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:68.248.237.151 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Anon IP is possibly another user known for pushing this issue editing without logging in. Cannot confirm yet. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. The IP has broken 3RR. Two different IPs from Milwaukee have been fighting (during July) to keep various things out of the template. Most likely these are the same editor. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached on the Talk page about the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:TEK reported by User:Ihgyqxfs (Result: 24h to submitter)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments:


 * At first, I reverted his edit because I believed it was vandalism. When he reverted it and explained on my talk, I told him that I would place a comment on the articles talk page, and to await the decision of the community before furthur reverting. Having not heeded my message, he went on to revert the page three more times, each of which I was forced to revert. TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ihgyqxfs is a brand new account that instigated this edit war (and has also violated 3RR already) by removing sourced information, and no discussion other than a request to read a different page and "restore my edit and apologize", when TEK had nothing to apologize for. Just a third party view, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not violate 3RR. Ihgyqxfs (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:TEK |used a vandalism template against me and continued his editwar even after |further explanations. Ihgyqxfs (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I apologise for this edit-warring. As I explained above, at the first glance, Ihgyqxfs's edits looked like vandalism – he removed sourced information, and the edit summary was tagged "removal of sources". However, he told me to read Air Comet, which has indeed ceased operations, but according to the article the company ordered A380s before it shut down. He left me a message demanding that I "restore my [Ihgyqxfs's] edit and apologize on my talk page", when in fact I had little to apologise for. I told him that I would comment on the talk page of the article and for him to stop reverting and await the decision of the community. He refused and continued to revert anyway, adding "Read what you reverted - they never ordered" on his talk for me to see. However, he did not cite any sources. Again, I apologise for the edit-warring, which I think was caused by a misjudgment on my part. I promise to stop my unacceptable behaviour. Please understand and consider my side of this conflict. Thanks. TEK (talk • e-mail) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * TEK now claims my fault was to not cite any sources. Fact is he never asked for sources, only reverted. Ihgyqxfs (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 24h to Ihgyqxfs. A brand-new account (20 July) that may have been created just to edit-war on this article. He only has three reverts, but good faith must be questioned, since he files a report at AN3 less than an hour after creating a 'new' account. Both parties were invited to promise to stop warring but only TEK did so. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Goodone121 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 03:42, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 02:04, 20 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 374248861 by Mann jess (talk) There is, indeed, a POV Dispute,under the heading "'typically considered'" pseudoscience".")
 * 3) 23:33, 20 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 374417784 by Mann jess (talk)Mann jess, I am warning you. Do this again, and I will be forced to request a block be placed on your account.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments User was just unblocked this week after edit warring on the same article. His 3rd contribution since the auto unblock was edit warring again. It may be early for this request, as he hasn't yet violated 3RR, but since he went from a block straight into the same behavior, I feel this report is warranted. Thanks.

— <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 01:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a month. Next time will likely be much longer. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Muzicalb reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Notified under ARBPIA)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - re-adds "if not necessarily unbiased", re-replaces "influenced" with "intimidated", re-adds "several thousand missiles were fired into Israel during this time"
 * 2nd revert: - re-adds "if not necessarily unbiased"
 * 3rd revert: - re-adds "not necessarily unbiased", re-replaces "influenced" with "intimidated", removes again "The report further notes that there were also a number of anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers and e-mail addresses by some of those who provided information to Mission or assisted in its work in the Gaza Strip."
 * 4th revert: - re-adds "not necessarily unbiased", re-replaces "influenced" with "intimidated", removes again "The report further notes that there were also a number of anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers and e-mail addresses by some of those who provided information to Mission or assisted in its work in the Gaza Strip."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, not on the article talk, but an explanation of one example of the problem with the edits has been given to the editor

<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He seems to have stopped now and the total effect of the edits following fixes and sans editorializing/advocacy looks okay-ish. The 'influenced' to 'intimidated' change is a matter of which source you pick i.e. Times says "ability ...to freely describe", BusinessDay cited later says "reports that ....may have intimidated ...are baseless". He picked the latter. The worst case, misrepresentation of a source, is described here. The bottomline is, he was edit warring (amongst other things), he ignored a request to go to the talk page (amongst other things), he seems to have stopped for now but whatever happens he needs to receive a notification of the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions|

discretionary sanctions]]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Notified of the possibility of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pantherskin reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 30 hours)
Page: and

User being reported:

This is an instance of slow-motion edit-warring on multiple pages, explained further below

On Golan Heights:
 * 1) 14:21, 17 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Between World War I and the Six-Day War */ excessive quoting and dubious given that the same article makes it clear that historians are very sceptical")
 * 2) 07:29, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Between World War I and the Six-Day War */ removed excessive quote, assessment by independent historians")
 * 3) 06:57, 21 July 2010  (edit summary: "rv attempt to bias article")

On Syria:
 * 1) 09:54, 13 July 2010  (edit summary: "fringe view, not acknowledged by serious historians")
 * 2) 08:00, 15 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 373273504 by Nableezy (talk)")
 * 3) 13:40, 17 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Six Day War and Aftermath */ dubious statement, violates basic WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE")
 * 4) 14:19, 17 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Six Day War and Aftermath */ dubvious statement, in conflict with what can be found in most history books")
 * 5) 07:19, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Six Day War and Aftermath */ removed content that violates NPOV, a non-negotiable policy")
 * 6) 06:51, 21 July 2010  (edit summary: "NPOV and UNDUE violation")
 * 7) 07:05, 21 July 2010  (edit summary: "explained on the talk page, no consensus for this version")

Every single edit that Pantherskin has made in article space since 09:54, 13 July 2010 has been to remove a quote from Moshe Dayan about the nature of the border skirmishes between Israel and Syria. Pantherskin has been reverted by three separate users but continually comes back to re-revert. The material has been in each article for as long as I can remember. Pantherskin has claimed that it is "POV" or "fringe" to include the comments of the then Israeli Defense Minister. This has been discussed at length on the talk pages of both articles. Pantherskin is aware of the restrictions on edit-warring.

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

Comments:

<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Syria shows clearly no consensus to remove the Dayan text. Pantherskin is continuing to remove information he personally doesn't like. Both me and admin Zero gave him reply's at the 19th at the talkpage, and instead of answering us he started a section below with the same pov pushing he posted earlier, once again without bringing any sources. It is now clear Pantherskin wants to forcibly remove sourced information from the article he personally doesn't like, and he doesn't care about what any other person says. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I care what other editors have to say, but I do not care what the usual partisan pro/anti-Israel editors have to say. As so far only the usual partisan editors have shown up (i.e. you, Zero and Nableezy) I have set up an RFC at the appropriate noticeboard to get the input of non-partisan editors, those are actually interested in this old-fashioned concept of NPOV. Pantherskin (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you're still edit-warring. --  tariq abjotu  14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit War on United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010
There is currently a near-edit war going on there, with which I am involved. Two editors and an IP are violated WP:CRYSTAL and adding speculative content, which I am trying to remove.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:95.24.183.137 reported by ialsoagree (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:33, 21 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Early years */")
 * 2) 23:40, 21 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Early years */")
 * 3) 23:43, 21 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Early years */")
 * 4) 23:48, 21 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Early years */")


 * Diff of warning: User talk:95.24.183.137
 * Discussion for revert (which was being ignored by the IP user) is here: Talk:Steve_Jobs

Comments:

I am a third party to this edit war. I caught the 4th attempt by this IP user to make changes to the article and, seeing the discussion on the article's talk page, reverted the changes by the user.

—ialsoagree (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: X! has blocked this IP for 24 hours for edit warring. ialsoagree (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:OCNative reported by User:OCNative (Result:No action )
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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am reporting myself as I forgot the 3RR rule and engaged in an edit war with another user. I am sorry, and I have just posted on the article talk page moments ago to try to resolve this dispute without further reversion at this time. My most recent reversion has been reverted by another user. OCNative (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you have clearly understood that you've violated the rule and stopped reverting, I don;t feel that further action is necessary. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   08:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Seven days seven nights reported by TFD (talk) (Result:No action )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 07:44, 21 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 20:46, 21 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "no difficulty")
 * 3) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "This is personal lack of ability to tell the difference. It is not truly difficult to tell.")
 * 4) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: ""difficult to tell" is personal lack of mental power of the editor")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Discussion for revert is here

TFD (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:


 * There is a technical breach of the 3RR, but this is a very new editor and "reverted good faith edits" does not explain why you;re reverting them, so I can sympathise with their frustration. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   08:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Saki reported by Jason E. (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: User:Saki is very disruptive, he refuses to explain why he is reverting my fixing of the article. I also suspect that he may be another sockpuppet of banned User:Teckgeek, the creator of the Afghans in Pakistan article who used a numbe of other blocked IDs to edit the same page, and User:CaliforniaAliBaba is probably another of his ID because that one also began distrupting my edits at the same time and both of them have very similar bios on their user pages. Example, both speak same languages and been to same countries, etc. I further suspect that he is a Punjabi ethnocentric POV pusher with anti-Afghan agenda.--119.73.6.164 (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that your edits to the page were correct and appropriate and should not have been reverted. —Stephen (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--119.73.6.164 (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all "well and good" - but edits like this show a potential lack of understanding of what "edit-warring" truly is. One editor does not "continue" edit-warring when the other decides to "stop": it takes two (or more) parties to edit-war.  Capiche?  Doc9871 (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pontificate823 reported by Arxiloxos (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:32, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
 * 2) 15:44, 19 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
 * 3) 03:23, 20 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
 * 4) 18:51, 21 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
 * 5) 02:33, 22 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
 * 6) 03:35, 22 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
 * 7) 13:31, 22 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Firing */")


 * Diff of warnings: and

No support on talk page for this editor's actions.

