Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142

User:Timelessagain reported by User:Eudemis (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:50, 9 October 2010  (edit summary: "") ]
 * 2nd revert: 00:48, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "") ]
 * 3rd revert: 00:51, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "") ]
 * 4th revert: 00:52, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "") ]
 * 5th revert: 00:53, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "") ]
 * 6th revert: 02:32, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "") ]
 * 7th revert: 03:08, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "") ]
 * 8th revert: [03:10, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "") ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This single purpose account and apparent newbie isn't familiar with Wikipedia sourcing requirements and continues to edit in unsourced material into the Robert Conrad article. It doesn't appear, to me at least, that he understands the discussion pages as he/she hasn't engaged in any discussions regarding his edits. I had requested/invited him to do so. He continues to drop in the same or similar information unsourced leaving the conflicting citations in place or worse miscodes the citations so that they don't appear. He was warned by User:Dr.K. concerning the 3R Rule but continued to revert back in the same text. The reversions have ended for now because we are leaving his latest edits in uncorrected. See the current state of the article. He may be well intentioned but he needs a crash course in Wikipedia policies if he is going to edit this aggressively. Eudemis (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly 4 reverts in 24 hours, including after a warning. Mkativerata (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Various IPs reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

IP keeps adding loaded wording despite reversions by several editors to neutral wording. --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In absence of response here, I have again returned it to clean version.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Semiprotected six months. This page appears to be a long-time vandal target. The name Gr**p is mentioned in the log. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note the IP is still stirring up trouble on my talkpage and the article talkpage.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:SpecialKCL66 reported by User:AzureCitizen (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:James_O'Keefe

Comments:

The words "heavily and selectively edited" appear in the source citation for the sentence in the article here. SpecialKCL66 has removed the words "...found the videos had been heavily and selectively edited and..." from the article four times in a five hour span despite objections from myself and another user on the Talk Page. This user appears to be brand new, so perhaps instead of a block, an admin could politely instruct him more about 3RR and the importance of seeking consensus before reverting? --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Later Update: Striking through part of my prior comment above after User:SpecialKCL66 aggressively inserted a paragraph of POV-oriented original research with RS issues (I can't provide the direct diff because he made them in the course of 8 intermediate revisions). When user Filmfluff reverted the edits here, user SpecialKCL66 promptly reverted them back here to re-insert his new material. That's not another 3RR, but demonstrates clear intent to edit war to add his POV. --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have also warned, who has just barely avoided 3RR. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Eliseunder reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The user has asserted his intent to edit the article to reflect his POV that HIV does not cause AIDS, seen at the above talk page link. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mkativerata (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Mmann1988 reported by User:Nyttend (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (I can't remember the proper template, but this note contains both a link to the relevant policy and a notice of the page in question)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none; discussion has been carried on by use of edit summaries, although Mmann1988 has frequently reverted without comment.]

Comments:

Mmann1988 continues to add a link to this template that has been opposed by multiple editors and supported by none. Despite continued explanations, s/he refuses to engage in productive discussions and either reverts without comment or attacks those with whom s/he disagrees. I reverted to the point of 3RR, miscounting my actions and not realising until afterward that I'd hit that point. Please note that Mmann1988 is functionally a single-purpose account; other than this template and related articles, his/her only edits have been a pointy and obvious bad-faith AFD that was speedy kept. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reporter's warning was given after the fourth and most recent revert; however, I am blocking for a week because the edit-warring follows a long pattern of disruptive editing. A warning as opposed to a block would only be justified if the editor had a good faith misapprehension that no rules were being broken by reverting. I can't extend that assumption of good faith here.Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty reported by User:RomanHistorian (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:



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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Dylan Flaherty is engaging in edit warring behavior. He has actually been doing this for quite a while with me. I feel he is Wikihounding me. For about a month he has been reverting just about everything I do on this most other religion articles. He almost never comments on the discussion boards, he just reverts. Whenever he gives any reason he just says my views are fringe. He also adds a good number of personal attacks against me. I made some changes to Gospel of John and other users agreed though modified what I did, and he just blanket reverted everything several times within a few hours. My first change included a single source which he called fringe, so I added 14 sources and he reverted that as well, also calling it fringe. As you can see on the discussion page, he has said almost nothing concerning his blanket reverts. Also notice the revert by Hardyplants where he reverts one of Dylan Flaherty's reversions and says he is engaging in edit warring behavior. I also noticed that he has persistently engaged in edit warring with other members. I see that he was cited for edit warring above (Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring). It seems to be an ongoing behavioral problem for him. I noticed from his comment page that he has only been a Wikipedia member for a month. That is a lot of edit warring in a short period of time. I guess that means he started edit warring with me about the time he signed up for Wikipedia. He is pretty knowledgeable of Wikipedia policies for someone who has been on Wikipedia for such a short time. I wonder if he might be a sock puppet.


 * I'm sorry to have to inform you that RomanHistorian is being less than completely candid. He's been making broad changes against consensus, leading a number of concerned editors to revert his changes. He has edit-warred against consensus and that's why he was just blocked. As soon as he regained the ability to edit, he abused it by wikihounding me. He went to the articles I most recently edited -- including many he knows and cares nothing about -- and reverted my changes. I find it richly ironic that he is guilty of the things that he accuses me of, while I am innocent of them. I believe that RomanHistorian needs a longer block at this time. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have reverted a good number of edits by other users on these same pages over these same issues (see the reverts above). You also have no idea what my interests are. If I was wikihounding you I wouldn't have left most of your recent edits alone.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you reverted these articles, when you had never edited them before and mine was the last edit. Show me why we should believe it was in good faith. Start by explaing this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With those articles you were engaging in your destructive edit war/reversion behavior. It seems pathological with you. I didn't touch the articles where others had dealt with your behavior. Actually your behavior is all around destructive, and I find it interesting that below you identify yourself with PiCO who has engaged in similarly destructive behavior.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan has just violated 3RR on Gospel of John. He should be blocked for that reason if none other. He is repeatedly reverting everything he doesn't like on Gospel of John. He just reverted an edit by John J. Bulten, who had filed the edit war complaint earlier and cited Dylan as a culprit. It appears that he is indiscriminately reverting everything. It is becoming very difficult to make changes to many of these articles. He is simply reverting things whole sale and not just those I make. As mentioned above, he has edit warred with others.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You do yourself no favors by lying. Yes, I did revert that article, but no, I did not violate 3RR. Anyone can go see for themselves, just as they can see that you were blocked for edit-warring over these same topics. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He has a history of edit warring separate from these mentioned incidents User_talk:Dylan_Flaherty.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Translation: I have a history of reverting your broad, anti-consensus changes. PiCo and I are awaiting the mediation on these topics. I am willing to work with others and come to a consensus; this is how we differ. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a history of reverting many other people's 'anti-conensus' changes. It seems the 'consensus' is whatever you define it to be.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this is another bit of dishonesty. The 3RR warning was given to me and to PiCo because we reverted your changes. It has everything to do with these mentioned incidents. At the time I received the warning, I did not know what 3RR was. Now I do. I hope you do, too, since you were blocked for violating it and I never was. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I was blocked for 3RR, as I didn't actually violate it. The first of the 4 reversions that was cited for that was not a reversion but the original edit. Not much I can do about their mistake though.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Roman, around here anything counts as a revert; on that first one you were deleting work somebody else put in years ago, get it? On Gospel of John because of intervening edits a very loose interpretation could put me at "three reverts" already even though I am improving the article and only one was a straight undo. On another article I made only improvements except for reverting two words, yet I was still found to be warring and the article is protected for 2 weeks. Another editor in the incident had a clear 5RR but got no block and only a day of protection. But "quit yourselves like men". JJB 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: My report below is redundant with this one, apparently on the same four reverts, but the diffs may be easier to follow. The fourth revert undid four other helpful editors simultaneously, but Dylan called it a revert to a consensus version. Dylan also apparently claims to know what 3RR is prior to engaging in these four reverts. JJB 08:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Fully protected. For the rationale, see another report of the same dispute, given below. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Perspectoff reported by Walter Görlitz (talk) (Result: already blocked, see below)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 07:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:03, 10 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 05:01, 11 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 390008162 by Walter Görlitz (talk)")
 * 3) 05:04, 11 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 390008523 by Walter Görlitz (talk)")
 * 4) 06:57, 11 October 2010  (edit summary: "") and 07:03, 11 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 07:11, 11 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 390020700 by Cindamuse (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See below Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Walter_Görlitz reported by User:Perspectoff (Result: 24h for reporter, declined for reportees )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (suspected sockpuppetry)
 * 5th revert: (suspected sockpuppetry)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

External links in question have been in place since November 2008. User:Walter_Görlitz took exception to external links (See . All external links except for official link from info box were removed by Gorlitz.

Text of article then changed in an effort to reach a middle ground, with the references now containing the external links. Suspected sockpuppet User:Cindamuse immediately removed both text, references, and a subsection of the article in order to filter the references as well. This article is about Ubuntu. The filtered references links are to the official Ubuntu support Forums and to official and unofficial Ubuntu support wikis.

User:Gorlitz and suspected sockpuppet User:Cindamuse then engaged in Wikihounding of User:Perspectoff.


 * Perspectoff is unable to count. The first edit is over a week before the the latter two and User:Cindamuse and I are not the same. We have not been hounding User:Perspectoff, simply warning user of his abuse. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Reporter violated 3RR, reportees did not and sockpuppetry is unlikely (although reporter is encouraged to file a SSP after block is over). All parties are encouraged to stop edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: see below


 * 1st revert: 08:56 reverts to
 * 2nd revert: 19:35 reverts this edit with another edit intervening, to
 * 3rd revert: 02:04 reverts to
 * 4th revert: 07:26 reverts to same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: earlier, now

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: by RomanHistorian. Full disclosure: I was asked by RomanHistorian to look at the article history and observed Dylan had already performed 3 reverts. I began a normal article-cleanup process and was cold-reverted by Dylan without warning or cogent summary, along with intervening diffs by 3 other editors. I had no intention of tempting Dylan to close the circuit with a fourth revert, as made clear by my fixes of his reverts being limited only to restoring issue tags and wikilinks, and by starting with obvious policy problems like weasel words rather than the large deleted paragraphs.

