Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive164

User:John Foxe reported by User:Trödel (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This user has sufficient experience with Wikipedia and knows the rules. Has reverted 4 times in less than 16 hours. Has offered to compromise only after the 4th revert. I'm willing to discuss proposed changes on the talk page - but not through continued edit warring. -- Trödel 16:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Theodorerichert reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

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

Comments:

User has made 5 reverts in less than a 17 hour period and has made 14 reverts over the last 5 days. Despite ongoing discussion on the very likely scenario that his edits are violating WP:SYN, he is constantly edit warring to re-add the information and has ignored all three warnings he has received. In other words, edit warring with no intent to discuss. Requesting a temp block of at least 72 hours as a cool-down period.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How come you guys won't even investigate my sources, they are both the billboard. This is a routine calculation. Two numbers from the same source added together dosen't violate any rules. Billboard.com=Billboard.biz. You just have to pay for most of the charts on billboard.biz and billboard.com only has a few charts some of which are just top 25 or 40 however they are identical to the charts on billboard.biz and numbers are from the same source Neilsen Soundscan. According to Neilsen Soundscan Speak Now sold 2,960,000 in 2010 http://www.billboard.com/#/news/eminem-s-recovery-is-2010-s-best-selling-1004137895.story also according Neilsen Soundscan it sold 563,000 in the first half of 2011 http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/top-selling-albums-of-2011-so-far-1005267092.story so it MUST have sold at least 3,523,000 so far. How is this so hard to understand?Theodorerichert (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't about your sources, this is about your 3RR violation.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 and User:Geromasis reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: 24h)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert (Geromasis):
 * 1st revert (Sopher99):
 * 2nd revert (Geromasis):
 * 2nd revert (Sopher99):
 * 3rd revert (Geromasis):
 * 3rd revert (Sopher99):
 * 4th revert (Geromasis):
 * 4th revert (Sopher99):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (on article talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I'm not involved in this particular dispute, but it's a page I follow and occasionally edit, and I think this kind of behavior is disruptive and not constructive.


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by User:DeCausa (Result: [[Image:Hammer tapissier.jpg|20px|Hammer (Last Stone First End)]] indef)
Page: Talk:United Kingdom

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: (by another user) and on user's talk page here

Comments:

Armchair has history of disruption and edit-warring. Recently came off a 6 month block. Insists on repeatedly asking another editor whether he has another user account. Myself and other user have told him that it's not relevant to the article talk page, and to take it to the other editor's talk page. It looks as though 3RR warning coincided with his 4th revert. Armchair's fully aware of 3RR (having been blocked before), received a recent 3RR warning for edit-warring elswhere (here), and a reminder in the edit summaries.(DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was mistaken. Looks like another user had given him a 3RR warning an hour before: DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Admin note Unfortunately, I've not much time to address this particular case myself. However, based on past experience with the editor in question, I can verify that AVD does indeed have an extensive and extended history of problematic behaviour. Another extended block would certainly be warranted if he insists on this sort of behaviour. --Ckatz chat spy  22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

123.231.113.16 & 123.231.89.15 reported by Hot Stop (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Ongoing discussion here and here. I posted them together because it appears to be the same person making the same edits. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Esperanto
Looks like we're going to need semi-protection. Have an anon. IP who doesn't understand what the English grammatical perfect is and perhaps therefore is edit warring over deleting content he thinks violates CHRYSTALBALL. I'm at 3RR. — kwami (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected&#32;for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. For future reference, request page protection at WP:RFPP - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Amynan reported by User:Legolas2186 (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * I'm gonna just post the history of the page here, to show the abuse and the edit warring this user has undertaken, even after a final warning. Has also resorted to sockpuppetry through an IP. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Also note the same thing happening over at Sparks Fly (song). ℥nding · start 06:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:Leef5 (Result: article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:Rhode Island Red and I are currently engaged in a debate on the lead of this article in question. I have asked him repeatedly to engage in the talk page to build consensus before adding potentially libelous info to the lead that has been taken out of context. Instead he reverts any attempts at compromise, and instead of engaging in the talk page to build consensus, he belittles, uses mild profanity, and edit wars the text back to his liking without reaching consensus. This appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.


 * There are two people reveting back and forth, so I've locked the article for a week to encourage you to work out your differences or seek dispute resolution. Kuru   (talk)  12:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Amywolfe11325 reported by User:Syrthiss (Result: 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: not done

Comments:


 * I had warned the editor of COI concerns initially when she moved the article into mainspace from userspace, and then placed the COI tag on the article. The article is about a subject that appears notable, and is not written in a promotional tone...but an earlier move request by the subject was declined because of self-published source issues.  Editor has continued to remove the COI tag, even logging out to do so (editor is likely the subject's daughter and the IP geolocates to their stated area of residence). Syrthiss (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I missed that notice. The reason for the constant log-offs is that there are multiple people (my self and two others) currently editing this page on the same account. You are correct, we are related, however we are making this page because we believe that his work is important and he has earned international credibility on his behalf. We took the initiative to make the page because his colleagues were too busy to have time to do so. We have no intention of promoting Dr. Wolfe in any manner, only stating that which he has done and creating a professional profile. Amywolfe11325 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Amywolfe11325
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Mikefitzsimmons reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (with minor variations)


 * 1st revert: 15:26, 20 July 2011
 * 2nd revert: 2:36 21 July 2011
 * 3rd revert: 2:39 21 July 2011
 * 4th revert: 14:46-49 21 July 2011 (multiple reverting edits)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments: The 3RR violation is straightforward, and the underlying editing is clearly promotional. The account is an SPA which edits only articles related to the subject of this article, and is behaving like a publicist. While no other editors have supported "Mikefitzsimmons" in this dispute, which has been running for several weeks (see article history), the removal of the disputed content was also performed by admin Tabercil, who commented that the disputed information had been "properly removed." Among the material restored today by "Mikefitzsimmons" was a bit of peacockery regarding another living person supported only by another Wikipedia article and supplementary content, properly referenced to a reliable news source, updating information regarding a lawsuit filed by the article subject (information originally added to the article by "Mikefitzsimmons"). (Unsurprisingly, the news article includes matters reflecting unfavorably on the article subject, including the fact that the lawsuit was essentially thrown out, that it had been criticized by the EFF, and that it was described as "copyright trolling".) The editor's comments on my talk page show no good faith interest in resolving the dispute in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines. I have not violated 3RR myself, and my edits to the article consist primarily of the routine removal of promotional content of of inadequately sourced claims, not in compliance with WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I got an email myself on this dispute which had prompted me to take a look at this - said email was from the other side of this dispute. And Hulla's right about the why of the info being added - it's someone close to the subject. I'm going to ask that folks hold off on any blocks for now while I try to resolve the situation via email. If you have to block, please make them short-term. I'd also left a comment at Talk:Axel Braun laying out my thinking on part of the issue. Tabercil (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tabercil is currently sorting the situation out. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lopeztonight reported by User:Lil-unique1 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:40 11 July
 * 2nd revert: 17:22 18 July
 * 3rd revert: 03:34 19 July
 * 4th revert: 16:14 19 July
 * 5th revert: 03:12 20 July
 * 6th revert: 22:32 20 July
 * 7th revert: 22:45 20 July
 * 8th revert: 20:59 21 July
 * 9th revert: 21:24 21 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning 1 (with detailed explaination)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: follow up explaination/elaboration

Comments:


 * Clear cut case of not liking things. Started off as a content dispute but he/she made no attempt to interact with others about why his/her edits were being reverted. User was warned about removing the same content from another page previously. User has a brash approach ram-raiding and ingnoring wikipedia policies on WP:Third-party sources and relible sources. Experienced user  has unfortunately been dragged into the the trap of edit warring with Lopeztonight. However, I pointed out to Lopeztonight that we have protocol for disputes and recommended that he/she see various pages before he/she made his/her last revert. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  20:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 *  F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cameron Scott reported by User:Bentheadvocate (Result: Article protected)
Page: Kingston University

User being reported: User:Cameron Scott

Previous version reverted to:

Cameron Scott wilfully reverted good faith edits at least four times in a period of an hour.


 * His first set of changes can be seen here:, (slanting the edit away from Kingston itself, and more towards UK uni's in general)


 * His second revert can be seen here:, subtly removing a subtitle he found particularly contentious.


 * His third revert here: asserting his POV that the word "Hike" is too negative for his tastes. According to wiktionary def of hike, noun #2, hike simply means abrupt increase.


 * His fourth can be found here: Again changing to "increase", and readding material not relevant to kingston.