Supplemental:

the editor has now reverted to xis own version again--this makes eight essentially identical reversions against consensus, including four of them in the last twenty hours. These are the only edits made by this editor.

—Arxiloxos (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (supplemented at 22:06, 22 July 2010)

User:Ari89 reported by User:Noloop (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: - 18 July
 * 2nd revert: - 18 July
 * 3rd revert: - 19 July
 * 4th revert: - 20 July
 * 5th revert: - not a revert 20th
 * 6th revert: - not a revert, 20th
 * 7th revert: - 21 July
 * 8th revert: - 22 July

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

Many, in many different places.

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


 * Note hostile tone in discussions.
 * Canvassing like-mined editors from different article to come oppose edits: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs)


 * Um...those are reverts and general edits (that were not reverts) over a five day period and are in no way close to a violation of 3RR. Trying to use WP noticeboards repeatedly as revenge for me reporting your edit warring (which you were subsequently blocked for) is clear abuse of the system. Furthermore, as you seem to be the lone voice arguing in favour of your particular pov version (on the various talk pages and noticeboards) there will be no more reason for your contentious edits to be reverted by anyone. Peace in the world of Wikipedia. --Ari (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note, the reason for most of these reverts were in response to Noloop's refusal to gain consensus on his controversial edits. A number of editors and administrators reverted Noloop's non-consensus edits in this period, and he was blocked in this period for edit warring.--Ari (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather, Noloop blocked. Yes, this does appear to look like retribution. On the other hand, Noloop came off his last block doing the same things that got him blocked initially. There is some edit-warring between other users on the article, but I'll give that some time to simmer down before considering protection. --  tariq abjotu  16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: protected 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Added yet the same sources and passages into the article again (one source and sentence of that source (Augustine Casiday) is in some form or another in this article 4X now).
 * 2nd revert: Adding sourcing requests to not section or even sentences but words in the article as a means to edit war and frustrate with no discussion on talkpage. The section Esoglou is asking to source words from is copied word for word from Orthodoxwiki. One source citation request would seem reasonable.
 * 3rd revert: Reverted out citation request even after issue was resolved by other editors on article talkpage to remove the text completely.
 * 4th revert: This entire section is sourced by a valid online source editor Esoglou has peppered the section with citation requests even though it is sourced by to get the section deleted.
 * 5th revert: reverted/added back duplicate content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Esoglou refuses to use talkpage to arrive at consensus. I (LoveMonkey), and ex admin here User:Richardshusr and User:Cody7777777 have agreed to start and rewrite sections of the article that Esoglou has clobbered with citation requests and deletions, blank edits and edit warring tactics of the like. We had arrive at consensus for just one section of the article under Esoglou's contention on it's talkpage Esoglou has now moved his edit war from the article filioque first  second  and East-West schism (DGG became involved) to now this article Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Esoglou refuses to compromise again refuses to listen and or co-operate in the collaboration process as I (user:LoveMonkey) Richard S and Cody7777777 have tried to do. Esoglou has insisted that even with valid sources and sources that are of higher value and an overwhelming amount of them that Esoglou's opinion is correct and that Esoglou will continue to edit war until the articles say what Esoglou has been asked to source (by Richard S for example on the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences talkpage) but Esoglou refuses to source.

Response. Far from trying to limit the article to one point of view only, in line with LoveMonkey's accusation, I have on the contrary consistently tried to ensure balance. If the view that he insists on is the common view, my edits state this expressly, but point out that it is not the only one, and that serious reliable sources hold the opposite view. To avoid any impression that the opposite view is held only by some crank, I think it best to provide two academic sources for it. I also think that, if in the article the view that LoveMonkey supports is given repeatedly, the sourced opposing view should be given the same number of times.

Let us examine LoveMonkey's complaints, one by one, using the links that he has given.

1. This edit was in response to his reverting an edit that I had made in order in order to give an objective account of what an author had written in place of an original-research interpretation of it (cf. this edit summary). Since the source given by LoveMonkey was the primary one, my edit was composed mainly of quotations from the text. LoveMonkey restored his original-research edit, saying 	in his edit summary: "There was nothing wrong with this passage". I thought it best to reply, not by reverting his revert but by pointing out by citation-needed and failed-verification tags, accompanied by explanations, the original-research character of various statements in it and the evident inaccuracies of some parts. What did I do wrong?

2. The second edit of which LoveMonkey complains had the same purpose: to point out the many  original-research statements that he had included in that part of the article: unsourced attribution to  Augustine of a teaching that the context suggested was also the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church; unsourced claim that that teaching was confirmed by unspecified "multiple" councils; unsourced claim that the Council of Orange of 529 confirmed the teaching; unsourced claim that there is a difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church on this matter, when the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church says the opposite of what the editor was attributing to it; unsourced claim about a doctrinal reason for the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

3. LoveMonkey's third complaint is about the moving to the end of a sentence of a citation-needed tag. He had himself reverted this edit and I gave him no less than 16 days to explain his revert before finally undoing it today, he made no attempt whatever to explain why he had reverted it (see discussion page on his revert).

4. Similar to his first and second complaints.

5. This is an example of how LoveMonkey wants to allow only one view to be presented, with no mention whatever of a well-sourced different view. I have already replied to this complaint in the opening paraqraph of this response of mine.

With regard to failure to discuss on the Talk page, see how LoveMonkey ignored requests to indicate some reason, other than his refusal to grant what he called his "consensus", for reverting another editor's edits.

LoveMonkey's previous reportings of me on this noticeboard have all been dismissed. In at least one case – I don't remember if there were more – I felt that there was no need whatever to respond. Is it too much to ask that he be told to stop harassing me? And perhaps that he be told to avoid original-research insertions into articles and not to resort so easily to reverting the edits of others (not only mine but others also, most recently the one discussed here)? Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:188.80.59.174 reported by User:DCGeist (Result:already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2d diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Pure vandalism/edit warring IP. Also disrupting other editors' Talk pages.—DCGeist (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for disruptive editing by Materialscientist. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pontificate823 reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Here is Pontificate823's first edit to the article in question; removing reliably referenced information and replacing it with his own. He was told several times that adding the additional information was OK, but removing the other information was not. This edit war has been going on for about 3 days; the user has been invited to use the talk page and has so far refused to acknowledge those requests. He has, in edit summaries, claimed that the information he is removing is "slanderous", but near as I can tell the information he is removing is neutrally worded, and most importantly, accurately reflects the sources in question.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Pontificate823 has several warnings about this issue, all predating the last revert above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mike Leach (American football coach) is a discussion that the above user has refused to engage in.