Comments: I just mentioned Dylan in a related report still listed above at WP:ANEW, which should be reviewed in full as well before determining timeframe of any penalties. JJB 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to comment on any of this at the moment except to point out that this is a duplicate report. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I just noticed so myself, but I hope it's slightly more comprehensive. Reviewers should please see all three related reports on this page. JJB 08:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to comment: look at the dates and the other revisions in between. It's obviously not a 3RR violation, although it's true that JJB and RomanHistorian are edit-warring. Read the talk page and you'll see the full context. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you're about to learn what edit warring is. Making two improvements on an article I've never touched is not edit warring, even if minor reversion of your deletion of tags and wikilinks is included. Your four undoings of prior edits or edit sets, without adjustment or discussion, is absolutely edit warring. Admins also consider a lot of related behavior edit warning, so please keep in mind, after you (presumably) get blocked for this one, that if you're too obvious about pushing the limits of what you think is edit warring next time even without breaking them, that too is edit warring. Verbum sat. JJB 08:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * JJB, after Andrew C informed me about 3RR, I read up on it. I am not violating that rule. If I get blocked, it can only be due to administrators finding some other reason. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between 3RR and edit warring. 3RR can be objectively measured.  Edit warring is a pattern of behavior that skirts 3RR but is still disruptive.  Dylan, your editing exhibits this pattern of behavior.  However, a block is not necessary (blocks are not punitive) if you'll simply agree to altering (for the better) your approach to editing this article.  Rklawton (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Dylan believes that he was both warring and committing the objectively measured fourth straight revert. He is using the fact that RomanHistorian was blocked for three reverts and a deletion to show that his reversions are justified. Further, the agreement must involve the broad scope of Dylan's whole editing approach, not just this article, because of his same behavior on the articles in PiCo's report and elsewhere. It would also need to be an explicit statement from Dylan's part and not just assumed by the monitoring admins. JJB 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are Dylan's four reverts which I believe constitute a 3RR violation, since they are within 24 hours and each one undoes some work by another editor:
 * 08:56, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "undue weight on a fringe belief")
 * 19:35, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "no, these skew far away from the mainstream and give undue weight to non-mainstream views; please talk this over and gain consensus first")
 * 02:04, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "there is still no consensus in support of these changes, so please make your case before editing")
 * 07:26, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "restore consensus version")
 * If anyone believes that this is not a WP:3RR, can they explain? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems Dylan is trying to redefine what 3RR is. 3RR is 4 reversions on a page within 24 hours, even if other editors made other changes within that time period. I think he thinks the other edits by other editors within that time period means his 4 reversions are not true reversions. The real problem for him isn't the 3RR, it his his pathological edit war behavior. I think he should get much more than a 24 hour ban, because what he has done from the moment he came onto Wikipedia has been far worse than a simple 3RR.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually think Dylan should be permanently blocked. In his short time on Wikipedia, he has constantly engaged in edit warring. He also routinely uses personal insults against me (I am fringe, anti-catholic, extremist, a bigot, don't know what I am talking about, ect). I have been on Wikipedia for probably about five years and have made a lot of changes (I created the entire Roman Constitution series and got much of it promoted to Good Article status), and I don't think I have ever encountered anyone as destructive as Dylan. No one else has singled me out for harassment either. If you look at his history, he seems to involve himself in mini-edit wars on just about everything he edits. Just to pick randomly, it looks like he has done this in the last couple days on John the Baptist and Historicity of Jesus. It seems to me he adds almost nothing, but rather his activity on Wikipedia is mostly just reverting the work of others. Looking at Q source, for example, shows that he recently reverted a one-word change from "most" to "some" (thus restoring a more extreme wording) and said nothing other than this one word change (which rightfully mellowed the language) needed to be explained although apparently his reversion did not. If someone disagrees with him, he will revert, no matter how legitimate the change was. He is discouraging legitimate changes to other areas of Wikipedia. Other articles need to be touched up in various ways, but he simply reverts everything while providing no explanation other than the occasional personal insult. I can't make a one word change without him reverting it for no reason. As you can see on Gospel of John other editors raised legitimate issues with my edits, I adjusted them and we reached a compromise. Compare that with Dylan, who just reverts without discussion. He is very destructive, and I feel he is stalking me because sometimes I just make random edits and within a couple hours he just so happens to revert them while calling them "fringe". He called my changes to Gospel of John fringe because he doesn't like the source, so I added 14 different legitimate sources and he reverted it for the same reason. This apparently was too much for the other editors since they allowed these changes because they were so well sourced. It upsets me greatly when just about everything I do is reverted by him for no apparent reason other than it was I who made an edit. Even look at Book of Genesis or Book of Exodus where he reflexively reverts one word changes I make with no explanation.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Fully protected two weeks, to curtail edit warring. I perceive that several editors, not just Dylan, are making large-scale edits for which they are unlikely to be able to show a talk page consensus. Any admin may lift the protection if they believe the problem  has gone away. Discussion should be pursued on the Talk page even though the sides may be far apart. WP:Dispute resolution explains what to do when agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For future reference the next time Dylan decides to edit war (any hour now no doubt) I found another instance of him edit warring in the bowels of Wikipedia: Talk:Battle_of_Jericho (from Alky2000 to Dylan) "The sentence you entered does not have any sources, and is your opinion. Whether evidence is sufficient is a matter of opinion", Dylan brings up his usual rational of "consensus", and then Alky2000 says to him "I don't appreciate you trying to persuade me to stop editing, and simply pointing to sections instead of actually providing a source isn't helpful". Apparently Dylan's actions here resulted in yet another edit war notice (User_talk:Alky2000). As usual, the common denominator is Dylan. One has to wonder how endemic his edit warring is, and how many other times he has done it. I am sure I will be reporting him again here in the not so distant future....RomanHistorian (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and it appears Dylan just promised to continue edit warring User_talk:Dylan_Flaherty.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see for yourself that RomanHistorian is lying. Sadly, he does not show the least bit of integrity. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dylan should still be blocked, not just because he violated 3RR but because he routinely engages in edit warring behavior on a large number of articlesRomanHistorian (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This was fast. Dylan has already begun edit warring again. I made some changes to Battle of Jericho and he reverted them after a few minutes.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I encourage anyone who might otherwise believe RomanHistorian to do a diff and see that I removed sentence that wasn't even proper English. If this is edit-warring, we are all edit warriors. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just found two new examples of Dylan edit warring in the last couple of hours. Both cases, surprise surprise, are simply reverts of the last edits. He seems unable to do anything on Wikipedia other than erase the work of others, . We should start a new Wikipedia article: The many dubious reverts of Dylan FlahertyRomanHistorian (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I encourage anyone who might otherwise believe RomanHistorian to go see for themselves. For example, the edit I made to Carl Paladino was to restore a cited paragraph that was erased without a stated reason. It was restoring, not deleting, which proves that RomanHistorian is either being careless or dishonest. The more he grinds his axe, the harder it is to believe the former. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating your modus operandi to us all. You did yesterday what you just did an hour ago to that article: reverted the prior edit for no reason other than your usual excuse of "no cited reason". Now if you weren't engaging in pathological edit warring behavior, manifested mostly through whole-sale reverts, a revert here or there would be acceptable. But your method is just to revert everything. Much of what you revert has no place being reverted. You are all around destructive. I am just going to keep a log of your reverts rather than try to correct the damage. At some point we will have to try to get you banned for your behavior.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, when someone erases a paragraph for no stated (or apparent) reason, it's a very good thing for someone else -- like me -- to revert it. This is how we fight vandalism and bias. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So your reversion of Rossnixon's edit on Jesus, 3 minutes after it was made, was because Rossnixon is a vandal? RomanHistorian (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

More edit warring from Dylan. It seems he was doing more reverting, and almost triggered another war with another user (see Olive's complaint against Dylan over his behavior on User_talk:Dylan_Flaherty. She says he was reverting the consensus view) See the reversion list:. Notice this was a different person and different article from the near edit war over Battle of Jericho an hour earlier. This list of Dylan's warring behavior will be quite extensive before too long. RomanHistorian (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on there buckaroo. No edit warring and no complaint. Dylan did not revert. I reverted him for weasel wording ... a simple copy edit revert which I made. He also replied civilly and seemed ready to take advice. Isn't this a new user. It can take a while to figure out Wikipedia and it can be hard if the user feels they've been misunderstood. I won't go further with this, but this was my experience and I wanted to clarify what happened. Make sure comments are accurate and fair, please.(olive (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

User:Myk60640 reported by User:Sailsbystars (Result: Page protected for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (It's more complicated than a single reversion I'm afraid. I'm trying to link to a page before the edit warring started, but it's hard to pin down what a "good" revision is)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of user responding and still not understanding the meaning of WP:OR: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailsbystars (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Several users are attempting to add non-RS and SYN information to the article in question. This particular user refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. Article could desperately use some more outside help and possibly full protection from the ongoing edit war (in the interest of full disclosure, in which I have participated).

Sailsbystars (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE The edit war continues unabated. I have reached 3RR and ceased editing. I think may have also breached 3rr. Now an IP is involved, as are a smattering of other users. Where the heck are the admins? Sailsbystars (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Plenty of warring to go around. Protection may be lifted early once disruption is unlikely to resume. --Chris (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Cavai Dobrescu Marius reported by User:ErikHaugen (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:

Comments: The editor keeps removing notability/needstranslation tags, etc.


 * Don't want to sit him/her out for too long as he/she may decide to try in good faith to save the article from deletion. Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerrymahal reported by User:Anapologetos (Result:warned)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Tribes_Mission&action=historysubmit&diff=389879905&oldid=384904505

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user will not discuss edits on Talk page--It is very clear that his edits are against the no original research policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anapologetos (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Proper warning had not been given. Please report if this continues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Taivo reported by User:78.3.236.45 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 11:17, 10 October 2010
 * 2nd revert: 12:29, 10 October 2010
 * 3rd revert: 12:45, 10 October 2010
 * 4th revert: 12:49, 10 October 2010 (WP:GAME)

3RR in 27h (2RR in 30 minutes!) on the article Croatian language '''.
 * 13:02 4 Oct,
 * 13:32 4 Oct-16:11
 * 5 Oct

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User often violate rules:
 * November_2009
 * November_2009_2
 * 3RR_Violation
 * 3RR_notice

Tavio is playing the system, with his reverting he floods the history log in such a way that it is very hard to keep track of the changes.

This was posted by User:Kubura and is completely baseless. Indeed, it is User:Kubura who is abusing the system with pointless warnings on his the Talk Pages of those who don't share his POV. He has made no constructive contributions to Croatian language whatsoever. See User Talk:Taivo for Kwamikagami's opinion of this posting. --Taivo (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fourth revert was actually a self-revert. Taivo's use of the cn tag might constitute a third reversion, but not fourth. Please use dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User:321sakel reported by User:Hezery99 (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

This user keeps on spamming the "Beams collapsed at Pajam Interchange" as if he is the reporter for that event. Even though Aiman abmajid and I as regular editors for Malaysian highway articles team up together to clean up the mess caused by 321sakel, he is still persistent to revert back the spams that he has done previously. To all admins in English Wikipedia, please do something to 321sakel to stop him from spamming the article. Thank you. - Hezery99 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, sorry to cross wires Magog, but I blocked him as a sock of, who has already been indef blocked for disruptive editing. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry? You cross wires with me and can only say sorry?... (Just kidding, hope I got you...) Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, thanks a lot to the admins on duty for helping me out with this issue. Anyway, I've just realized that 321sakel is actually a sock puppet of Lekas123, the original vandal, from the spelling of his name. I have reverted the article to what it used to be and, hopefully, there won't be any more vandal for that article. Thanks a lot to all admins in duty, I really appreciate that. - Hezery99 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Nowayjoesay reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

I do not need to give link, his action act for himself, at least he started to discuss, but never gave up edit warning. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 23:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Four reversions. I've gone for longer than 24 hours due to personal attacks (albeit on the mild side) and the threats of further reversions indicating no attempt to edit collaboratively. Hopefully three days out of action might change that. Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I don't really think that (s)he'll stop doing it, I gave him(her) many reasons and continue with "I am right you are wrong and have a nice day". Tb hotch Ta lk C. 00:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He does have constructive contributions on his record, so we'll just have to hope for the best. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Harrypotter reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result:declined)

 * Pages: Council of People's Commissars, the People's Commissariat for Finance, the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Soviet Union) and the Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union).
 * he is creating two articldes on the same topic; the People's Commissariat for Finance and the Ministry of Finance of the USSR, and all other commissariat and ministrial articles on the topic of the USSR. The organizations are the name, sources say so, these organizations were renamed. At the same time, the organisations' structure and its duties and responsibilities stayed the same after ther renaming process. Creating TWO articles ON THE SAME topic is ludicrous. Also he is copying material that i wrote on the ministry pages on the people's commissariat pages, so the pages become redundant. TIAYN (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * List of examples:


 * see his talk page, he is unwilling to discuss a solution
 * See the pages of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and People's Commissariat for Finance revision history, he is creating articles which has copied material from the ministry articles' i wrote. See his recent edit on the Council of People's Commissars. Sources say it was renamed, Soviet sources from the renaming process says it was reorganised, I don't really give a dam about the reorganisation process seeing these organisation had very little effect on the basic structures on these ministries. --TIAYN (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of edit warring, rather just a dispute. I have warned the editor for cut-and-paste moves. I see no further action necessary other than following proper dispute resolution channels. Otherwise, this is a malformed report, and there's no way any administrator can figure out who's responsible for what and where. Please follow the instructions for filing a complete report if there is extensive edit warring on the same page. If on different pages, again, try dispute resolution or WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Gyrobo reported by User:FleetCommand (Result:no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 3 October 2010; Edit summary: (Huge ref fix, removed a ton of duplicates.)


