Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive167

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:Mtking (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 04:09,  1 September 2011  (edit summary: "modified wording and added sources so that statements were not OR")
 * 04:53, 1 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* School of Nursing */ modified citation")
 * 1) 16:20,  1 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Student life */ modifying wording and adding citations")
 * 2) 18:43,  1 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 447893940 by Orlady (talk) these are third party sources")
 * 3) 03:40,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 447975762 by Orlady (talk) site is not promotional and trail site can also have news link sources added")
 * 03:46, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Student life */ added citations from reliable sources")

— Mt king  (edits)  03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Fountainviewkid has been blocked before for 3RR on this article. Mt king  (edits)  03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was adding and modifying sources. I made only 2 reverts making sure not to violate the 3RR rule. The IP tried to attack me on this for the same and an admin pointed out to him that this was a content dispute not an edit war.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I might also add that "consecutive edits" are seen as one. This summary is misleading.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You will see that the two sets of "consecutive edits" have the second edit indented and not numbered, between 04:09 on 1 September 2011 and 03:46 on 2 September 2011 (23 hrs 33 mins) you made a total of 6 edits, in 4 batches. Mt  king  (edits)  04:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was modifying citations. I could have easily done them together in 2 batches. Notice I was trying to improve the article and find appropriate sources. I only made 2 reverts.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So which of the edits was not a revert then ? as from what I can see they all reversed an action of another editor ? Mt  king  (edits)  04:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The additions of the citations. I was adding information in order to modify sections of the article so that it would be based off the sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming that you mean the Number 2 edit in the list above, well as with this edit Orlady had already removed information relating to Lookout Mountain, your re-insertion was a revert of her action. Mt king  (edits)  04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't "reinserting" so much as adding sources. Also where did I specifically make more than 3 reverts?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * to quote WP:3RR :
 * A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word
 * each of the four sets of edits in the above list, in one way or another reversed the actions of another editor. If you disagree then please point out which edits you think do not and why they do not. In the case of the Number 2 edit, Orlady had already removed information relating to Lookout Mountain and your adding it back was reversing that action. Mt  king  (edits)  04:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant talk page about these edits is here Talk:Southern_Adventist_University but from my prospective I didn't see it as an edit war, FVK if anything was just maybe not understanding fully the reason why the material shouldn't be in the article. At least from this editor's prospective I didn't take these series of edits as an edit war... — raeky  t  05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But Fountainviewkid's block log shows Five blocks for 3RR, two of which are at Southern Adventist University, along with this edit I find it hard to conclude anything other than he knew what he was doing. Mt  king  (edits)  05:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should inform those reading this that I contact my mentor every time I am accused of something serious like this. that posting was meant to ask his help as to how I should proceed in this matter. I take it very seriously when my username shows up on this board. Also the blocks at SAU are from a past situation with an editor/user is now banned for socking, major edit warring, 3RR, etc named BelloWello. There are quite a few editors including his former mentors who could testify as to the hell that BelloWello put me (and a whole lot of others) through.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He should at this point know exactly what 3RR is at this point, no doubt. I think he gets a bit caught up with trying to keep information in the article and doesn't want to wait for the discussion to take place to find out what the consensus on it was. There is nothing wrong with allowing something to remain or be deleted and stay deleted until AFTER a thorough discussion has been had about the content, and I think that's where FVK gets hung up. I just know that another ban for 3RR for him will result in a VERY lengthy ban, and I don't think this editor is a bad editor, just needs more guidance. Putting him on a 1-revert restriction for all (or at least anything connected to SDA) articles might be more prudent then an extremely lengthy ban, IMHO. — raeky  t  05:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am minded to agree, my only hesitation, is relating to way he has behaved here, the "it was others defence", the denying the issue and not just saying "Opps my bad, how can I fix this", perhaps FVK should make that offer for the admin who reviews this to consider. Mt  king  (edits)  05:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fountainviewkid's last regular edit warring block was for one month. He gets little credit for being puzzled about the revert count now, when he's been through the process so many times. I think it's time for a two-month block. If he actually wanted to stop and discuss, I'm sure he could have figured out how to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to acceded to the suggestions given by Raeky. I also would like to remind those considering that the "one month" block was shortened to one week and was going to be shorted to 48 hours by various admins. The "one month" was in response to one revert with a stupidly titled summary. Review the details and read the response of the several admins. I would note, just as side information, that I've been considering leaving Wiki due to all the stress and WP: BATTLEGROUND. A significant block would make that decision easier, though I still do want to try and continue to contribute. I await the verdict from the community.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My "verdict" is that you need to grow up. Threatening to take your toys and go home if you aren't allowed to edit war is extremely childish. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you threatening to leave if your disruptive behavior isn't ignored, Fountainviewkid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.110.68 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support long block. Previous to this incident, I politely requested that the user change their approach and discussed reasonable alternatives. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than a block, a topic ban might be better - the user is telling us he both wants to edit, but that the WP: BATTLEGROUND causes him stress. A block, seems to me, is bordering on the punitive - since the user is engaging us and pleading with us to have editing privileges, we should provide a hearing. I say we take this editor at his word, and institute a broadly construed topic ban on all Christianity and Religion topics, of say, 6 months, and then let him edit. If the topic ban is violated or similar issues as those leading to the ban emerge in other areas, then revisiting the idea of a block might be in order.--Cerejota (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First, your solution has no chance of passing. Second, there are many Christianity and religion topics that the user can edit without running into problems, so that solution doesn't address the problem.  The problem now, is that the user is obsessed with the article on Southern Adventist University.  In addition to a long block, a 1RR should also be handed down for when they return. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sanctions are not in order. Revert #1 on the report is not a revert. He added sourced content. Fountain did not violate 3RR. – Lionel (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a revert, he was restoring content removed with this edit. Mt  king  (edits)  08:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a tip, in the future when doing a report, always include the previous version of a diff like that. A little known secret is we noticeboarders don't generally look very deep...