 * A fifth can be found here: An edit that User:Cameron Scott acknowledged in the edit summary as a Revert: 'BRD take it to the talk page'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentheadvocate (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to chalk it up to enthusiastic editing, but this is clearly borderline, and he should at least not participate in community sanction discussions against me.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I'd like to chalk it up to enthusiastic editing, but this is clearly uncool, and he should at least not participate in community sanction discussions against me.

 BE  TA  13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * report is stale (Article has been locked since the 19th), not 3RR (which is the reversion of the same material) and I guess an WP:POINT attempt to give me a slap because I voted support for a Topic ban due to his recent conduct on Kingston articles (which been the subject of 3 recent AN/I reports, the most recent being this - none of which were started by me). This is a distraction and a waste of everyone's time. Moreover, 3RR blocks (as define by the guidance in the policy) are intended to change behaviour not punish - the article is currently locked and the subject of discussion of multiple community members who have been drawn in (I myself was drawn into that article by the initial AN/I report) - so what behavioural change would a block lead to? I plan to let someone else make the community consensus edits to that article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The report is stale and should be declined, but WP:3RR does apply even if it is different content reverted each time. If you follow the link and look in the blue box you can see the policy.  GB fan please review my editing 14:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the diffs, it's still not 3rr because the second one highlighted is me moving some content after *I'd* edited it not reverting the work of other editors and unless I'm mistaken, moving but not actually deleting or changing content cannot be taken as a "revert". As I said, a complete waste of everyone's time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your motive is obvious though. You attempted to subvert 3RR by moving the contribution without the subtitle hoping no-one would notice, and claiming your assertion that it isn't a controversy in the process.  BE  TA  14:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The second diff is nothing of a revert; it is simply a movement of material to a different part of the article. There is no call for Bentheadvocate to offer conjecture about Cameron's motives, and there is no technical 3RR violation. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Object: I guess you didn't see the fifth self-exposed revert. - BE  TA  15:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Outside comment. While Cameron Scott isn't interpreting 3RR correctly, as GBfan accurately notes, I see nothing beyond a minor technical violation at worst. The first set of edits appears to be the addition of new material (unless I'm misreading the tangled article history) and wouldn't be a revert, unless one is going to tendentiously argue that the minor and uncontroversial style edit removing a couple of "Mr"s from the text is a revert. Similarly, in the second edit, relocating text doesn't amount to a revert (repeated relocations in a dispute probably would, but nothing's really being undone at this stage), and the ancillary removal of an unnecessary subhead should be viewed as a good faith and apparently uncontroversial action. So I'd say no substantial 3RR violation, just, perhaps, minor technical violations that fall well below the level of misbehavior calling for any sanction. About the broader claims of edit warring by multiple parties, no comment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose the biggest problem I have about edit number two is that it removed it from the controversies section. If the edit had stood, the reader might not understand why it was part of the article, and it could have been exposed to unwarranted deletion attempts. His insufficient justification for the move leads me to wonder. - BE  TA  20:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. BETA is now accusing Cameron Scott of removing a non-controversy from a controversies section explicitly set up to support the POV of a series of 'contributors' - one of which has a self-declared COI, and another (BETA himself) has stated the he "believe[s] that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk" . AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk, as this is improper in this forum. - BE  TA  21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, My Talk as it has evidently vanished on yours. -- BE  TA  21:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It hasn't 'vanished', I deleted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Mistermurdock reported by User:Frank (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Martin&diff=440808695&oldid=440723973


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: Martin died at the scene, not at the hospital. I was there.
 * 3rd revert: Undid revision 440716777 by Yankees10 (talk) sources are wrong. I am a vol. fire fighter who responded to the call. He was dead at the scene, attempts to revive hin at Wilson Hosp. failed.
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank (talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Thelostmachine reported by Mt king  (edits)  (Result: not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:11, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 02:12, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
 * 02:13, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
 * 02:16, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
 * 02:22, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
 * 1) 02:35, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 02:48, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 02:56, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 03:00, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 03:13, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Mt king  (edits)  03:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Comment: The warning I placed occurred after the edits listed above. I am not aware of him making an additional revert since that warning. Further, he's taken the discussion to the talk page here. I'm not sure any administrative action is necessary at this point. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually you places the 3rr warning at 03:11 and he made the last edit two mins later, hence the report. Mt  king  (edits)  03:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My warning at 23:11 was malformed, and the warning did not appear on his page. See the diff. I corrected it at 23:13, the same minute he made his last revert. Perhaps he reverted again seconds after I fixed the warning, but as I mentioned on your talk page, I'm willing to AGF he hadn't seen the warning yet.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I do see it now and apologize, I will read the rules and return to fight the good fight with truth and fact... which happen to also be verifiable.

again apologiesThelostmachine (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User has stopped edit warring once the warning was applied. By all means report the user again if disruption persists. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bakhshi82 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Previous reverts from a few months ago:

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Recent reverts from last 24 hours:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Titanic_(1997_film) Consensus from that discussion: Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)

Comments:

This was a contentious dipsute, but ultimately four editors ground out a compromise over the wording. The fifth editor, Bakhshi82 refused to participate in moving towards a consensus, repeatedly reinstating his version, despite being invitations to join the discussion:

Following the recent spate of reverts, Bakhshi82 claims the consensus no longer stand because it was "long ago", and we can't expect new editors to stand by it:. In part I agree, consensus can change and we have to bear that in mind, but no "new" editors have challenged the wording. This is the same editor just reverting to his version again. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Monkeymanman reported by User:Adam4267 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion was opened on the talk page but this diff shows I asked him to explain his edits and that his tagging proccess may have been wrong. He did not respond or try to explain but simply removed more material.

Comments:

I have had disputes with this editor before, see here. Which is why I said that the tags he added were "irrational and petty". Because it seemed like his edits were more down to trying to ruin a page that I had created/contributed too more than constructively trying to improve it. He said in his first edit that this page needed additional citations but it has 62 references, he also said it wasn't taking a neutral point of view but didn't give any reason as too why. Also just adding tags without any discussion or reason to a page is not helpful which is why I tried to point him in the direction of OVERTAGGING. But in his last edit he just removed the entire opening paragraph for no reason and added more tags. Adam4267 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Where do I begin with this. I initially added a few tags to the article to point out where it could be improved but these were repeatedly removed, , .  I could have added so many more due to the nature of the content and sources but I am well aware of over tagging articles.  In my last edit I did not revert the article but took a different approach by rewriting and removing unsourced material (which the majority of the opening paragraph was) But user Adam does not seem to like being pointed out where his work was not up to standard.  The article is without doubt written by someone with a COI in the subject and is not written to a NPOV hence the tag still placed at the article.  Adam did not make any attemmpt to resolve the issue on the talk page, as he incorrectly points out.  He simply continued to remove the tags without attempting to change material.  User Adam seems to have an ambition to have me banned so I cant point out the draw backs in his materials.


 * On the article Green Brigade that Adam has so kindly pointed out that we have had previous discussions over, he has attempted to reinclude material back onto this article and reverted, , . And then self reverted his last when he knows he is wrong. Myself, Adam and another user were warned about edit warring on that article before by a helpful admin but he has again broken agreement over this.


 * Unfortunately i have been unable to respond quicker to this, but i hope we can work constructively together (as we have been able to before).
 * I have self reverted the article now. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since Monkeymanman reverted his last change. Consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. A WP:Request for comment could bring in more people. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Akitamom reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Addition of spam links. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. Has not broken 3RR yet, although this is spam. If the user continues, a block may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed. No problem. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Schumeda reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Blocked 24 hours by User:Daniel Case. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Historiographer reported by User:Quigley (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The first four reverts do not happen strictly within 24 hours, but within the course of two days. Aside from Historiographer's gaming the system by waiting a few extra hours before each revert, the tendentiousness, nationalistic edit summaries, and unwillingness to talk about his reverts have the same effect as if he were to revert more immediately. Also, Historiographer's edit summary in his 2nd revert accuses an editor of being a sockpuppet, but his reasoning is not obvious, he provides no evidence for it, and he does not formally follow up on this accusation. Quigley (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The new edit reduces rambling, speculation, and continual mentioning of sources directly in main text which is counterintuitive to encyclopedic quality. I don't see much of a problem here, at all. -- BE  TA  01:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Having the approval of Bentheadvocate" is not yet one of the listed exceptions to edit warring, sadly. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned Historiographer for nationalistic edit summaries. He did not make four reverts in 24 hours. I have left some suggestions at User talk:Quigley for resolving the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:LittleJerry reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Before reverts


 * 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: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism

Comments:

NYyankees51 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just for the purposes of clarity, I also warned the user here following his third revert. Dayewalker (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment:I've starting a discussion here. Not user has bothered to argue their case for why the article deserves high imporantance to the project, even after I've put started the discussion. The above user is just as guilty since he made blind reverts. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment:I do however, agree to wait for a new consensus. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User has continued to edit war at Talk:Bush tax cuts (see here. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 31 hours. This is an actual 3RR violation, but it is part of a dispute about which articles are important to conservatism. Since the user has continued to revert the importance rating at yet another article, Talk:Bush tax cuts, the attempt to resolve the war peacefully appears to have failed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Woodgastrains reported by User:Wehwalt (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User: Woodgastrains is a new user, but is raising difficulties at John A. Macdonald. He may not technically have broken 3RR, but he is plainly edit warring. His edits are raising problems with a FA as he is not bothering to worry about whether or not what he says is what is in the reference for the text he's changing. It's a problem! Myself, Bzuk, and Moxy have reverted, also trying to engage with him on article talk page and his own talk page, with no real success.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support short ban This editor needs to engage much more on the talk page(s) in a more coherent manner. A small ban I believe will send the message that disruptive editing is not tolerated and an adjustment in the approach taken to editing must take place. However  we have a larger problem then simply this reverts and the removal of referenced material in the John A. Macdonald article. The editor has  continued  to  copy and paste  copyrighted material despite the fact the he/she has been warned on their tlak page July 20, 2011 and  in edit summaries and the John A. Macdonald talk page. We had the Great lakes electric fish barrier article created after all the warnings that was so blatantly a copyvio  it  was speedy deleted.Moxy (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also Support to send a quick message that editing articles is encouraged, but playing nice with others is essential.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for making this board. first issue is the copyright on the great lake fish electric fences. was it okay to erase entire article? all material was cut and pasted from wiki. only wiki articles were cut and pasted from to create page, that's a fact. Please address this issue, first.--Woodgastrains (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to see you engaged in this talk - Woodgastrains can you provide the title of the article this material came from on Wikipedia - If this is that case I would like to apologizes for accusing you of this particular copyright vio. Has for copy and pasting from within Wikipedia please see Copying within Wikipedia.Moxy (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Caparn reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Caparn has made 6 reverts over the last few days over the objections of several other users on the talk page. He restores contested material even when asked to first discuss it on the talk page. His last 4 reverts break 3RR. Although he has not technically broken 3RR, he is edit warring to insert disputed text, against the opinion of other editors. LK (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

As is clear from this talk page history, Caparn has been warned several times before about edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

A long discussion of this issue is at Talk:Quantitative_easing. Essentially everyone else disagrees with Caparn on this issue.

Comments:

Caparn has also been impolite to the other users on the talk page, and displays a battleground mentality. He refuses to hear the arguments of the other users, and instead continually repeats his own arguments. --LK (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Augustus1986 reported by User:NBruschi (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

This is the initial insertion of the contested material:

Below are the reverts done in the last 24 hours in violation of 3RR
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert (causing violation):

Below are other revisions done by other users that were reverted by Augustus1984.
 * 1) 108.21.104.122  reverted by Augustus1986 under IP 218.186.12.245
 * 2) User:ElKevbo
 * 3) 74.72.2.97
 * 4) User:DMCer
 * 5) 65.96.209.71
 * 6) 75.7.8.228  reverted by Augustus1986
 * 7) 76.192.184.228

I have provided a 3RR warning here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have tried to engage Agustus1986 on the discussion page however every edit to make the section more factually correct is dismissed as 'more biased towards the college', edits to remove NPOV as "vandalism", and moves to delete it wholesale as a 'conspiracy of agents acting on behalf of the college'. The user seems bent on including the section as he wrote it in the article as a means of painting the subject in a negative light and advancing a private agenda against Dartmouth College. I request help in fixing this conflict and the section on the grounds that it is (1) not worthy of inclusion as it fails to meet WP:EVENT (2) not neutral or accurate for reasons that are clear on the discussion page and (3) this individual is breaking WP:3RR, WP:OWN, and WP:GOODFAITH NBruschi (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

--Augustus1986 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)I disagree that I have broken the 3RR rule since I do not see this being the case when I view the Dartmouth College history page. I revert on 18:36, 24 July 2011, 01:34, 24 July 2011 and 23:32, 22 July 2011. These edit are more than 24 hours in overall duration.

I have addressed his comments against me at the Dartmouth College talk page and the dispute resolution noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Dartmouth_College_discussion. Please see there for issues regarding those comments since as I understand it, this is strictly for 3RR rule issues.
 * For some reason, my computer won't load the diff links, so I checked the article history. Augustus has most definitely not violated 3RR; since mid-April, he's only edited the page five times, and never more than once per day.  It's possible to be edit warring without violating 3RR, but three reverts in three days really isn't even that.  Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to consider blocking NBruschi since he blatantly falsely reported me for an offence that the history very clearly shows I am nowhere near committing? I think that one could argue that he is attempting to initimate me by false reporting instead of bringing to the dispute resolution board as we had previously both agreed upon. --Augustus1986 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ouail reported by User:Tachfin (Result: 1wk)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 09:59, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 10:02, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 10:04, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 10:18, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 10:33, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 440978899 by Materialscientist (talk)")
 * 6) 18:19, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 19:12, 23 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 03:58, 24 July 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 05:09, 25 July 2011  (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Also reverts with IPs and another account user:Alphax26 user:128.12.214.56 user:128.12.221.41. Already cleared attempts to engage in discussion on his page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachfin (talk • contribs) 11:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 1 week. Nationalist edit-warring and unsourced changes to an article about an entire country. I note that an SPI has been filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Ouail. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon: violation of 1RR (Result: try WP:AE)
User talk:Goodwinsands is well aware that this article is under 1RR (per Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles), not just from the notices on both the article and talk page, but from a past warning to him on the Atzmon talk page where he acknowledged knowing about it. Nevertheless, he made this edit at 12:55 July 24 and this revert at 9:41 July 25. The revert was of my one revert of his one moving of and series of removals of neutral BLP material, mostly leaving negative material. His only reply to my detailed talk page explanation of my revert was to say I was being POV/biased and WP:OWN. I put an edit warring note on his personal talk page before I realized it also was a 1RR violation and that there was clear evidence on the article talk page he also is aware of the policy for that page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Carol, where was the violation of the one-revert restriction? It takes a second reversion to violate the restriction. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't his series of deletions of long standing material considered a "revert"? I don't see a time limit on "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." in the blue box at WP:3rr.
 * Not to mention evidence of edit warring: his not replying to my very specific complaints about POV move/deletions except just to claim I'm POV/WP:OWN and then immediately reverting? I can wait 24 hours and revert back, given I actually specify my complaints and he doesn't answer, but that does seem to be against the spirit of WP:edit warring. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since it'd be in response to an arbitration case, the best place to request enforcement of a remedy would be the arbitration enforcement requests board. -- slakr \ talk / 16:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but FYI the relevant WP:ARBPIA template at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon says to come either here or arbitration enforcement. If that is not correct, the template should be changed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:31.11.74.215 reported by Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 17:40, 24 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 441201210 by Crusio (talk) SJR : Scientific Journal Rankings is a Scopus based index and Elsevier approved, whci is very much credibleÂ§")
 * 2) 19:47, 24 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 441211013 by Crusio (talk) it is wikipe dia's policy that if referenced well, it should be published")
 * 3) 12:16, 25 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 441288786 by Steve Quinn (talk) blanked page please block this contributor")
 * 4) 12:47, 25 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 441337724 by Crusio (talk)")
 * 5) 16:29, 25 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 441363864 by Crusio (talk) please do not blank the page")

—Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:GandyDancer reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Note: There is a 1RR sanction on abortion articles.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * That happened half a month ago... - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Check the dates again. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Um. You've linked the page wrongly; the actual page is Talk:Abortion (I've fixed the link above). Does the 1RR apply to talk pages as well as actual article pages? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that. I'll ask User:SarekOfVulcan. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Both parties warned. This was an edit war over whether a certain discussion thread at Talk:Abortion should be hatted due to WP:FORUM. Hatting needs consensus, and people working at Talk:Abortion need to use a maximum of diplomacy. The General Sanctions are broad enough to permit sanctioning either or both parties, but for now, both are warned that they can be formally notified under the General Sanctions and their names can be added to General sanctions/Abortion/Log if this recurs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Dallasmayor reported by User:Prolog (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:

Comments: This article has recently come under attention as it is about the former party of the Norway shooter. Since there was some back and forth editing regarding the party's ideology, I tried to end that by providing reliable sources both for what the party self-identifies with and how sources commonly describe it. This new user, however, was unhappy with my edits for whatever reason (I'm guessing they weren't in line with The Truth) and blanked the whole thing, after previously reverting another user's similar but unsourced changes. And then blanked again, and again. No explanation, no communication. This is a highly disruptive editing pattern from a single-purpose account, on a currently high-profile page. Prolog (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite (t) (c) 21:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:QuickEditor (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: [diff]