 * 1st revert: 6 October 2010; Edit summary: MINOR EDIT (Undid revision 389155743 by FleetCommand (talk) The discussion is not over.)
 * Important event: 8 October 2010: A Third opinion is requested and received
 * 2nd revert: 10 October 2010; Edit summary: (Changing dates per Talk:WebP/Archive 1#Date format.)
 * 3rd revert: 12 October 2010; Edit summary: (Changing dates per concensus, see Talk:WebP/Archive 1#Date format.)
 * 4th revert: 13 October 2010; Edit summary: (Reverted good faith edits by FleetCommand; Reverted per DATERET, see talk page. (TW))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Gyrobo

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

Comments:

The following are important highlights of this case: Fleet Command (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Roots of the dispute: On 1 October 2010, I tried to unify the date style of the article to one of two that WP:MOSDATES recommends, i.e. DD MMM YYYY format. On the same day, Gyrobo changed the article date format to YYYY-MM-DD format; a bold violation of policy to which I responded per R part of WP:BRD. . I sent him a BRD notice which he later transferred to talk page, where you can presently find. I did not included these diffs above because they were not part of an edit war; they can be justified per WP:BRD. (But after all, one cannot say that I tried to hid these diffs; they are here after all!)
 * 2) Third opinion: Gyrobo reverted the article in his own favor twice – on 3 and 6 October 2010 (see diffs above) – before he called for a WP:3O while there was obviously no consensus. On 8 October 2010, a third opinion is requested. User:Macwhiz responded (you may observe it in talk page) as follows.
 * 3) *Okay, so here's what I think: This article had already established day-before-month as its date format, both in the body and in the citations. There was no consensus reached to change it on the talk page; indeed, I would hesitate to characterize this discussion as even approaching the concept of "consensus building." I hate to bring up WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this discussion seems to be heading that way. Unless and until a clear consensus is formed here, the article, and its references, should continue to use day-before-month.
 * 4) Persistence in edit warring: Even after having received the aforementioned third opinion, Gyrobo continued to revert article in his own favor by leveraging the following two personal opinion from User:Macwhiz and User:Waldir and asserting that the majority are in favor of YYYY-MM-DD. He ignored WP:NOTVOTE. (Perhaps if he hadn't done so, I had been successfully persuaded.)
 * 5) *That said, I personally do think that ISO 8601 makes more sense in citations, and I would encourage Fleet Command [~sic~] to consider agreeing to using it in the citations. — Macwhiz
 * 6) *I too think that YDM/ISO is a reasonable choice for the references, for they are lists indeed, and would thus benefit of the very advantages for lists the MoS refers to (conciseness). — Waldir
 * 7) One complication: During the course of discussion, I inadvertently committed a misconduct (although in good faith) that when I realized it, I tried to compensate. Here is the details:
 * 8) On 7 October 2010, Gyrobo said in Talk page: "Not only are the admins who attend EW cases fools, they're dancing fools." I mistakenly took this sentence literally and thought it to be an obscene indiscriminate insult to 215 (am I correct about the number?) administrators of Wikipedia who attend Administrators' Noticeboard. Subsequently, my tone became inadvertently less civil. I never offended him directly but the assumed bad faith in him, the effect of which is apparent in my subsequent writings. I admit that it is very difficult to remain polite with person who insults a whole community. On 10 October 2010, Gyrobo told me that dancing fool is not an insult, but I did not believe him until he later edited his post and supplied a dictionary definition.
 * 9) On 13 October 2010, I tried to compensate by apologizing, refraining from promptly reporting him to noticeboard and by offering him a shortcut to resolve the dispute quickly: I recommended Gyrobo to seek the opinion of User:ESkog a very respected Wikipedia Administrator; if ESkog's opinion was in favor of YYYY-MM-DD, I (Fleet Command) would stand down the discussion unconditionally; but if the ESkog's opinion was not in favor of YYYY-MM-DD, Gyrobo could ignore it at will freely continue the chain of dispute resolution. My only condition was: Don't revert the article anymore!. Unfortunately, on 13 October 2010, Gyrobo disregarded this offer and reverted the article one again for the fifth time in his own favor.


 * There are a few things I would like to point out here:
 * FleetCommand issued his edit warring notice at the same time that he posted here.
 * My four contentious edits were done over a period of two weeks, not 24 hours. Other editors involved in the dispute on Talk:WebP/Archive 1 have stated that they would not characterize my actions as edit warring. FleetCommand has accused me of edit warring in the past for making a single edit. I urge all admin involved in this case to read the full text of Talk:WebP/Archive 1.
 * Later on in the discussion, Macwhiz changed his opinion to support YMD dates within the references. I pointed this out to FleetCommand several times.
 * I did not edit my post to provide a dictionary definition, I added that definition in a new reply, and referred to that reply when FleetCommand continued to insist that I had insulted other editors. He has also refused to refute points brought up by other editors, dismissing them as personal opinion.
 * --Gyrobo (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the notice you are talking about is ANI-case notice not edit warring notice; You received your edit warring notice once in your talk page and times and again in article talk page. You did not cease. You kept reverting on pretext of "reverting in good faith is not edit warring" (which is wrong) and "we have a consensus" (which is wrong again).
 * Second, 24 hours limits is only for 3RR. You are charged with edit warring not 3RR.
 * Third, Macwhiz never changed his opinion. His personal opinion and his 'interpretation of the policy was always separate. From the very beginning, he said:
 * "Are ISO 8601 dates allowable in references? Yes, generally."
 * "I personally do think that ISO 8601 makes more sense in citations"
 * "the article, and its references, should continue to use day-before-month"
 * He said all of these in the same post. But all of these said, none of these sanction syour constant reversal of the article in your own favor.
 * Fourth, don't play with words: Maybe I am in error and the dictionary definition has always been there (though I don't think so); the important point is that I realized my error, appologized for my it and offered you a win-without-lose way of ending the discussion in your favor without edit warring. You disregarded and edit warred one last time.
 * Fifth, don't bring the talk page here: We're not here to see whether I'm wrong or you are right; we are here because you kept reverting the article in your own favor – even though you may have been completely right.
 * Fleet Command (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * User Gyrobo accurately characterizes my opinion; user FleetCommand does not. Yes, at first I agreed with retaining MDY dates, but upon further investigation I found that ISO format dates had been used first in citations, and that therefore under WP:CITE and WP:DATERET, that style should be retained. None of the cases that would warrant a format change are applicable. Having been involved in the situation as a third party, I feel Gyrobo has not edit-warred here; I think he was making good-faith edits based upon Wikipedia guidelines and talk-page consensus. Fleet, however, has shown a pattern of misrepresenting the statements of others, using ad hominem attacks, and general tendentiousness. I think this AN3 report is a case of WP:DEADHORSE as a result of WP:JDLI and WP:IDHT, frankly. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly no 3RR violation, and as far as edit-warring generally, there are ongoing reversions from both sides. Please continue to work on the talk page to resolve the dispute and engage in other dispute resolution mechanisms if need be (some of which have already been suggested on the talk page). Mkativerata (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Piriczki (Result:No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Although Radiopathy has not yet exceeded 3RR on the article in question, he shows a pattern of similar disruptive edits here and here. I have repeatedly attempted to explain my edits but my explanations are summarily dismissed or ignored without the user providing any cogent opposing argument or sources to support his position. It should be noted that this user makes no attempt to "correct" any other plural verbs throughout any of these articles, but only changes one word in the first sentence and appears to only target certain articles which is why I view this as purposeful disruption, not to mention his history of edit warring and disruption. User:Radiopathy has been blocked 8 times in less than 15 months. Piriczki (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy also reverted my constructive edits here and here where I had undone unexplained and inaccurate changes to long stable articles. I suspect he had no regard for the accuracy of the articles or bothered to check his facts, and only intended to disrupt and antagonize. Piriczki (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reversions by both parties across multiple articles, none of which come close to 3RR breaches. Please try to resolve your dispute on talk pages (seeking a third opinion would be a good step) without further reversions. Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:124.214.234.26 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:00, 9 October 2010
 * 2nd revert: 18:25, 12 October 2010
 * 3rd revert: 16:03, 14 October 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I am not personally involved in this edit war to date. Other editors in their change comments have stated that the content in question is inappropriate (non-awards being added) and moreover no references are being provided.

For what it's worth, the user/IP has also been previously blocked for content removal in August 2010 has received warnings for their October 14 section blanking on Yi Jianlian and Jeremy Lin

Bagumba (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:Vicky Ng (Result: warned, reporter blocked)
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 suspect that this user is User:Atubeileh's sockpuppet and already requested investigation. Atubeileh's edits should be taken into consideration as well if suspitions turn out positive. In addition, the same editor has been warned regarding personal attacks, deletion of sourced material and unfounded accusation of vandalism and failed to engage in discussion. --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Editor was never properly warned. If the SPI turns up positive, as currently appears likely, editor will be blocked. However, I've also given a 24 hour block the reporter (a la WP:BOOMERANG), who violated 3RR. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: no vio, so far)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

This is complex. Basically, Chesdovi is insisitng on inserting an unsourced and rather odd claim (that "damascus has been descrbied as one of the four holy cities of Islam") and refusing to discuss this on the Damascus talk page. It's a spillover from Hebron however. Two days ago he removed a reference from the article that Hebron is "holy to Muslims.". On the talk page he briefly explained the removal by saing the only sources he could find on Muslim views of Hebron were in "travel books.". I restored the info on the "holyness" of Hebron to Muslims (which is not controversial anyways -- it's the burial place of Abraham who is refered as a prophet by Muslims only behind Mohammed (1.) and Moses (2.) in importance and included the fact (with source) that in early Islam, the associatione with Abraham made Hebron "one of hte four holy cities." He sought to water this down to "considered by some" with an assertion in the edit summary that this is "contested with Damascus." . He then headed off to Damascus article to make his unsourced change, apparently to bolster his case. This editor recently created an article on "Judaism and Bus stops" (deletion discussion here ) and freely admitted in that process that he was making edits to that article as an attempt to set precedents for other articles. He seems to be doing the same thing again.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I can't see how the "1st revert" is a revert. Could you show what it is reverting?  In any case I have left an unequivocal warning on the editor's talk page that any any further reversion without discussion will result in a block, regardless of whether it is a legal 3RR violation.  Please feel free to contact me directly if it is necessary to follow up on this. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * , but feel free to re-report if reverting continues. T. Canens (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Eman007 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: declined/stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: – 07:30, October 14, 2010
 * 2nd revert: – 22:25, October 14, 2010
 * 3rd revert: – 02:26, October 15, 2010
 * 4th revert: – 06:02, October 15, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The image File:FinancialNorth.jpg is the crux of this edit war. User:Eman007 has removed it four times in 24 hours. Two or three other editors oppose this removal. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The warning did not come until hours after the 4th revert. If the editor reverts again, please update this report and leave a note.  In the meantime, as far as I can see it is not actionable. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * / No revert since warning. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Sulmues reported by User:Athenean (Result: 2 weeks/1RR 6 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, also see below


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (changes wording slightly, but still same source and still in the same spirit as previous revert)
 * 3rd revert: (reverts to above version)
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, his response. Also.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: After adding the material in the first diff of this report, Sulmues restores it after I removed it (1st revert). Another user removes it, so he re-adds it in slightly different form (2nd revert). Though he has changed the wording somewhat, he has restored the source and the spirit is the same. When another user removes the material again, Sulmues restores it again (3rd revert), and then again (4th revert). With the last revert, Sulmues has clearly crossed deep into WP:EDITWAR territory, as he is edit-warring against multiple users against consensus. Even worse, he leaves hostiles templates on the talkpage of the last user who reverted him, accusing him of "vandalism" and threatening to report him   (even though he has been warned in the strongest possible terms from calling users who merely disagree with him "vandals" ). Even though he discusses on the talkpage, he discusses and reverts, making a mockery of the discussion process, and is also hostile and trolling ( "I would expect you to jump with joy at 'wild-looking Albanians'"), calling my single revert "usual".

I should note that this is an experienced user (20k+ contribs), who is careful enough to game 3RR without actually breaking it, about which I have warned him:. Yesterday he was at it at Kastoria (an rv back to this version    (which are reverts to this version ), and today this  (rv back to this version, a partial rv, as he restored "Albanian" after I had changed it to "Muslim" in accordance with the source ). Technically no violation but that's 4 reverts (to different versions) in 25 hours. And just a few days ago he was gaming 3RR at Theodore Kavalliotis.