--Cerejota (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, sanctions are most certainly in order, and our policy on edit warring is clear and the user is familiar with it. Please familiarize yourself with that policy and with WP:3RR: "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption...any edit warring may lead to sanctions..."  Lionel, was Fountainviewkid edit warring?  Yes or no? Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring doesn't need 3RR, although you are correct, diff 1 was an expansion, without any reversion. My position still stands: a topic ban with continued mentoring is best.--Cerejota (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit #1 restored content that had previously been removed as WP:OR. However, the first sentence of the restored content is still WP:OR using the same source. Although undoubtedly well-meaning, FVK is overzealous in trying to add content to the article, where there are evidently major problems in locating secondary sources. He currently has a mentor, namely . On the other he surely knows that has expertise in editing articles connected with higher education institutions and that his identification of OR was made in good faith. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It also needs to be said that the article is in the GAN queue, and stability is required to pass. Fountainviewkid's edit warring in the article while it is waiting for a review tells me he is more interested in POV pushing that he is in improving Wikipedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's POV-pushing just poor sourcing. Once the sourcing has been questioned, FVK should really be more careful and look for other sources, instead of trying to reuse the same poor sources. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one interpretation, but in this instance it can also be argued he is advocating for Southern Adventist University, with the poor sources promoting the attractions of the university. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas: Since I have never been blocked it may appear that I am unfamiliar with edit warring, but that is not the case. Was Fountain edit warring? If we go by the letter of the policy then his 2RR would qualify as yes. However, and this is a big however, (1) Fountain was actively engaged in discussion on the talk page, (2) he was diligent to add sources for his changes, and (3) he left well reasoned edit summaries. Thus if we go by the spirit of the policy, he was not edit warring. I would not describe his behavior as disruptive, but overly bold, and acting in good faith. One last thing: we need to proceed with prudence when handling out a 1 month block, particularly to new editors.– Lionel (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is a type of behavior. You can edit war with only 1RR.  The talk page discussion you refer to shows Fountainviewkid arguing against consensus and edit warring his version into the article, a version which uses poor promotional sources.  Fountainviewkid created his account in 2008.  This is not a "new account". Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you reviewed FVK's block log ? he has had 5 for 3RR already and his first edit was on Mar 14, 2008. Mt king  (edits)  09:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I count a total of 6, not 5 blocks. Are you discarding one for some reason? Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)  Nevermind.  I see you are discarding the BLP block. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus on the talk page. I was there. Those blocks must be put into perspective. Fountain went head-to-head against an extremely disruptive banned editor. That editor caused the current 1RR on all abortion articles, and protection of many SDA articles. The editor, BelloWello/WikiManOne continues to this day socking at SDA articles as unregistered IPs. In essence, Fountain took the bullet for many editors at these articles. Those blocks must be put into context. – Lionel (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there was a consensus and the consensus was clear. 4 editors making good arguments against inclusion vs. 2 editors ignoring those arguments. If you don't see that, then there's a problem. I would also like to point out that this account has a history of promotion, from using the user name "Fountainviewkid" to refer to Fountainview Academy, to edit warring over promoting Southern Adventist University, a school they appear to attend.  If the user isn't here for anything other than promotion, we have another problem.  Instead of a topic ban from all Christianity and religion articles, I would like to propose a topic ban on all Seventh-day Adventist articles instead, as well as a block. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no history of promotion. Fountain was taken to COIN (by BelloWello btw) but promotion was never established. He said he does not attend Southern Adventist Univ. A ban on all SDA articles? For 2RR on one article? Seems draconian.– Lionel (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong: he was blocked 6 times, 5 times for disrupting SDA articles and once for disrupting a liberal BLP article. All six blocks occurred within less than a year. I've discussed the problem with the user on his talk page. He says that he will either be blocked or he will leave, and refuses to simply change his behavior or recognize that there is a problem.  Perhaps a topic ban and block will help him? Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Were those blocks at SDA articles the result of battling with BelloWello? A POV warrior who wreaked havok for 6 mos? And who finally was indef blocked and banned. And who has continued to sock puppet at SDA articles hiding as anon IPs like the coward he is? – Lionel (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I could say the same thing about my block log. However, I won't, because at the end of the day, I was the one who made the decision to revert or act like a dick.  It doesn't matter what the other person did, even if they displayed cretinous, Neanderthal behavior that made a trailer park BBQ look like a Mensa meeting.  That's the difference here.  Fountainview won't take responsibility for his actions, and we're going to be back here sooner rather than later if something isn't done. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I fail to see how the behaver of one editor can be used to excuse the behaver of another editor, save maybe for the first breach of 3RR. But after that you know the bright line if another editor goads you into an edit war you simply rise above it and take it to talk pages or the relevant noticeboard. Mt king  (edits)  10:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The last blocking admin in July recommended an escalating block, so we should go with the two month block per EJ up above. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) There might be extenuating circumstances here because BelloWello has been ipsocking on the talk page of the article (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello) which almost certainly creates a toxic editing environment, He even reported FVK above. I think that the first step to be taken is to request semiprotection for the talk page, just to restore a little normality to the article and its talk page. Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. The blocks were the result of interations with BelloWello. No Bello---No blocks. And the thing is... Bello is still here... And with all due respect, you can't say the same thing about your block log because you didn't have Bello hounding you. – Lionel (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bello had nothing to do with the BLP block and he had nothing to do with the circumstances behind this report. Further, he had nothing to do with Fountainview's choice to edit war.  Please stay on topic. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is semi'ed so no IP has been editing the article since July, so I fail to see how that is relevant. Mt  king  (edits)  10:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A 2 month block for 2RR when the editor was adding sourced content, engaging on the talk page and leaving explanatory edit summaries is punitive.– Lionel (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note:  As pointed out above he made 4 sets of reverting edits in 24 hrs. Mt  king  (edits)  11:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Semiprotecting the talk page will stop the disruption that BelloWello is causing there at the moment, IP-hopping in a crazy way. I don't see that there can be any question about that. BW is BAITING FVK, that is his style. Mathsci (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

