Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138

User:98.115.67.10 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (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: Talk:White people

Comments:

3RR violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - blocked 24 hours. AniMate 22:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:OpenFuture (Result: No action taken)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 6 Aug: 13:38:
 * 6 Aug, 14:13:
 * 6 Aug, 17:03:
 * 8 Aug, 17:23: (Revert, but not of tags)
 * 8 Aug, 17:57:
 * 8 Aug, 18:53:
 * 8 Aug, 19:42:
 * 9 Aug, 15:31:
 * 9 Aug, 16:37:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, and more (much of the discussion is about this now).

Comments:

Pmanderson is a respected and useful editor, but he has a history of revert warring with a long list of blocks and topic bans. In List of wars between democracies there are several entries that are highly doubtful, and these entries and the sources are currently under discussion. I've tagged the wars in question until we can resolve the issue. For example he claims that The First Kashmir War is a war between democracies, using sources that I claim doesn't support it. I took it up on on RSN and the conclusion there was that the source doesn't support the statement, but Pmanderson both refuses to consider that, and even to let any tags stay. Instead he reverts them. He also rarely marks his reverts as being such in the edit summary. I've asked him to stop reverting, and I've also asked him to provide better edit summaries, as his nondescript edit summaries act as to hide his reverts, to no avail.

I made this first as a AN/I, but during that I noticed he in fact has racked up five reverts the last 24h, and that I had gotten 4. I self reverted as to not break the 3RR rule. I was asked to move it here, as this is the correct forum as it is in fact edit warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud OF. There's an entire talkpage full of sources, and discussion about how to use sources, all of which is - admit it - going right over your head, so your only response is to stick tags on everything. PMAnderson isn't edit warring - you are edit warring with everyone else on the page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Elen, that is not true, as you very well know. As the link to the RSN shows above, the source discussed first does not support the statement. Even if it in the end is a question of different people reading in different things, that is *not* a reason to remove the tags until the discussion has been resolved. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I've reverted your WP:POINTY tags now, because as far as I can see the discussions closed with everyone else agreeing except you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If that (an edit war followed by AN3 report by one of the parties) was not baiting, I do not know what is. PMA should have known better not to react to a provocation the way he did, but I think that OpenFuture's conduct on the article and here deserves a serious scrutiny, and possibly an appropriate punishment. (Igny (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC))
 * What? How is that baiting? How did I provoke him? I wasn't even aware he did that many reverts until I was preparing an AN/I to get somebody to ask him to stop hiding his reverts in non-descript edit summaries. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In fact, if you look at the discussion, OpenFuture ignores all sources suggested by myself, and just continues to go on and on about how PMA won't accept OF's interpretation of one source. All suggestion to tackle the question by further research is ignored, the only thing he will accept is PMA to back down and say that the source says whatever OF says it says.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also not true, but I suggest we keep the content discussion on the article talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Few of these, if any, are reverts; I believe all of them add text.
 * The version supposedly reverted to has little to do with the present text of the article. A compound diff of the article from the supposed reversion text to my last edit will show how frivolous this complaint is.
 * Insofar as this has substance, it consists of removal of or and fv tags while recasting the section complained of, and adding new sources. I could just assume that no edit will please OpenFuture (who has added tags at least as often as I removed them), but that would be uncollegial.
 * Since OpenFuture complained of such removal, I have not removed any; but another editor has disposed of them. There is no consensus on the talk page that these tags have even merit enough to be disputes.
 * This is an effort by a tireless, albeit isolated, editor to win a content dispute by administrative means. This pileup of irrelevant, non-substantive evidence is part of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverts are reverts even if you also add text at the same time, and even if you hide them by not mentioning them in edit summaries. That you haven't done any of them since I complained is also not true, as I complained already the 6th. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. OpenFuture deletes and tags in a manner contrary to discussion on the talk page, where there is no consensus. A better tag might be "dubious" when he feels one is needed. OpenFuture often argues his point by claiming that other editors either can't read and understand the sources they're citing, through reductio ad absurdum tactics, or by implying that other editors willfully misrepresent their sources. He refuses to provide his own summaries of the cited material he disputes on the talk page, claiming that his readings of the sources are self-evident even though other editors interpret their meaning differently. OpenFuture's objections regarding WP:UNDUE may at times have validity, but this is difficult to determine, as he also refuses to provide adequate sources for what he claims to be a majority view. Although he says he wants the material in the article to reflect the scholarship in a balanced, accurate way, as far as I can see he never contributes positively by rewriting or adding to the text, and instead deletes or adds alarmist tags. Because his edits are deletions or tags, other editors can respond only by reverting — he doesn't provide text that could be rewritten, amended, or nuanced. I believe his editing to be contrary to WP:NPOV, in that he wishes to exclude (rather than describe) points of debate among scholars. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the reverted tags is indeed a dubious tag. If you feel that would have been better in the other place too, you could have said so. The important part is that the entry is flagged so that people don't believe it's true while there are no sources supporting it. Your description of the discussion is completely false. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an extensive and complex multisided dispute here and while OpenFuture is technically correct here, their behavior is contributory to the overall situation.
 * I am (still) working on a now multi-day review of the situation on the article. I recommend other admins not take action on PMA for the time being, until I'm able to address the larger situation.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want any action om Pmanderson, I don't care about the 3RR rule per se, and it probably wasn't intentional. I jst want Pmanderson to stop removing the tags while we are discussing the issue. As mentioned, I didn't even notice it was a 3RR violation until I was almost finished with the ANI. A freeze would probably help. Pmanderson needs to start respecting the same Wikipedia policy as everyone else are subject to. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it be helpful to have a moratorium on editing until you have completed, to prevent anyone burning the Reichstag down? I would support you freezing the article (and talkpage if necessary) for 48hrs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would hurt; I will do so if there's not a large objection by tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are polishing the present statement on Kashmir, which was phrased poorly (writing around too many footnotes); but there's no rush to do that.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Recommend "no action" This is a poorly prepared report. Three reverts on Aug. 6 do not violate 3RR and no account is taken that the Aug 8/9 edits include consecutive edits. I count four groups on that date:
 * 8 Aug, 17:23
 * 8 Aug, 17:57
 * 8 Aug, 18:53, 8 Aug, 19:42 and 9 Aug, 15:31
 * 9 Aug, 16:37

I do not know if all these were reverts or modifications to edits that Pmanderson had made earlier. It appears that OpenFuture reverted all these edits. Since OpenFuture has said, "I don't want any action on Pmanderson", and Georgewilliamherbert is working on the RfC that OpenFuture took against Pmanderson, I recommend that no action be taken against either editor, but this incident should be noted in the RfC.

TFD (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Forsts23 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Warring different variations into the article. No participations @ talk despite being invited to do so by. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48h - has recent 24h block for same reason. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Jevansen (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

User has various warnings for edit warring and 3RR on his talk page. Recently returned from 72 hour block for edit warring (extended to one week due to block evasion). Jevansen (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It takes two to edit war... usually. The three most recent SPA Swedish(?) IP's reverting GPW: clearly related to each other.  Who is this? Doc9871 (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Eathb I'd imagine, based on the article's recent edit history. Jevansen (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya think? Eathb, you're not in Sweden, I trust... Doc9871 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise you would expect Eathb to say this if I was him, but no, I'm not Eathb, but yes, all 3 ip edits were me (I don't have an account, but I will probably register now). I reverted to his version as I think it's a better version of the page. I stopped on my 3rd edit to not break the WP:3RR. I wasn't baiting him, but I do believe he has WP:OWNERSHIP issues. And finally yes, I am currently in Sweden due to work, but I was born in Adelaide and support PAFC, so I watch the WP page carefully. 93.182.146.52 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fourth IP, "one" editor account has to revert four times in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR. "Y'all" could have technically reverted 12 times and not violated it: right?  Do resister, please... Doc9871 (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been editing via IP for a long time now and I have never violated the 3RR. Because I currently don't have a static IP doesn't change this. It was obvious that all 3 were me, so in answer to your question, no, I couldn't revert 12 times. Registerd: Forevn (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! The thread's been resolved for over an hour: now that you have a reliable talk page, we can discuss things there.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fully protected article for 2 weeks. I too detect a hint of WP:BAIT here.  Rather than just block both GPW and Eathb, let us try cutting it at the point of contact. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

== User:90.214.206.127 reported by C T J F 8 3 chat (Result: blocked 24h, article semi-protected 24h) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 22:55,  9 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 23:57,  9 August 2010  (edit summary: "Added key information which would be useful")
 * 3) 12:07, 10 August 2010  (edit summary: "I Have added important info, reference = http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_is_brian_griffins_birthday&updated=1&waNoAnsSet=1&status=VGhhbmtzIGZvciBzaGFyaW5nIHlvdXIgYW5zd2VyLiA8YSBjbGFzcz0idW5kZXJsaW5lIiB")
 * 4) 15:53, 10 August 2010  (edit summary: "this information is strongly relatable and important to the article, this info i have added is compulsury and wiki needs it a lot")
 * 5) 19:12, 10 August 2010  (edit summary: "This information is crucial, do not delete, trust me that is is important and useful, and truthful!")
 * 6) 21:54, 10 August 2010  (edit summary: "listen up wikipedia you bullshitfuckface, this is important information that you need! my reference and sources are http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_is_brian_griffins_birthday and two others")

User trying to avoid 3RR by a registered account —C T J F 8 3 chat 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here

IP and blocked 24 hours for edit warring, article semi-protected 24 hours with note on talk page explaining the rationale behind the semi-protection. –MuZemike 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Valerius Tygart reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: OK now)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

While this was my first work on cleaning up the page it still contained a few MOS:DAB errors. This one came closer but I still discovered that I had left in some piped links so this version  the one that I was aiming for. I know that this is a later version than the one that was being reverted so please see the comments section below for clarification of what is going on.

A note about the 1974 television version. I was in error with my first attempt to create a name for it. After I had a chance to think about it I changed the entry to include the RSC page that Valerius wanted to go to without it being hidden by a piping.

Due to the fact that Valerius makes several small edits at a time the only way to see the edit warring going on is by looking at the page history here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have tried to discuss this with the editor on their talk page here User talk:Valerius Tygart rather than on the disambiguation talk page

Comments:

The main problem is that this editor is ignoring the fact that the MoS guidelines are different for disambiguation pages than they are for articles. In spite of my giving Valerius links to the proper guidelines the editor is ignoring them and continuing to add piping to the main article links and to add numerous other links. When we edit disambiguation pages we even get a nice instruction box at the top of the page explaining what should and should not put on the page. This is also being ignored.