Again, this is an experienced user, but with a history of disruption (edit-warring and incivility, see WP:ARBMAC sanctions log and block log), and was until recently on 1R revert parole which expired at the end of June. In the last month or so, he has greatly increased the frequency with which he reverts. He really ought to know better by now. Some form of ARBMAC sanction may well be appropriate. Athenean (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mkativerata (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With the agreement of the closing admin, and under the authority of WP:ARBMAC, I'm reimposing Stifle's restriction, as follows: is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period on all articles relating to Balkans subjects, broadly construed, for six months, effective upon the expiration or lifting of the current 2-week block. Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page in a minimum of 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert. This sanction may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBMAC. T. Canens (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:140.163.254.157 reported by User:Diannaa (Result:48 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:

Comments:

-- Diannaa (Talk) 00:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mkativerata (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:CanberraBulldog reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 08:54, 15 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "update")
 * 2) 22:45, 15 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* The Murray-Darling Basin Plan */ - updated the wording to reflect a more future tense then a past tense.")
 * 3) 11:36, 16 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Wikipedia hasn't done a lot of things and it isn't claimed that they did do the plan, I don't get your point?  Please do not change without forming consensus in the discussion page.  Cheers")
 * 4) 11:58, 16 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* The Murray-Darling Basin Plan */  Changed back to originally wording until Consensus is formed on discussion page.  Cheers")


 * Diff of warning: here

It is clear that the user also has a point of view and ownership of the article.

—Bidgee (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. Per this edit and this one, CB seems to have agreed to stop warring. Report again if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:217.85.214.167 reported by Walter Görlitz (talk) (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:01, 16 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 390941492 by Walter Görlitz (talk) DO NOT DELETE ENTIRE SECTIONS OF DISCUSSION WRITTEN BY OTHERS")
 * 2) 20:09, 16 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 391112497 by Yworo (talk) Wikipedia is not censored and this is about improving the article")
 * 3) 20:21, 16 October 2010  (edit summary: "Stop censoring this talk page, you will both be reported for this!")
 * 4) 20:30, 16 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 391115099 by Walter Görlitz (talk) You are the vandals here.")

—Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor seems to have given up, and all contribs from this IP are from Oct 16, so there doesn't seem to be any pointing in blocking unless the editor reappears here and continues edit-warring. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Jsrogers24 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Already Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation&diff=391049576&oldid=391042236 [diff]
 * 2nd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation&diff=391131558&oldid=391123041 [diff]
 * 3rd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation&diff=prev&oldid=391134890 [diff]
 * 4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation&diff=391137340&oldid=391135134 [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsrogers24&diff=prev&oldid=391135208 [link]

Comments:Edit warring across 3 related articles.


 * User was already blocked for 24h. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ling.Nut reported by User:Timmccloud (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: I want to report it before it gets this far
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

I want a discussion about this topic, many editors and I feel this section provides necessary context to the article. It is *not* a trivia section, it is showing the prevalence of the concept in our culture. That's not to say it can't be improved, but improvement and wholesale section deletion / reversion are not the same things.

Timmccloud (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this page is not to give warnings, it is to sanction violations that have already occurred. The two reverts listed were over a week apart.  Not asserting that the behavior was okay, but that this is the wrong place to handle it. Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Humaliwalay reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: Full protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:08, 17 October 2010  (edit summary: "/* Religion */ Included sources of 1991 and 1996")
 * 05:11, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ arranged sources and added the very latest and reliable one of PEW Research center which was deleted.")
 * 05:24, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ added Graham and Francke estimates")
 * 05:28, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ arranging sources")
 * 1) 08:21, 17 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 391195584 by George (talk) - USER GOING ABUSIVE")
 * 2) 10:36, 17 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 391209938 by Elie plus (talk) biased edit reverted")
 * 3) 10:59, 17 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 391217626 by Codf1977 (talk) consensus already acquired for Graham fuller report at RSN refer talk-page")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see notice, removed from the talk page prior to the last revert. Codf1977 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Article Fully protected by PhilKnight. Minima  c  ( talk ) 15:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:75.198.85.98, User:75.198.99.134, User:75.198.78.182 , and User:75.198.90.203  reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) 15:48, October 16, 2010
 * 2) 19:40, October 16, 2010 (by IP 1)


 * 1st revert: 19:17, October 16, 2010 to version 1 as IP 1
 * 2nd revert: 22:34, October 16, 2010 to version 2 as IP 2
 * 3rd revert: 00:05, October 17, 2010 to version 2 as IP 3
 * 4th revert: 01:32, October 17, 2010 to version 2 as IP 3
 * 5th revert: 16:24, October 17, 2010 to version 2 as IP 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:08, October 18, 2010 as IP 3

Comments: All edits are adding a "fact" about a living person (apparently the subject's son) sourced only to blog entries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The editor is hopping over a pretty wide range, so blocking does not seem to be feasible. However because this is clearly edit-warring in violation of 3RR, I have reverted back to a clean version of the article and semi-protected it for one week.  Any suggestions for further steps? Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe a rangeblock would be more ideal? (I checked this which appeared to have a range of 75.198.64.0/18) Since their contributions are only related to Kevin Barrett. Minima  c  ( talk ) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I see quite a bit more on that range, e.g., . Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:LogicKey reported by User:intgr (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 2010-10-14T14:37:38
 * 2nd revert: 2010-10-14T15:42:51
 * 3rd revert: 2010-10-14T17:18:43 (user was warned following this revert)
 * 4th revert: 2010-10-17T16:59:43
 * 5th revert: 2010-10-17T18:05:54
 * 6th revert: 2010-10-17T19:30:48

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Single purpose account, disruptive editing. Already banned for 24h for edit warring on the same article (ANEW case by Nuwewsco, ANEW case by me. His edits have been reverted by me, Nuwewsco, Quietbritishjim and Magog the Ogre. We have also tried resolving this on the talk page, but the discussion is always going in circles. When nobody responds in the discussion, LogicKey continues edit warring. -- intgr [talk] 20:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see four reverts during a 24 hour period, I recommend the account being blocked indef as a single purpose account used to revert war. Secret account 21:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would put up a block, but I am now involved in this dispute. This user has taken it to the talk page but appears to be incapable or unwilling to listen to other's logic and/or ask for mediation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:24.29.50.31 reported by User:Hasteur (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:


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

IP address has been warned to not change the color on the contestant panel without gathering consensus. Explanation was given in edit summaries and via a hand crafted talk page message. Recommend a 24 hour block to attract the IP's attention that we are serious about the color change.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: hand crafted message,3RR warning just now

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above message to IP's Talk page and

I am unable to revert as this would put me at 3RR for the day and I have a personal rule that I don't go beyond 2RR as it puts gasoline on the fire. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You warned the user after he violated 3rr, not before, if he reverts back, then a block should be in order, but as it stands now there shouldn't be any block. Secret account 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User has not made any reverts since being warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Steve kap reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:59, 14 October 2010  (edit summary: "//rr, historians generally agree that the exidus story never happened, they are not generally agruing about which moutain...")
 * 2) 19:05, 17 October 2010  (edit summary: "Deciding what  is and is not "according to the bible" is a matter of POV and debate. But clearly this is a well establish belief, in many religious traditions.")
 * 3) 19:59, 17 October 2010  (edit summary: "There has been a bit of debate on what was "written in stone". To say that it was the ED is one this, to say that this is ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE  is another.")
 * 4) 20:22, 17 October 2010  (edit summary: "Well, true, there is no debate about the "spoken" part,, what about this...")
 * 5) 02:27, 18 October 2010  (edit summary: "Did we also decide that the text written in stone were THESE Ten C? Did we also decide to rewrite the bible?")


 * Diff of warning: here. Also warned (and acknowledged warning) in edit summaries and here.

Comments: On a separate note, this user's behavior is also becoming increasingly hostile. He's received warnings from multiple editors about personal attacks (see his talk page and contrib history). If an admin could provide a bit of a nudge to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc, it might help this user contribute positively in the long run. Thanks.

— Jess talk&#124;edits 02:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbro87 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1)  as
 * 2)  as 173.191.15.114
 * 3) Account creation:
 * 4) 01:35, 18 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 391348023 by Yworo (talk)")
 * 5) 01:38, 18 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 391348641 by Yworo (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User has not edit warred since being warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because I reverted the edit right now, he should be blocked indef as a single purpose account sockpuppet. Secret account 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. The user's only had one day to make edits, and it's not blatant spam. If you disagree, feel free to take it to WP:ANI; I'm quite OK with being overruled. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The original edit was spam, and even if it's not spam, is still the use of a sockpuppet to add non-notable companies (I checked google pure press releases, one even has 20 g-hits). Secret account 02:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The user created an account, assuming good faith, in order to not have to edit as an IP anymore (which we encourage). That is not malicious sockpuppetry. And spam issues should be reported to WP:ANI, not this board. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He was blocked indef for sockpuppetry Secret account 00:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Lenschulwitz reported by User:RolandR (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I must say, I was minded to block. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:TheLuca reported by User:AzureFury (Result: protected)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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: There are several edits in which she "undoes partially the edits of another" either by moving information somewhere that makes no sense or outright deleting it.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We've been working on this article together for a few weeks now. There's some bad blood, but I think she's crossed the line this time. Her comments repeat the same phrases over and over, they mention policy, but never explain how it should be applied, or why it is being applied incorrectly.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Person was warned after last revert, and stopped revert warring after the warning, recommend no block. Secret account 21:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No one has made any edits to the article after her last revert. She hasn't had the opportunity to revert.  Further, a warning is not a prerequisite to blocking.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A warning is a prerequisite to blocking, unless the person is experienced enough to know the 3rr rules already, which doesn't seem the case with Luca. he could have reverted as it's in the same area you guys kept on reverting, but he didn't. Secret account 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:Block, "However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking." From the talk page, "Your misrepresentation of the Home Office study and your insistence on deleting the Australian study is a breach of WP:NPOV. Add that to your continued edit-warring and you have a very disruptive editor. "  She knows what edit warring is.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok that dif changes it all, recommend a block. Secret account 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Both of you are edit warring here. What you really need to do is seek input from other editors.  A one-versus-one dispute where both editors are prepared to revert right up to the limit isn't going anywhere.  I have protected the page for 3 days to give you a chance to seek outside input at an appropriate noticeboard or wikiproject, or simply by asking for additional input on the talk page rather than flooding it with your dispute. Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * High five for inconsistent enforcement.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that a high-profile page should be protected just for two editors. Only in cases when it's a mess of editors revert warring each other should the page be protected. Both was revert warring I agree, but AzureFury stopped after three reverts and TheLuca knew he was violating 3rr revert warring. A block would have been better. Secret account 23:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree full-protection was less than ideal, and frankly a block would have been better. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the page history? For several days the article and talk page are full of nothing but these two editors fighting with each other.  Even so, I have no objection to any admin altering the resulting here, if you feel a different result would be more suited to the situation. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* I'm not sure what I saw before, but it's not what I'm seeing on second look. How did that happen? You're right Looie, although I recommend a double-block next time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's cute. I have 2 reverts in the last 24 hours and 3 total in the last week.  She has 4 in the last 24 hours, and more than that if you count edits without "Undid" in the summary.  But yeah, we're completely equal!  Just fire and forget those blocks right?  I swear to god admins have no idea what they're doing sometimes.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 04:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With an attitude like that, I sure have no desire to explain any opinion I have. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm heartbroken.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You do seem to know a "bit" about edit-warring, AzureFury, eh? Her block log is clean, she's not being disruptive right now to warrant a block, and the purpose of blocking her is not punitive anyway, but preventative.  Have you seen WP:BOOMERANG, by the way?  If you assume good faith, things will probably go better for you next time.  Cheers :>  Doc   talk  05:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the talk page before giving me advice on AGF.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm closing this out, per WP:STICK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Cioccolatina reported by User:Lucas (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: or


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (precedent revert about other topic)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here (25 august, 5 september, 2 october, 19 october) and reasons explained by many users in the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: explaination on the talk page (last insertion is mine)

Comments:

Hi, I'm sysop on italian wikipedia and I often fight interwiki spam. For more infos on this case, please check the talk page with explaination about the article and the real bith date of the model, as cited in the official "Miss Switzerland" site. The user [maybe Tchomitcheva himself] and the management are pushing on a fake birthdate. --Lucas (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is for reporting situations where four or more reverts occur within a 24 hour period, or at least something close to that. Four reverts spread out over two months, covering three unrelated topics, don't even come close.  You may have an issue that can be handled at some other site such as ANI, but this does not belong here. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result:48 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

'''Croatian language is under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBMAC


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User:Hammer of Habsburg has now violated 1RR again after he was blocked here yesterday for the same thing. --Taivo (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48 hours by Daniel Case. Secret account 18:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by User:snowded (Result:one month )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: |stable version


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This edit has a long history of edit waring and disruptive behaviour (and had a similar pattern with a previous user name). S/he goes quiet for a period then engages with an article edit warring, inserting multiple disruptive comments on the talk page etc. etc. -- Snowded  TALK  19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A long block should be recommended. Blantant disregard to 3rr policies and was blocked for a month twice before. Secret account 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a month by SarekOfVulcan Secret account 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I was about to say that before you editconflicted me. :-)

User:99.92.130.150 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: Blocked, 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: - IP points other users to talk page but does not take part himself.
 * Another revert after 3RR warning: .  (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And another. Geoff B (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Monkeyassault reported by User:HansSolo54 (Result: reporter indeffed, reported warned, page semi'd)
Page:

User being reported:

After witnessing the continued edit warring in the past few weeks, I have decided to take action against the individuals who are blatantly responsible. User:Monkeyassault and an individual with various IPs ( eg. User:120.152.102.81, etc ) have been going at it for a couple of weeks.