Comments:


 * No 3RR vio, but a pretty clear case of sustained edit warring and zero talk page participation, so 24-hour block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

== User:Carthage44 reported by NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs (Result: page protected) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 21:35, 20 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374414450 by Burpelson AFB (talk): Not a notable player")
 * 2) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374607203 by Burpelson AFB (talk): 99% of Badger fans do not know who he is and did not play in the NFL not notable")
 * 3) 00:32, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374762553 by Burpelson AFB (talk) One good season does not clarify as notable, therefore NOT NOTABLE")
 * 4) 21:47, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374782327 by Burpelson AFB (talk): Your justification makes no sense at all")
 * 5) 03:58, 23 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374955717 by Burpelson AFB (talk): Not notable")


 * Diff of warning: here

—NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my, WP:LAME seems to apply here. No one has reverted since the talk page warnings, so I'm going to mark this as  for 3 days, and I'm considering removing [User:Burpelson AFB]]'s rollback for using it here. Courcelles (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wantthetruth reported by User:UltraEdit (Result: stale)
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:

--UltraEdit (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I respectfully suggest that both editors in this report might benefit by avoiding this particular article for a while. There is plenty of encyclopedia remaining to be written. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User: Ultraedit reported by User:wantthetruth? (Result:malformatted)
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:

User Ultraedit persists in reverts while accusing me of reverting, user has history of gaming system and sock puppetry, user is member of the cult Fellowship of Friends the subject of the article in question Wantthetruth? (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)wantthetruth?>


 * I was never involved in any incident of "gaming the system" or sock puppetry (see history of my user page). I never stated that I belong to the "cult" fellowship of Friends. The serious accusations above have to be proven. --UltraEdit (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have 482 edits since I became a Wikipedia editor on November 2, 2007. Of those, 116 (24%) were of the Fellowship of Friends article. User Wantthetruth has made 211 edits since he became an editor on August 20, 2007. 199 (94%) of those were on the Fellowship of Friends article, and the other 12 were directly related to that article. The only purpose of this user on Wikipedia is to edit the Fellowship of Friends article, and that presumes an agenda. --UltraEdit (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Malformatted, and appears to be tit-for-tat due to the above report. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Thomaskh reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result:47 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 05:24, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "live stream")
 * 2) 06:00, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert, yes no forum, but this has relevance to the article")
 * 3) 06:52, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "reverted vandalism")
 * 4) 07:00, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert and let it go......")
 * 5) 01:45, 23 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "rv vandalism")


 * Diff of warning: here

The editor has been warned about using the article talk page as a forum but seems to have no regard with policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. —Bidgee (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have gone ahead with a 47 hour block. If the user persists, a longer block (if not indefinite) can be implied. Mitch 32(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.) 11:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "applied"? I know: I'm sorry... Doc9871 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Cptnono (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

This is a clear case of an editor continuing to insert material against consensus while not using the talk page to find a solution. It has been going on for days. Some of the information might be fine but untill editors start using the talk page nothing will get done but reverts.


 * Made abold edit and it was reverted. His first revert was of Threeafterthree here at 13:30, 17 July 2010
 * Another revert here of Threeafterthree at 14:01, 17 July 2010
 * A partial revert of removal of the content by Marknutley here at 02:39, 21 July 2010.
 * Another partial (90%) revert of Marknutley here at 02:49, 22 July 2010. The section header was removed but the rest was put back in.
 * A revert of Jauerback here at 01:41, 23 July 2010.

There are two sections on the talk page discussing the contentious edit. One of them does not go into much detail though. I asked the editor to use the talk page but this was blanked and he again reverted (see the last diff up above). His last attempt at using the talk page was at 17:09, 18 July 2010 (he made 3 reverts after that).

Cptnono (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * three days. Please work out the sourcing at the talkpage or the appropriate noticeboard before then, and come back if the back-and-forth continues. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:92.13.125.131 reported by User:Weaponbb7 (Result: withdrawn)
Amish:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk:Amish

Comments:

Ok I violated WP:BITE smack me with WP:TROUT If appropriate Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No action. That user is a bit over-exuberant, but the issues appears amenable to discussion. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:71.184.184.238 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Below are changes made by SaltyBoatr that change or delete pre-existing article text from July 22, 2010 21:58 To July 23, 2010 to July 23, 2010 1:40 - This is a 4 hour period

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374925916&oldid=374898459 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374926207&oldid=374925916 intervening post by another editor - per 3rr http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374945299&oldid=374940019 intervening post by another editor - per 3rr http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374950338&oldid=374949116 intervening post by another editor - per 3rr http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374955417&oldid=374954421

Note AnonIP is a very disruptive editor who is frequently uncivil. He seems to misunderstand 3RR to mean that if you edit anything on a page 4 times in a day you've violated the rule, which is of course untrue. It is true that the 2A article remains a disputed topic, and it is true that SB stands at odds with almost everyone else in terms of what the page should contain, but I have to say that being the odd man out shouldn't alone be an issue. Disclosure - SB and I rarely agree - you can easily see this in our talk pages and article histories. In this case I'm familiar with the topic, and while I would say one of the edits was perhaps overly BOLD in light of it's obvious lack of consensus, the others actually are good edits that improve the article and as far as I can tell are not controversial. As an admin I'd say this is not a 3RR violation. Since I've been involved in the article I prefer not to get involved in editor discipline, but hoped to provide some background. Additionally it would be nice if we can once again get someone to review the AnonIPs behavior - I'll probably go track down the noticeboard where that was previously started. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been several admin interventions with AnonIP over the last two years. Here is a link to the latest ANI section devoted to this issue.   SaltyBoatr get wet 16:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The description of 3rr is quite clear and states that it is 4 or more changes of previously appearing material, "with" intervening posts by other editors. The abovove 4(or 5) changes involved deletion of previously appearing material with intervening posts by other editors. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty is warned per following link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Salty_there_is_a_3rr_violation_being_filed_against_you

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

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

He was warned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Salty_you_are_now_WAY_PAST_a_3rr_violation and stopped edit warring but has also been warned in the past see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_28#SB.2FHauskalainen_-_rules_on_edit_war_and_3_revert_rule

Comments:

I warned him here that his next 3rr will be reported if he continued his unacceptable behavior. - see bottom of the following link and now I am doing so link

Comment I sincerely don't believe that these good faith edits outlined by AnonIP are WP:REVERTS. If I am misunderstanding WP:REVERT, I apologize. Also, I have repeatedly requested help to bring more collaboration to that talk page, and my edit history there shows that for a very long time now I have been patiently working to edit this article in collaboration with AnonIP through dispute resolution. And, even though the AnonIP has refused to participate in WP:DR, I am committed to calmly continue to try to find a compromise. Check the talk page and you will see confirmation my commitment to work out proposed edits and to avoid edit war, as I understand how important this policy is to Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a voluntary agreement by SaltyBoatr over at User talk:SaltyBoatr. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like Salty to be less aggressive and relentless but to stay involved. Also for 71.184.... to stay involved. BTW I consider 71.184.... to be less anonomyous than us registered users, and somewhere about the 100th time calling him "anon" starts to be ad hominem. Salty is more clever than 71.184 at using the Wikipedia system to do battle. And all should resolve that this this eternal slugfest over British history needs to start moving forward to a resolution. Massive relentless undiscussed edits will never get us there. I suppose that's all a little vague regarding any "action" but there's my 2 cents.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since SaltyBoatr's response on my talk page does not clearly accept the offer, and since this article has been taken to the noticeboards many times, I'm tempted to impose full protection, say three months. This would be a way of forcing WP:Dispute resolution to occur, since admins would be available to make any change to the article for which consensus was reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Salty would probably consider freezing the article a reward rather then a punishment. The article needs substantial updating to reflect recent court rulings such as Heller and McDonald. It is currently infested with pro-gun control propaganda, much of it inserted by Salty, which is opposed to the individual right viewpoint of the Second Amendment, that the US Supreme Court affirmed in Heller and seconded in McDonald. The last two freezes happened at his request right after he was accused of 3rr violations - check my warnings from the links above with the dates he requested a freeze. Both times when he was in danger of loosing control of the contents of the article he got it frozen.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Salty is more knowledgeable about 3rr then his above post implies - I found this with only a minute's search of his talk page - Salty is not above using threats of 3rr to get his way http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SaltyBoatr&diff=186881680&oldid=18686988971.184.184.238 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is badly outdated due to recent Supreme Court Decisions. Needs a lot of detailed work work to fix it.  Locking it up would doom it. Plus I think that all of the current disputes are about just one section. We just completed an consensued amicable major rework of the lead.   On the article talk page Salty asked for my ideas, and I wrote:  "I think that at the moment this is too big and complex for wp:dr.  If you three would be willing to give it a try, I would be happy to try to organize a dialog & effort to move this forward.  Besides my commitment to accuracy above all else, I think that I am dumb enough and uninvolved enough on this whole natural right / British history thing, to approach it as just a dumb moderator/organizer. :-) Sincerely," North8000 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not accurate to say that the current dispute is just on one section. Hauskalainen has a problem with the English section, which I can understand. I have been having a dispute over what a "%^$#^* dictionary states when that dictionary is online and can be checked by anyone with two brain cells. Salty wants the article to reflect a meaning NOT in that dictionary. As soon as other sections start getting updated Salty will insure that those sections will be in dispute as well. If the changes are in any way anti-gun control or pro-individual rights Salty will be there obstructing those changes. Guaranteed!71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info / correcting me on that. On the issue of the moment, do you have a better idea? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @North8000 I welcome your offer to moderate/organize the fixing of the problems with the English History section.  The example set with the recent collaboration on the introduction rewrite is a very positive example because it was developed on the talk page first, and then moved to the article space.  If we could apply that model of cooperation to a rewriting the English History section I think this dispute could be resolved.  I also would support a full page protect because it would encourage all editors, including myself, to work things out on the talk page.  (I am somewhat disturbed that the article presently is stuck in a state that was achieved by brute force, and not talk page collaboration, so I think that paying attention to the last stable version prior to the latest dust up and page locks would be a wiser starting point.)  SaltyBoatr get wet 03:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a try. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I blocked User:71.184.184.238 for edit warring &c. all over, but there may be additional issues here that should be addressed. Perhaps Mediation Cabal could help? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already asked for help from the Mediation Cabal here: . In response, User:71.184.184.238 expressed his opinion of that request here.  I am trying to be reasonable and am looking for any help I can get.  SaltyBoatr get wet 02:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Texasreb reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 24 h)