Comments: Sitush is an experienced user, but is causing problems at Kim Kardashian. He has only made one revert, but I thought I would catch it in the beginning before it spirals out of hand. I removed the section "cookie diet lawsuit" from Kim Kardashian for the following reasons: (low in importance and notability to be mentioned in the article: kim kardashian), and user Sitush (talk) reverted it immediately after I warned him not to. The user continued to argue with me on the article's discussion page after I warned about Edit warring and explained how article's discussion pages is not the place to argue and asked the user to continue to argument with me on my talk page QuickEditor (talk) rather then the article's discussion page if necessary. |1

I have not reverted back to my original revert to avoid edit warring with user Sitush (talk). --QuickEditor (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation. Please don't claim to have consensus when so far nobody has supported your position. One edit in each direction (unless it's BLP) is below the threshold where this board is appropriate. You wanted Sitush to continue the discussion on your own user talk; it is normal for this kind of issue to be debated on the article talk page. Please continue there if you are not satisfied. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Omar-Toons reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 12 hour block for Omar-Toons and 1 week block for IP user)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

This is the edit war on just one article by this user. Is in at least two other edit wars as well right now. The IP he is edit warring with should also be blocked.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (None)

Comments:

The user has already been blocked for 12 hours, but, I believe the IP he is edit warring with also needs a block.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP for a week for showing up and starting multiple edit wars as well. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you think 12 hours is a little too short considering this user is also engaged in multiple other edit wars as well?Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For a user that's never been blocked before and has a history of quality contributions to Wikipedia, I feel that 12 hours is an appropriate first block. If the behavior continues after the block, I would support a longer (1 week+) duration re-block. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to semi-protect some of those articles, because there are other IP-hopping editors edit warring on pages of the same topic. One is from this range. There's also (from 78.251.220.0/24) and 41.200.0.0/16.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Almoravid dynasty, Almohad Caliphate, Saadi dynasty, Marinid dynasty and Abu al-Abbas as-Sabti all semi-protected for a period of one week now that the worst of the edit warriors are blocked. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * While "my issue" was discussed here, I had already reported a vandalism by the concerned IP on the Incidents Board . Maybe it could be interesting to take a look on the other board before blocking me (even if I don't contest the blocking itself), and to be aware of the previous issues (the fact that I was reverting some IP edits with the quasi-approbation of the Incidents Board ).
 * Note (also) that started contributing with his own account on these articles since they were protected... maybe this is a good start to ask him to discuss his changes, not?
 * Regards,
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:143.236.34.52 reported by User:Mato (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Mato (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Fully protected two weeks. I see an edit war in which the IP has broken 3RR, but he is removing material for which there is no consensus on the talk page. There are the beginnings of a discussion at Talk:Ethnic cleansing, where one person favors including the material and two people oppose it. Inflammatory charges against entire groups of people should probably be vetted before being placed in the article. Protection may be lifted if consensus is reached on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Julianbce reported by User:Cold Season (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: as Special:Contributions/92.40.111.43 (same articles, same edits)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have asked repeatedly to take it to the talk page, he seems unwilling to respond

Comments:

I have attempted to fix some edits like at Shangri-La, which he can't be bothered to do himself Here's another article full of edit warring: --- Cold Season (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He has persistenly reverted back to his edits at several articles.
 * It seems to be original research
 * It's rather difficult to read (yet he does not attempt and seems unwilling to correct it)
 * He seems to place references on those several articles while quite often those references don't state the same as he is (he misrepresents the sources), like for example explained here: Talk page for "Dalian"


 * Technically no violation of 3RR (the edits are quite spread out). Have you tried to discuss with the editor? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 19:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has the habit to make many consecutive edits after eachother, thus it seems rather spread out. So far he hasn't replied to any of my approaches. Also left a message at User_talk:HypatiaPrometheus, which I believe is the same guy. Though the user (Julianbce) has been blocked before for this, so I don't know how to solve it. Cold Season (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 92.40.0.0/17 rangeblocked for 1 month, HypatiaPrometheus blocked indef as an quacking sock, and Julianbce - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaronwayneodonahue reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:  Also editing logged out as

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (Editing while logged in)
 * 2nd revert: (Editing while logged in)
 * 3rd revert: (Editing as IP)
 * 4th revert: (Editing as IP)
 * 5th revert: (Editing while logged in. While not a "undid revision..." type revert, it does undo this edit which was recently removed, that Aaronwayneodonahue reinserted to make a WP:POINT.) Here, the user admits to making this edit for the sole purpose of making a WP:POINT.
 * 6th revert: (Editing while logged in)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User: IP:

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

Comments: Aaronwayneodonahue and 66.188.228.180 are same the person according to the intersecting contrib histories. They edit the same articles on or near the same day with similar edits and talk page comments on too many occasions to not be the same person. - SudoGhost 19:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Brmull reported by User:Berean Hunter (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Reverts
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5


 * 3RR warning given before last revert

The entire talk page is an attempt to resolve issues. In particular, July 2011 factual dispute (Part I, II & III) sections of the page.

Comments:

In addition to reverting/changing wordings, user has stated that 3RR doesn't apply to edit-warring over tags. ⋙–Berean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 22:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: Cautioned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:18, 27 July 2011  (edit summary: "the coat of arms is the primary symbol of the State, want proof? ask me")
 * 2) 20:30, 27 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 441709101 by Rxguy The Coat  of Arms is the State symbol and I can prove it")
 * 3) 22:29, 27 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 441764244 by Muboshgu Standardization does not over-ride accuracy http://www.nhregister.com/content/articles/2011/01/05/news/doc4d24b6d09afca4483260832.jpg")
 * 4) 23:14, 27 July 2011  (edit summary: "no explaination of removal of State flag and revert to inaccurate flag stub")
 * 5) 23:35, 27 July 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 441785376 by Muboshgu STOP REMOVING the FLAG of the state. It is identical to the Stub version of the flag, except in colour, which was changed on Commons per talk about the Flag's proper colours")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: BONUS: Fry1989's response (see edit summary):

—– Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Commons prefer File:Flag_of_Connecticut.svg, it seems. Will caution to be less confrontational. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 01:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I have a right to edit MY page. So you can't use my personal page against me. If I remove your warnings, thats my choice. Second. I am not in the process of editing the template anymore, I am trying to engage in the talk, and I have given sources to my cause. Third, TWO reverts I wouldn't have even had to make, if Muboshgu didn't confuse the argument over the Coat of Arms vs. the Seal with the separate issue of the flag. The flag was changed on Commons per the State Government source and a discussion on it's proper colours. Lastly. Muboshgu has reverted me 3 times as well, so if I get punished, so should he. He knows the rule and is trying to apply it to me, but broke it himself. As I said, I'm not editing the template anymore, and am engaging on the talk page, so there's no point in punishing me as an attempt to teach me a lesson. The issue at hand has resolved itself. Fry1989 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, you need to have performed 4 reverts to violate 3RR (you're allowed 3 reverts of any kind to the same page). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And as I said I wouldn't have even made the two extra edits, which would have put me over the limit, IF Muboshgu had payed attention, and realized that the Coat of Arms vs. State Seal debate was SEPARATE from the Flag, which I was enforcing per Commons discussion. I told him that the flag was wrong, but he ignored me, and is still trying to use it against me in this AN3. Fry1989 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why this report is . - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:SteveyCap reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User made exact same edits with an IP; his sockpuppetry was noted by an editor other than me [his IP sockpuppetry noted here.

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:38, 27 July 2011 SteveyCap (Undid revision 441707172 by Fortdj33
 * 2nd revert: 06:15, 28 July 2011 81.101.241.130 (Undid revision 441726326 by Tenebrae)
 * 3rd revert: 12:40, 28 July 2011 SteveyCap (Undid revision 441862403 by TriiipleThreat)
 * 4th revert: 13:01, 28 July 2011 SteveyCap (53,347 bytes) (Undid revision 441865098 by Fortdj33

He was then given the latest several edit-war warnings here and his IP sockpuppetry noted here.