As you will note the bulk of this occurred on August 6th. I decided not to file a report at the time as after my last message on Valerius' talk page the incorrect edits stopped. Sadly today IP 140.139.35.250 made the exact same edits that Valerius had. Per this page Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart/Archive (towards the bottom of a long list of socks) this IP is one that Valerius used before in a sockpuppetting situation. Valerius received a block at that time. I feel that another one is warranted. If you decide that a new sockpuppet investigation needs to be opened please let me know and I will get the ball rolling on that also. MarnetteD | Talk 17:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: It seems that I acted too swiftly this morning. The anon IP did not go back to the MoS violation version that Valerius was insisting on. Thus you may close this with "No action needed" if you wish. I would remove this completely but the socking situation is still worrying as Valerius and the IP also worked on the same article here today. We might want this report here just for the record. Sorry for wasting your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about Valerius' usage of to edit articles which he also edits with his main account. This is an issue under our sockpuppet policy. If Valerius will promise to stop using IPs, it seems to me that this report could be closed with no further action. This IP's talk page shows that it has has previously received warnings and has been blocked in its own right.  EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action needed. Valerius has placed a voluntary alternate-account notice on his Talk to explain his usage of the IP. MarnetteD's original concern about the DAB page has been resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Nsdave1 reported by User:NuclearWarfare (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Not exactly a 3RR matter here, but I have an editor who has repeatedly added the same content over a period of months and refuses to discuss on the talk page. I would appreciate if someone could help me out in giving him some advice. NW ( Talk ) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be intermittent for some reason. My guess would be that its a sock of someone else,but thats just my opinion. Hard to see it as a huge problem as I don't see it as actual vandalism, but I don't see it as productive either. I'll add to my watch list though.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left a warning for the editor that points to this discussion. Not sure we can do more here, because he was never notified of 3RR policy and has very few edits. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Warned. Restoring a link to Facebook, over and over, is a slow edit war. Action can be taken the next time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:75.51.166.54 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Page semi-prot)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:16, 11 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 378273734 by Materialscientist (talk)")
 * 2) 00:19, 11 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 378274442 by Til Eulenspiegel (talk)")
 * 3) 01:05, 11 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 378280855 by Dabomb87 (talk)")
 * 4) 02:04, 11 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 378288455 by Mann jess (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: Please check the article history. This user is a sockpuppet edit warring with a number of users.

— <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected by Fastily. If that doesn't solve the problem please make a new report or drop a note at my talk page. If the problem recurs after 25 August, request an extension at WP:RFPP. CIreland (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Freshfighter9 reported by User:UrbanNerd (Result: No action for now)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Not sure if this constitutes edit warring but I assume it does. Unfortunately I was lured in by his taunts and received a 24 hour block myself, which is regrettable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanNerd (talk • contribs)
 * Edit warring? If anything you were the guilty party... constantly reverting the warnings you were issued in order to hide them. Was it not you who received a temp block for harassment, and not I? I'd be happy to share the fomenting comments you left on my talk page if need be. Who was attempting to lure whom? <b style="color:#999999;">Freshfighter9</b><sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk 00:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not an admin, I left the official block notice up. You have no right to repeatedly interfere with my user page, especially after repeatedly being asked to stop. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Note that though UrbanNerd is allowed to remove comments (even legit warnings) from his/her talk page per WP:OWNTALK, Freshfighter9 performed only three reverts (as such didn't break WP:3RR) and was not warned for 3RR. Additionally, UrbanNerd was not blocked for edit warring, but for a personal attack prior to the edit warring. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW Freshfighter, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, so UrbanNerd is correct in that regard. I would note on this report, however, that since being advised to disengage, Freshfighter did so and has not interacted with UrbanNerd since. He was also provoked by Urban Nerd who, after a series of WP:NPA violations at Talk:Ottawa Senators, brought the personal attacks to FreshFighter's talk page. As it stands, until this report, FreshFighter had completely disengaged from UrbanNerd as requested.  Any sanction would be punitive at this point.  I would advise UrbanNerd to consider backing away himself. Resolute 00:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This may not be the place to bring this up, but UrbanNerd is currently reviewing my list of edits and reverting as many as he can. I view this as an attempt to provoke, particularly if you look at his history of WP:NPA violations. <b style="color:#999999;">Freshfighter9</b><sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk 00:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just noticing the same. This is bordering on wikistalking and WP:POINT. I'm inclined to take it to WP:ANI if UrbanNerd doesn't back off. Resolute 00:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He's hitting my talk page again now as well. This is getting creepy at this point and I'd appreciate it if an admin would take action. <b style="color:#999999;">Freshfighter9</b><sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk 01:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I reviewed a few of your edits to see if you had a history of edit warring and noticed two very pov unreferenced edits. I hardly consider reverting two edits "as many as I can" I will not be reviewing anymore of your edits but if I see any pov unreferenced edits by ANY user I will revert. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You just confessed to wikistalking. Thanks. <b style="color:#999999;">Freshfighter9</b><sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk 02:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not wikistalking. Please stop flooding this page with allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanNerd (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:STALK, "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles", which seems to be what UrbanNerd (for 2/3 edits) did. In any case, UrbanNerd said he will stop-- problem solved. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So far, UrbanNerd was blocked (now expired) for personal attacks and Freshfighter9 was proven not to have edit warred, and in the meantime, the debate at Talk:Ottawa Senators seems to have cleared up. I don't think any more admin actions are required; can't we all just get along and go back to normal editing? -M.Nelson (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action for now. If these two editors resume abusing one another on any talk page, I suggest that both should be blocked for disruptive editing. In the mean time, I suggest taking the advice of Djsasso that the two editors should disengage. This means not reviewing each others' edits and not commenting on each others' talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:70.251.231.183 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Article semi-protected for 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) 03:17, 11 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 04:40, 10 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 20:23,  9 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")

User also appears to be :
 * 1) 7 August 2010.

User :
 * 1) 2 May 2010

And also :
 * 1) 12 January 2010
 * 2) 11 January 2010
 * 3) 11 January 2010
 * 4) 11 January 2010
 * 5) 11 January 2010

As well as others. All 4 ips map to Dallas, Texas, USA, all edits add the same word in, and revert behavior is identical.


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: Edit warring over this phrase has been going on for years. e.g. July 2009, February 2009, June 2008, and so forth. Even back to 2006. All of these represent one part of a 5-10 revert edit war from an anon, and only skim the surface of the article's long history. Can we have this page semi'd for an extended period?

— <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi for 3 days. --Chris (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:The Cleanup Kid reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result: TCK blocked for 24h, page protected for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note that 7th and 8th revert came after the warning. Also note the second user involved made no further edits to Pontiac Silverdome after being warned. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 07:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many editors involved in the dispute and reversion has been going on over several days by several different editors. However, TCK is the only editor with a to-the-letter 3RR violation.  Therefore,
 * --Chris (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --Chris (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 05:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:58,  4 August 2010  (edit summary: "copyedit caption")
 * 2) 19:27,  4 August 2010  (edit summary: "Those aren't 700,000 volt lines; restore caption Undid revision 377140568 by Floydian (talk)")
 * 3) 21:37,  4 August 2010  (edit summary: "Two circuits per tower? Count the insulator skirts!  These are not EHV or UHV lines. Undid revision 377189946 by Trekphiler (talk)")

My apologies for this late report, but I did not notice that another user had come along to revert in my favour only to be reverted again until today. Wtshymanski is a generally uncivil editor, but this is an actual violation to go behind the rude methods this editor uses to get his way.

After an edit to Electric power transmission on August 4, I was reverted by Wtshymanski with the misleading edit summary of "copyedit caption". In reality, the caption was almost entirely reverted. Only one word was retained, one which wasn't important whatsoever. I reverted this edit with a summary of "That's not copyediting, that's changing the meaning outright." and was promptly reverted by Wtshymanski with a summary of "Those aren't 700,000 volt lines; restore caption"

The caption I changed read "Electric power transmission lines", which I changed to "High-tension transmission lines can carry several hundred thousand volts". No mention of 700,000, nor even a reference to the specific object in the picture necessarily.

I did not revert this. I instead left a polite, but affirming message at the talk page of the user. The response was certainly less than friendly.

I admit in frustration, I later warned another user about the behaviours of Wtshymanski on his talk page.

However, a second editor, User:Trekphiler reverted Wtshymanski with the summary of "I see no sign of a 700KV claim, but they're surely 100KV range"., which was again reverted by Wtshymanski with yet another misleading edit summary of "Two circuits per tower? Count the insulator skirts! These are not EHV or UHV lines."

I think everything speaks for itself. —  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was more than a week ago. --  tariq abjotu  09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So? It was still commited. Basically this editor gets away with it because it wasn't caught right away. Oh the beaurocracy of wikipedia, moving along the rails of progress. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the editor does get away with it because it wasn't caught right away. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Considering there have been no reverts in over a week, blocking Wtshymanski will prevent nothing. --  tariq abjotu  17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a warning for Wtshymanski not to describe routine 3RR notices as 'harassment', and suggesting he could respond to the edit warring charges here. He has already removed my warning, and seems uninterested in discussing the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they'll be back here soon enough if nothing changes. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ValenShephard by User:Cptnono (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported: The page is currently under a 1rr/24hrs restriction. The editor has made two reverts in less than an hour:
 * 
 * 

His first edit summary said that it was removing duplicate information but it worded it to be something completely different (almost to the point that it was hard to assume good faith). His second said that YouTube was not reliable so that was the reason for removal. There are times when YouTube is acceptable. I am sure all of this can be worked out on the talk page but two reverts is prohibited, has been for some time now, and it says so right there. If it was a mistake than it happens. He needs to self revert and see the talk page Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Others have been blocked for less though so I don't care that much what happens on that end as much but wouldn't mind it either.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd given this user a warning, twice, and he's received warnings from administrators before both in terms of 3RR and straight edit warring. As awful as this sounds, I'm not surprised. So far as I can tell this user has done nothing but push a point of view and edit war since coming on Wikipedia, and I was planning on opening an RFC until told me that just reporting him for a block would be a better solution. By the way, I have been in no ways associated with the above edit conflict, but I saw the notification that Cptnono placed on his talk page and decided to comment on it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: in case it isn't clear, I believe a block of this user would be more than appropriate; it probably should have occurred beforehand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was all feeling bad sine he has a clean block log but if he has a history of edit warring and then disregards a 1/rr I really have no sympathy.Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does have a history of edit warring, and shows signs of WP:TEND. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  07:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by User:Dr. Lords (Result: No action taken, not 3RR)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

On the article in question I have attempted to question the notability of subject (Jain), due to several reasons (WP:BLP1E chief amongst them), but every time I added the template for notability dispute I get reverted, regardless of the fact that I'm not the only one of mind in that regard (see talk page Talk:Naveen_Jain and Talk:Naveen_Jain).

I and others have attempted to discuss it in the talk page but get responses which are terse and dismissive in nature ("No, this article is about Jain. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)", "This is nonsense. Jain meets WP:N and WP:BIO many times over, and has for over a decade. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)", and "It's nonsense. We've multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant coverage about Jain. That's much, much more than enough. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)").

I am not sure on how to approach this in a manner that is within the guideline of Wikipedia (still relevantly new here), and would appreciate intervention of more experienced users before this escalates further (frankly this behavior makes me feel unwelcome, and leaves me with a bad taste in regard to editing :.

Thank you in advance, ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Info: See also this ANI thread Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --Chris (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that this is a place to report any edit waring, not just the breaking of the WP:3RR (which I was trying to prevent by reporting about my concerns before it happened). Quoting from WP:EW

In particular, the three-revert rule prohibits any editor from performing more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period (note that this does not necessarily mean exact reverts, and that there are certain exemptions, like reverting vandalism—for details see below). Breaking this rule is sufficient—but not necessary—to warrant a block for edit warring.