Here is the evidenceUser:Monkeyassault:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Here is the evidence(various IPS):


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

User:Monkeyassault has a history of being against any individual who has raised anything remotely negative against the Malaysian government and his actions has been typically seen in deleting new postings to that effect. User:Monkeyassault has also been rude to new posters and previously been warned to be civil to new posters. Please see the following discussions:

Talk:1Malaysia Talk:1Malaysia User_talk:Monkeyassault

I feel the administrators should take action and protect the 1Malaysia page from further edits and suspend the editors from making any further edits from the time being. HansSolo54 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Monkeyassault needs a block and the page semi-protected while techincally there's no 3rr, the edit warring is extreme in this situation. Secret account 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm probably "involved" so I'm not going to decide this. I don't think Monkeyassault should be blocked. There is no 3RR violation, he hasn't been warned to slow down the reverts generally, and it's clear that he is trying to stop rampant anti-government POV pushing by anonymous editors (which of course isn't a justification for edit-warring, but is relevant to whether he is blocked without warning for a non-3RR violation). And you'll see that he has engaged on the talk page; the IPs have not. I would suggest that Monkeyassault ask for a third opinion or seek some other form of dispute resolution. Also, the reporter looks to me to be a sock of User:Roman888. This is classic Roman888 behaviour. A comprehensive 3RR report on the 4th edit, with a good knowledge of the history of the reported editor? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, yea but comments like "reverting vandalism" even though it's not, is a clear indication of edit warring, I thought Monkeyassault was reverting sourced criticism when in fact it was WP:COATRACK junk, sorry about that. I thought HansSolo54 was one of the IPs originally, yea he needs a checkuser. Secret account 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point - I've left him a note about labelling edits as vandalism. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously sock of someone.
 * Reported user I don't think any blocks need to be handed out at this moment.
 * T. Canens (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Prunesqualer reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

'''Gaza war is under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBPIA

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:



Comments:

User: Prunesqualer has now violated 1RR by inserting material that had been previously deleted and reinserting that material for a second time. He was also issued a warning and given a chance to self-revert but chose to ignore it--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first edit was not a revert, it was an edit. In fact, it was this user's first edit to this page in over 3 months.  nableezy  - 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect "Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, medical facilities and schools, were also attacked" was a line previously in. I am looking for the dif from here it was removed. It is so similar that I believe "reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously" applies. The user also should have used the talk page before the inclusion (there is a note right there) since it is so controversial. He then also should have used the talk page after he was reverted per BRD. He instead chose to threaten arbitration and made the edit without using the talk page. In his defense, though, he is now using the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Proof by assertion does not an argument make.  nableezy  - 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You stated the same thing here and on the talk page. I have done the same. Your comment is irrelevant.Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not the one making a claim not backed by any evidence. How was the first edit listed here a revert? That requires evidence. What I wrote is backed by a cursory look at the user's contributions. The first edit listed here was the first this user made to the article since 22:53, 11 July 2010. You have made an accusation without presenting any evidence at all. There is a difference between our comments, but "relevance" is not it.  nableezy  - 21:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment above. As I said, I am searching for the dif right now. There are obviously many to go through.Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You should really find the evidence before making the accusation.  nableezy  - 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, JJG brought this here, not me. Second, you can click on a version in Sept 2009 and see the line. So here is evidence and you know it. I will be providing a diff though just to make it easier.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And here it is "Mosques, private homes and schools, which Israel maintains were utilized by Hamas as platforms to attack Israel and as weapons storage depots, were also hit." removed. Not only did he reintroduce the information, he failed to add the balance. I assume that there is another diff that does not have that second part of the line. Let me know if it is needed and I will keep on looking.Cptnono (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I dont think you can call an edit made a year ago by another user that isnt even the same as this one evidence that this first edit was a revert.  nableezy  - 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The first diff does not represent a revert. The version alleged to have been reverted to, absent in the initial report but added by Cptnono above, is insufficiently similar and too long ago. CIreland (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would the addition of "which Israel maintains were used by Hamas as platforms to attack Israel and as weapons storage depots, were also hit" also not be in violation? Cptnono (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see in which of Prunesqualer's edits the text you quote, or anything with sufficiently similar meaning, was added or removed. CIreland (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I want to add it. By my reasoning provided above it would be a violation of 1/rr but according to your reasoning I looks like it would be OK. I just want to make sure I am not in violation if I tinker with the line and reinsert material previously removed.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your meaning now. If you think such an addition is likely to be contested (I presume you do think that, or you would not raise it here) then you it would be best to seek opinions at the talk page first. Whether or not it would be judged a revert would depend on whether it would be plausible that you were unaware of the previous removal and were re-adding the text independently. Factors which would considered in judging the plausibility of such would include length of time since the text was removed, similarity to the previous revision, and whether or not you had indicated prior knowledge of the earlier removal. Additionally, I think it would be good advice to suggest avoiding creating the impression of an attempt to game the system - the spirit of a revert restriction is more important than the letter. CIreland (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So I would be subject to sanctions while an editor who failed to use the talk page first and didn't address the previous conversations on a very similar line is completely in the clear? The talk page has been used meticulously over the last couple months with nothing going in or out (including mundane section header changes) without ample time and notice provided on the talk page. Two editors came in today and disregarded the talk page completely. Maybe this is more of an ANI or AE thing over the edit warring board but it is obvious that a style of editing has returned today that everyone should have been happy to see the end of.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I came to this report indirectly - because I have Gaza War watchlisted, saw a new editor making contested edits and so dropped a ARBPIA notification at his/her talk page - which is when I saw the AN3 notice. Thus, I am not unaware of the editing history here. However, if you would like another admin to review this decision then you are welcome to ask for one at WP:AN. CIreland (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to question your decision when it comes to edit warring so another review from an admin won't really help the situation. Think I am just pissey that editors just made the same mistakes that have gotten other blocked and the page locked. I'm almost thinking WGFinley's massive restrictions on other articles are needed throughout the topic area since it is BS that this even happened. We can close this out though. I'll make a request for stricter standards at AN if it starts coming up too much. Also, the user that recieved his notification of sanctions was already aware of them so if anyone does decide to pull the trigger on an AE (premature in my opinion) then he has no excuse.Cptnono (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents due to making a similar edit without reaching consensus again.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:J.kunikowski reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Already blocked and unblocked )
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:

Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Already blocked and then unblocked for promising not to edit-war again. Nothing more to do here.  Sandstein   18:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:173.31.34.252 reported by 209.175.212.136 (talk) (Result: Reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:27, 18 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 388959388 by 108.11.113.51 (talk)")
 * 2) 03:04, 19 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 391548332 by 108.11.113.51 (talk)")

—209.175.212.136 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The reporting editor is warned not to add disputed material to articles without reliable sources to support it. Both editors are admonished to discuss disputes on the talk page rather than edit-warring in the article. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

All content regarding notable resident Calli Cox is well sourced and discussed on the talk page. Concensus seem to dictate its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.212.136 (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Blocked 1m)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) rv of this
 * 2) rv of this
 * 3) rv of this
 * 4) rv of this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user is well-aware of the restrictions on edit-warring and was a party to the initial WP:ARBPIA case.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rachel's_Tomb

Comments:

Chesdovi has repeatedly inserted statements that the sources presented do not back and is removing what sources do say regarding the location of this site. No compromise, such as this is apparently acceptable to this user who insists on only including an extreme minority viewpoint and removing what reliable sources say.  nableezy  - 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * He received a warning for something similar a week ago. .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you mean: here where your report on me was mistaken and unjustified. But I refuse to engage with you. I have never recived an apology from "Bali" for his incivil commnets and swearing. [unless he did on his talk page]. He is stalking me. Help.) Chesdovi (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same can be said of Nab. I first added the infobox which was changed unilaterily by SD. Nab reverts just the same (where I provided a source) and does not wait for the discussipn to come to a conclusion. Again reverted here after I added WB . I provide sources and they are ignored by Nab. (I also was not "party" the the ARB case. I was put on there by someone else and notified, (thanks to user? for remoinding me), but I had no imput and was not invovled. I have not read anything of that until yesterday. Chesdovi (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sources do not say what you claim, and I have not made anywhere near the number of reverts you have. Try that comparison when it is valid.  nableezy  - 16:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I count 4 by you. But you were working in tandem with SD. Both yours outweigh mine. You think my sources are ambiguous. I belive they are "solid". Discuss. Don't report. One of your sources was outdated, from 2002, tey we are in 2010. (My source 2003.) Chesdovi (talk)
 * The only way you can count 4 is if you cant count. I made 2 reverts in the last 24 hours. You have made 4.  nableezy  - 16:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, and one for luck with SD: 4. "I have not made anywhere near the number of reverts you have." Chesdovi (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first is a revert, the second one is not, the third one is, and the fourth one is made by a different user. Again, if you can count you can see I have made 2 reverts. Half of what you have done.  nableezy  - 16:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then my 2nd one is not a revert either. Neither is the last, as the map was changed too. Chesdovi (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For anyone unfamiliar with the Israel-Palestine dispute as played out on Wikipedia, there's an ongoing dispute regarding the coverage of the West Bank. Editors on both sides have watchlisted the articles, and in the context of Chesdovi being making pointy edits, the accusations of stalking shouldn't be taking seriously. There's a thread on WP:ANI concerning the pointy edits. If admin regulars here want to issue blocks, then in order to avoid duplication, I won't take any action, otherwise I'm inclined to restrict the parties to 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Phil, with all due respect, these "equal" restrictions are unjustified. I have avoided edit-warring on this article, making edits that were a compromise between the two positions and that were not reverts. Chesdovi has blindly reverted without regard for either my sources which, he ignores, or his sources, which he misrepresents. I have not made 4 or even 3 reverts, so I do not see how the "parties" here can be treated equally. If this is always going to be the result, regardless of who is making more reverts, let me know so that I can make sure I make just as many reverts as the other party so that the punishment would actually be justified.  nableezy  - 16:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My edits were of the same nature as Nab's. Nab does not wait for the talk page to come to a dicsion before reverting. That is wrong. After the Israel map was moved by SD, i left it, only changing the location to Jerusalem nad Israeli flag. But when ithe map was changed back to Israel  Nab changes it back . Then SD chages the location too: . I then add source to lead  which says it is within Jerusalem and then chage location  while leaving WB map. Nab does take up the lead addition, but chnanges location to WB . I then add J and WB with WB map . This is not as clear cut as Nab thinks. Chesdovi (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, Nableezy can be restricted to 1RR for the whole of the Arab-Israeli conflict until the end of the year, and Chesdovi until the end of January. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. But I have made substantail edits to Rachels' tomb turinging it into a near GA standard. I will be very disheartened if after adding an info box which some zelous editors did not take a likning to, I get blocked. That is not fair. It was reverted woithout a conclusion at talk. Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're restricted to 1RR, you can still improve articles. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead with the 1RR restrictions, obviously blocks can still be applied if deemed necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean just 1 revert per 24hrs? Chesdovi (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, so instead of 3 reverts per day, you're now restricted to 1 revert per day. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Labargeboy reported by User:Milowent (Result:48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The guy is continually asserting his "U.S. citizen opinion" statement into the Juan Williams article, has been reverted over 5 time already by various editors.