 * 3RR violation on . : Time reported: 04:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st dif: and
 * 2nd dif:
 * 3rd dif: and  and
 * 4th dif:
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I listed four diffs of reversions but in most cases several reverts were done at once. Editor has reverted my edits and the edits of one other editor. I reverted Texreb twice and the other editor reverted him once. We both then added material rather than reverting but Texreb continued with the reversions. I opened a discussion on the article page but Texreb has not participated. A third editor has also mentioned Texrebs edit warring on the discussion page and provided a warning on his talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this report. Texasreb is a POV warrior who won't listen to others, and repeatedly reverts despite warnings and requests for discussion.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is discussion of the edits in question, there is discussion of what means reliable source, and there is notification about edit warring. Texasreb, please try to reach consensus with your fellow volunteer editors regarding the points you think the article should cover. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by User:BsBsBs (Result: Stale )
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:

List of cities proper by population is a list of the population of cities using the city proper concept. The intro of the article says "City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government .... Therefore, the populations listed are for the administratively-defined city and not for the urban area nor the metropolitan area."

The disputed entries are sourced from a United Nations Database of urban agglomerations. The database defines each cited datapoint as "Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2009." This is in contradiction to the definition of List of cities proper by population. I did not edit the questionable entries. I tagged them with or similiar, accompanied by various attempts to resolve this matter on the talk page in a civilized way. These were fruitless. The tags are being removed on a consistent basis. Calls for a better, unambiguous source are being ignored. Please take the appropriate action. Thank you -- BsBsBs (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently, both of you have not edited the article itself since 0600ish, and seeing as you have both moved to the articles talk page a block would be purely punitive. That said, both of you have engaged in an edit war, and both of you are subject to a block if you continue. Tiptoety  talk 21:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Posse72 reported by User:Tbma (Result: Warned )
Page:

User being reported:


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

This user was already previously blocked for his attacks on me. This article has open NPOVN investigation, and my edits were adding information from more sources. User Posse72 continues to reverse my edits, and falsifies numbers from the references.

--Tbma (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ed just warned . If edit warring continues, blocks will be issued. Tiptoety  talk 22:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Teaparty2010 reported by User:Master and Commander (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

There was approximately 48 hours between these two series violating 3RR.

2nd series violating 3RR
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Teaparty2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not me, but another user attempted to do so on the article talk page. I did attempt to do so at User talk:Teaparty2010

Comments:

I've intentionally avoided editing the article in question to avoid being involved in this edit war. Master and Commander (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Soxwon reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: No action )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version


 * 1st revert: 02:46, 24 July 2010
 * 2nd revert: 10:41, 24 July 2010
 * 3rd revert: 11:27, 24 July 2010
 * 4th revert: 12:13, 24 July 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:04, 24 July 2010, before the 4th revert.

Comments:

Known POV warrior who seems damned determined to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Editor is quite familiar with edit warring, as he's been warned by this noticeboard previously. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Known POV warrior Always calling the kettle black right Blax? Editor is quite familiar with edit warring, as he's been warned by this noticeboard previously. That I am, I have still yet to see good for reason for the reverts for my edits and I have explained why I reverted. As for the charges of disruption, really, is disagreeing with you now disruptive Blaxthos? Soxwon (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, but willful edit warring after being warned in the past certainly is. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No action taken at this time. While the edits in question are disruptive, the user has self reverted making administrative action unnecessary. Tiptoety  talk 00:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbma reported by User:Posse72 (Result: Warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

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

Comments:

Posse72 (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ed just warned . If edit warring continues, blocks will be issued.
 * Intresting, but no warning to TBma wha acctually made the 3rr violation?Posse72 (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Internet spider reported by User:I42 (Result: 24 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Also discussed with user on user talk pages:
 * User_talk:Internet_spider
 * User_talk:TFOWR
 * User_talk:I42

Comments:

Diffs to article include initial edits by User_talk:59.183.5.113, which appears to be this same user before they created an account, but 3RR was violated by Internet spider alone.

I42 (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh reported by User:Incognito222 (Result: decline)
Page:

User being reported:



Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aishwarya_Rai&oldid=375407223
 * 2nd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aishwarya_Rai&oldid=375385848
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

The clause I changed is 'though Khan has denied this' to 'Khan has denied beating any women'. If you check the source, the quote I changed the clause to is much more accurate and congruent to what the source says. I removed the clause because leaving it in the sentence purports that Khan denied 3 things in addition to beating women.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No other comments. Incognito222 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, what the...? I've actually reverted him only twice and was the one to start a talk page discussion after seeing he is unwilling to understand it through his own talk page. I've also warned him for edit warring as I saw him edit warring several times before and now he tries to take it back at me. Amusing it is. :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is way premature and there looks to be adequate discussion towards compromise already. Please engage fully in that, and come back if the minor wording dispute becomes intractable. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:67.237.113.168 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Silly )
Page:

User being reported:

All edits consist of changing the section heading from "Son of (a) god", which I originally wrote, to "Son of God". Even if the first one was not a revert, successive ones are. (Some earlier reverts were to "Son of G-d".)


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

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


 * 1) 00:19, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 2) 02:51, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 3) 10:24, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 4) 11:02, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 5) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 6) 19:11, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 7) 19:47, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 8) 20:05, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 9) 20:10, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 10) 20:57, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
 * 11) 21:26, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")


 * Diff of warning: 12:30, 24 July 2010

Afraid not. I believe the editor to be the topic-banned, (see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WillBildUnion), so there's little point.

—— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:LAME. IP blocked, not really edit warring, more stupidity. Tiptoety  talk 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is what you mean, but it looks as if you're calling AR silly, and I don't think that is what you intended. Could it be changed please? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tide rolls's block of the IP for disruptive editing looks good. Arthur did not go past 3RR. The 'silly' probably means that the dispute should have been presented sooner for admin attention. See the topic ban of WillBildUnion which includes this article. (The ban was enacted at ANI on 3 July 2010). Though checkuser did not confirm this IP to be a sock of WillBildUnion, the dispute here is an instance of WBU's original research, which he is willing to edit war on. if this problem continues in the future, I suggest a one-month semiprotection of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this, I just responded to the sockpuppet thing, but really so you "administrators" recognized that I was not his sockpuppet and continued anyway? And now you are editing me out because of wildbillunion's research? I did my research myself (and there was an old post with my ip not bills) and I have countless books,papers,notebooks,and notepages I have accumulated on the subject. So it is settled you are censoring ideas. If a person posts in support of Caesar(ion) Christ he is a sockpuppet and banned from posting in the Discussion section of the Caesarion article. This is a double edged sword for me, I hate that I had to go through this, I am glad to know someone is interested in similar research! Is wildbill one of the Caesar=Buddah people? I don't agree with that conclusion but I am also weak on Indian history and I try not to "close my ears to truth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:70.139.234.122 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: IP warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:40, 21 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* T */")
 * 2) 14:13, 23 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* T */")
 * 3) 01:19, 24 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* T */")
 * 4) 17:32, 25 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* T */")
 * 5) 08:27, 26 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* T */")


 * 3rr warning: here

— <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Diven83 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48h)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ,

Edit-warring over "Macedonia" naming, breaching Arbcom-imposed 1-revert restriction
 * on Economy of the European Union:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * on Macedonia:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Warnings given: , Note that the reverts back to the consensus version are exempted from the 1RR per the Arbcom ruling.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: user has continued reverting against multiple other users, currently at 5R at Macedonia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Verbal reported by User:slatersteven (Result: Protected)
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:

Comments:

The use has claimed he has not breached 3RR [] and has said he is not interested (I assume to my sugestion we let community decide [] He is also aware of the 3RR rule as he has warned me that I might break it [] therefore it seems that he beeives its a rule for others, but not himslef, to obey.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The first edit is not a revert, I added two wholly original sources that were not yet included and further sourced the content. The second and third edits were reverts of the removal of well sourced content and valid RS references. The fourth edit was not a revert as I made an entirely new compromise consisting of both sourced descriptions of the group. There were therefore two reverts, and will not make any further reverts to the page. However, I do not object to the page being locked at the current version to stop well sourced material being removed. This is a content dispute and should be addressed in the usual way. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat
 * To clarify my "not interested" remark, it is SS I'm not interested in. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I may have mis-understoof the 3RR rule but I was under the impresion it meant any edit that undid another edds work http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=next&oldid=375529577]] is the page before the first eddit, Verbal clearly undoes my edit. thelast edit partly restores the page to a version verbal prefers, thus is a partial revert, it restore material my self (and others) deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: We could do with the reviewing admin having a look at the talk page activity around the above referenced reverts. Some general advice would be appreciated. If the page is to be locked then it should be at the last consensus version. -- Snowded TALK  16:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that would be the version before this controversy started, and would have to be the "single-issue political organisation" version. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not abuse the rarely used revert during protection. It's only protected for three days; surely you can live with whatever version is there for that short time. --  tariq abjotu  20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The more reliable reference says "quasi-political", which seems to cover all the angles. AJRG (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Protected instead. Verbal still appears to have violated the three-revert rule, but there is a lot of edit-warring on the article, and it is improper to block someone and protect the relevant article. --  tariq abjotu  20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussions on both Verbal and slatersteven's pages, there's significant question as to whether or not this actually was a 3RR or even an EW situation. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In what sense? Verbal clearly reverted four times, although the fourth revert is not the one mentioned in this report. --  tariq abjotu  20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done no such thing, and Tariqabjotu did the right thing by changing his mind. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, he's attempting to make a WP:POINT. This is very poor behaviour from an admin. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to stop beating a dead horse, but I don't think there's even a dead horse to beat. I haven't the slightest idea what your issue with me is, and similarly I don't have any issue with you. --  tariq abjotu  20:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ecko1o1 reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (the user claims they came into agreement with Elockid, but looking at both of their contrib records this is not demonstrable, Elockid actually reverted an identical edit a few minutes earlier)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is bent on imprinting their POV on to this page, and they have made that declaration (see ). There is no consensus over what Ecko1o1 is trying to do. I have even talked to an admin Elockid on the matter, and he agrees what he is putting on this page is wrong. It is also to note that the type of information Ecko1o1 is trying to put onto the page is already found in the terminology section and has no need to be in the lead. After pressing 'Save page', I will be reverting his fourth revert and then staying away from Asian American until this 3RR violation report is processed

Also it should be noted that this user has made multiple racist personal attacks against me (see and ). Please take those incidents into account when looking at this case. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. I hope this kind of thing does not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Freakshownerd reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: (minor, but occurred following the 3RR warning linked below)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Please also note that the user responded to my 3RR warning an inappropriate accusation of three reverts on my talkpage.

Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Freekshownerd's reverts are exempt from the three-revert rule, in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. I agree that the material he is reverting is very controversial to the point that it sounds like editorializing. Please discuss on the talk page the information repeatedly being added. --  tariq abjotu  20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's controversial to note, with multiple sources, that AIDS denialism and creationism are out of the mainstream? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No; that's not the problem. The primary concern appears to be that Mr. Johnson may not actually deny that HIV causes AIDS, but that he feels further research should be done to investigate the issue. From what I can tell, that seems to be what the sources actually say. Worse, you're synthesizing sources -- sources that talk about the general idea of HIV denialism -- to heavily imply that Mr. Johnson is a psuedoscientist. I see that the claim has been in the article for a long time, but it's persistence in the article doesn't make it right. The issue is of great enough concern that I believe it should be hashed out on the talk page. --  tariq abjotu  23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've stated in my comment on your talk page, I didn't write this article; I was merely trying to restore a consensus version. There are three separate secondary sources in the article stating that Johnson promotes HIV/AIDS denialism. That's not simply my opinion, and it's not my synthesis of the sources. Also, I (the previous authors of the article, actually) do not imply that Johnson is a pseudoscientist (he's actually not a scientist at all); they state that his opinions on AIDS and creation are considered pseudoscience, as they most verifiably are. Per WP:FRINGE, this statement must be made; it is done concisely and with references. As for the talk page, I have attempted to hash out the issue there, only to be subject to incivility. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Darth007 reported by User:SoWhy (Result:Warned, and will monitor )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Note: User has indicated that they are well aware of WP:EW.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On user's talk page, by multiple users, see User_talk:Darth007

Comments:

As an involved user, I cannot sanction this user myself but their tiresome reverts to a copyrighted image violating WP:NFCC have to stop one way or another. A block might not be necessary at this stage but review by an uninvolved administrator, maybe with an "official" warning, should be helpful in this situation. Regards  So Why  10:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hasn't reverted four times within a 24-hour period, but formal, template warning left as an uninvolved administrator. Courcelles (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:SwordBrethren reported by Wuh Wuz  Dat  (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:48, 22 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Religion */ About the increased severity of persecution of Catholics")


 * 1) 22:37, 26 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding  how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")
 * 2) 00:48, 27 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ AddingÂ  how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")
 * 3) 17:45, 27 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ AddingÂ  how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")
 * 4) 17:51, 27 July 2010  (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */")

— Wuh Wuz  Dat  17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here
 * Diff of previous warning here
 * --  tariq abjotu  21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry reported by User:Gonads3 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

I attempt discussion here: User talk:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry

Started discussions: Talk:Manchester City F.C. and Talk:Manchester City F.C..

Comments:

So far this user has failed to discuss this issue in the wider community to gain concensus. I've tried my best to settle this through discussion, without biting, but consider it a failure. The main Manchester City article has these types of change reverted almost immediately by many others (including myself). The official source is here, albeit a little out of date, but no other reliable sources exist. I believe his video source to be invalid in this case, as it's pre-season. They may well have a shock when they have the ability to edit the main article and try this. I may be in error, but welcome a resolution. Thank you for your consideration. gonads 3  20:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. The discussion at User talk:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry suggests this editor is planning to keep reverting to get his own version into the article, regardless of what others think. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mir Harven reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Protected)
Mir Harven is engaged in a slow but long-running edit war to censor the linguistic lineage of Croatian, despite all evidence and common sense. He appears unable to separate this issue from his political/nationalistic priorities. The consensus, based on a huge number of reliable references, is that standard Serbian and Croatian are registers of a single dialect, that the inclusive term for them in English is Serbo-Croatian (at least, that is the name we are currently using for the article), and that therefore this should be reflected in their classification. Mir Harven also has problems with civility, since his arguments have not convinced the rest of us, but for now I'm concerned with stopping the edit war. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User:
 * --  tariq abjotu  21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerzeykydd reported by User:William S. Saturn (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Talk page consensus supports the inclusion of individuals who have been speculated as presidential candidates in reliable sources in the past six months. The above user continues to remove an individual that meets the criteria, simply because of his POV that the individual cannot run, completely ignoring the valid references.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:


 * --  tariq abjotu  21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jevansen reported by User:BrianBeahr (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

,

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


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

The person keeps reverting the opening paragraph to a lesser detailed - less factual and biased view that is cleary biased and not a balanced point of view.

Warned the user before - be on its talk page.

Rephrasing for nothing to get edit numbers up a really bad issue on here. How many people live to edit others added info for edit numbers?

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

Comments:

I find it curious that User:BrianBeahr, who is an indefinitely blocked editor, is making a report on here. Of course he usually makes his regular - and always spurious - reports using his IP address. The main problem is that this user believes he has some kind of ownership of the article. The second problem is that he contantly adds far too much detailed and repetitive information in an often poorly written manner with all sorts of grammar, punctuation, spelling and MOS problems which need constant correction by myself and others. He also vandalises other editors' user pages with fake warning and block notices. It should therefore be clearly obvious who the real problem editor is. His misuse of this noticeboard is just another example of his frequent bullying tactics. Afterwriting (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This report is not formed correctly: no evidence of 3RR violation as it is. Should be filed properly or closed... Doc9871 (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Two of the diffs presented are ten days old. Courcelles (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - The filer of this report was subsequently blocked for 3 months as a sockpuppet of User:BrianBeahr. Doc9871 (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ariana310 reported by User:119.73.1.34 (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Hi, I made a small change in Afghanistan and provided reliable source as well as explained my reasons at Talk:Afghanistan then appeared and started replying in a rude tone, deleting my sourced edits and calling me a pro-Pakistani POV pusher everywhere. Ariana310 violated 3rr after I warned her and refuse to stop deleting sourced content.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 119.73.1.34 has already made the same complaint in Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I am copying my response:


 * It's not only me who finds 119.73.1.34's edits as POV and confusion, but other users too agree with me on the same point. Here, here, and here, reverts by two different users User:Begoon and User:John.