BAITING is no excuse for WP:3RR Mt  king  (edits)  11:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ecX5) Comment and sane/rational proposal As always, edit wars involve multiple people, and this one is no different. Why does FVK's block log have any weight, other than the argument that he should damn well know by now that even 1 or 2 reverts can be considered an edit war. If there are any blocks to be handed out today, there's 2 primary edit-warriors on this article at the moment. This is all in all a content dispute - and it appears to me to not be solvable by a topic ban, as the info being added/cited seems to be wholly unrelated to SDA or Christianity as a whole. Can I suggest that FVK voluntarily not edit anything until he has heard back from his mentor. If his mentor can confirm that FVK has the appropriate understanding of WP:EW and WP:REVERT, then we can move forward as normal. If not, I propose that FVK be placed on a sitewide WP:1RR restriction for a minimum of 6 months. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not condone in any way FVK's conduct. I agree with the proposal of Bwilkins and have requested temporary semiprotection of Talk:Southern Adventist University. Mathsci (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BWilkins' proposal will prevent disruption to the encyclopedia while providing for the development of the editor.– Lionel (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add to BWilkins' proposal an article (and Talk page) ban form Southern Adventist University for six months as well. Mt  king  (edits)  11:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Banning FVK from this article and talk page seems punitive. It will not help this article or wikipedia in General. Semi-protection against unregistered users should be the main remedy. I suggest that FVK announce a time-limited self-imposed ban on reverting edits to the article page. He should continue discussing issues. It is good for all of us to have his input of concern. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * DonaldRichardSands, could you address my point above, where I point out that the article is currently nominated for GA, and that Fountainview's edit warring amounts to a quick-fail on the criteria for stability? In other words, a block and/or ban will help the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree that it would be punitive, he has already had 2 3RR blocks relating to this article. Mt  king  (edits)  11:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A proposed block would be preventative, as the article has been nominated for GA for several weeks and is awaiting a reviewer. Good Article criterion 5 stipulates that there must not be any ongoing edit war or content dispute, otherwise a reviewer can fail the GAN. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I note there has been a certain amount of WP:BAIT going on, with an IP goading FVK on the talk page. I would suggest semi-protection is extended to the talk page to stop this. Not that baiting is an excuse for edit warring but it certainly doesn't help with an immature editor trying to learn the ropes and is difficult even for an experienced editor to cope with. I've observed FVK responding well to User:Atama's mentorship, it seems a shame to rush to judgement when he has been trying hard to conform to policy.