--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's watch carefully what he/she does after the block expires. Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:Jrkso (Result: Both blocked 48 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:

Comments: JCAla is very disruptive and annoying, he is damaging articles by writing all sort of political nonsense. He completely removes sourced info that he doesn't like to see. I tagged the article and the tags state not to remove until the discussion is over but he removes them without even bothering to explain. He is manupilated the situation, he uses sources of no value and blames that on me. Me on the other hand, I'm using The World Factbook, Library of Congress Country Studies, Britannica, USAID, Center for Applied Linguistics, U.S. State Department, and other valuable sources. See example of how I organized the Afghanistan section. I also organized most of all the sections on this page from Afghanistan all the way down.

JCAla's edits are wild and crazy POVs that don't belong in Wikipedia, not only confusing they are also misleading. He wants to make one particular group (Northern Alliance) as heros but all the rest (including US-allies Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others) as the evil and bad people. The Northern Alliance are widely known as terrorists, butchers, and warlords but JCAla who I suspect is a member of this group is praising them in Wikipedia.

OPTIONAL: There's also similarities between JCAla and User:Tajik as they both are opposing my edits and blaming me for "distortion" when in fact I'm doing the very opposit of that. There are many other similarities such as both being Afghan editors, the matching level of English and POVs, marking "minor edits", doing occasional edits, etc. I may be wrong but I think one is used as a proxy or a sock of the other, there sure is a connection. , .--Jrkso (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Tajik: ''"I have tagged a section of the article after it was distorted by User:Jrkso...
 * User:JCAla: "rvv Jrkso's distortion and POV-pushing"


 * I note that Jrkso could also have been blocked for personal attacks, such as "You are pushing uneducated stupid POVs and destroying the article.", in Talk:Afghanistan. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:85.211.77.113 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported: and


 * 1st edit 02:47, October 22, 2010. This edit does two things: (1) it removes "Jonathan Dollimore writes that Scruton's Sexual Desire (1986) attempts to ..." and (2) it changes "students at St Andrews University ... have expressed concern to "some students" etc.


 * 1st revert 16:57, October 22, 2010, ditto
 * 2nd revert 17:07, October 22, 2010, ditto
 * 3rd revert 18:11, October 22, 2010, this time he leaves Jonathan Dollimore in the text, but changes "writes" to "claims," which has the effect of undermining the source. And reverts to "some students" again.
 * 4th revert 18:15, October 22, 2010, ditto


 * Comments

An anon has arrived at Roger Scruton, a BLP, and is reverting against two editors. I've left two 3RR warnings for him, but it has made no difference. He may have some knowledge of 3RR, because after his first three edits, he continued to push the same point but in a different way. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * He has also added a snarky comment to talk, and has reverted to it three times.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi-protection might be the next option if the problem resumes. Looie496 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Das Baz reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

This report is not about a violation of 3rr, but edit warring in general. This editor continues to revert even during active discussion on the talk page, which has indeed shown consensus is against them. Even further, they have called those that disagree with them vandals. Diffs for the latter can easily be added if required.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User being warned by admin that edit warring is not allowed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012#Bullfighting_ban_in_Catalonia_the_first_day_of_2012 The discussion is still ongoing, but only because the user persists in pushing for their edit. Consensus is against them.]

Comments:


 * &mdash; Long-term; clear consensus against his edits; prior ANI incident. -- slakr \ talk / 02:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:24.9.50.251 reported by User:Cosmopolitan (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of NPOV warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is anonymous, uncommunicative, and has been warned, but continues to add the same paragraph, after 3 different users have reverted his edits. The content he wishes to add is clearly questionable (bordering on vandalism), and uses a source that is not credible. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:111.220.221.191 reported by User:Lear's Fool (Result:Page semi-protected 90 days)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 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: User is editing from a dynamic IP, so warning was given on article talkpage, see below.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Patricia Petersen

Comments:

The conduct of this editor does not constitute a violation of the three-revert-rule (the reverts have been over the space of a week or two), but a quick look at the history of this article will show that it is edit warring of a variety where administator intervention is neccessary. The editor (who is clearly editing from a conflict of interest) has been directed to the talkpage a number of times by a number of editors (see the article history), and has continued to revert without explanation, sometimes over a number of edits and sometimes with one. Similar conduct by the same editor led to a report to this noticeboard and subsequent semi-protection in June (see Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive132). This has also been reported to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (see COIN). -- Lear's Fool 10:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Given BLP Issues & dynamic IP (older IP's don't fit into the range of recent/reported ones), semi-protected for 90 days. Skier Dude  ( talk  17:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:71.114.188.40 reported by Eastcote (talk) (Result:4 day block )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:05, 21 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 18:28, 21 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 04:00, 22 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 19:16, 22 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 21:51, 22 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 06:43, 23 October 2010  (edit summary: "")

Diff of warning:

Resolution has not been attempted on Talk Page. The user is deleting content without comments. Several editors have replaced the deleted text, with the addition of references and additional information, but the IP user continues to delete the content. Eastcote (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing & continued section blanking - 4 day block Skier Dude  ( talk  17:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:ZingaZingaZinga and User:2.120.240.140 reported by User:Fæ (Result:48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Second user being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


 * I count 8 reverts (and 7 reverts for the anon IP) as the only edits being made between this version at 23:48 on 22 October 2010 and this version at 16:58 on 23 October 2010, please see full history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Warning ZingaZingaZinga
 * Warning 2.120.240.140

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

Note, this form is directed at being for one party involved in a revert war. I am not directly involved but reporting both parties who are at logger-heads and reverting each other to a ridiculous extent. Fæ (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow that's alot of edit warring, page should be protected. Secret account 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think protection is necessary for this. Both editors need to be blocked because they're the only ones disrupting this article and not anyone else. Have a look at their contributions as well. Minima  c  ( talk ) 17:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * per Minimac. Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.47.145.81 and User:Stopde reported by User:Ajraddatz
Both the IP and the user have been edit warring on Junior Vasquez (history). I don't have enough background knowledge to know whether or not the IP is vandalising, but at any rate they are warring. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's nearly impossible for somebody who isn't fully up on the topic to tell what is going on there. Looie496 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the debated issues (which I'll agree with Looie496 is impossible to tell what's going on), this is definitely edit warring. I added 3RR warning on both userpages. Hope it's okay even though I am not an admin. - CET  TALK  05:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tintor2 reported by User:68.55.153.254 (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Basically, he continually adds the same 1Up.com article back that the consensus agreed to remove.


 * 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:

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

Comments: The majority of the issue can be found in the talk page listed above. Basically, I had found a fantasy casting article being included in several Final Fantasy 7 character articles about who should play them in a live-action movie. I believed them to non-essential to the pages, and in violation of various policies, which were brought up in the talk above. They were put back and I was asked to achieve a consensus before removing them again. Well, the discussion went on for about a week, with all other users who commented agreeing with my side of the discussion, so that makes it a consensus, and I removed them again, but the user has continually put them back up, sometimes trying to reword them to dodge the problem, but the problem is the article itself, not the wording. I've even tried the dispute resolution of asking for a comment from those outside of the issue. I've put them back several times on some of the pages, and when was warned of getting too close to violating 3RR myself, I consulted the user who warned me and he suggested using this page to help resolve the matter. As of reporting this, several of the edits are still up, but I know at least the ones for Cloud, Vincent, and Tifa have been reverted.68.55.153.254 (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As the discussion contined, the anon brought various issues such as crystal ball (the article says it is not happening so it is not), and being a selfpublished source (1UP is owned by UGO Entertainment and is listed as a reliable source by the video games wikiproject, so it's not). Other users brought reasonable issues such as being undue or trivia, and that's why I modified the article's sources to focus in the reception and keeping them in context with all the paragraphs. However, the anon keeps saying that a fan casting is useless and considers that there has been already a consensus although the current form from the sources do not violate any guideline. Moreover, apparently a sock kept removing the sources, while in later hours, the anon removed one from Vincent Valentine alongside another valuable source, that's why I reverted such edits.Tintor2 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by Sven Manguard
I was the person that added the 3RR tags to both users in this issue, and it spilled onto my talk page. User:Tintor2 is clearly at fault in this situation. I attempted to explain to him that he was acting against consensus in the matter discussed in the Cloud talk page, and he refused to even acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong. Whereas my interactions with 68.55.153.254 have shown me that he was acting in good faith and was simply unaware of the finer points of 3RR, my interactions with Tintor2 show me the opposite. Tintor2's refusal to be reasonable in the Cloud talk page, refusal to be reasonable in my talk page, and refusal to stop posting on my talk page when I stated that I did not want the arguments in the matter to be aired in my userspace (I believe the proper place for such arguments is here at EW or the cloud talkpage where the rest of the arguments are.) demonstrate that the user does not understand how to cooperate with others or act in a rational manner in content disputes. He was blocked in June for violating 3RR as well, which leaves him no excuse as to his actions.


 * I recommend that 68.55.153.254 not be punished (he has modified his behavior and acted in proper form since the warning, demonstrates remorse, and has no block history)


 * I recommend that Tintor2 be blocked for at least two weeks (he has not modified his behavior, demonstrates combativeness, and has a 3RR block history)

Also of note, 68.55.153.254 mentioned on my talk page that Tintor2 has been making the same edits recently. I did not check on this, other than to see that he has been editing FFVII pages, but I explicitly warned Tintor2 that he needed to stop edit warring, both by way of the template, and in my talk page where I said it in plain words to his face. If he is indeed continuing to edit war, this concerns me. Sven Manguard Talk 02:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I already accepted my mistake when first adding the sources, but when I told Sven Manguard, he just ignored me and undid my comment from his talk page, not wanting to be involved. I have already stated in the talk page of Cloud Strife about such revision, but the anon keeps calling it "useless". I already explained the reasons for the revert in Cloud and Vincent above.Tintor2 (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not at all true. I undid one of your comments after asking for you to stop making the arguments on my page three times. The third time I explicitly stated that further postings on my page in regards to the issue would be removed. And that is exactly what I did. Your behavior in the issue wore out my patience, and I felt that the only way to get you to stop posting the arguments in my user-space was to remove them. Sven Manguard  Talk 02:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you seriously expect anybody to be sanctioned for edit warring here, you need to provide actual evidence of edit warring in the form of diffs. It is unlikely any admin is going to be willing to wade through all that extended back-and-forth across multiple pages. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd agree, but it's literally the most recent changes in every one of the listed articles, just click on history. Do I really need to do 20 diffs for you? You don't have to dig at all. Sven Manguard  Talk 03:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that explanation helps. Even so, I looked at the histories and couldn't make out what is going on -- but I'll convert my decline into a comment so that somebody else may take a look at this. Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TLDR version: The IP is removing fantasy castings by 1UP, per clear consensus at talk:Cloud Strife that there are several issues with having them in the articles. Every time the 1UP castings are removed, Tintor2 puts them back in. Sven Manguard  Talk 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I say again, I agreed consensus was right in the first time. As a result, I revised such sources to leave more in context than most of all the other sentences in reception and avoiding violation of undue and trivia, but the anon keeps saying they still violate such guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the page history. This is especially true when you give us half a dozen pages. T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4
 * Cloud
 * Tifa


 * There are also 5 on Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), 3 on Barret Wallace, 5 on Vincent Valentine, and 3 on Aerith Gainsborough. Please do not make me do all of these links.