 * and Three_Revert_Rule

If, despite trying, one or more users will not cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or will not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. (emphasis mine)
 * If I'm mistaken, then please advise as to the proper venue of such complaints. Thank you, ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the recent report on ANI etc, I would like to see how this situation is going to play out now that the user is aware that more eyes are on the article. I am watching it and will step in if the edit war does not cease.  --Chris (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Finn Diesel reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked for 1 week)
Page: (and

User being reported:

F.D. was already blocked three times for revert-warring over this same article (in fairness, note that the second of the three recent blocks in his log was partly in error, cf. here, but the revert-warring charge is pertinent). Returned immediately after his block, continuing the exact same reverts against consensus of multiple other users. This is exacerbated by the fact that he blanket-reverts irrespective of multiple unrelated intermediate edits, without ever discussing any objection to anything except one aspect (image use). Conduct on talk page shows he is utterly incapable of engaging in a constructive dialogue on this matter and simply doesn't "get" what others are saying. Warnings since latest block: ,
 * 11 August 21:32
 * 12 August 11:30
 * 12 August 11:40
 * 13 August 08:44
 * Probably also this sock IP: (see  for explanation of evidence)

Also now edit-warring at Turanid, using fake sources.

I request a lengthy block and/or topic ban (possibly indefinite) under WP:DIGWUREN. See earlier report at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect, I'm not going to treat this as an arbitration enforcement action, please file at WP:AE if you wish, but this block is explicitly for the 3RR and only the 3RR. Courcelles 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Monkeymanman reported by 90.200.240.178 (Result: Page protected for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An editor in clear breach of 3RR here. Perhaps more worryingly, he or she is refusing to WP:FOC and insists that additions from a particular user are de facto "bad faith" or "pov". He or she is now repeatedly deleting them apparently without even examining them. I would note this editor has caused problems for other editors at the same article before and has been warned for edit warring in the recent past  Personally, I have made genuine attempts to discuss content on the talk page, which has only been met with ad hominems. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay where do I start. This user has used IP addresses User talk:90.194.100.16, User talk:194.80.49.252, User talk:155.136.80.35, User talk:90.197.236.12,User talk:90.207.105.117, User talk:90.197.224.58, and has an editing history of adding controversial, dubious and potentially damaging material onto peoples BLP’s across Wikipedia. He has been warned before here and here.  With previous block here.  The user stated that he would comply with the rules after his block but has gone straight back to editing in the same manner.  He has now received numerous warnings here.  I have given the user plenty of opportunities to open dispute res about this and every other edit that they have made recently but they have refused.  I would welcome someone to review this users editing history of the material they have been adding to articles and the numerous experienced editors (I do not include myself in that) that have rejected the inclusions on various grounds.  Monkeymanman (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This user the IP is operating from multiple IP addresses and was recently blocked for policy violations, he is edit warring at multiple articles and is the subject of at least two recent threads at the BLPN. The user is adding controversial content at multiple articles most of it with a strong POV against the subjects, most of which is flagged as possible violations by bots. Myself and Monkey and another couple of users have been attempting to discuss the issue with him without any success and multiple experienced editors have been reverting the IP at multiple locations. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Controversial" maybe but always neutrally worded and attributed to a reliable source. Whatever you and other involved parties have been "attempting to discuss" it isn't content. Anyway, this report does not relate to the validity of my additions at Racism in football or elsewhere (though I stand by them). It relates to this clear and conspicuous breach of 3RR. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All of your additions are controversial, and all of them are being reverted by multiple experienced editors. This report is actually about you are your disruption at multiple locations, this report is just a point on that disruptive path that you are on. I also notice that you didn't even give monkey his warning until after he made the last revert. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Use dispute resolution, not reverts please. --Chris (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Every single edit he has made has been controversial. He is only on here to wind people up (although he'll deny it). He has never contributed anything positive to wikipedia. It would be nice if he'd admit that rather than carrying on with this act of his and acting innocent when anyone complains about him. stanley87 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but that is a topic for a different noticeboard. --Chris (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Whether There's Weather Underground reported by Wikidemon (talk) (Result: 24h block)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor, has been edit warring against at least 3 others to re-open a discussion closed on WP:BLP grounds speculating into the sexuality of a judge. The BLP harm is that editors working on this active article, seeing the discussion, believe unconfirmed rumors that the judge is in fact gay, and obviously inaccurate claims that he is "openly gay". The new editor is an apparent WP:SPA originally created to insert "terrorist" into the William Ayers article, and does not seem to have made any productive contributions to the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 01:52, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Judge Walker openly gay */")
 * 2) 03:02, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "No, it's not.")
 * 3) 11:41, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Judge Walker openly gay */")
 * 4) 14:11, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Cut that out. You don't get to lie and claim "consensus" when there isn't, and your tactics of trying to "close" the debate when discussion is still ongoing are dishonest at best.")
 * 5) (after report filed)


 * Diff of warning: here

--Chris (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sceptre reported by User:Vexorg (Result: Page protected for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1) 04:21, 14 August 2010  (edit summary: "if that counts as proper sourcing then David Cameron is a secret Trotskyist who has gay sex with Nick Clegg all night long")
 * 2) 04:27, 14 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Animal Abuse */ "breathing air has been critcised by the carbon monoxide society"; that is, don't say that people are criticising something when it's fucking obvious they would do")
 * 3) 04:28, 14 August 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Vexorg (talk) to last version by Sceptre")
 * 4) 04:45, 14 August 2010

=

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has jumped in without bothering to go to the talk page and looking at he edit history feels he owns the page. I also draw attention to his inappropriate comments in his reversions.

Comments:

Vexorg (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Two reverts, not even close to breaking 3RR. Please note complainant has been blocked before for edit-warring on this article. Sceptre (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It take two to edit war sonny. I am restoring properly sourced material. You are the one who jumped into edit war. Your politically biased rationale at ANI explains all. Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * just to note. the editor Sceptre has continued to edit war even after I filed this report. I rest my case. He has removed a whole section which was properly sourced. Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... YouTube and the other sites you're sourcing aren't reliable sources. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 05:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm.. Some videos at YouTube are acceptable. The ones in question may or may not be but it is best to not make such a broad statement when there is already confusion.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but very few. Only videos for partner channels of already reliable sources (such as, say, CNN) are reliable. YouTube is unreliable by default. Sceptre (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You were doing fine until "YouTube is unreliable by default." It is those sort of statements that have caused confusion throughout the community.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry I didn't make it clearer. He's citing some user's page and a search query (I had looked at it when this issue was first brought up). <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 05:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...But it is. YouTube videos, by and large, fail the guidelines at WP:IRS. Even a lot of partner channels do that. It's not wrong to suggest a website where 99.99999% of the content posted is inadmissable as a reliable source is unreliable by default. Sceptre (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, Netalarm. I assumed as much. I am just extra pissy about statements like that since for over a year I assumed it was no good EVER and then found out it wasn't. I even wrote an essay. Not the best place for an overall discussion on it anyways so oops on my end. And use "many" or "most" instead of blanket statements next time Sceptre. Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is thataway. --Chris (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris. hopefully this Sceptre kid guy will see it. Vexorg (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See what? That you insist on introducing policy-violating, anti-semitic bullshit that others have to clean up? Sceptre (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The user 'Sceptre is clearly an anti-social and hateful editor by spewing this bile like 'anti-semitic bullshit'. I won't lower myself to respond to it this hate talk. Wikipedia should be above this kind of thing. I leave administrators to deal with editors like him. Vexorg (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

139.48.25.60 reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Cautioned submitter)
On the Blitzkrieg this IP is repeatedly adding nonsensical information which had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Despite the intervention and suggestion of another editor, with whom I agree but nothing yet has been done, he persists in reverting my logical restorations and calling it vandalism. This I deem to be a personal attack. He won't engage any constructive discussion, bar this post made on my talk page –unless of course his version remains in while discussion remains on going. I would appreciate some assistance. Dapi89 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Cautioned submitter. The IP seems to believe *you* should be required to discuss, while he himself has never been to the talk page. Even so, nothing prevents you from starting the discussion. Please don't scold other editors in the move log. Consider opening a discussion at WP:RM to see if your idea for renaming this article is widely supported. Otherwise your move of the Blitzkrieg article to Blitzkrieg (Military term)  could be seen as a way of continuing your content dispute with the IP by other means. You could leave a neutral message at WT:MILHIST asking other editors to give their opinion on the proper scope of this article, and whether the uses of 'blitzkrieg' in cancer research merit inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven’t made any sense. If I have a problem with an article, the onus is on me to make the approach. *He* should discuss first. Thanks for wasting my time, legitimising poor edits, and allowing an anon to make a mockery of a serious article. There already exists a disambiguation page for other uses of the term. Perhaps you should have looked a little harder. Dapi89 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimmy McDaniels reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Page protected for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:15, 13 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Salon article removal */ Discuss it on the talk page. As I stated previously, this 8 year old article is still available via Lexis from Salon")
 * 2) 22:20, 13 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Career */")
 * 3) 22:55, 13 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 378787657 by Off2riorob (talk) Like everyone else, including me, you can take it to the talk page and discuss it thereYworo (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)")
 * 4) 23:09, 13 August 2010  (edit summary: "actually, you're wrong. Jill Stewart has her own wikipedia page. She's quite prominent. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stewart I will link to her")
 * 5) 17:35, 14 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* California Energy Crisis */ link fixed")
 * 6) 17:41, 14 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Career */ added kurtz. It's relevant that the author of the story is also featured in the book by his own admission. Readers deserve to know that")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Jimmy McDaniel previously edited as . Check the talk page, he has two three four formal 3RR warnings, numerous other warnings, and multiple final warnings. Both the IP and the user have been previously blocked.


 * Jimmy was also warned not to edit war by the admin who unblocked him early from his last block. Yworo (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No 3RR violation, but definitely edit warring. Please use the talk page and follow the WP:BRD process.  --Chris (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Yworo reported by User:Jimmy McDaniels (Result: Page protected for one week)
Page:

User:

As you can see, Yworo is accusing me of being Jason Leopold. He offers up no evidence. Apparently, someone who is passionate about something is automatically deemed to be the subject. This false allegation only serves to underscore my point that this person should not be involved in editing this article. Yworo, since you're supposed to be working in the world of facts and sources, find a source that proves I'm Jason Leopold. Until then, keep your claims to yourself. I am using my real name for transparency. Should I accuse you of being Howard Kurtz maybe?

And as I said on my own talk page, I went to Amazon.com and looked inside Leopold's book using the "look inside" feature and found the Kurtz reference, which is criticism. I then have been working to find a source to cite that has this material. I've read the edit warring and I am just stunned that Yworo appears to have difficulty adhering to his own advice, which can be proven by looking at the edit history and the comments he/she has left on the talk page and my talk page. Yworo's comments are not that of an unbiased editor but rather someone who have a personal issue. Accusing me of being the subject of the article is a perfect example. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (cur | prev) 19:31, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,698 bytes) (Undid revision 378907882 by Yworo (talk) self-revert and tag for verification) (undo)  [automatically accepted]
 * (cur | prev) 18:00, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,557 bytes) (Undid revision 378905170 by Jimmy McDaniels (talk) you still haven't sourced that fact) (undo) [accepted by Yworo]


 * 1) (cur | prev)  07:13, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,079 bytes) (→California Energy Crisis:  neither link in this "reference" works, remove) (undo)  [automatically accepted]
 * 2) (cur | prev) 07:05, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,581 bytes) (→Career: quote the report rather than inaccurately summarize it) (undo) [automatically accepted]
 * 3) (cur | prev) 06:49, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,383 bytes) (→Career: this bit is unsourced) (undo) [automatically accepted]Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Refutation

 * I've made only three unbroken series of edits to in the last 24 hours:


 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

And I self-reverted the third to allow Jimmy to show that the source given verifies the last statememt preceeding it. This is simply a retaliatory report and an attempt to excuse his 6 reverts in the last 24 hours. Yworo (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No 3RR violation, but definitely edit warring. Please use the talk page and follow the WP:BRD process.  --Chris (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kober reported by User:Petri Krohn (Result: notified)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Mikheil Saakashvili


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd edit - massive taging:

Previous version reverted to:
 * John Shalikashvili


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd edit - Speedy request and blanking of redirect

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] The initial edit war was between and Kober. I have not interacted with Kober, except for the talk page discussions listed above.