 * 119.73.1.34 is overly-emphasizing on Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, while skipping and ignoring more important and healthier relations with other countries. He/She is trying to show off the Afghan-Pak relations to be friendly and without any tension, and is relying purely on one-sided and unreliable sources. A wikipedia article should have a balanced approach; we cannot focus solely on a single country.


 * I have added reliable sources for the reverts I made and for which there weren't any prior references: in here and here. The rest of my edits were removal of pure POV, for example in here.


 * I would also ask 119.73.1.34 to show exactly where have I made personal attacks on him/her in Talk:Afghanistan. Ariana (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ariana310, the section is fine the way I edited the Afghan-Pak relations and you may add as much as you want about the relations of other countries. Afghanistan's relations are more with Pakistan than any other country so that's why it is the way it is in the section. Afghan President often says that Afghanistan and Pakistan are inseparable, and he speaks for the nation. Relations between two are not determined by others, they are determined by what the government of these 2 nations state on their official websites. I don't need to further explain all this you can do your own searches, as a matter of fact that is what Afghan government say and you delete their website. That is Afghanistan's official foreign ministry's website you keep deleting. The ruling people of Afghanistan are Pakhtuns and they view Pakistan as their second country because 28 million Pakhtuns make up Pakistan. The capital of Pakistan sits inside Pakhtun territory even thought it is not considered part of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Punjab. It at least tells you that Islamabad, the cultural capital of Pakistan, has heavy Pakhtun influence.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am afraid most of the above is your personal POV. Of course, both governments put friendly texts on their website, but what is important is what the media says. And I provided a reliable scholarly reference on the issue of the long-lasting tension between Afghanistan & Pakistan from the Journal of International Affairs of the Columbia University (here where is says: "Since 1947, serious differences and tensions have existed between the two respective governments at various phases of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations."), but you removed the whole sentence along with its reference: Here. Ariana (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Do not continue a dispute on this page." The last two posts especially are related to content, which should be discussed at the appropriate talk pages.  Was 3RR violated here by either editor?  That question is why you two are at this board.  Be patient and let it be processed; and "talk it out" elsewhere, please... Doc9871 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse the above comment - this content dispute has been spread across ANI, here, my talk page (a bit), and the article talk page. Please consider WP:3O or WP:DR if you really, really can't just work it out on the article talk page. Recommend a bit of calm, a lot of respect for others' points of view, closing this and pursuing better avenues to resolve the dispute.  Begoon  talk  11:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I closed the ANI thread. It's clearly a content dispute, and any administrative action would be more appropriately considered here. I endorse the above comments by Doc9871 and Begoon. In particular WP:3O appears to be an excellent suggestion. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 12:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I filed this report because Ariana310 violated 3rr. Let's just focus on that please.119.73.8.27 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Submitter blocked for one year as a sock of per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed shahi. This is one of two 3RR reports filed by the same IP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Mb: 48h; Bi: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:58, July 26, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 17:13, July 26, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 11:43, July 27, 2010
 * 4th revert: 12:07, July 27, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

At Talk:Art student scam, and below that, I state that I came to the article from a post at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where I had seen a question about a magazine article written by Christopher Ketcham. I looked him up and determined that Ketcham is quite notable, having published in a wide swath of mainstream magazines. Another editor there thought Ketcham deserved his own Wikipedia biography—he was that accomplished. I went to the Art student scam article and brought the Ketcham piece into the text, adjusting what was already written to include his conclusions.

This is where User:Mbz1 began the string of four total reversions, each time taking out the Ketcham piece. I started a talk page discussion but Mbz1 did not take part in it. Instead, Mbz1 began a poll asking other editors whether the article should return to the condition it was in before I arrived. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Users MBZ1 and others appear to be ganging up to whitewash the article of references to Israel described in detail in sources that have been determined to be reliable. MBZ1 also reverted the revision of RomaC.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." Both editors were edit warring. Protection may be needed but both should suffer the same consequences if ti is deemed appropriate.

Reversions by Binksternet:


 * 1) 23:57, 26 July 2010  (edit summary: "Restoring the Ketcham piece as very reliable journalism")
 * 2) 00:11, 27 July 2010  (edit summary: "Restoring my version as it addresses both possibilities, that the Israeli art scam may be a spy ring, and that it may be a simple scam.")
 * 3) 00:39, 27 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 375643734 by Mbz1 (talk) I see no consensus among involved editors. Can you point out how you arrived at that conclusion?")
 * 4) 18:45, 27 July 2010  (edit summary: "Restoring per Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar")

—Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1

 * 1) The article in question undergone a deletion request and was kept as no consensus with the condition of removing POV.
 * 2) The discussion on the article is ongoing here So far 6 editors voted to keep an old version, and only 2 to re-write it.
 * 3) Here I asked to wait with doing major changes to the article until the votes is closed according to BOLD, revert, discuss.
 * 4) There are many POV issues and the sourcing in the revised version.Here's only one example: "Fox News Channel included aspects of the scandal in a series discussing potential Israeli espionage in the United States. These included allegations that Israeli agents had also penetrated military bases and other government offices" The reference given to that statement is like that:, linked only to Wikipedia articles, and not to the program itself. I could provide more of the problems by request  --Mbz1 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is clear evidence both editors edit-warred and that they were the primary edit warriors on this article. However, Mbz1 has a much more prolific block log, so I blocked him for forty-eight hours, while only blocking Binksternet for twenty-four. I think if these two can quit claiming various ArbCom cases support their edit warring and realize what they're doing is simply... well... edit-warring, this can be resolved amicably. Okay, probably not, but I'll give them a chance. Subsequent blocks/sanctions will, obviously, be significantly greater, especially for Mbz1. --  tariq abjotu  21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by RomaC User:Binksternet tried to bring some policy-based sense to an article basically being managed by a team of editors. As things heated up, Binksternet tried to reason with Mbz1 on his Talk page. Mbz1 deleted the comments with a "not interested" summary. Mbz1 then turned on Binksternet on the article Talk, notched several drive-by endorsements from comrades, then reverted to a weeks-old version of the article. He was reverted by two different editors. Clearly Mbz1 was the disruptive and uncommunicative editor here, we should not allow him to drag down another editor. RomaC  TALK 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dragged nobody, I was dragged to this board by another user, and I not even complain about them in my statement.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the different treatment here. Besides that Mbz1 was editing according to consensus, Binksternet is a supposedly veteran editor was blocked 2 times for edit warring before this one. Edit war is an edit war. --Shuki (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by Shuki

Apparently, MBZ1 has been blocked between 7-9 times in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz1#Blocked Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by Preciseaccuracy
 * Do not count my blocks, better see what positive, if any, contributions you have done on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ariana310 reported by Ali Khan (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Ariana310 is disruptive, she is edit-warring with everyone and pushing POV. This request was first skipped so I made a new one.--119.73.8.27 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ariana310 has opened a case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed shahi which argues that this IP is a sock. He is in fact editing from the range which was blocked for three months on April 5 due to . The latter was indefinitely blocked in 2007, and Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NisarKand shows he has been socking vigorously since that time. I'm looking at the SPI report to see if the rangeblock should be extended. An SPI clerk has given their support to Ariana310's conclusions on grounds of WP:DUCK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reporting user's IP range blocked due to sockpuppetry. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:This should probably be combined with the report above  for archiving. I won't do it myself in case I break something :-)   Begoon  talk  00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have closed the duplicate 3RR complaint. Details of the blocks are in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed shahi. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Miacek reported by User:Xashaiar (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