Sven Manguard Talk 02:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The last I undo was in Vincent Valentine due to the fact the anon also removed another source. In Cloud's, as you see in his history there were some socks editing the article, removing the exact same source. Moreover, the anon kept saying there was consensus and cited guidelines even though the revised sentences didn't break such guidelines. Additionally, the anon first removed these sentences without even discussing. Even the last ones the users posted were the revised ones which the anon kept reverting saying they still violating guidelines although they were more in context that most of the ones used in the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added various diffs of examples of this happening, and I see they can probably be put in conjunction with Sven's examples as I think he may have done a few I missed. Also, I've noticed the accusations being put out by Tintor of me using sock puppetry or some such dealing, which I've never done during this whole time, nor has anyone else who was involved in the discussion on the talk page during this incident to my knowledge. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The same could be said for your accusations of edit war when there was no consensus regarding revising the sentences, and you removed them. All of those are included in the last diffs you added.Tintor2 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was said or explained to you various times in the talk page that the problem is the article in and of itself, no matter how you word it on the various pages. I'm not going to start arguing with you about this again over here as well.  I've given the evidence to the admins that was asked for, and I'm going to let them handle it now. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my f**king god. Both of you have worn out my patience. Tintor2: Stop with the baiting, you're wrong on consensus, and if the 3RR doesn't get you blocked, the baiting will. IP: Stop taking the damned bait. You're going to be seen as being just as guilty if you keep falling into these petty arguments. I swear that if this continues, I will go to ANI and ask for both of you to be blocked for disruptive editing. I'm sure that had this been any number of other users, that step would have already been taken. Stop. Now. I mean it. Sven Manguard  Talk 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Reported user does not appear to have edited any of the articles reported since October 16. T. Canens (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah well. I don't intend on following this anymore anyways. In fact, I really don't enjoy the prospect of them ever showing up anywhere in my user space again. Their ignoring of the whole "keep the battles outside of my user talk" thing left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Now in a week I won't be able to tell the difference between this IP and any other IP address, my memory isn't that great, but I don't ever want to see Tintor2 in my user space again. He was... unpleasant to deal with. I am so very glad this is now over. And as far as I am concerned, this is now over. Sven Manguard  Talk 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, if it's over then don't comment and learn some wp:civility. Tintor2 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The irony in the above statement is appalling. Goodbye Tintor2. Sven Manguard  Talk 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And you keep commenting... By the way, the anon keeps removing content from the articles here, here and here just pointing there is consensus and pointing to the talk page. The anon still does not state what is the guideline for such removal of content.Tintor2 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, about some days ago, I started a discussion on the anon's talk page about the reason for such removal, but he did not respond. He just keeps saying it's because of consensus, but for what guideline?Tintor2 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted edits per invalid rationale per wp:consensus (the only reason was "consensus reached, but no guideline) and lack of discussion from anon in talk page makes it wp:disruptive editing.Tintor2 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

user:hamiltonstone reported by user:KBlott(Result: protected)
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * This is ANEW. Please do not continue disputes here. Courcelles 10:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: HIV

Since the FDA approval of AZT, there has been a lively debate within the HIV community about when to initiate antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection. The scientific questions surrounding this debate were settled long ago. However, the debate has continued within the HIV community. Anthony Fauci is a medical doctor who is a champion of the denialist side of this debate. Fauci is not a virologist. I have initiated a discussion of this debate on the HIV page and have revised the text many times in response to criticism from hamiltonstone. This issue was discussed exhaustively on the HIV talk page. No version of the text has satisfied this individual. 
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

I am content to continue revising the text in response to legitimate concerns. However, it is apparent from hamiltonstone's behavior that no discussion of this debate is acceptable to him. I am uncertain as to the correct procedure for resolving this intractable dispute.

Please advise me how to proceed.

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

Comments:

KBlott (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything you deserve a block, I see four reverts from you (I include the first edit a revert as you readded information that was reverted October 13). Hamiltonstone wasn't even warned, and his block record is clean. Recommend no block for him, block for KBlott. Secret account 18:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is getting blocked for this. Discussion is good... discussion and continued edit warring?  Not so much.  This will give you 48 hours to sort it all out. Courcelles 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in protecting a high profile article if it's two editors edit warring, one of whom knew the 3rr rules easily by posting here. Secret account 19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Antiretroviral therapy is now offered to all people with HIV/AIDS who are ready to use these drugs responsibly. (Irresponsible use of these drugs represents a public health threat, since these drugs can potentially select for multidrug resistant genotypes  which can be transmitted sexually.)  The science of how to use these drugs properly was worked out long ago, however there continues to be considerable denialism among the HIV population.  Secret would seem to belong to this (still quite large) group of (lay) denialists.  It may be possible to convince him that his views are incorrect.  We now know that individuals who delay therapy until their CD4 counts fall below 500 double their risk of mortality  and researchers now admit that the (thankfully) past practice of delaying therapy never had an empirical basis.  Fauci, Hamiltonstone, and (it would seem) Secret belong to a steadily shrinking group of people who believe that this practice had scientific rational.  Denialists are very stubborn and I do not believe that Hamiltonstone is likely to change his mind.  No one has violated the three revert rule as the four diffs listed above occurred overed a period of three days.  It is apparent, however, that this discussion needs to be with Secret, not Hamiltonstone. KBlott (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not under the impression of your conspiracy theory, it's not my area of expertise so I don't care, all i saw was that you started an edit war, after edit warring a few days prior on a high-profile page and that Hamiltonstone wasn't even warned that he was violating 3rr. Secret account 00:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Response I thank User:Secret for drawing this discussion to my attention, and note that User:KBlott did not do so. Here's a narrative explanation of the history, which essentially shows (1) that I was willing to discuss at the talk page, while KBlott either did not, or when doing so did not address questions raised by other editors; (2) that there was no consensus for KBlott's changes, and despite both Scray and I showing some support for aspects of KBlott's edits, KBlott did not listen to our points and (3) in the final phase WP:BLP was involved, which is why I took a harder line at that point. I am distressed to think my good record as an editor with a strong commitment to NPOV and WP:RS would be questioned here because of my actions.


 * On 10 October KBlott made some edits that revised the text and introduced material about when treatment should be commenced. Another editor, User:Scray, appeared to have some concerns about the wording and revised it somewhat. Seemingly not happy with that edit by Scray, KBlott left a brief statement on the article talk page (to their credit), then made a further change reintroducing a version of that material, in the form of a section that would then become the subject of discussion on the talk page, some reverting, and ultimately this complaint.


 * At 8:42 on 11 Oct I left a detailed response to KBlott on the talk page, indicating that I intended to revert. Scray also commented at the talk page generally agreeing with my argument. KBlott then made a comment at the talk page that did not respond to our concerns and made some minor edits on the article that did not address then either. There was further discussion on the talk page for a few hours, which fundamentally did not address the concerns raised by Scray and myself, particularly regarding sourcing, and eventually at 15:44 I reverted the added section. Remember that at this point, the issue about when to commence treatment was, and still is, addressed in the "Treatment" section of the article. It was never anyone's argument that this should not be covered. KBlott added a couple more items on the talk page on the evening of 11 October, but they still did not address the issues raised by Scray and I. Scray said as much, and there that matter rested for a little while.


 * KBlott then made further additions of detail to the treatment section of the article. I then copyedited this for style and length issues, but without removing substantive content - the point being, I have never shown an objection to appropriate coverage of these issues under "Treatment".


 * Two days later, KBlott starts what looks like an attempt to reintroduce similar material, and promptly gets reverted by another editor, User:TechBear.


 * Nothing happens for six days. Then, at 6:50 on 20 October, KBlott makes a heading change that looks like the start of the same thing again. I revert it at 9:09 with an edit summary saying "This has been addressed at the talk page - please don't reintroduce this again without consensus". KBlott reverts without any post at talk, but with an edit summary "Re-read the text. The definition of denialism includes "the validity of ... treatment methods." Consensus therefore exists, except among denialists (such as yourself).)" At 9:55 I explain at KBlott's talk page and at 9:57 on the article talk page, and after doing that, I reverted again, repeating in the edit summary a request that this be discussed. But KBlott does not discuss.


 * At 13:55 on the 20th, User:Mastcell tightens the existing text in the AIDS Denialism section, leaving an edit summary "this section needs to be clearer". At 10:40 on the 21st, KBlott takes this as an invitation to reintroduce a version of the same objectionable material, once again with no attempt to discuss it on the talk page. This new material is much worse, because in addition to pushing a POV, not gaining consensus on the talk page, and not having references that actually back the text's claim, it also violates WP:BLP.
 * KBlott is still not discussing on the talk page: I give a long explanation of why this text is problematic and revert it, warning in the edit summary that this needs proper discussion or I will bring the issue to a bulletin board. This single, irrelevant, sentence is all KBlott posts on the talk page, and then KBlott reverts to their own text. KBlott obviously read my post at the talk page, because they then made a change that looked like they were trying to address the BLP issue. Unfortunately, the ref didn't support KBlott's case at all, as I carefully explained on the talk page before reverting and stating in the edit summary that if this was changed without consensus at talk I would take this issue to WP:ANI or WP:BLPN.


 * In summary - I have always explained my actions at talk and in edit summaries; KBlott has only occasionally engaged on the talk page, but in doing so has overwhelmingly not addressed the issues raised by either myself or Scray, nor appears to have seen TechBear's edit as another clue that s/he has a problem with gaining consensus for the changes. On a minor note, I never reverted three times in 24hrs, though I accept it is the broader editing pattern that is in question. Particularly given that there was a BLP issue involved in the last phase, I stand by my actions, with the exception that I wish I had brought it to ANI or BLPN sooner, rather than ending up with this here. Thank you to Courcelles for the temporary protection, but based on the content at Talk:HIV I'm not sure it is going to help in the long run. We will see. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Every word that I have added to the denailism section of the HIV page has been reverted by hamiltonstone. Most other users are willing to discuss.  As  hamiltonstone himself admits, he finds the "Hit early, hit hard" discussion in the context of denialism objectionable.  It is not possible to couch this discussion in any way that would satisfy hamiltonstone.  He demands silence on this subject.


 * Hamiltonstone's denialism is very common. Secret's "conspiracy theory" comment is, ignorant, offensive, and unhelpful. KBlott (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a copy of my proposed revisions to the Denialism section of the HIV page on Hamiltonstone's talk page. So far, Hamiltonstone has not availed himself of an opportunity to edit the text. This is not surprising, as Hamiltonstone objects to any discussion of Fauci denialism. I will give him another day to edit the text. Then I will copy the text to the HIV talk page to give other members of the HIV community an opportunity to edit it. KBlott (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This belongs on Talk:HIV, not here or on hamiltonstone's talk page. Your persistent attacks on a prominent (arguably 'the' most prominent) HIV researcher are unproductive.  You seem to have great knowledge, but you need to gain a greater understanding of how WikiPedia works - particularly the laser-like focus on edits and their sources, not the expertise of the editor.  -- Scray (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and as I said on my talk page some time ago, I will not comment on text there. Per Scray, this belongs at Talk:HIV, where all editors can comment on it. If and when that is done, I will express views there. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:SpecialKCL66 (Result: Reporter blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&oldid=392295653