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

Comments:

This is not a case of 3RR and I am not asking for a block. However, I feel that this case might fall under WP:DIGWUREN and I ask the user be given a DIGWUREN warning as listed here: List of editors placed on notice – The user has not been previously warned although his edit history shows a pattern of aggressive edit warring in articles falling under the DIGWUREN remedies. Also, in this case I feel that my edits on unrelated pages may have been WP:STALKed and targeted for revert as punishment for restoring content that the user does not like. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without voicing any opinion on the merits of the given edits, some of the talk page posts sound unnecessarily aggressive and provoking, something that we really don't need in this topic area. Thus I think it is a good idea to notify the user of the sanctions, and so it is done. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AgadaUrbanit reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 1RR extended, users topic banned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Comments:

The page is under a 1RR as posted by an edit notice on the article. AgadaUrbanit received a 24 hr block for violating that, then performed a large number of reverts in the 24 hourse after that block and was blocked for a week. Today, Agada waited 24 hours and 21 minutes to make the 2nd revert. This 1 day after the 1 week block expired.

<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#C11B17">nableezy  - 07:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of them. Nableezy made plenty of reverts since this article went to 1/rr. So forgetting all of the edit warring he did previously on the exact same line, since August 1st:
 * note that it is a revert to AgadaUrbanit
 * note that it is a revert to AgadaUrbanit
 * 
 * 
 * note that it is a :revert to AgadaUrbanit
 * 3/rr is not an entitlement and 1/rr is certainly not. Block them both.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those reverts are for the most part 2 or 3 days apart. I realize you have some sort of infatuation with me, but this report is about Agada who made almost 10 reverts in the 3 days he has been unblocked since the 1/rr was placed. Kindly find somewhere else to push for a block of me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#C11B17">nableezy  - 07:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Gaza War is under a 1RR due to edit warring. Previously the article was locked for a number of months due to the same problem, hope this would not be s resolution this time. imho, <font color="#C11B17">nableezy prefers noticeboard side of WP to discussion on the article talk page. The 2nd revert brought by <font color="#C11B17">nableezy was discussed on the article talk page by nono and <font color="#C11B17">nableezy, policy based argument was rejected..AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

On an article that is subject to 1RR, it really is not a good idea to do five reverts in a two-week period, either. The whole point of 1RR is that you really shouldn't be reverting unless you have a damn good reason, and it is absolutely not a license to revert once a day, especially since edit warring is what caused the 1RR to be imposed in the first place. It seems that not even a two-week 1RR restriction could curb the users' desire to edit war. Fine, then. I have warned previously that any attempts to edit war will result in a lengthy break from this topic area, and that is what will be done. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA: Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The 1RR restriction on Gaza War, originally set to expire 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC), is extended to run indefinitely.
 * 2) is topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for three months.
 * 3) is topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks.

User:Misessus reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: Blocked 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Misessus has been warned about edit warring many times in the past. See his talk page. Misessus has also been blocked in the past for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various editors on the article talk page have attempted to resolve this issue with Misessus:

Comments:

--Chris (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Lurulu reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 0:18 August 15
 * 2nd revert: 7:38 August 15
 * 3rd revert: 10:04 August 15
 * 4th revert: 12:13 August 15
 * 5th revert: 21:03 August 15

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:35 August 15

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jim Kerr Attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User talk:Lurulu

Comments:


 * Note that the pattern of edit warring on this article is not acceptable. I will be monitoring the article and will step in with protection if I feel it is necessary to calm the war.  --Chris (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ChrisO reported by User:ATren (Result: Not a clear 3RR violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Revision at the start of the edit war:


 * 1st revert: - note: reverted editor reverted has since been banned
 * 2nd revert: - reverted Marknutley
 * 3rd revert: - reverted Nsaa
 * 4th revert: - reverted Minor4th
 * 5th revert: - reverted Minor4th
 * 6th revert: - reverted Minor4th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - note multiple warnings (permalink to old revision since ChrisO removed warnings later).

Section illustrating attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Note also: page recently came off 2 weeks protection, and ChrisO was also involved in that previous warring.

Comments:


 * Of the diffs provided, I was only able to confirm that 3 of them are actually reversions, as opposed to an attempt to expand material and add citations for content. The edits in question are already undergoing discussion on the article talk page, and the reported editor (as well as the other principal combatants) have not edited the article for a little while.  Therefore, I am declining to take any action at this time and instead will monitor the article to ensure that the war does not resume.  --Chris (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Severino reported by User:Tallicfan20 (Result: Protected for two weeks)
Page:

Severino:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

My problem is that Severino has a clear political agenda. He is attempting to single out Israel amongst other nations that had good relations with South Africa, like US, UK, France, etc. by dividing the article into "Relations with apartheid South Africa" and "post-apartheid," even tho this isn't how the US, Australia, Canada, Germany articles on SA relations are divided, even tho they were generally on good terms with apartheid-era South Africa, nor is this how other pages are divided with countries that didn't have good relations with apartheid South Africa. I have simply tried to make the article fair. The US is widely seen to even have propped up the regime or helped give it some legitimacy. France and the UK are also known to have helped armed it militarily, yet there are no articles dedicated to that. Severino keeps reverting to promote there ALLEGATION WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN that Israel offered SA nukes, and when articles are added which don't add to this tale, he deletes them, dismissing them as "blogs," even tho. His edits are in bad faith, and his other recent edits show his history of POV and agenda pushing. I suggest something be done.Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Both sides have been actively edit warring over this page for a long time, therefore I have protected the page for two weeks. Both participants are advised to follow the WP:BRD cycle.  --Chris (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

the hypocritical applicant deserves to be reported here. it's clearly him who has a (hysterical nationalist) political agenda which he pursues here, to the disadvantage of wikipedia (which can be seen by his edit history). i already adviced him several times that he is free to change the article about US-SA relations, also dividing it into apartheid and post apartheid era. instead of doing so, he keeps on vandalizing the article about IL SA relations. i don't want to write too much about the topic here although it's clear for informed persons without blinders that israel has played a special role in supporting the south african apartheid regime (something which is NOT reflected by dividing the history of relations into apartheid and post apartheid, by the way! SAs foreign policy in regard to allmost all countries changed with the end of apartheid so it makes sense to reflect that in these artcles). i've inserted referenced information about that which Tallicfan20 has deleted immediately..he also inserts information which is referenced only by a blog which is against wikipedia policy. it can't be the purpose of wikipedia to erase and omit facts which can be interpreted to the disadvantage of a country or collective, and those which only some special "user" interprete this way (the more so as this user has no problem to denounce other collectives, on the contraray).tallicfan keeps on bashing with personal attacks like in the edit comment here and in the comment above. i welcome the protection of the article to stop tallicfans edit warring but indicate to the saved insertion of a blog information and tallicfans behaviour in general..--Severino (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do I have a "hysterical 'nationalist'" agenda? I'm from New York btw, not Israel. So you just attacked me personally, just like when you insinuated that I am a Khanist, a group which both the US AND ISRAEL call out as terrorists, with you Masada2000 edit comment. The Daily Kos isn't as such, so you cannot claim I insulted you. Its simply true that they single out Israel too, and this is verifiable by the thousands of diaries with that tag there as opposed to, say, Tibet, Kashmir, Sudan, etc. Also, why do you single out Israel's relations with apartheid South Africa when the US' relationship was of far more consequence given that it was the superpower whose continued relations under presidents Truman through Bush I could be argued to have given it the air of legitimacy it needed to survive during the Cold War? The US supported who the South Africans did in Angola, and the Reagan admin even supposedly gave them weapons, as listen on the constructive engagement page and even had the ANC listed as a terrorist org, and Mandela was on it until a few years ago. The other pages on SA bilateral relations are simple "history" sections. As the superpower and superpower's friend closest friend during the Cold War, the US and UK could be argued to have bore more moral responsibility for opposing sanctions and arming SA. Yet you have only edited the page on Israel, divided it as no other page on SA bilateral relations is, and put a huge emphasis on unproved allegations. You then deleted the rebuttal to it, which it turns out, is not a "blog" post, but an article in the Telegraph. When you saw the reference, you should have googled what was in the link I used before deleting it, considering it comes from an acceptable source as well as being linked to. You also put a POV on what something thinks, that it is "underreported." That is an OPINION, not a fact, as as is his opinion that Israel's relations were more crucial to its survival than US and UK. You are the one peddling POVs, unproved allegations, and personal insults. The article needs to be changed, and Severino needs to learn that he is both violating Wikipedia's integrity, and helping it to garner bad press, as editors like him and their actions has been noted all over the internet.Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

more of your attacks, characteristical... i wasn't naive to expect you to see reason so my comments weren't aimed at you. the article is protected for good reasons (tallicfans childish, hysterical edit war). just for the records: the history of relations between these two countries wasn't divided by me as one can see via the edit history, but this division makes sense as -i mentioned it- south africas foreign policy changed with the end of apartheid and in regard to israel this change was drastic! if someone interpretes that as a "discrimination" of israel he is free to change the articles about SA-USA relations and so forth! it's not acceptable to delete and conceal anything what could cast a negative light on israel.--Severino (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:64.121.41.204 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Protected)
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:

Comments: I realized that I have broken 3RR as well and have stopped editing. I failed to recognize the time between my most recent edits. Anon appears to be attempting to "help" the subject by using weasel words to ameliorate criticism and then sandwiches the criticism between praise to help lessen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs)


 * Although I have reverted edits, I have done so both within the letter and, I believe, spirit for the three-revert rule. The editor who has reported this has not been truthful in describing the issues. I have changed no facts related to the original post, and have only changed one sentence.  The editor who reported this stated that he wanted the negative part of the sentence to be last, but has not responded to my requests for an explanation as to why on both my talk page and his. Instead of responding, he simply made false accusations that my changes were vandalism when they clearly are not, and threatened me with banning. Absent a response from him to explain why he felt it was important for the sentence to be structured in this manner, I reverted the sentence in question. This report re: 3RR seems to be just another attempt to maintain an article without entering into a discussion, rather than to protect he integrity of the process or the article.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Protected three days. It is not easy to understand what these editors are disputing about, especially since neither one has tried to explain their reasoning on the talk page. Though it's an edit war, neither party went over 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerome Kohl reported by User:4meter4 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:



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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Antony and Cleopatra (opera)

Comments:

The talkpage "warning" cited was actually posted just prior to posting this report (and is really a warning that the admin request was going to be posted). 3RR was mentioned in this edit summary, however , but Jerome may have missed it. I'm going to offer him the chance to self-revert. It looks like he is off-line for the moment, however. Slp1 (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jerome has been an editor on Wikipedia for four years. The idea that he doesn't know about the 3RR is inconceivable. --  tariq abjotu  14:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Chrono1084 reported by User:Jrkso (Result: Both blocked 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:

I find User:Chrono1084 as an extreme POV pusher who is twisting information in the Prostitution in Afghanistan article. For example, he starts the article with "Prostitution in Afghanistan seems to flourish, as the traffic in women for it did under the Talibans, in the country although it is one of the world's most conservative." and uses this as as a source to support his POV. That source only contains 1 sentence which states "Under the Taliban in Afghanistan, the traffic in women for prostitution thrived." The fact is under the Taliban prostitution was very strict and less people were involved. This is what the article itself says and is backed by so many official reports. Chrono1084 also keeps adding "some kids being sold into it by their family" which is poorly sourced and is irrelevant in the article because prostitution generally includes people who may have many different kinds of family problems and we shouldn't point out a specific one. I believe he Chrono1084 be the same person as User:Nuwewsco, who also edits the same articles using the same styles.--Jrkso (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I use three sources for the intro which is the product of my willingness to compromise with you. If I could, I would have written it different. As for the reverts you've done as much as me but, unlike me, they only served as a way to delete sourced info that didn't please you and to impose your interpretation of the sources. I find particularly ludicrous your attempts at discrediting, without sources, the Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work. Please tell me which sources you think contradict this book (something you could have done before coming here). Also I'm willing to do a user check to prove to you that I'm not Nuwesco.--Chrono1084 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  14:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:InaMaka reported by User:Stonemason89 (Result: blocked for 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

A fairly straightforward 3RR violation on Mike Pompeo. The first three edits were, ,. The fourth reversion, performed by 98.196.129.137, and which took place 20 hours after InaMaka's first reversion, is here. InaMaka has admitted that he and 98.196.129.137 are one and the same:. He has been blocked before for violating 3RR:. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72h. Two previous EW blocks, even if they were 2 years ago, shows that this editor is clearly aware of the rules. He's also wrong; for a person of limited notability, a nationally-reported incident (in reliable sources) is clearly not a violation of UNDUE. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:TheInsider299 reported by User:intelati (Result: 12h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

and many many more
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See below

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:TheInsider299

Comments: theinsider is trying to protect his article from deletion. I suggest deleting the article and blocking him.(or her)-- in te la ti 22:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * editor has resorted to using personal attacks via reversed "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." Talk:Shakur Green-- in te la ti 23:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest keeping my article and firing User:intelati he's power tripping.

the article contains relevant information it's sourced to a reliable large independent music publishing company website it's no different from any of the other major or indie producers you guys have listed on Wikipedia such as Kane Beatz, Drumma Boy, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsider299 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly removing an AfD tag is vandalism. TheInsider299 should have been reported at WP:AIV, not here.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * AIV could have handled this, but it's here, so handled here. Short block, but hopefully enough to drive the point home. Courcelles 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason: I feel as though my article should stay up, I believe it's important for people to gather verifiable information about things, people, etc and be able to post it online for others to read even people who never heard of the person, place or thing. 'Just because of person never heard of something or someone doesn't mean it doesn't exist". Wikipedia is for informational purposes.

I am a longtime reader of Wikipedia and just start writing articles on here. I understand there are rules and you want to block me for a year because I'm still trying to figure out how to properly work wikipedia. Do you really believe that is fair? You guys want everyone to follow the rules and half you administrators don't or abuse power.

The articles I published on Shakur Green has an reliable source one of which is from The Royalty network who administrates his publishing who collects his royalty's from work released by major or indie labels that receives commercial airplay across the world. He is listed on there site as a songwriter, musician, producer and briefly lists some of the works he's done with major artist. which my article verifiable!

I interviewed him on HOT 97 a few weeks ago, I thought I would create an article on him because he deserves one he's no different from Timbaland, Drumma Boy, Danja Handz , Kane beatz , Tha Bizness , Lex Ruger, 40 (producer). who are all major and upcoming record producer who has Wikipedia pages.

Since I had a in depth conversation with him about his early life, career, personal life , etc I thought I would share that information with world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsider299 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Spuum reported by User:Morenooso (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: DIFF1
 * 2nd revert: DIFF2
 * 3rd revert: DIFF3
 * 4th revert: DIFF4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RRWarned

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

Comments:

Spuum has attempted eight times to post the same poorly sourced fact that gives undue weight to Hispanic and Latino Americans. Five different editors to include myself and an admin have reverted this factoid. Several editors attempted to engage Spuum and advise him that he had no WP:CONSENSUS for this edit but yet he continues to repost it with almost the same recent edit summary. In reviewing the article history, it appears that Spuum may have been 3RR prior to the advisory warning I issued him. I had hoped that after the templated warning and talkpage discussion, he would discontinue the edit but he has posted two more times. moreno oso (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

In advising Spuum about this discussion (Please see: DIFF), I noticed on his talkpage that Fæ, who is an uninvolved editor, attempted in this DIFF that Spuum should examine his edits/reverts. moreno oso (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours for edit warring. If an editor restores the same content eight times, even if it did not break 3RR, it does suggest an inability to get the point. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * After advising and warnings, user continue to insert same undue material without consensus, 1. --Jmundo (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Whitmore 8621 reported by User:Eaglestorm (Result:Both Blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

MGSPW: Previous version reverted to: MGSPW Talk: Previous version reverted to: MGS: Previous version reverted to:

Metal Gear Solid:Peace Walker

 * 1st revert: - insistence on putting in OR stuff
 * 2nd revert: - part II
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Peace Walker Talk Page

 * 1st revert: - editor's 1st attempt at creating talk page archive, which is rather inappropriate. IMO this is nothing more than erasing large portions of text just to erase editor's accountability for previous actions, of which the same can be said of his talk page.
 * 2nd revert: -revertion to - for lack of a better word, poor excuse of "archiving". Request deletion of inappropriately archived talk page.

Metal Gear Solid

 * 1st revert: - editor is accusing me of supposed 'cyberbullying'; edit affected other sourced data inserted in section
 * 2nd revert: - insistence on adding bleemcast material when release on emulators do not count as official release. edit is same as first
 * 3rd revert: - another case of pig-(censored due to WP:NPA) editing
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - includes warnings for both articles

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

Comments: User made wholesale edits to Metal Gear articles within hours just after coming out of a one-week block over deletion of maintenance tags on images posted to certain MG articles without fair use rationales. Editor has been reported at SPI for circumventing block using acknowledged IP. No attempt has been made to resolve problem, because I believe editor's ways will never change despite being blocked twice and still continues ranting against supposed "cyber-bullies." AGF has long since been exhausted - editor feigns humility and has failed to prove that he will make suitable contributions to the project, as Beeblebrox has insisted on in declining his second unblock request. Behavior is more or less like a spoiled brat as some of his edit summaries include rants as people "ignoring" him.--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * .  F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 06:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:86.177.213.232 reported by User:Bridies (Result: nothing yet)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:86.177.213.232 (first edit to the talk page so it seems I can't link a diff).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above. bridies (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 07:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:124.176.118.18 reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: 24h)
Re: de Havilland Mosquito and de Havilland Mosquito operational history. Removal of cited material and constant reverts. Also refuses to discuss:, , ,. He has been reverted by another editor as well Dapi89 (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * I have reverted his latest deletion of an entire paragraph. This was obvious vandalism. But my three reverts on the page are up, so I hesitate to revert again in case I get blocked. I have asked for discussion, again. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 24 hours for edit warring. Anything this complicated is not going to get sorted out without a discussion. The IP has not brought up on Talk any of the matters he is reverting on. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sleeping water reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Various warnings over the last couple of days, including, , and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been reams and reams of discussion at Talk:Celts.

Comments:


 * Result - 24 hours for WP:3RR violation. User:Sleeping water has added thousands of words at Talk:Celts but I don't perceive that anyone agrees with his arguments there. Before reverting on a controversial topic, it is preferable to get support from others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Godhand11 reported by User:Akerans (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I stumbled upon the page yesterday, saw an edit war, removed (what I considered) an undue section, and tried to start a discussion on the talk page to stop the edit war. It has since been reverted again, with no communication on the talk page (other than from myself). Akerans (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have acted at the request of Akerans on the films talkpage to abridge my section and have no intent to further edit the sectionGodhand11 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. Let us please move the discussion to the articles talk page here, where I've initiated the discussion about the film. I believe the section can use some further tweaking, and also have additional sources. I have no wish for Godhand11 to be blocked, so long as s/he agrees not to edit war and reach a consensus on the the talk page. Akerans (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action for now, per Akerans' comment. He is the editor who filed the complaint. I encourage other editors to consider whether the reference to a broadcast by Alex Jones (radio host) is appropriate for this article. Our article on Jones suggests he is a conspiracy theorist. The claim that the movie trailer calls for 'acts of violence' by Latinos may not be tied to any credible source.  See Talk:Machete (film). EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Karlvondeutschland reported by User:Yopie (Result: 24h)
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:

He uses his IP 86.177.203.241 as his sock, as can be seen in history of the article .--Yopie (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours for 3RR violation. Semiprotecting due to the high chance of WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:24.49.53.195 reported by User:Jéské Couriano (Result: 31h)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.49.53.195&oldid=379686542

Edit-warring over the genre of the game (consensus is the game is a puzzle-platformer; he insists on FPS). In the midst of this session made an edit very similar to the above four; he's since been blocked for a username violation. —<font color="228B22">Jeremy <font color="00008B"> (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * by . Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:78.101.141.187 reported by User:Big Bird (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - posted on article talk page, not on the editor's talk page but the editor acknowledged reading the warning in his subsequent edit comments

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

Comments:

The music video for "Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe" shows singer Cia Berg wearing braces, licking a lollipop and acting in a general juvenile manner. This has, over time, created almost a cult following of fans who remember it due to a perceived sexual connotation and the internet is full of blogs where people discuss things like what they would like to do to Cia Berg while looking and acting like that. Information about the braces was first introduced to Cia Berg's article by an IP editor that has a history of introducing contentios material of a sexual nature (see these edits to Paul Lovering:, , ). A discussion at Talk:Cia Berg led to the contentious material being removed. He then added the same material to We Care and, in June, was blocked for edit-warring to add it back after it was removed as contentious material by other editors. That IP no longer seems to be active. 78.101.141.187 has repeatedly re-inserted the contentious material back even after a discussion on the talk page where the unanimous consensus is that this, although possibly sourceable, is non-notable and inappropriate due to being contentious material referring to a living person. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected two months, due to the persistence by multiple IPs. The person behind this IP has reverted four times and is clearly edit warring. It appears that the campaign to insert material about Cia Berg's braces has been going on since February. I recommend opening a WP:Request for comment to determine whether this has consensus. The IP is offering as a reference for the importance of the dental braces to the article on the We Care album a 15-year old article in New Musical Express that describes Berg's work on a song from a different album. In June an IP was blocked for edit-warring over the same issue: User talk:80.192.21.253. Whether to mention dental braces in Cia Berg's article was discussed at WP:BLP/N in February. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional note: this is a dynamic IP, my apologies for not noting that earlier. In addition to editing from 78.101.141.187, the following IP addresses were also used:, , . Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed my comment, per the IP's information (below). EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Big Bird is actually lying when he says there is a 'unanimous concensus' - it just ain't true. Someone in the UK was looking for a cite for an NME article, I provided it. The cited article describes work on the video of a song from the album, so, Ed, you are mistaken to suggest otherwise. Not very encouraging, is it, for people that try and legitimise an observation with an accurate cite from an RS, regardless of the age of the piece - I struggle to see the relevance of this? It's slightly depressing, truth be told. Big Bird's rant about the video is entirely irrelevant to my inserting the cite and Bird is guilty of 3RR and edit warring himself, not to mention deltionism and possible vandalism. Childish and dogmatic behaviour. Well done! --78.101.141.187 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours, I made one revert. How am I guilty of 3RR? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is two IP adresses who may or may not be different persons, one of which is no longer active or more likely, one person (which the tendency for edit warring in both IP's indicates) that support the inclusion of this info. Everyone else thinks it's unencyclopedic. It is not unanimous, but pretty much as close as possible. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kagiaras reported by User:Meand (Result: 12h block)
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: I've reverted some of Kagiaras' edits. Other edits were reverted by User:Donald Duck. me_and (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Kagiaras has started to discuss eir edits, although offers no comment on eir repeated revisions there. --me_and (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The user has stopped editing for the day, but needs to understand that this behavior is not acceptable. Hopefully a block will force them to pause and read policy.  --Chris (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just made another reversion. I claim this is exempt from the 3RR policy, as it was removing content that was blatant copyright violations.