He would have been reported then, after that 4th, but he appeared to have stopped. But he then made another revert here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

--Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: IP blocked. SteveyCap has made no reverts in the last 24 hours. If this resumes, a block of SteveyCap or semiprotection may be considered. The IP 81.101.241.130  has been blocked for a week per the SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Misessus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:32, 28 July 2011
 * 2nd revert: 21:14, 28 July 2011
 * 3rd revert: 21:23, 28 July 2011
 * 4th revert: 22:11, 28 July 2011

also some of his earlier edit warring over the involvement of 6 editors opposing his approach:
 * 15:34, 24 July 2011
 * 08:47, 25 July 2011
 * 16:43, 25 July 2011
 * 16:53, 25 July 2011
 * 17:02, 25 July 2011
 * 22:40, 26 July 2011
 * 23:13, 26 July 2011
 * 23:41, 26 July 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sadly, even after 3 previous edit warring blocks, it appears that User:Misessus thinks edit-warring is an acceptable approach to editing. BigK HeX (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It appears that the edit war has cooled off. There have been no reverts in the last 24 hours. If the war resumes, blocks may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I Do Not Understand What Is Happening re John C Cremony article
I recently posted my first major revision to an article, on John C. Cremony. I found that within seconds my corrections were deleted and the old article reinserted. Thinking that I might not have posted my revision, I reposted it, only to have my post again immediately deleted. This has happened three times [I just found out about the edit war rule.] I am mystified as to how my post could be repeatedly deleted within seconds of posting. I quoted Cremony's book [available in print and on Google Book]s directly, and do not think that the person who wrote the original article and deleted mine has ever seen a copy of this book. [The title page lists 1868 as the publication date, whereas the article I corrected claims a 1869 date]. It is true that my post was much more critical of Cremony, and perhaps this is not allowed. I had just finished reading "Life Among the Apaches" and was astounded by the misrepresentation of it on the site, so I quoted the book directly. I was not trying to start a quarrel. If upon reading my posts [name LosAngeles08] and those it replaced, if you think I am in any way in error, please notify me. I have tried posting a note to the "talk" section, but it seems unreadable when I try to access it. Thank you for your help. I am learning the ropes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LosAngeles08 (talk • contribs)


 * Your complaint is malformed for this noticeboard. What you are looking for is the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where you will likely find very little support for your version of the article, where Cremony is described as a genocidal racist Indian hater. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The user is now discussing edits on the article talk page , and other users have explained OR, NPOV, etc. (including, in my case, in response to an email from ). Nobody has breached WP:3RR. I don't think any further action is necessary.  Chzz  ►  05:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Deano545 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24h)
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:

Dispute over terminology in opening sentence - editor has shown no willingness to engage in discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Deano545 is possibly a sock of banned User:Germanlight (in turn a sock of User:Chaosname) who was blocked for edit-warring a similar change to this article.DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rundstedt and User:Topster888 reported by User:Professor Fluffykins (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Rundstedt's reverts:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Topster888's reverts:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Rundstedt warned:, Topster888 warned

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Reverts occurred while discussion was ongoing on the talk page:

Comments:

Professor Fluffykins (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Both editors were and have not edit warred after, so no block just yet.- Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 11:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Horseman16 reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This editor is also claiming some sort of ownership of the page, asking me not to edit it. He refuses to discuss it on the talk page and refuses to provide a reliable source for the change he wishes to make. I reverted his edits twice before making this report.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Protected three days. Both editors are warned to seek consensus after protection expires. Freshacconci removed a 3RR warning from his own talk page with an edit summary calling it 'vandalism'. If you want to bring complaints here you should try to behave well yourself. A bogus vandalism charge doesn't improve your case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Whoneful reported by User:Silvercitychristmasisland (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: N/A
 * 4th revert: N/A

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, not that it matters when there's a 1 revert limit.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Doesn't apply

Comments:

The user reverted Malik Shabazz. I reverted the user's obviously POV edits. The user then reverted me, violating the rule governing Palestine-Israel articles. The user then asked me why I "hate Jews," which, for the record, I do not. The user is now claiming to know he is violating policy and says that removing antisemitism, even though nobody has been antisemitic, "trumps...Wikipedia regulations." That, to me, constitutes vandalism, which ought to give Malik or me the go-ahead to break the 1RR once Whoneful is blocked. But I'm sure someone disagrees with that conclusion, so I won't revert again until I get permission from an admin. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is banned user Grawp, aka . Immediate indef no-talkpage-or-email block please.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do edits from a banned user and known vandal constitute "blatant vandalism?" I admit I'm looking to break 1RR and not get blocked, especially since Whoneful's edits are so awful. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the revert has been done. There ought to be a 1RR exception to situations like this. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is. The edits of banned users = pure vandalism, and as such are exempt from all revert limitations. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just found this. Thank you. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:InExcelsisDeo reported by User:Dayewalker (Result:Page protected 2 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

one editor was an attack page also theer is a discussion section for this issue on the article discussion page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by InExcelsisDeo (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor has reverted multiple times against multiple editors, has gone to the talk page but has not stopped reverting. Dayewalker (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted, issued a 3RR warning, and responded on the article talk page, but that's about as far as I'm interested in getting involved. InExcelsisDeo is clearly in good faith but sorely misguided as to the level of plot detail warranted in an article and how to handle being reverted. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Though InExcelsisDeo's reasoning/response that one of the editors is an "attack page" doesn't exactly show WP:AGF.
 * The page is protected for 2 days. I would urge InExcelsisDeo to review WP:FILMPLOT as well as WP:MOSFILM and actually engage in a discussion on the talk page instead of using it to ask for his edits to be left in peace. They may also want to take a second look at WP:EW and WP:BRD.
 * - J Greb (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - J Greb (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lasjan reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:48 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: (editing as 125.19.68.205)
 * 8th revert: (editing as 125.19.68.205)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

WP:COI editor repeatedly trying to add promotional Facebook link to article, removed by XLinkBot and multiple users. While editing as IP, tried to hide the 3RR notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update 7/30 - Editing from 125.19.68.205, this user returned to edit warring as soon as the block expired. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected the page for a bit. Post here if he pops back on the named account. Kuru   (talk)  18:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Arslanteginghazi reported by User:Alborz Fallah (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user wants to insert a sentence to the text by using an article as source, but that article does not have any sentence about his tendency. I'm sure giving false references is a major problem in Wikipedia, but user Arslanteginghazi does not answer to any dialog and only reverts any change to the article .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No activity on the page for over 2 days. I have given Arslanteginghazi another warning. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cckkab reported by User:RolandR (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor has repeatedly added an unsourced allegation of a conviction for a sexual offence to this BLP. S/he relies on an article in Hebrew, which s/he apparently does not understand, but I do. The article does not make this allegation, nor any similar claim. This is an extremely serious matter, and the editor should not be allowed to add such defamatory claims without reliable evidence. RolandR (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Protected two weeks per WP:BLP. I reverted to the last version that I thought was properly referenced. We should not be including information about serious criminal violations based only on the word of the Google Translator, based on a Hebrew original. Use the talk page to reach consensus. People who know Hebrew should give a direct quote of what they think the source is saying, in English. Even the supposed reference to prove he had a relationship with an Irish politician does not include his last name. Is this credible evidence? EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Deano545 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: already blocked indefinitely as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Continuation of User:Deano545 reported by User:Ghmyrtle Report above

After coming off a 24 hour block, Deano545 has made exactly the same revert: DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jb782 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 8 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (which is a revert of this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor is removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content, and while that was apparently the primary issue the editor had with the edit, the editor was undoing the entire edit without discussion or explanation, but then removed only one section (which was still a revert), however they continued to remove sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content, breaking WP:3RR without waiting for discussion. - SudoGhost 22:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - keeping this block short, as the user may not have been aware that the last revert counted toward the 3RR (although, in fact, s/he was duly warned). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Averagejoedev reported by User:Singularity42 (Result: Blocked 24hrs)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Holocaust denial

Comments:

Averagejoedev decided that a sentence in the lead of the article was false (notwithstanding it was sourced to reliable sources), removed it, and explained why on the talk page. The rationale was that the sources were wrong. Other editors advised Averagejoedev that his interepretation fo Wikipedia policy was mistaken, and the sentence was restored. Averagejoedev then reverted, and removed the sentence again. He was advised to participate in the ongoing discussion, and the sentence was restored by another user. Averagejoedev then began repeatedly removing the sentence while the discussion was ongoing (which by this point was unanimously against him). He was warned about 3RR on his talk page. He ignored the warning and continued to revert without discussion multiple times. That led to this report. Singularity42 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  03:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Caiboshtank reported by User:bjmullan (Result:Caiboshtank blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: As well as breaking the 3RR rule I'm guessing this user is a sock of either User:MidnightBlueMan or User:Triton Rocker. If you look at the edit history their first edit was to remove reference material and label it as vandalism here. All their edits since they have appeared five days ago is to revert material added by User:HighKing. I will notify the user of this report. Bjmullan (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Caiboshtank . Another instance of a troubles troll. Blocked indef for sock-puppetry per wp:duck, block-evasion, harassment and edit-warring-- Cailil  talk 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is nothing to do with The Troubles. This is a reaction to the long term problem of a single user being rather successful at imposing his world view on Wikipedia in defiance of many policies. The matter should not be handled here. Instead, I expect WP:ANI is the place. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's regrettable, but until the constant push to curb the usage of British Isles by the editor-in-question ends? those on the opposite side, will likely continue to sock. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Intervention in edit war with User:TheFarix requested (Result: Reporter Warned)
Page: Blood-C

User being reported: User:TheFarix


 * Original: 16:35, 30 July 2011
 * 1st Revert: 12:32, 31 July 2011
 * 2nd Revert: 16:18, 31 July 2011
 * 3rd Revert: 16:25, 31 July 2011
 * 4th Revert: 16:45, 31 July 2011 (Current version)

I have been involved in an edit war with User:TheFarix, in which disputed content provided by myself was repeatedly deleted. A copyvio report was submitted by this editor in the conclusion of a prior edit war, involving possible copyright infringement by content translated nonverbatim by myself and others; it is claimed that said content does not fall under fair use for non-close paraphrasing. No real effort has been made to address these two disputes in Talk.