A block at this stage would be punitive. FVK isn't edit warring any more and there has been more than one edit warrior in action today. After reviewing the diffs I'm not convinved FVK has actually breached the line of more than 3 revisions either, since at least one of the diffs is FVK modifying his own edit. Having worked with User:Atama in the past, I would suggest that he be allowed to mentor FVK. GA5 is not a good reason for blocking an editor that is punitive and seeking a block for that reason is specious IMHO. Just my 2c. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I read his talk page and review the edits before I noticed the discussion here. I had offered a 0RR in lieu of a page ban.  Since he seems open to the ban (which was suggested above) and has made no further problematic edits, a block would seem to counterproductive at this point.  Bwilkins/Viriditas: are you comfortable with 0RR in this instance? Again, apologies for stepping in before I had reviewed all of the discussion.  Kuru   (talk)


 * Maybe someone will tell me I'm wrong, but I just responded to what I saw as a disruptive edit by FVK on the article talk page:
 * "Fountainviewkid, please stop edit warring to include a fluffy promotional article published by the Youth Department of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which owns Southern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.110.68 (talk) 7:57 am, Today (UTC+1)
 * The Youth Department owns Southern? That's news to me. Please show me a reliable source that says such a thing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 4:02 pm, Today (UTC+1)"
 * Whether the IP is baiting or not, that sort of response is unconstructive. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded above to the IP's report of 3RR, because I didn't realize that there was a bigger discussion here. Everything I said above still applies.