User:MickMacNee reported by User:Wjemather (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The black ball final

Comments:

MickMacNee insists that this redirect must be categorised despite two editors having removed the category. In keeping with his previous pattern of behaviour, he has then chosen to engage in an edit war to preserve his preference. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 02:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Mick as the opener of this report did not. I also note that Micks warning was given and that no reverts have occurred since the warning, it seems pointless to give a warning and then immediately go and make a report. I thought you were supposed to give a waring and then it more reverts occurred make the report then. I also notice that the reverts provided here are not on a 24 hour period. Off2riorob (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have left an apology for the lack of notification on MickMacNee's talk page. Usually I would agree, but given this users history (the last block for violating 3RR being just last month), I think the report is appropriate. The diffs provided span less than 8 hours. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 02:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He has been given a warning, let's wait and see if it is heeded. I will watch the redirect and step in if necessary. --Chris (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a whole defence prepared and then e/c'd with this decline, so canned it. For the record, that was going to be my opener, his rather rude warning came after my third revert, and just as well, as I had genuinely forgotten I had made two reverts previously, not that I was not discussing already, as can easily be seen. I'm willing to conintue to discuss, if these guys are not going to resort to tag-teaming as a replacement for knowing the actual guideline, or in the third party's case, even accepting it should be followed. MickMacNee (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec'd w/Mick) I was just strolling through some of the admin boards before retiring for the night and this seems to be very much a case of WP:LAME. Does the presence of a category really matter? Does it matter enough to get blocked over? Are there more important things on WP and IRL to worry about? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Starlingmaximilian reported by User:Jonathan Hardin' (Result: 24h)
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:


 * --Chris (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

MEGA edit war (Result: Most pages protected, IP blocked 24h)
Hi! I don't exactly know how to use this but can someone take a look at this 5 pages? There is a SUPER edit war going on in this things:


 * 2010 Copa Sudamericana
 * 2009 Copa Sudamericana
 * 2009 Recopa Sudamericana
 * 2011 Copa Libertadores
 * 2008 Copa Libertadores

1930fwc (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Principal IP sock . Most pages semi-protected for two weeks.  --Chris (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Machine Elf 1735 reported by User:Andrew Lancaster (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: this in same series of edits as last and there were more reverts in this one series
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: (same series as last)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not exactly. The talk page context makes warnings a moot point. These intensive reverts come after attempts to talk on his talk page and article talk page which have ended up with me being told not to post on his talk page. These are now just automatic reverts of every edit I make because he is angry? Note: User has deleted much of the attempt to discuss on his talk page. UPDATE a few minutes later. Have now posted also to him:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (it dominates the whole talk page)

Comments: I suppose the following should also be kept in mind. Apart from 3R as a formal rule the edit warring is felt by me to be extremely blatant in spirit. I mean by this that for the last day approximately the practical reality is that dozens of edits have been reverted (many in a single series of edits, so I guess counting as one revert and a small number with slight changes, so not pure reverts) and I simply can not work on the article. Furthermore, talk page behavior makes it very clear that the real concern of Machine Elf is that he wants me to slow down making changes in general, all changes. But finally and perhaps most importantly, this is not a new bout of editing and discussion, so not just a problem that might finish after a day or two of reflection. Extensive waits have been granted already for editing on this article, and there seems to be no reason for waiting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If I should reply to what Lancaster has written here, (I haven't and don't intend to read it), please let me know. Also, if this 24 period doesn't work for you, please let me know. I'm not seeing equanimity yet except insofar as the page was protected. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I would call this blatant in spirit:
 * Lancaster's deletion of most of what I've worked on from the original article: 18:46, 20 August 2010
 * Lancaster's changes to the "definitions" I made in the lead from 01:43, 20 August 2010: 18:35, 20 August 2010
 * Lancaster's removal and derision of modal logic in the lead from 02:30, 20 August 2010: 18:35, 20 August 2010
 * Lancaster's refusal to accept an OR tag on his un–sourced work from 00:58, 20 August 2010: 18:42, 20 August 2010
 * Lancaster's reversal of changes to §Actuality from 01:10, 20 August 2010: 08:21, 20 August 2010

I've asked Lancaster not to post on my talk page twice. I'm going to revert his "offer" from 08:29 and I'll copy it below. As I informed EdJohnston at 06:03, I have no intention of returning to those articles for more abuse and I don't want to "negotiate" with Lancaster. I feel harassed by him and I want it to stop. I think it's very unfair that due to a technicality of consecutive edits (?) I got tripped up by 3RR on Aug 20 but he did not. And although you'll see below he wants to portray it as if I'm blocked etc., my impression is that I've voluntarily agreed to stay away from the article for at least a week, (and in fact, I wash hands of it for good). I believe Lancaster should be asked to take the same week's vacation as well, because it's only fair. I feel confident I can find three qualifying edits from a recent 24 hour period so I'm waiting to hear if I should do that here or start a new one... or what. All I'm looking for is equanimity, albeit symbolic.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, Lancaster has now intruded on my discussion with EdJohnston both on his talk page and on mine above. wp:STALK?. This RfC/U is purely in his imagination. Seriously, how is what I'm asking any for worse than he did to me today... without warning. I get the feeling I'm posting to totally closed case?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would very much welcome any attention from other users and admins on this matter. I've spent countless hours responding to User:Andrew Lancaster. I don't believe there's been an actual instance of 3RR because there's no single point of contention.
 * The 6th revert above was when he wholesale deleted almost all the material from the original article and the material which I've added, (cited material). Just look at the reference errors: prev to 6.
 * The 5th revert was because he removed two references because he doesn't like what they say. Much less, he's yet to cite a reference that does say what he wants it to say.
 * The 4th revert was where he removed {SectOR} tag which I've opened an RfC about. The section has only one cite taken from elsewhere in the article that I had recommended he needs to read. He wrote the section as replacement for one in the original article he had previously wanted to prune and rearrange in ways that didn't make sense. I added a {SectOR} to his section and restored the original section separately.
 * The 3rd revert was combination of changes throughout article including reverts to changes I had just made, (denied in his EDSUM), counter–factual inline comments and an attempt to alter the text of the 5th revert, contrary to the cited sources, without removing them.
 * The 1nd revert was when he deleted the Bekker numbers that show the reader what line is being referred to because...
 * In the 2nd revert he was trying to hot–swap those 7 references for a translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics that only includes BK numbers for the starting line of each chapter. This after I had so painstakingly identified specific BK numbers to use for inline cites to support the original material in the article. Additionally, it would reduce the diversity of translations being referenced in the article and there was absolutely nothing stopping him from creating separate references for the website he wanted to use and, in fact, I had created 4 references to that website myself for that translation (including BK numbers). Moreover, he didn't bother to change the name of the translator. I have no sympathy for the excuse that his Google Books won't go directly to a page. It's a public domain translation and he can download the PDF then use the BK numbers to look things up (like in paper books). Last I checked, he started accusing me OWN over it, was undaunted in his insistence that Google Books not be used and, as always, demanding response after response.

I've made numerous compromises all along but he is not flexible. I just received a user talk message saying that it appears I've broken 3RR. I'm not convinced I have because these are not that sort of reverts (back–and–forth)* and each one is based on reason (like correcting unconstructive edits that delete cited material and leave big red ref errors in the article).* I welcome the feedback. I need help with this situation. There are 5 articles involved in this whole merger debacle and the talk pages are prohibitively lengthy: Talk:Potentiality and actuality, Talk:Energeia, Talk:Entelechy.

Thank you and please let me know if there's anything else I can provide.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Extensive waits... please check the contribution times on his rapid–fire carpet–bomb talk page demands.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

&#x2A; which is to say... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rapid fire talk page reactions do not equate to rapid fire editing and certainly not in this case. We had rapid fire talk page discussion today because we were both on line at the same time. I was trying to get communication going and break an impasse in progress which goes back much further. I would hope Machine Elf had similar motives. However, discussion got stuck in a wave of heated incivility from Machine Elf.
 * The idea that sourced material can never be changed or deleted is obviously wrong, especially after a merge.
 * Concerning flexibility it has been extremely superficial indeed. The real practical effect is that I can not edit until this behavior stops. Every edit I make, no matter what, is being reverted because Machine Elf wants me to slow down. That he is experienced enough to remember to make edit summaries does not change the fact that he is reverting pretty much everything, and he openly refuses to take part in straight forward civil discussion on talk pages. If there are very occasional exceptions, this does not change the basic problem.
 * Going through remarks above in the same reverse order as Machine Elf, gives a flavor of the strong repeating themes in Machine Elf's recent blocking of editing on this article, and his reasons for it:

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6th example. Deletion is to be expected because the current article has recently been merged and still contains a lot of repetition and sub-standard material. Material is also being added, or that was the aim. Amongst the reverts of recent days Machine Elf removed most tags I had put on that old material also. Talk page discussion failed with him telling me to slow down . He has not defended this material at all.
 * 5th example. The wording I have objected to is discussed on the talk page, but also on Talk:Entelechy. In other contexts, Machine Elf has made it clear enough he knows that the wording he is defending is actually not a neutral statement of what the field thinks, but he is choosing to revert to it anyway because (he says) it is sourced. But he is also incorrect to say my alternative wording is not sourced. It is from Aristotle himself.
 * 4th example. I do not know what article Machine Elf thinks he recommended I should read. If he is referring to anything by Sachs I introduced some books by Sachs as a source to at least one of these articles long before the recent merge discussion re-started (though not for this subject area which he apparently wants deleted). I have not read any articles by him, and nor did Machine Elf ever recommend any. One was mentioned by another Wikipedian on Talk:Entelechy. During merges, sometimes footnotes have to be rebuilt, but to say I am trying to propose the section needs no sourcing, and to even call an RFC as if this is what I am arguing for, is tendentious. I also do not believe that he really believes the section is OR, and I have challenged him on this. He will not discuss it in any straightforward or civil way.
 * 3rd example was not a revert of a revert as he claims. It was a revert of an edit which included some very small tweaks that were for example single word reverts, with other edits trying to find a compromise after a whole series of my edits had been quickly dispatched.
 * 1st and 2nd examples are a good example of why I say that this is blatant blocking of all editing. The talk page discussion is remarkable:
 * Machine Elf's revert first, then fix later approach isn't particularly endearing, and I agree his edits have been a bit more disruptive, but neither of you are going to win any awards for editing on this article. There seems to be some discussion on the talk page, and the protection will ensure it stays there rather than in comments in the article (no) or in the edit summaries (doubly no). --  tariq abjotu  00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think two points need to made.
 * First, the ruling above is now very article specific, but the article is a result of on-going merging which is not done, and which is indeed the reason for disagreements, and a reason for some poor quality material. Furthermore, now that talk page discussion is specifically being considered, it should be kept in mind that talk page discussions on several other articles are also relevant, especially Talk:Energeia. Does that change things? Leaving a merge half done seems to be something that should be avoided. Machine Elf is indeed trying to slow down merging work and discussion because in his words "The material in this article is long standing and the article was rated C class, so please consider that it might not be as bad as you (once again) are implying it is. (And, of course, as a result of this merge zealotry, starter class material is being merged into it)."
 * Second, please review the talk page discussions you say are happening, and please consider how you believe this solution is supposed to be fair and workable in that context. To me they seem to only be going downhill. Machine Elf's postings on talkpages are remarkably unconstructive and very often obscene with no justification at all. Polite questions are replied to with tirades about "lies" and "accusations" time and time again, and increasingly include bald statements that he simply refuses to work with me. See his latest reply to EdJohnson concerning this case - "Look, I've quit paying jobs for less than this. I'm happy the article has been protected for four days but I'm not going back to that abuse either way. So there's no need to negotiate with Lancaster about anything and I don't want to hear from that person ever again." That reply on its own does not seem to validate the assumptions made above about how this is supposed to work?
 * Machine Elf's reverting and talk page entries have one big theme which is that he wants my editing to stop or slow down. He does not want to have to be forced into having to defend a proposal to keep anything. So in practice I have already not been able to edit and improve the article. So yes, obviously indeed I'll not be getting awards for editing, not now and not before. The article needs work, in your opinion and mine, but Machine Elf does not want that because he gets angry when he sees people cutting up things he worked on. (Nevertheless, when merging was proposed for example on Talk:Energeia, he could politely agree that work was needed, and concerning his defense of old material, in some cases he is blocking me from merging and fixing material I worked on as well as material he worked on, as far as I can see. Who wrote the old material is really not important to me, but very important to Machine Elf.)
 * This freeze is no worse than what we had of course, but it is a kind of ironic solution: a person violates 3R because he wants to stop people editing, and in response editing is fully frozen for all editors. What can be expected from this when editing starts again?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also see that above Machine Elf has inserted his thanks at the top of the discussion out of chronological order: He expresses thanks for the block, and says he does not intend to read what I write but warns that he can't yet see any change in my behavior, my "equanimity", because for now the page is frozen. So Machine Elf supposedly believes that someone here has indicated that the aim is to change my behavior, specifically making me more fair to him, which can only mean allow him to get fairness from me apparently without him having to use talk pages, for he has stated above he does not intend to read anything I write and as mentioned above he has told an admin in this case that he fully intends not to work with me? So on this account the freeze was intended to stop people trying to improve the article, with its long standing and C class material, not to stop edit warring by him and him alone? If that were correct, someone should have told me of course. But I thought this was a 3R case and that only one editor broke 3R. Of course however, deflecting all discussion to something about my "equanimity" is something no-one except Machine Elf has done, and was not the intention, but please consider whether this practical result, i.e. an edit warrior expressing thanks to admins for helping him stop people trying to improve an article, is workable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Nikurasu reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: Both 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:

The editor above has been relentlessly tagging the entire article in question as "POV" based on a handful of sentences in the economy section that he does not like. Apparently, they were not "negative" enough for his liking. This is despite the fact that I had already replaced today all of the material he complained about with reliable sources such as the Central Bank of Somalia, which is the nation's central bank and local counterpart to the US' Federal Reserve. But the user above moved the goalposts, and is now rather incredibly claiming that material from the Central Bank of Somalia itself constitutes a "conflict of interest" and therefore cannot be trusted. Basically, anything to keep the tag in place. I've tried discussing the edits over with him on the talk page, but he has been reluctant to genuinely do so, instead dropping meaningless one-liners and/or describing the entire discussion process as "filibustering", while simultaneously knee-jerk reverting. He has in the process well-surpassed three reverts, even after I repeatedly explained to him how his unwarranted tagging violates WP:VAND's abuse of tags clause. He has also been littering my talk page with disingenuous warning signs, even after I had removed them per WP:HUSH. Middayexpress (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  09:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jonas Poole reported by User:Xyl_54 (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This issue has been the subject of an RfC and a slow edit war for some time. User:Jonas Poole has declined to participate except in a generally uncivil manner in the discussions, and now wishes to overturn the outcome of those discussions.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spitsbergen&diff=next&oldid=379043105  talk OK now…

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spitsbergen&diff=378946010&oldid=378919958 page .. from someone
 * --  tariq abjotu  09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:DCGeist reported by User:188.221.105.68 (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The user was warned only after his breach but is aware of 3RR, having already received several 3RR blocks in the past. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  16:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ChaseMcAllister247 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 10:09, 22 August 2010  (edit summary: "Too much info left out about William Lane Craig.")
 * 2) August 6 Last contrib before user was blocked for EW

Comments: User just came off a 2 week block for adding this content (see contrib history, most recent edits are all edit warring leading to a block), and his first and only edit is to re-revert the content. He was also blocked for block-evasion on, which he created for the purpose of re-reverting this content. Thanks,

<b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 16:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked indef. After two successive one-week blocks, he came back to this article to continue reverting. ChaseMcAllister247 is his original account. He evaded using a sock account,, which is now blocked indef. Editor seems to have no intention to help the encyclopedia, and is immune to all feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:85.211.34.24 reported by Eastcote (talk) (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 08:36, 20 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")
 * 2) 00:27, 21 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")
 * 3) 07:15, 21 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")
 * 4) 15:06, 21 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")
 * 5) 06:36, 22 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")


 * Diff of warning: here


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

—Eastcote (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:69.181.249.92 reported by User:174.112.83.21 (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: simple edit, explained in edit summary as well as informed user about WP:3RR on their user talk page. after telling them about 3RR (after they had already made 4 reverts), they went ahead and made a 5th revert, ignoring the warning.

Comments:

174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Removal of a false unsourced tag falls under the heading of reverting vandalism. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the article did not cite any reliable source. this user also reverted my addition of the fact that egypt blockades gaza 4 times, even after i told him in the edit summary not to. he ignored it and reverted anyway. he also reverted the fact that greece and turkey refused the ship. anyway, this isn't the place for content dispute. the user reverted 5 times, it's violation of 3RR, that's why i posted here so i guess that's all i have to say. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The history probably speaks for itself. That IP claims resolution was attempted is a bit of a stretch, considering that they still don't seem to realize what was wrong with their initial edit: the addition of an "unsourced" template to a sourced article, which is clearly wrong, and which was pointed out to the editor in a number of edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Greece and Turkey, the article I added from The New York Times discusses Cyprus refusing the ship--negotiations were still underway with Greece and Turkey. Editor needs to realize that statements in articles are to be based on sources. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 174.112.83.21 is correct about one thing - I had indeed missed his addition of "and Egypt" every time s/he added the unsourced tag, which is why I was mystified about his comments about it in edit summaries. However, given the ship's proposed route and the opening sentences of the news report by WTOP-FM, it doesn't really seem relevant or correct anyway.69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Brendenhows reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24h block)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 05:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 03:32, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 03:32, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 03:45, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 04:17, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 379159818 by OSX (talk)")
 * 6) 04:27, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Changed description of Photo")
 * 7) 04:58, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 379206541 by IFCAR (talk)")
 * 8) 05:02, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380645326 by OSX (talk)")
 * 9) 05:10, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 05:38, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380649522 by Bidgee (talk)")
 * 11) 05:41, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380649668 by Red Elantra Phot is unacceptable for this article! (talk)")
 * 12) 05:44, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380649909 by Brendenhows (talk)")
 * 13) 05:45, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380650081 by Brendenhows ([[User talk:Brendenhows|Red Hyundai Photograph does not accurately represent this article!])")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * --Chris (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Freakshownerd reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result:48h )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 12:40, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "reputed?")
 * 2) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 13:45, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert damaging attack on BLP that removes well sourced content on the man's career. WLU please cease these BLP violating attacks on subjects you disagree with")
 * 5) 13:59, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert potentially damaging attack on the man's career information by WLU. Please stop removing descriptions of his career sourced reliably.")
 * 6) 14:26, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "restore career information removed in potentially damaging assault on BLP. The article already says what he is primarily known for right there. Time magazine is reliable.")
 * 7) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "fix grammar I mess up. see previous edit summary for explanation on previous change undoing potentially damaging assault on this BLP")
 * 8) 14:28, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "please stop edit warring a BLP violating and potentially career damaging version of the article that excludes what career the guy has had. this is totally unacceptable.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48h - this is a content dispute, not a BLP issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 12:25, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380593192 by Mfhulskemper (talk) removed source, body contains citations verifying this; he may do bad research but I think he is honest re: qualifications")
 * 2) 12:59, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Revert to revision 380697672 dated 2010-08-24 12:25:20 by WLU using popups")
 * 3) 13:14, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "various changes")
 * 4) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380709601 by Freakshownerd (talk) take it to the talk page, this isn't a BLP violation and doesn't hurt his career")
 * 5) 14:15, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Added citations, discuss on talk page please")
 * 6) 14:18, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "line spacing grossly screws up paragraph comparison")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Reverts 1 and 2 are totally unrelated to the dispute in question. The first one is when I reverted this inappropriate edit by Mfhulskemper.  The next edit is by FSN reverting to his version from August 11th, which eliminates my use of a reliable source to verify a specific point.  My next edit is an incremental improvement on the citations, with no real substantive changes to the content.  All I did was move a citation around.  The fifth edit merely removed a line break/paragraph marker - there was no change in content.  The large number of apparent differences are due to the revisions being compared to the August 23rd version by Mfhulskemper, which I don't think is appropriate.  For instance, the fifth revert actually looks like this, and isn't a revert at all.  There may be a 3RR violation here, but I don't know if these diffs support it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked at these again, and a revert is a revert, you have made 4 reverting edits (or groups of edits) (1, 2, 3 and 4) between 12:25, 24 August 2010 and 14:18, 24 August 2010 (less than 2 hours) - you are aware of the 3RR as you have been blocked 3 times before for it. Codf1977 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This edit is totally unconnected to any dispute between FSN and myself, it has never been a subject of dispute with anyone and FSN never attempted to replace it (given his disagreements on this page, I doubt he would since it makes Dembski look worse). I don't know why FSN apparently refers to it in his edit summary.  It doesn't count towards 3RR.  About the only controversial thing there is the removal of the redundant third page of the Time article, which is redundant to the <ref name = "TimeMagCover"> citation later in the paragraph (actually at the end of the same sentence).  This is a content change tenuously connected to the dispute with FSN (though there are overlaps, so that one probably counts).  Yes it is edit warring, but the threshold is 4 reverts in a day, not any edit warring.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewing and rethinking this, I do not consider the first edit a revert because the removal of the Time citation was totally tangential to my purpose of reverting the edit by Mfhulskemper. I actually forgot I made that change initially because I considered it redundant and obvious.  If you consider the deletion of that reference as a part of the edit war (which is what I think Codf1977 is getting at, then that would probably be considered a revert.  I don't believe this is the case since the reference is still included at the end of the sentence and I didn't change any prose related to it.  But that's just my opinion and now I see how it could be understood as part of the edit war.  So...yeah...I don't really have much else to add beyond that.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Awaiting a second opinion Whether there are four reverts or not there is certainly edit-warring here, I'd ask another admin to look at this as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd probably let him off with a warning - but then I'm a bit of a softie when it comes to 3RR if there's evidence of good faith attempt at article improvement (which there certainly is here). But then I'd have let off FSN too, on the basis that his attempted reliance on the BLP exemption, whilst ultimately considered wrong by a variety of editors, might reasonably have been done in good faith. Rd232 talk 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm harsh, but even if an editor is claiming a BLP exemption, they should also be aware that it has to be a violation that's obvious; this one clearly isn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Certainly, as you pointed out on his talk page, the 3RR BLP exemption does specify removal is exempt. Rd232 talk 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While my brain isn't up to counting very well, the first two diffs show removal of a derogatory and unsourced suggestion that Dembski is only reputed to hold qualifications which the sources show him as holding. Clearly dealing with a BLP vio which would need good justification to remain in the article. The last diff shows deletion of a surplus line break, tidying up and hardly edit warring. . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AzureFury reported by User:Pyrrhon8 (Result: Wrong venue)
Page:

User being reported:

This is NOT a matter of 3RR; the issue here is edit-warring. AzureFury has been trying to spoil the Page since 15 June 2010. Without making any preliminary complaint on its talk page, AzureFury nominated the Page for deletion. The nomination failed. See here. Then, AzureFury removed the Page's content. He turned the article into a stub by replacing the content with a shoddy, brief summary of news reports by Hui Min Neo of Agence France-Presse (25 March 2010) and Patrick Goodenough of Cybercast News Service (CNS). To those reports, AzureFury added his own opinion and an opinion by Bennett Graham of the Becket Fund.