Regardless of whether a copyvio is judged to exist by administrative staff, there seems to be some sort of problem that this editor has with edits submitted by myself. The reverts noted above do not involve the only unsourced content in the article, but it was singled out for dispute. I don't want to assume bad faith, but it seems that the editor takes issue with me -- and the copyvio injunction seems somewhat gaming. I thus request some sort of 3rd party intervention. For the time being, I will cease to make any edits to the page involved.

-- Fallacies (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from edit warring and repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into Wikipedia. The next time you do this, you will be blocked from editing. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:MikeLynch reported by User:Boolyme (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: N/A
 * 3rd revert: N/A
 * 4th revert: N/A

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This editor is not willing to consider any logic. He is also provoking me to complain to some administrator. (This can be seen by the smiley that he put after his argument. In spite of giving point-wise arguments, he thinks most of my points are redundant and refuses to answer them. This will boil to an edit-war hence, I am appealing it here as I don't know anyplace else where I can do so  Boolyme बूलीमी   Chat बोलो!! 20:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not misconstrue my comments, I do not intend it to be provocative. In fact, I would want a mediator to review the discussion and bring an end to it; I want to resolve this issue peacefully. Anyway, I have not broken 3RR, so I don't think its an edit war as such. Probably Boolyme is looking for dispute resolution.  Lynch 7  20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. Boolyme, your statement on the article talk suggests you are planning to fix the article all by yourself. This is unlikely to work. Please present your arguments on the talk page and wait for consensus. An WP:RFC could be opened to bring in more participants. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Opbeith reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 14:22, 28 July 2011
 * 2nd revert: 15:11, 28 July 2011
 * 3rd revert: 13:39, 31 July 2011
 * 4th revert: 17:59, 31 July 2011

Comments:

User:Opbeith has insisted on linking Anders Behring Breivik to Srđa Trifković, despite discussions on his user talk page (User_talk:Opbeith), the article talk page (Talk:Srđa Trifković) and an extensive discussion at BLPN (Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard indicating he should not do so. While he has not technically broken 3RR, this edit-warring is particularly inappropriate because: I think a strong message needs to be sent here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) He has been reverted by 3 different editors, and has been told by one that "this is so 100% wrong that I believe it meets the BLP exemption for crossing 3RR".
 * 2) There is an extremely strong consensus at WP:BLP/N that this material does not belong; in fact, eight uninvolved editors there agree it doesn't belong, and no uninvolved editors agree it belongs. Despite this, and despite realizing that people consider this to be a very significant BLP issue, Opbeith pretends the consensus doesn't exist, and continues to edit-war.

The points I raised simply haven't been answered either at the article talk page or at the BLP noticeboard. All that happens is the consensus is insisted on. Jayjg seems to consider the references I've cited are irrelevant. "this is so 100% wrong" etc. was not accompanied by a convincing explanation of its so 100%ness. Apologies if I sound flippant, I'm actually rather angry about this because I consider the information excluded to be serious and relevant and I find it rather offensive that my arguments are dismissed simply as an attempt at implying "guilt by association". I would like to be treated rationally, not just told off. Opbeith (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 06:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:AngBent reported by User:Pylambert (Result: Declined)
User:AngBent is busy since several days on edit wars on many articles related either to Greek topics and some other ones. From the nature of the edits he seems to have a chauvinistic Greek and pro-Pyongyang Communist agenda. There are at least a dozen articles involved. He also edited as Special:Contributions/46.177.71.53 and Special:Contributions/46.176.13.209 (precisely the same type of POV edits). This seems to be going on since at least two months, some edits have been reverted but he is going on with disruptive edits. --Pylambert (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Typical examples:
 * Hu Qiaomu : and
 * Culture of North Korea : and
 * Imperialism : and
 * Macedonian Struggle: and
 * Aromanians : edit war, see

Pylambert is behaving in an authoritarian manner, and tries to censor me. He/She even removed many well-referenced edits that I made. He/She accuses me of edit war, yet he/she is the one who began the edit warring. If he/she had grievances about my contributions, he/she could have started a discussion with me to express them. Instead, he/she first deleted much of my work, which took hours of serious work to complete, and now accuses me in a truly insidious manner. I think I deserve an apology... AngBent (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent
 * The examples above show the type of "well-referenced edits" AngBent introduced on wikipedia, plus the use of an IP address in the edit war on Aromanians. There is no discussion possible with someone whose presence on wikipedia obviously has for main (only) purpose to make that type of chain edits with a political agenda (or political agendas). --Pylambert (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: On what grounds exactly is this "POV vandalism"? Athenean (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the 99% of his other bad faith POV "edits" (vandalism) I didn't try checking that one in particular, I assumed it was of the same kind and reverted it, that's a consequence when you vandalize articles like he systematically did, other users can't trust any of your edits. --Pylambert (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So basically you're saying you blindly reverted everything. This is rather poor form for an editor as experienced as yourself. While I agree that many of his edits are indeed problematic, I wouldn't say "99%". There is also a difference between POV-pushing and vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND. Neither of you has made any attempt to discuss things on talkpages, and again that is poor form. Also, please consider that your tone isn't helpful (calling everything another does "POV vandalism" will only serve to inflame things further). I revert problematic edits ALL the time - but I don't use labels, simply because there is no need and such things are best avoided. Athenean (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the type of edits, and the number of them, simply reverting them would encourage the vandal user to go on, rereverting them under his pseudo or under an IP identity (as he did on the Aromanians article). My attention was drawn on this "user" because of an edit on Western Thrace, which is on my watchlist. I immediately recognized the typical Greek chauvinist vandal and I went to watch his other edits, after a dozen my suspicions were confirmed, even if he's also a pro-Pyongyang POV-pusher in addition. These are not just problematic edits, but a mala fide editor who should be prevented to go on. When I finish writing this, I see the decision on this dispute, I won't go on losing my time with this, I am leaving now for work and I will not be online before days hours, sorry. --Pylambert (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that justice has been done. Let this be an example to other would-be censors with a totalitarian mentality like Pylambert.AngBent (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent
 * Please take this issue to WP:ANI. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:MikeWazowski and User:75.80.79.246 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mike is experienced enough to know 3RR. The IP has been here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (None)

Comments:

I'm not involved in this dispute, but would like to bring it up. The IP has also made personal attacks on Mike's talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Mike actually crossed 3RR. Mike redirected the article (not a revert, as this was the first time it was done), then twice reverted the IP on undoing that redirect.  Then Mike stopped edit-warring on that, and instead included several maintenance templates.  The IP removed them, and Mike reverted once (up to 3 reverts).  Since then, no editing has taken place.  While the IP did cross 3RR, xe did so only before being notified of the WP:3RR by Jasper Deng.  I don't think either editor should be blocked here, but I'd like other admin opinions before explicitly declining this.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mike notified the IP long before my own warning. See the diff I supplied.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Qwyrxian. I'm watching the page.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:76.125.58.198 reported by User:BusterD (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

For the record, User:Magicpiano engaged in this edit war of reversions (more than 3), but has made an honest effort to discuss with the user on page talk and user talk. I've templated both users, in order to maintain a fair tone between editors. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: the IP was actually warned here by MagicPiano prior to Buster's warning posted above with the significance being that this warning was received before the IP's last revert. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No reverts since 3RR warning. If the IP makes another revert, leave a message on my talk page and I'll block them. - big>F ASTILY  (TALK) 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Was MagicPiano's warning (which preceded the IP's last revert) not considered as valid? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  03:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was indeed. Not sure how I missed that.   - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  05:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Whoneful reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Indef, page deleted)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: "Undid revision 442107267 by Malik Shabazz (talk): Rv. POV editing"
 * 2nd revert: "Reversing POV"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert rule. That means an editor may make only one revert during any 24-hour period. Please see WP:ARBPIA for more information.