 * 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'm not completely sure that this is a 3RR violation, but I think it pretty clearly is edit warring. I'm fairy sure it qualifies as a 3RR violation as well. Several days ago I endeavored to review the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy because there were a number of mistakes I noticed, and because I also wanted to review the general neutrality of the wiki page with many of those who had been interested in the page previously. I proposed a very methodical approach to going through the page and addressing its issues. I have discussed all proposed changes of any concievable significance before making those changes on the talk page in order to avoid controversy or editing conflicts. In every case of significance, I and others working with me have waited for responses before making changes. Most of the changes by far were very minor changes involving consolidating links, grammar, punctuation, minor wording changes, and the like. This process seemed to be going quite well. All of this can be viewed on the talk page here, which currently contains everything from the beginning of this process until now. One major hang-up, which I've noticed from the archives has also been a considerable hang-up in the past, is the issue of describing the undercover videos involved in the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, specifically with words like "misleadingly edited," "heavily edited," "selectively edited" etc., how those words should be presented and interpreted, and what weight should be given to them. After discussing this issue somewhat at length, I decided not to make changes regarding that issue and to come back to the issue later after working with the others on less controversial issues, which we did and made considerable progress. The current issue stems from the user in question's decision to make considerable edits in the lede regarding this heavily disputed issue without any kind of productive discussion or consensus. After he first made the changes with no discussion, I reverted, noted that the issue was heavily disputed, and requested that he work with me on the talk page regarding the changes he wanted to make. While trying to discuss the matter with him, I discovered that he was simply reinstating his original changes before any meaningful discussion had taken place. After making an initial comment, his actions made it clear he had little to no interest in discussing the issue in a productive fashion, as he continued to reinstate his changes at the same time he made whatever limited comments on the talk page that he has made on this issue. Eventually, he made it clear that his strategy would be to hold hostage all of the previous edits that had been made - a considerable number conisting overwhelmingly of minor edits, grammar, etc, as well as some relativey uncontroversial corrections of fact, etc., almost all of which were discussed on the talk page first, and to none of which he has made any objection, even now - unless he got his way on the current issue at hand. Though he had not made 4 reverts at the time of this change in strategy, I believe it constitutes obvious edit warring. However, he then eventually went on to make what I believe was his 4th revert anyway in the disputed section. He still shows litte to no interest in discussing much of anything on the talk page in a meaningful fashion. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent this situation, SpecialKCL66. You, myself and AzureCitizen have made new edits to the relatively stable article over the past 3 days. AzureCitizen said his edits were "bold" and to revert them if necessary (see his edit summary).  You also made bold changes, as did I.  After you repeatedly reverted every one of my edits, I returned the article to its stable state pending more obviously needed discussion (see my edit summary here). Yet you still reverted, insisting that your edits must remain while we continue discussions.  You are holding the article hostage.  I encourage you to discuss the issues you have with our proposed edits, instead of just repeatedly reverting. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. The reporting (SPA) editor who was just recently blocked for violating 3rr did just the very same again and I find it quite stunning that they file a report that seems not to be as clear cut as they think unlike their own violation of the same indeed is. A quick look at User:SpecialKCL66's constributions at ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy showes no less than four reverts in a very short time. The editor is also well aware of the 3rr rule as his talkpage history showes.TMCk (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is correct that I was previously blocked for violating the 3rr rule. I had just begun my account on wikipedia (I'm still relatively new, but I've been learning fast) and had little understanding of the rules.  I believe if you look at my overall record since then you will see that I have been extremely methodical and cooperative in my editing approach, and I discuss everything very thoroughly on the talk pages.  So far, there are only two pages that I have been working on; I figure that's a decent starting point.  How have I made a 3rr violation? I'm pretty sure I have not...  I explained the situation quite thoroughly above.  You claim I have made "four reverts in a very short time."  I believe the fourth revert to which you must be referring is my reverting of the massive deletions that Xenophrenic is "holding hostage" as I explained above.  If you review the situation, I believe you will understand what Xenophrenic is trying to do.  It is a thinly veiled effort at disguising his edit warring by threatening to remove all other work if he doesn't get his way.SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What I see is that you're still in denial especially when referring to your last revert as "...my reverting of the massive deletions that Xenophrenic is "holding hostage"...". Besides that you forgot about wp:AGF, if not covered by BLP or vandalism a revert is a revert and you know that after it was explained on you talkpage before. One advise: Don't file any report about edit waring when sitting in a glass house. BTW, I saw your breach of 3rr this morning long before you filed your report here but I chose not to report but now you brought your own shovel to dig your own hole.TMCk (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, also, if you're looking at my user page, it may look like I've made a lot more reverts, but that is because the user in question's changes frequently involved making multiple changes at one time to he same portion of the wiki page, so I was simply reverting them in sequence. That is effectively one revert.  If you examine more closely, you will see that it amounts to only 3 reverts of the same text.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't count the one's in sequense. I know the rules and counted right.TMCk (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The 4 diffs given above do not show 3 reverts. In addition, the editing (and the edit warring) on this article ceased more than 8 hours ago, so blocking individual editors would be punitive. However, similar activity could result in the page being protected, or one or both editors being blocked -- so now would be a good time to commit to discussion until the issues are resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Was my initial assumption correct regarding what you were couting as a fourth revert? You must be referring to my reversion of what I have described as the content Xenophrenic is "holding hostage."  That is not a revert of the same text.  It was only an effort to restore what was considerable work over several says by multiple users involving pretty much completely non-controversial content, pretty much all of which was discussed on the talk page and resulted from cooperation from the users involved.  Xenophrenic effectively makes it clear in the talk page that if he didn't get his way on one issue, he was going do destroy all of that other work and progress that had been made, even though he still hasn't made a single objection to any of it.  I have specifically held off on correcting Xenophrenic's 4th revert.  That is why I had to file this complaint.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason for the 8 hour hiatus is because you made a 4th revert after I said I was going to bed. I would be happy to commit to discussion, but every time I do, you go ahead and make your own changes before any meaningful discussion takes place... SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Wikipedia doesn't close when one goes to sleep. WP is open 24/7 :) TMCk (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he was pointing out that when he left, the edit warring stopped. ;-) I've seen no other editors making rapid-fire reverts of perfectly good edits (most were repairs of deadlinks, for monkeys sake!) on that article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * - comment - I do so dislike such reports, A good report is like this ... you see your opposite editors has made three reverts and then you give him a warning template and then he reverts again so you go to his talkpage and say hey that is four reverts, please please self revert you last edit or I will be forced to report you. If the user refuses to self revert you havbe done your best in good faith and you can report him and it will be a strong case.

I note this because, users are simply giving a warning as a part of the process but not acting on it correctly, after this warning was given there was no more reverting, so there should be no report, the warning was given because it was required but it was given and the report made out of process and as such the warning was worthless, a false warning so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, what you will see on the talk page is that I gave a warning there, which Xenophrenic saw, and then went on to continue reverting and continue his strategy of holding all other work hostage. Look at the talk page. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC) On top of that, it looks like Xenophrenic has kept on making major edits, including regarding disputed portions and over disputed issues (weight for example) without any interest in discussing, and less interest in consensus. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not as I can see, there is no clear 3RR warning on the talkpage ether, anyways, 3RR warnings are to be placed on a users talkpage so that he is sure to see it and it is clear. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "Xenophrenic is holding all other work hostage" was disproven above. SpecialKCL66, why not make it easy on the administrators and commit to resolving whatever issues remain on the talk page instead of resorting to edit warring? It is still possible for everyone to come out a winner here. With the warring (all edits, in fact) having ended a long time ago, this isn't the place to carry on editing discussions. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Off2riorob and Xenophrenic!
 * Still for SIKL's understanding of what are considerd reverts, here are the diffs of your [SpecialKCL66's] reverts:


 * 1st row:
 * 2nd row:
 * 3rd row:
 * 4th single rv.:


 * Any further questions?TMCk (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What I see here is that there is enormous obfuscation going on here, and I'm beginning to wonder if the strategy at work here is to fill up this page with as much obfuscation as possible to make it unreadable to any admin. I will therefore refrain from further comment within this complaint, and I will gladly speak with whichever admin reviews this situation and document what is going on here. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you withdraw the complaint and move back to discussion, there is a lot of discussion on the talk and it doesn't seem to have broken down, and I am sure the withdrawal of the complaint will be a sign of good will and benefit the discussion and outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is your perogative. Or, we can commit to working out the problems on the talk page, instead of edit warring, and we can get back to some productive work here. Consider this my reiteration of intent to do the same. The warring has apparently already stopped, so now we just need the discussion part.  Otherwise this just appears to be an exercise of retribution, or an attempt at getting everything locked down. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Damnit, Off2riorob keeps typing out my thoughts faster than I do... you're making me look silly!) -Xeno
 * Do you need a new keyboard or set of fingers? You know, we could start a fundraiser for you, Xeno :) TMCk (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob, I would, but while I have stopped edit warring, Xeno kept right on making his edits to the section in question with zero producive discussion on the talk page and no effort to reach consensus. I have repeatedly tried to encourage him to engage in the methodical, cooperative, and highly productive process that was previously taking place, but every time I try, he goes right on repeatedly inserting his own significant and/or disputed edits at will - even now - with no effort at consensus.  He has made assertions that he doesn't want to edit war, or that he wants to cooperate previously, and they have all been phony.  I don't think I have any choice but to wait for an Admin to review this and explain the situation to him.  I felt I had to address that point, so I will now wait for an admin before making further comment.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, good luck then, although I don't think you'll get the result you're hoping for.TMCk (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * SpecialKCL66, any admin can easily verify that neither of us have made edits to the article in the last 10 hours, and you were the one to abandon discussions in favor of repeated reverting last night. Even as I type this, you still haven't explained what specific issue you have with any of my edits that you reverted, so that those issues could be addressed. (Go ahead, I challenge you to provide a single diff from the talk page.) So again, please don't misrepresent the situation to whomever is reading this. I'm returning to the talk page now; it would be good to have your constructive input. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, actually you are correct that no one has made edits in 10 hours. I was mistaken. time zones...  I will strike those comments.  It is not remotely the case, however, that I haven't explained what issue I had with your edits.  You've got to be kidding.  I even noted it above in this complaint.  I thought I should acknowledge where you were correct, however, and strike the comments of mine in this complaint that were incorrect.  Then, previous policy reinstated.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the corrections. Thank you also for not continuing to edit war.  However, since we still have content disagreements, it would be appreciated if you would help resolve them at the article talk page.  As I noted above, you haven't yet explained what issues you have with my edits that you have reverted; you just reverted them, claiming they needed to be discussed first.  Discussion is great, and I did my part by explaining the reason behind my edits, but discussion must be a two-way street.  You still haven't (not on this noticeboard, nor on the article talk page) explained what issue(s) you have with my edits, so that I can work to address them. You claim you have explained the issues here and on the talk page, but I've double-checked and it simply isn't there. Every time I ask you for a diff of these explanations, you fall silent. If you aren't going to work with me on this, should I take that as an indication that it is okay with you if I return the edits to the article that you reverted away last night?  A little help here, please. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously, SpecialKCL66? Canvassing other Admins with whom you've previously interacted on related matters to comment here? The edits from everyone stopped last night. How about you just spell out what your goal is with all of this; maybe I can help you to achieve it. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The reporting editor, however, is blocked for 48 hours. Xenophrenic violated 3RR but was not warned until afterward, and did not revert again after being warned.  However, SpecialKCL66 also violated 3RR and does not require a warning because the filing of this report demonstrates understanding of the 3RR rule in itself. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that decision. Clearly undoing without explanation. Good job. Minima  c  ( talk ) 06:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree whole-heartedly with that. Xenophrenic has thousands of edits over 3+ years, and blocks before. We don't give patronizing warnings for editors who know better. I ask you to reconsider that decision Looie. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have agreed with a block for both users but now it's too late, been over a day already. Secret account 17:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with the way the block was handled, but not for the reasons expressed above. By the time an Admin got around to issuing blocks, both editors had ceased editing that article for 21 hours, and were both engaged in discussions here. Frankly, blocks are not "preventative" at that point.  As for Looie496's assertion that I also violated 3RR, he is incorrect.  I did not, even under the broadest definition of "revert", exceed 3RR; but I am absolutely not defending myself as faultless during that incident.  I did push right up to the "bright line" of 3 reverts before ceasing edits on that article, and we all know that can be considered edit warring just as sure as a 4th revert, so my conduct certainly could have been better. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The way that SpecialKCL66 handled this has been wrong in every respect, and I felt that it was necessary to give some clear feedback to that effect -- multiple messages on his talk page (from other editors) have basically been brushed off. I am determined that an editor cannot file a 3RR report when that editor himself has violated 3RR, and escape with no consequences.  Whether you yourself violated 3RR is a moot point, since you have not been blocked.  I looked over all the edits pretty carefully before making that statement, but I'm not going to spend another half hour going through them again when there is no consequence that depends on it.  I'm glad that the discussions have been making progress, and I encourage you to continue with them. Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)