 * There is not requirement for a "perliminary complaint" on an article's talk page for it to be AFD'd. I sent a message to Pyrrhon's talk page before hand.  The article at the time was titled, "Blasphemy at the United Nations" and didn't mention the contoversy until the very last paragraph.  I had a pretty good reason to AFD it, I think.  The consensus that I inferred from the AFD was that the article was bad, but the topic was notable.  Thus I was WP:BOLD and rewrote the article as a stub (to provide a better starting point for any future editors to expand the article), removing what I thought was excessive pointless detail about each of the individual motions passed at the UN.  The content about the motions was restored by another editor and I did not delete it a second time.  I included in the lede a quote I think concisely summarized the complaints of groups who oppose the motions.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave AzureFury a friendly first notice that he should not remove the content which the consensus of editors during the Article for Deletion process voted to keep. Find my notice and AzureFury's acerbic reply here.
 * I commented on the article's talk page about 4 days before I reduced it to a stub. Pyrrhon came in a few days after I made the edit and accused me of "disruptive editting" and "not respecting the consensus of the AFD."  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave AzureFury a second notice (subst:uw-delete3) to restore the missing content here. His response was to remove the notice.
 * He templated me and accused me of edit warring.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On 22 July 2010, TimeClock871 edited the Page. He restored most of the content which the consensus of editors during the Article for Deletion process voted to keep. He used AzureFury's "article" as the lede.

I removed AzureFury's lede, and replaced it with a lede (the consensus-lede) by the editors (including me) who had voted to keep the article during the AfD process. I gave my reasons for replacing AzureFury's lede at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_ United_Nations, where AzureFury's several replies may be found.
 * Pyrrhon, despite several recent indications otherwise (every editor who has bothered to comment has supported my version of the lede), seems to think that the AFD was an endorsement of his version of the lede. It was not.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury replaced the consensus-lede with his lede. I have neither removed his lede nor edited it.

I gave AzureFury a first notice to stop his attempts to spoil the article. My notice used templates to direct his attention to flaws in his lede apart from its not complying with WP:Lead_section, namely: (1) non-factual statements and (2) original research. See here. AzureFury's response was to remove my notice and to deny that his lede has as many faults as I indicate.
 * I editted the lede to address the claims of factual inaccuracy.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave AzureFury a second notice to stop his disruptive editing here. His unhelpful response is here.
 * He templated me again, using multiple templates this time.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I requested a Third Opinion. The Third Opinion was not helpful. I have no hope that a Request for Comment would be any more helpful. AzureFury and I are agreed that a Request for Comment would be a waste of time. See Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations.
 * What Pyrrhon means to say is the third opinion sided with my version of the lede.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the Page, I placed a template about the lede's factual accuracy. AzureFury removed the template. I restored it. AzureFury removed it. I restored it. I explained my objections to AzureFury's lede at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations.
 * I had addressed the last claim of factual inaccuracy made by Pyrrhon, so I removed the template. He restored it and I asked him why he put it back.  He said "there is factual inaccuracy" without explaining what it was.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_ United_Nations. AzureFury is not interested.
 * By compromise he means he asked me in another way to restore his version of the lede.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He went to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. He asked the editors (See here.) to watch Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations. The editors refused.
 * What Pyrrhon means to say is a couple of editors excused themselves from commented due to edit disputes with Pyrrhon in the past. One has commented, supporting my version of the lede, at least as the basis.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments:


 * AzureFury has had 3 whacks at spoiling the Page. If he had his way, the Page would be nothing but a dozen lines of nonsense in substandard English. I have done as much as a reasonable person can do to encourage him to edit co-operatively and constructively but—as his block-log shows—he wants only to have his way. He is indifferent to consensus. He is indifferent to my explanations and my notices. He recommends that I "GTFO." I suggest that it is time for the community to speak. If the community does not block his mischief, it invites him to do more. I suggest that a topic-ban would be in order. <span style="line-height:12px; border:1px solid blue; padding:1px; background:gold; font-size:10px; color:blue;">PYRRHON  talk   16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm for topic-banning, if not blocking. This has gone too far. —&mdash; W aterfox  ( talk ) 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For readability sake, I'm going to respond in Pyrrhon's comment.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong venue. Since there is no 3RR, and the edit-war is slow-moving and not actively disruptive at this time (and the editor is using the talkpage to discuss), the correct venue would be WP:RFC.  If you believe the issue is more urgent, you could try WP:ANI, though in this case I would try to keep the report more concise than this is. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sheodred reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result: Not blocked per discussion)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:38, 24 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 380614645 by BritishWatcher (talk)")
 * 2) 13:32, 24 August 2010  (edit summary: "This is a bit better.")
 * 3) 13:35, 24 August 2010  (edit summary: "Fixed bold")
 * 4) 13:51, 24 August 2010  (edit summary: "That must have slipped my eye, my apologies.I just put in 'or the Republic of Ireland',it better  than "described as",better for reading.")
 * 5) 17:40, 24 August 2010  (edit summary: "Made improvements to the second paragraph, stop making unconstructive edits people.")
 * 6) 19:44, 24 August 2010  (edit summary: "Please stop, why do you insist on such trivial things.I have to ask you to leave it the way it is.")
 * 7) 20:01, 24 August 2010  (edit summary: "Motto")
 * 8) 20:17, 24 August 2010  (edit summary: "see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_mottos, according to the information, it is.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Not all the above diffs are reverts, but they're relevant.—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. May I point out in mitigation, that of Sheodred's edits, only some are reverts. And of those, none are reverting the same text. Sheodred is a relatively new user, and new to this volatile article. S/he already has SarekOfVulcan's (reversed) block on their record. I think that the lesson will have been learnt. "Don't do it again" is enough here. Daicaregos (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I'd just like to add - fair play to SarekOfVulcan for the unblock. Good call. Daicaregos (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree. Sheodred has already acknowledged that they should have used the article talk page. A telling off should be sufficient in my opinion. Jack1297 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per the above discussion, no further admin intervention is necessary. --Chris (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Croq reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

(Similar to previous bouts of edit warring)


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

Nationalist edits against consensus; pushing the POV that Croatian is not related to Serbian, though on talk pages he admits it is. May fall under WP:ARBMAC. I blocked him last time, but think that s.o. else should do it this time, since I've been involved in trying to find compromise wording on the article. Response to latest warning here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extended discussion at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language and several warninɡs on user talk paɡe.

Comments:

Croq started cooperatinɡ after last block, but has reverted to edit-warrinɡ when he found our compromises to be insufficient. — kwami (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, placed on indefinite 1RR under the authority of ARBMAC. Courcelles 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Taivo reported by User:B Fizz (Result: User warned, having indicated acceptance of advice.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: rev372824217


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I (B Fizz) provided no warning.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

Comments:

Continues to insist that a particular section remain as is. One editor has proposed adding a counterargument, and I first supported that idea, then proposed and removed the entire section as WP:UNDUE. To his credit, Taivo explained himself on the talk page, but continued to revert each time. See the talk page for further details. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 22:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * B Fizz is conflating two different issues. First, there is an editor, Mavasher, violating WP:OR.  This has been explained to the editor on the Talk Page, but it's not certain that the editor understands the issue.  Second, there is B Fizz's own editing to blank a stable, long-standing section without gaining consensus.  My reverts have been to deal with both of these two separate issues.  WP:3RR does not apply when the issue is of WP policy--in this case WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS.  --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the one time I blanked the section, Mavasher undid it. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tavio, exactly what verbiage of WP:3RR states that it "does not apply when the issue is of WP policy?" --Chris (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know who "Tavio" is. The user adding the original research had been told several times already and had the violation explained to him in detail on the Talk Page.  After a violation is explained and a user continues to add material against policy, I consider that vandalism.  --Taivo (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious that I was speaking to you. The talk page of the user you were reverting is redlinked.  When exactly did you inform them about the OR policy?  The article talk page and edit summaries may not be enough to catch the attention of an inexperienced user.  --Chris (talk)
 * There are different sets of times (some local, some universal) in the various histories, so I think this is the first mention of original research, although I had mentioned the need for secondary references prior to that: .  I consider it simple good manners to take two seconds to spell another user's name correctly.  I apologize if I sounded snarky, but it's the third time it's happened today.  My user name is not exactly SZckYR45LMrq%.  --Taivo (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for misspelling your account name. My monitor at work is ridiculously large and I haven't yet adjusted font sizes to compensate, so for small words I frequently read letters transposed.
 * As for the dispute, I see that the other editor has engaged on the talk page. However, this does not make warring appropriate by either party.  In the future I would recommend limiting yourself to three reverts and advising an administrator (via this noticeboard) if the other party continues to war over additions that are not policy-compliant.  Except in cases of blatant vandalism (or the other exceptions) you should be wary of 3RR.  Note that vandalism requires malicious intent.  I'm not yet convinced that there is malicious intent here, nevertheless it would be better to report the other user for edit warring than risk getting blocked yourself.  --Chris (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. --Taivo (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The user was acting in good faith, and appears now to have accepted advice on how to deal with such cases. I have explained to Taivo that this closure is based on their accepting the need to avoid edit warring in future. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Serienfan2010 reported by User:ChaosMaster16 (Result: Already blocked for 31 hours by GorillaWarfare.)
Page:, , Various

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: 3rd Warning


 * Vandalism warning/revert


 * Other user's warning

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

Comments:

User has shown no sign of stopping persistant reversions. It hasn't just been on the pages I mainly work on; Looking at his contributions, he is a new user and has reverted many of registered and older users edits. I am concerned about this; especially since the user has not started a discussion after many summaries asking to do so.

Chaos Master Chat 00:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have also given advice to the user on their talk page. Re-report if the problem continues after the present block expires. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:24.176.191.234 reported by User:202.128.18.230 (Result: Declined)
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:

This person has been apparently violating Wikipedia policies, by expecting other people to edit like a "happy contributor instead of getting pissy" on my talk page, while she started yelling by using exclamation points on the Stella Bonasera article to another editor because the editor thought that this was a fansite. 24.176.191.234 feels the need to yell at this person, as well as call me "snotty" on her talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.18.230 (talk • contribs)


 * Two reverts in ~3 weeks hardly counts as edit warring. --Chris (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)