Please note that there is a large white edit notice that appears above the edit box on this page: Editnotices/Page/Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also note User:Whoneful's response to edit-warring messages: "Removing anti-Semitism trumps your rediculous Wikipedia regulations." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has been indef-blocked as a sock of (Grawp).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look out guys, Grawp is at it again! If he attempts to vandalize Wikipedia again, try to contact Jimbo wales. Or report him to ANI.  StormContent (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the page as the creation of a banned user. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:The-Expose-inator reported by User:CutOffTies (Result: technical decline as stale)
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:
 * I realize this was given a bit late, sorry.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I realize this isn't a violation of 3RR, but it is edit warring where the user is not making an attempt to discuss this specific issue on talk. I brought in a third opinion which stated that the content isn't relevant to the article, but did not address my concerns about synthesis. I then posted on the original research noticeboard where two users have said it is clear original research. These links have been provided on the talk page when I made my revert, but The-Expose-inator continues to revert. The user has posted on the article talk page but did not address this specific content. The only discussion the user has given about this content is on my talk page which is mostly in regard to the user's personal experience, which furthers  the original research, and does not address that the content is out of place in the article. If you look at the user's talk page, the original research issue has come up before.

Thank you--CutOffTies (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a technical decline only. For the edit warring alone, the issue is just too stale, and you both look equally at fault. However, the original research/proper sourcing issue is too difficult to be decided on the edit warring noticeboard, but it is appropriate to take up the issue on the other noticeboards. I recommend taking it to WP:ANI, because it is a combination of both edit warring and reliable sourcing, so a disruptive editing block isn't appropriate for either WP:ORN or WP:AN3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I'm quite confused about the 'equally at fault' part. I expressed my concerns at the talk page, I brought it to third opinion, I posted on the OR noticeboard. The consensus there was to remove the content. Even after this, am I supposed to do nothing in reply to the editors' reversions? --CutOffTies (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to do things in response to the editor's reversions, the most important is to report it here. Unless what you are doing is one of the exceptions to the three revert rule, you aren't supposed to continue reverting.  Consensus is not one of the exceptions.  GB fan please review my editing 15:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily assistance requested by User:Alecmconroy (result: no vio)

 * 1st deletion of comment:
 * 2nd deletion of comment:
 * 3rd deletion of comment:
 * 4-- issues a "block warning" for inappropriate comment "formatting":
 * (is there any such rule preventing mid-text-block replies? I've never heard of one, I had no idea a sitting admin would think it was blockable)

Comments:

This isn't a clear-cut article edit war over content. This is a user who three times removed my own comments in a discussion I was actively involved in. He also issues a block-threat for something I don't believe is a valid reason.

Others and I have problems with how he's using the delete tool, but that's a different issue. I don't think a 'calm down' block actually helps anyone calm down, I won't ask for blocks or anything. Just please remind people to not delete others' comments or threaten blocks for invalid reasons, especially when in policy dispute with them.

That's all the needs be said. He doesn't need a "time out"-- just please remind him that deleting comments and threaten bogus blocks is still verboten.

I may be an aggravating factor at this point, so my role on the discussion will now wane. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not notified the user, pending vetting of my comments. If they're baseless, he needn't be bothered. If someone needs to talk to him, let it be someone he trusts, no someone he's mad at. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the first diff you link to above; it seems to have been some genuine confusion about edit conflicts in the heat of a rapid exchange. But in the subsequent edits, you had been doing something rather odd, duplicating a whole section of discussion from other people. Of course that duplicated batch should have been removed. Now, please go back to the ANI page and clean up the mess. If there's a comment of yours that was in danger of going missing, restore it to where it originally fit, but remove all that duplicated stuff, it's very annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * EC is a totally plausible explanation, though since you've been active in the discussion you're hardly the person to make the call.


 * If you too hate my 'formatting', delete the whole thing section and be done with it-- the needed audience has heard my words. If the behavior doesn't change, more people will just show up after me to say the same thing.


 * I think you guys need to get on irc and pow-wow, try to think harder, about why I should have been threatened with a block for "bad formatting".   Being 'messing' during ECs?  You're letting people block over that, are you?   Explain to me again why anyone could be blocked for good-faith 'bad formatting'?  Explain to me again why ANYONE should even be THREATENED with a block for good faith fortmatting style problems on a frickin talk page.  Think long and hard on that one.  "Messy" doesn't cut it.


 * I get the sensation that a lot of these new "hard line" stances about 'no fair use' and 'no unapproved talk page formatting' are 'improvisational' rather than 'consensus-based'.  That is, at least one admin looks like he's just making these 'rules' up as he goes along.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Alecmconroy has created a horrible mess: (ugh!)   (double ugh!) That mess is his responsibility. Reporting somebody here who tried to clean it up is disruptive, Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my, aren't I verbose!  So, are we blocking people for good faith vebosity now, or just threatening them for it?  Oh, you guys still haven't come up with the answer for that?  back to the old irc drawing board, as they say. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -rolls eyes- Tell me about it. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you were just BSing about formmating blocks being justified under policy?  Still waiting for the citation on this. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing this. The mess has been cleaned up (not by the person who caused it, unfortunately), there's clearly nothing more to do here, nobody broke 3R, and the thread is producing only heat and no light at this stage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.   And to all involved,  the heat you've gotten from me is nothing compared to what you'll get when you start deleting images other people took time to upload in good faith.
 * If you want light, don't delete in use educational legal content.
 * if you want heat, just keep up the work.  You will all be burned out so fasts you won't know what hit you, and if you survive, the project will likely fail. Goodluck, and my last word --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal attack removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:202.156.13.226, User:202.156.13.11 reported by User:La goutte de pluie (Result: Page protected)
Page:

I'm an involved administrator and am not willing to use my tools in this incident. The case is very complex and has already caused 3-4 threads over ANI in the last few months; I am about to go to lab and I do not have the time to post all the diffs (I plan to draft an RFC), but I take it the history of the Checkuser page should be self-sufficient. The IPs involved are known to be affiliated in the whole affair; the IPs apparently did not know the page existed until User:Geneva2011 and User:Eggsauto99 got blocked on CheckUser-confirmed abuse of sockpuppets, upon which they were given a link that alerted them to this page. I beseech any reasonable administrator to take a simple look at the situation and do what is necessary. Thank you. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite (t) (c) 22:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:74.210.83.190 reported by User:Old Moonraker (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Three of the contributor's edit summaries contain legal threats

--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite (t) (c) 22:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:168.12.253.66 reported by User:ButOnMethItIs (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:

Comments:


 * Straightforward. Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:24.236.68.244 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result:1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:02,  3 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 442860365 by N5iln (talk)")
 * 2) 17:13,  3 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 442871216 by N5iln (talk)")
 * 3) 17:14,  3 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 442871938 by N5iln (talk)")
 * 4) 17:17,  3 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 442872165 by Muboshgu (talk)")
 * 5) 17:27,  3 August 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 442872601 by Muboshgu (talk)")

Comments:
 * IP user attempting to add possible WP:BLP-violating material as anecdotal example of "deadbeat parent". Example just happens to be a US Congressman. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is some edit warring on the page of said congressman, Joe Walsh (Illinois politician). The IP was just blocked one week, but that might not be long enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked a week by another admin. I can't see that there's much more to do, especially for a first offence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Haymaker reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Page Protected, talk page warning issued)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He's quite aware that the article is under a 1RR restriction to prevent edit warring, as I've blocked him in the past for violations

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's been extensive discussion over the past few days.