The user 1. I think he made personal attack here in his edit summary by inappropriate use of the term vandalism. He did provide wiki-link to the term he used and hence he should have been aware of the meaning. 2. The user did violate 3rr rule on the page Iran-Iraq War (please see history page. or diff1, diff2, diff3). Xashaiar (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * With just 3 rverts, I did not violate that rule (besides, I think this rule does not cover reverting vandalism, such as your adding Kuwait as combatant on Iraqi side). Xashaiar is a user who has been POV-pushing on this article for years . Although the consensus at talk so far has been that the US (let alone Kuwait!) did not fight along the Iraqis as their cobelligerents, this user keeps propping up from time to time to add the US and the Arab League (and in some edits, also the Soviet Union and even Kuwait!) as combatants along the Iraqis. In the course of the months, has been supported by a bunch of IP editors (might be his socks, might not be; cf. particularly disruptive one) + plus recently another user with POV record.All other established users keep removing this stuff, , , , 80%93Iraq_War&diff=375895692&oldid=375853799, . This is clearly a case of falsification and POV pushing. The users have presented no sources, no information on the US troops supposedly fighting alongside Iraqis in battles simply because there are none. That the US forces defended Kuwaiti tankers both against Iranian and Iraqi threats did not make them a cobelligerent of either side, they remained a third party. Dixi. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (t) 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What POV pushing when the sources support the addition of US as involved party in the war. Kuwait and soviet union are not my additions anyway. You need to concentrate on the issue. The issue is removal of sourced materials by you and violating 3rr and your PA (By calling a sourced and years old stable version edit vandalism). .. Xashaiar (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Update Only now did I notice that User:Xashaiar is currently subject to sanctions by which the User has confirmed they will abide by 1RR in disputed area, and use process for resolution. He was apparently indefinitely blocked for his disruptive editing, and promised to be more constructive, but has reneged on his promise, so to say. It is up to the sysops to decide, whether to re-instate the original permaban (of 00:26, 18 October 2009, sysop LessHeard vanU) for that account. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence that Iran-Iraq war is related to Cyrus Cylinder on which I agreed to limit myself to 1 revert rule. Xashaiar (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. Three reverts by one party and two by the other. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. Xashaiar is not under a 1RR on this article, and none of the recent edits should be called vandalism. If the parties continue to revert without trying to win consensus for their view on the talk page, sanctions may follow. The 'old version' has no special magic. If the consensus is not evident, consider opening an WP:RFC. Use WP:RSN if there are questions about relying on 'conspiratorial' publications as sources of factual information. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:93.62.4.207 reported by User:Ophois (Result: 31 hours)
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: Myself and User:Oncamera believe this anon to be a sockpuppet of User:InkHeart, who has been banned but keeps returning as socks and anons. We also believe that Special:Contributions/Yoyuta, an account that was created today and follows the same editing style, is another sock of hers, as well as Special:Contributions/Jenaveev18. Ω pho  is  01:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked by Elockid.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  03:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Christopher Carrie reported by User:Tonyinman (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Possible smell of sock/meat puppetry re user Christopher Carrie and user ddgrant2010

<BR>

isfutile:P (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Protected two weeks. I deleted the section about Royd Baker from the article, until such times as editors on the talk page can double-check it for BLP issues. Taking out that section has the effect of removing mention of Christopher Carrie as well. On talk, ddgrant claims that the material at poynter.org about Carrie 'extorting money' was actually posted at poynter.org by Royd Baker. I hope others will check this out. Whether Royd Baker is important enough to be in the article might be discussed. (The internet law case is not cited to any major newspapers. If it was a truly significant case, why did they not cover it?) A carefully-sourced version of the 'extortion' dispute might need its own article to be covered in a balanced fashion, but might not be important enough to deserve its own article.  Given our limited resources, and the lack of direct relevance of this dispute to the life and work of J.R.R.Tolkien, this might incline the editors to leave it out. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:91.152.84.165 reported by User:Sander Säde (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Johan_B%C3%A4ckman

Comments:

Anon user has a long history of tendentious editing and edit-warring in Johan Bäckman and related articles (Rantala incident, Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee ). He is rather rude, accusing me of lies, "campaining against Johan Bäckman", accusing of "constantly delivering false information about Bäckman" etc. His talk page is a string of warnings.

Editor has previously been discussed at AN/I and COI noticeboards.
 * -- Sander Säde 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Editor warned. I see only three actual reverts. While this IP is not the world's most cooperative editor, he does participate on talk and comment on sourcing. I could imagine a block for a week or more if he continues to do multiple reverts in one day. Though this editor often defends a pro-Bäckman point of view, the previous threads at ANI, COIN and SPI were inconclusive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Copperheart0718 reported by User:Paralympiakos (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version prior to reverts: here


 * 1st revert: First
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: - after this one, I gave up changing it back. It became clear that the user wasn't responding and wasn't willing to discuss the matter in any manner other than "He's American because I say so" after being clearly pointed out to a talk page with sourcing proving him/her wrong. It was only after the final change that the user decided to come up with an incorrect sourcing job.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a diff link, but a link to the entire talk page which is littered with comments by me, as well sourcing to prove it. No such discussion was made by the user being reported, who decided to alter my hidden message, alter the flag and not discuss the changes other than poor edit summaries that gave no factual detail or sourcing.

Comments:

I also reported this page to WP:RPP to get it locked so that editing was stopped on both sides. I did this before I violated 3RR myself. However, the user being reported violated 3RR by once again changing the flag. A poor argument was then made on the talk page for the first time, but this was despite requests for the user to take it to the talk page before making changes, not one then the other. For the first three changes by the user being reported, it was clear that no communication was going to take place and that the argument by them was degenerated into a "I'm right because I say I am" argument, after blatantly ignoring requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Fully protected by User:Beeblebrox. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by various meat/sockpuppets at Sarandë (Result: Semiprotected)


There are apparently several Albanian nationalists who object to the idea that there could possibly be Greeks living in Sarandë. The edit warring has gone on there for several days now (see the article's edit history). I was not involved, have not been involved, and don't care one way or the other, but when a new user with no prior edits suddenly shows up trying to claim that they know what should and should not be in Wikipedia articles, then it's time for something to be done. Semi-protection, maybe, or some blocks against the edit warriors? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave them a level 2 warning for removing my talkpage comments. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Looks to be a short-term problem, so two weeks of semi should do it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed. Semi is ok but there are also accounts. I guess we'll have to wait and see if more measures are needed. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:80.82.209.127 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * The following reversions have all occurred within the past 24 hours:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: An active discussion about this has been underway on the article's talk page at Talk:List of Leverage episodes since 15 March 2010. (Yes, it's incredibly ridiculous) I told the IP that he needed to discuss the matter here, as several other editors have reverted his edits. Some time after that he made his third revert for today.

Comments:

I've only really weighed into this ridiculous situation today, although I did previously comment on 13 June 2010 on the talk page. User:80.82.209.127 has clearly been reading the edit summaries so, even though he hasn't engaged in the discussion on the talk page, he has been engaging in discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This IP is the latest in a long line of IP's which, by the editor's own admission, belong to the same editor, who clearly uses them to evade 3RR,edit war, engage in uncivil editing, and to edit against consensus. The Leverage situation was resolved back in March, until this editor waded in to revert against consensus with the first of his series of single-purpose IP's, which he can clearly change at will.  Drmargi (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It was resolved until Drmargi started it up again, once, twice and now trice, didn't care to go earlier, all of which came after some time of a stable page. And I can't change my IP at will. Removal of content that is both sourced and accurate is considered vandalism, reverting that surpasses 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.209.127 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that it was resolved, even if you think it was, that doesn't give you an excuse to continually edit war. As for not being able to change your IP, that's not what you implied at WP:RFPP. It's very strange how IP editors with dynamic addresses (that usually change each time you disconnect from and then reconnect to the ISP) keep popping up at the same pages claiming they can't change at will. That these "different" IPs all have similar traits such as a reasonable knowledge of how Wikipedia works, all continually forget to sign their posts, all make the same edits to articles, and all claim when challenged that they have a dynamic IP that changes but then just as easily claim that they can't change their IP is rather curious. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These same editors also make the same arguments and use the same argumentation style (which curiously mirrors that of a registered editor) and all claim superior knowledge of Wikipedia despite having little editing experience substantively limited to this one article. Drmargi (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not considering any changes by other IPs, the reported IP reverted enough times that it was a clear three-revert rule infringement. After looking at the talk page, there is no clear consensus on that talk page to support the IP's preferred version of the page. I've blocked the IP in question for 24 hours; I've also added the page to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor has now moved back over to and reverted again, using the same rationale as the blocked IP above. Drmargi (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Leverage episodes has been semiprotected by User:PeterSymonds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:187.21.128.77 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 2) 18:15, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 3) 19:50, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:14, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "see tal k page: they are mentioned on the article --a goddess worship from neolithic to all ancient civlizations")
 * 5) 10:32, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "use talk page before rv")
 * 6) 10:53, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "a bit ironic --iam did use talk page --the stuff i brought to this article comes from many outside sources and from wikipedia itself")
 * 7) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "what is the scope of the article? vanish away matriarchy by two men like you?")
 * 8) 11:38, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 11:51, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Etymology */")
 * Diff of warning: here

First I'll say I'm sorry I did my last revert as I've hit 3RR, something I try to never to do - I miscounted somehow, and it's too late to revert myself as the IP simply went on to 4RR and reverted me after the warning, also warning me (touche!). I've been trying to work with this editor who has been placing badly sourced material into various articles. Badly sourced (eg see another editor's comment =1&oldid=375742018] and badly cited -I've given the a link on how to reference, which has been ignored. She's added links to pdfs with no author or title, she doesn't give page numbers when asked etc (I suspect she has used Google Books a lot and in some cases hasn't been able to get a page number, perhaps not even seeing the pages). She's added cites to the wrong sentence which she knows but continues to do. She's also upset that 2 men are disagreeing with her, which is a bit of a PA. I don't particularly want to see her blocked, but she's consciously broken 3RR now (maybe if she'd started to cite/reference correctly I'd be more patient). If anyone has a better idea how to get the IP at least to not do that and to use references correctly (and cite them in the same form used in the articles, with page numbers for verification), that would be great. Perhaps someone uninvolved will get further than I have managed to do, but I think there is probably a gender and pov issue here from the edit summary about 'two men' trying to "vanish away matriarchy." She's clearly enthusiastic, which is good.

—Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've informed the IP about this report and explained that if she reverts her recent edits I'll plead here that she not be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote to her and offered help. If she replies, I will help in any way I can. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I give up, she's now reverted someone else and continues to edit. She just doesn't get it. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for her to reply on her talk. Are you concerned about the condition of the article, or is that secondary to helping her get on the right track? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any malice. Just "unbridled enthusiasm", as Kramer once said. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Both. She has reverted yet again, what is she at now? Dab and I can hardly edit it at all today without being blocked. Her actual misuse of sources and refusal to discuss the scope of the article is disturbing. I don't want to see the article protected simply because of one IP who won't listen, any content dispute could be worked out but not if one editor is going to ignore all requests to stop edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I cleared a huge space on her talk with a final plea. If she doesn't listen this time and continues, I feel I should revert her handy work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's that. She edited since my last post at her talk, so saw the orange message bar. She also commented after I first asked her to stop. So, I rolled the two articles back. Sorry to do it. I hope it was an okay call. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Anna_Frodesiak/Violet_sandbox
 * Result - Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. Editor will not listen to reasonable advice. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Guinea pig warrior reported by Bilby (talk) (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:52, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376036281 by 139.230.245.20 (talk)")
 * 2) 12:23, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "Their can't be "two" Port Adelaide clubs established in 1870. The Magpies weren't even Port's mascot until 1902.")
 * 3) 12:29, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "Stop undoing this page. Just discuss this.")
 * 4) 12:36, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "I have done nothing but provided proof.  The "users" you speak of are IP vandals and the "few disagreeing" are experienced editors.")
 * 5) 12:48, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "Please do not start an edit war. Please discuss this.")
 * 6) 12:59, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "No, this was originally how it was before you started editing on this page. Get you facts right and stop be biased towards yourself with information you make up.")
 * 7) 13:08, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "My first edit was 26 February, 2009. Now well both be stopped from editing this page if you don't stop.")
 * 8) 13:14, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "Stop being biased towards yourself. I explained what that was and I have told you over 10 times.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Ongoing edit war between Guinea pig warrior and Sequal1. The page was protected on 14 July 2010 for two weeks, edit warring returned when protection expired. The user has had multiple warnings on previous occasions in regard to this and related pages. — Bilby (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about 'Guinea pig' but Bilby, the accuser, seems to get into wars fairly often. Glass houses/stones/pots/kettles? Richmondian (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 72 hours. The two participants may lack common sense but they are very sincere. Eventually they will wake up and agree on a compromise. Since GPW and Sequal1 have been fighting for a long time, and their actions have required full protection in the past, regrettably this must be a long block. Any hint of reasonableness might be enough for a random admin to lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are both very sincere, and genuinely seem to mean well. I'd hoped in the past that they would seek dispute resolution, but the third opinion they sought didn't seem to fix things. - Bilby (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sequal1 reported by Bilby (talk) (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:01, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376073567 by Guinea pig warrior (talk) Here we go again. Everyone vs GPW")
 * 2) 12:26, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376077159 by Guinea pig warrior (talk)You're right, power was established in 1995, Magpies in 1870.")
 * 3) 12:32, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "I've tried, I've provided proof, you havent. I've had a very open discussion with you. 2 other people agree with me. A impartial 3rd party agreed more with me than you, yet you keep on changing it.")
 * 4) 12:39, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "No you haven't! The only thing you have provided is a link saying they split! That means nothing! I've provided you the founding date of the AFL Port Adelaide team, which is 1995!")
 * 5) 12:56, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "Stop reverting against the consensus and without WP:RS and I wont. Lets keep this version,the original from before you decided to change it, which nobody but you had a problem with, and discuss it")
 * 6) 13:06, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "Your first edit changing history: May 9th, my first correction of history: June 29th")
 * 7) 13:10, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "You stop! You just proved yourself wrong in that link! See the discussion page!!!")
 * 8) 13:20, 29 July 2010  (edit summary: "See the discussion. I'm not being biased, I have WP:RS to back up my claims.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

As per above: edit warring with Guinea pig warrior after protection expired. —Bilby (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 72 hours. Please see my closing comment about the other party in this war. The same advice applies. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Dougweller reported by User:Architecture and Interior Design (Result: see note)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION YOU ARE ASKING FOR

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] - DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE PREVIOUS VERSION


 * 1) (cur | prev)  21:00, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Changed protection level of Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC))))
 * 2) (cur | prev) 20:59, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Protected Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC))))
 * 3) (cur | prev) 20:37, 18 July 2010 Arakunem (talk | contribs) (5,108 bytes) (Undid revision. You MUST discuss this on the talk page. See the New Messages left on your own talk page.)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT - YOUR SYSTEM ISN'T VERY USER FRIENDLY

Comments:

So as you are aware there are a few users including users that you have bestowed "Administrative" priviledges to who for some reason insist on providing incorrect information to the world on this subject. They have blocked and locked down the page of course with their erroneous information in place. At the same time these "lovely people" (I use that term loosely) have the audacity to accuse ME of being the vandal and of edit warring. Certainly there is something you can do to remove these people from Wikipedia and not allow them to carry on their abusive behavior. Other vandals included in this consipiracy are as follows: Taroaldo, Arakunem, Administrator Bart133 and Administrator DougWeller.


 * This: User talk:Architecture and Interior Design is your user talk page where people leave you messages. Those messages include links as to why your edits kept getting reverted, and links to where to go to discuss them. Please also click Help:Contents/Getting_started which will introduce you to the Wikipedia user interface if you are not sure how or where to do something. Thanks! Arakunem Talk 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please check out the link above as Arakunem suggested. User talk:Architecture and Interior Design is the page you need to be commenting on, not here. Editors will try and help you understand WIkipedia policy there. Dayewalker (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank for you help but I think I now understand the policy here just fine. If you are one of the "in-crowd" when you get your little hall Monitor/Administration designation you get to be a big ole, nasty, rude bully without any consequences. The novice user is SCREWED! I am, however, open to accepting apologies. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the drama above, I think the only thing you should be open to at this moment is a ban for disruption. Sorry to put it so bluntly. --Ragib (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ragib's comment is an excellent example of the "pack mentality" that I've had to deal with in relation to this issue. People like Ragib who aren't even part of the conversation or effected by the issue jump in with rude inflammatory remarks trying to make the issue worse than it already is. This is actually in violation of Wikipedias policies referenced in the section "Please do not bite the newcomers." These people don't just bite. They tear at the jugular. Someone like Ragib should be blocked if not permanently banned from Wikipedia. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design
 * &mdash; The reporter,, was blocked by . However, another admin, , protected Complementary color (the article in question), and later, the blocked user was unblocked. As an uninvolved admin, I would have only blocked  and left the article unprotected had  been properly warned of the 3RR (due to multiple editors reverting the user's edits). Otherwise, it looks like this is just a new user getting frustrated. :\ -- slakr  \ talk / 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just to clarify, I'm also uninvolved with both article (despite claims above, I've never edited it) and editors, I simply found A&ID's case here and acted. A&ID hadn't been warned and I preferred to stop the edit warring without blocking a new user in any case. I thought a 24 hour block would give time to stop the edit warring and help the new user. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that this has been reviewed and ruled on can it be removed from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In due time it will be archived and become part of the historical record of this page. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ginelli reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Advised)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:36, July 27, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 17:14, July 28, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 17:40, July 28, 2010
 * 4th revert: 17:42, July 28, 2010
 * 5th revert: 17:45, July 28, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Discussion topic attempting to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:San_Francisco_Bay_Area

Comments:

User wants to replace the common name of the San Francisco Bay Area with a government demographics classification: "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area". The common name is by far the one in greater usage. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The San Francisco Bay Area is more accurately referred to as simple the "Bay Area" dues to the fact that the region surrounds several different bays, not just San Francisco Bay.  Also, the official designation of the are by the US Census is the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland area. Ginelli (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Advised Ginelli that he should not change the description of the Bay Area again to his preferred version until he gets consensus for it on Talk. So far, he appears to be the only one in favor, while three people are against it. To have a wider discussion, the steps of WP:DR are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)