Comments:

The community 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles is meant to prevent edit warring, not to extend it.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * At no point did I violate 1RR, it would be helpful if SOV had posted the times on these edits. This has been batted back and forth on the page probably three dozen times in the last 10 days or so and SOV is angry because when he blind reverted the page here and only filed this report after I called him out on it here.  There has been extensive discussion on that talk page (which I have been a part of), I probably should have asked for page protection at some point but this is not edit warring.  Also, there is a 3 day gap in between edit 1 and 2. - Haymaker (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reported edit warring, not 1RR or even 3RR. 5 reverts in 12 days generally falls under that heading.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5 edits over 12 days on a page that has had around 60 edits in that time and significant talk page discourse sounds like a pretty low bar for edit warring. - Haymaker (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If 5 reverts over 12 days is a marker for edit warring, shouldn't others on the page also be up for this to.Marauder40 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is under 1RR. Haymaker appears to have responded by reinserting the same disputed material every (24 + n) hours, where n is not very large. That's often viewed as an attempt to game the spirit of 1RR, although it's up to an uninvolved admin to decide if that warrants sanctions here. There may well be others acting similarly; if you think that's the case, then diffs would be useful. MastCell Talk 21:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmph, it's an unimpressive edit history. There are indeed other established editors making numerous reversions; in the same time frame quoted by Sarek here I also count four reversions by at least two other editors (User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese. I would suggest a period of page protection would be preferable to picking a single editor out of this mess for a block. Therefore  (no doubt in the Wrong Version). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Toronto2503 reported by User:PKT (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Please note that Toronto2503 made a couple of reverts before these 4; the edits listed below occurred within the last 24 hours.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Editor has repeatedly replaced 2006 Census data with unreferenced/uncited newer data. Most recently the editor has implied that the newer data is from the 2011 census, but the results of this year's census have not been released (in fact Census Canada hasn't finished accumulating data yet).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  Notice applied by third editor.

Discussion section on the subject editor's talk page: User_talk:Toronto2503 Comments:

I think the foregoing sums things up properly. Please advise if more information is needed.  PK T (alk)  00:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: User blocked 24 hours by Canterbury Tail. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Deepdish7 reported by User:Kolokol1 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert (apparent sockpuppet):

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


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_1:
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_2:
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_3:
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_4:
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_5:

Comments: This dispute stems from independent attempts of myself and user Off2riorob to edit a highly contentious article - as per consensus on the talk page, which has been consistent over years. There were two attempts to edit the lead, and an attempt to remove poorly sourced and potentially libelous sections as advised by the BLP policy. The perpetrator keeps revering to the old contentious version and threatens to do so indefinitely. The matter has been referred to BLP Noticeboard and to ArbCom --Kolokol1 (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Normally this would be a standard short EW block, but given the information that the editor is trying to insert, and the use of an IP and a completely obvious sock (which I've also blocked), a longer block is indicated.
 * Black Kite (t) (c) 12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kpwinter reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: )
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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Single purpose reverting without end one day account - I also suspect the account a quacking sockpuppet of User:Pepe1958 - I have offered to remove the report if they self revert. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are generous - massive iterated WP:BLP violations by a "new editor" should arouse hackles. Once an editor has seen that the folks at BLP/N are in agreement - that should have stopped the reverts. Collect (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Occasionally I am generous.... The disputed content has been removed and the reported user seems to have accepted the position so there seems to be no need for administration here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:20, August 4, 2011. Adding quote "could test the bounds of free speech."
 * 2nd revert: 20:48, August 4, 2011. Restoring quote "could test the bounds of free speech."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List

Comments:

The article is under 1RR sanctions on abortion topics. The editor NYyankees51 was previously blocked for 1RR violations on this same article on May 31, 2011, for 72 hours. The edit warring warning was issued after the violation, of course, because of the nature of 1RR. Same with the attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the 1st revert listed above, was that a situation in which he reverted another editor by adding the quote about testing the bounds of free speech? Or was this an edit in which he was adding something new and original to the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The first edit was new and original material. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely adding information to an article and then reverting to that version once is not breaking 1RR. Am I missing something obvious here? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same question. If I'm in violation I'd be happy to revert myself, but I don't see the violation...NYyankees51 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and official 1RR sanction violations are probably better reported at arbitration enforcement. -- slakr \ talk / 06:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:99.65.186.186 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Anonymous user has been disruptively editing numerous articles and IP hopping (other IP being used is User:216.117.11.39) in an attempt to avoid 3RR violation, which as can be seen from the evidence presented here, user clearly no longer cares about. User deleted warnings from talk page (and talk page of IP sock) regarding relevant Wikipedia policies with edit summaries of "rv troll" and "get serious, n00b". One article has already been placed under full protection due in large part to the disruptive behavior of this user, and the other probably needs at least semi-protection to prevent this user from simply using other IPs to continue edit warring should a block be placed on the IP being reported. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize you're up for a block after your display, too? LOL-worthy. 216.117.11.39 (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You forgot to report yourself, along with 129.252.69.40. But that would've required a non-biased approach to Wikipedia.  Oops! 216.117.11.39 (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: South Carolina Gamecocks football has been semiprotected two months. The Stephen Garcia article is already under full protection. College rivalry might be the source of this edit warring; two of the active IPs are from South Bend, Indiana. The 129.* IP is from the University of South Carolina and it tends to undo the work of the other IPs. Anyone, IP or not, can open up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page of the article that you think should be changed. The 99.* IP may be blocket if it continues to blank the talk pages of other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Srimalleswara reported by User:Jsorens (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I will, however, drop a note on the user's talkpage and watchlist the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Sheldonville reported by User:Don'tKnowItAtAll (Result: No vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Reversion history is obvious. I attempted to get the discussion onto the talk page but the user reverted without discussion. If I were to revert again to get the discussion going, I could be accused of 3RR or force him into a 3RR situation

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies Comments:

My rationale is fully explained on the talk page.

I'd like someone to step in. Don&#39;tKnowItAtAll (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be better to look at other dispute resolution options - see WP:DR. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Τασουλα reported by User:79.97.144.17 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Very bad form, anonymous IP. This isn't the way to resolve your dispute. I unblocked you in good faith because it looked like you were willing to discuss your disagreement, but instead you turn around and report your opponent for edit warring, when that person was trying to maintain the consensus-supported version of the article. This page is not a forum for resolving your dispute. Work it out on the talk page. I will not hesitate to block you again if you show no sign of trying to come to an agreement. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Alphasinus reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Previous warning for edit warring on the same topic, related article:

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (Third Edit-warring block) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:90.199.34.136 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 23:20,  5 August 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 443261060 by Yworo (talk) - moving relevant text to the body of the article, again.")
 * 2) 00:14,  6 August 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "yeah, well I don't like your changes, nor the dishonest template you left on my talk page, nor the fact that you're now stalking the articles I've been editing.")
 * 3) 00:19,  6 August 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "You can start a discussion on talk any time you want.  And don't be violating the 3RR now, will you ;)")
 * 4) 00:31,  6 August 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "If you really want to piss off the reader by having relevant information outside the text and sentences interrupted by pointless references which are redundant anyway, then fucking go right ahead and undo my work again.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kolokol1 reported by User:Remotehost719 (Result: Remotehost719 blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ,


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

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

 just search page for word vandalism. user has been warned many times but despite continued his actions

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29

Comments:

The article has been consistent over years, but users Kolokol1 and Off2riorob recently shown up and started to make unwarranted vandalistic edits of the page, claiming that only their favorite and only British media sources are correct in this case, that all Russian media sources are biased (hope Wikipedia doesn't discriminate media sources by country), despite a lot of charges against page subject were described in British media actually such as Guardian, Times etc. Kolokol1 also claimed, that media that listed derogatory information against page subject was 'poorly sourced'. There has been some disputes in the discussion section already, and at the end each time it was proven that NPOV was maintained, still those two users claim that all derogatory information should be removed from the page (even court decisions and trials against the criminal) just because it's 'libelous'. The users didn't pay any attention to people asking them to stop vandalism and continued their actions. The matter has been referred to BLP Noticeboard by wikipedia member who tried to stop vandalism. I see that user deepdish7 has been banned for a some time. Now let's see how fair Wikipedia administration is by seeing whether they ban user Kolokol1 for even more destructive actions against the page comparing to those taken by Deepdish7 who was merely restoring page to a one week ago version from malicious edits and starting dispute on discussion page instead. Remotehost719 (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Remotehost719 (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Poster is a sockpuppet. Sockpuppetry case concerning this is now filed here. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  02:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverts of BLP violations are exempt from 3RR. Colchicum (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Reporter blocked as a sock.  Black Kite (t) (c) 09:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 reported by User:Garycompugeek(Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  

Comments: User has abandoned the article talk page and assumed a threatening posture on my user talk page. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment from involved user. I'm quite startled to see this report.   has now reverted six times in this particular edit war, these edits have been reverted by two editors (myself and Jmh649), and two editors (myself and Jayjg) have referred him to the section where such paragraph breaks were previously discussed.  Unfortunately this follows a long history of previous edit warring on the same article; I reported Gary's previous edit warring on the article (also in the lead, coincidentally) on the 14th of June. Jakew (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the reporter is the main edit-warrior here, although since 3RR has technically not been breached here I have protected the article instead to see if a solution can be thrashed out on the talkpage. It was certainly very dubious practice for the reporter to push this AN3 report without mentioning his part in the dispute.
 * No duplicity was intended. I was sure my involvment would be obvious...Garycompugeek (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Black Kite (t) (c) 16:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)