 * FVK violated 3RR, I can't dispute that. I showed in the above report in diffs how FVK made 4 reverts just barely within a 24 hour period (the last revert was inside the 24 hour window by about 30 minutes). Per our bright line rule at WP:3RR a block is warranted. But there are extenuating circumstances that I'd like to point out. FVK clearly didn't realize that he was violating 3RR. I had in the past recommended that he set a maximum of 2RR, which is something I do personally, and he thought he'd done this. Once someone actually pointed out that he was edit-warring, he stopped. And his behavior occurred when there was apparently a total breakdown of discussion at the page, and at least 4 other editors were also engaged in reverting each other to a degree.


 * I think he screwed up, yes. But this comes at the end of a period where he has done a pretty good job of restraining his edits and spending a lot more time engaging people in talk pages rather than edit summaries. For a while he would get into an edit war, get blocked, and then start that same behavior again as soon as his block is removed. He has come a long way since then, and despite his spotty block history I don't think it shows a solid and unbreakable pattern of behavior.


 * I can't say that a sanction at this point would be unfair, since 3RR was breached. I also don't think it's necessary, he stopped his edit-warring and I think he'll be more careful now. But I really can't support a topic ban, I think that he has misbehaved on specific articles just because those are the topics he is interested in, and that is where he spends his time, and that if topic-banned he's still either going to learn how to no longer get into edit wars or continue the same behavior somewhere else. I also suspect that a topic ban would be a de facto site ban for him.


 * As his mentor, I can't claim to be 100% impartial, but I do honestly think that it's not necessary to block him at this point. --  At am a  頭 17:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) is an ipsock of banned user BelloWello, The sooner either Talk:Southern Adventist University is temporarily semiprotected or the additions by BelloWello are scored through/deleted the better. Community banned means community banned.  Mathsci (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We almost never semi-protect or put any other kind of protection on article talk pages, because that completely shuts out editors. It's not difficult to justify semi-protecting an article because any IP with a legitimate concern can still make a request on the talk page. Semi-protection eliminates that. Having said that, it seems that the only person taking advantage of the talk page to make requests or engage in discussion is BelloWello. So we might have to make an exception here. --  At am a  頭 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it happened to Talk:Race (classification of humans) when a single banned user was making disruptive edits through ipsocks (Mikemikev). In that case the page was semiprotected twice as an emergency measure. Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some discussion is taking place at User talk:Atama and User talk:Fountainviewkid. I suggest that if an admin is thinking of closing this, they should wait until it is clear that FVK will agree to some restrictions that might handle the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur; I'd like to see three or four minds in alignment and an explicit agreement from FVK before we move on. Kuru   (talk)  18:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

From my POV (and I'm sure from FVK's), 0RR is quite a valid compromise - as long as FVK understands and accepts the full meaning of WP:REVERT, especially that re-inserting the same material through a separate edit is still considered to be reverting. I don't want there to be grey areas, and "I didn't understand that" from anyone. I fully disagree with a topic ban from SAU, however, if limiting his access to that specific article talkpage for 6 months is so important, then so be it - after all, the latest 3RR violation appears to be trying to add information that has so little requirement to be in the article in the first place.

Formal proposal: ''User:Fountainviewkid is restricted to WP:0RR on all articles and their talkpages across Wikipedia for a period of 6 months. User:Fountainviewkid is also hereby restricted to talkpage discussion only on the Southern Adventist University article for a period of 6 months. Violations of either restriction will result in an immediate 1 month block from editing Wikipedia.''

FVK, do you accept this restriction, and understand all aspects and meanings around these restrictions? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, this has gone on for hours, and although FVK has clearly seen it and discussed it, and has had it clarified, he's not accepting but is wikilawyering. Someone else can please implement the 1 month block, as proposed, because I don't have the fricking heart to do it, because 3RR reports cannot stay unresolved this long ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a final plea to FVK to respond to your suggestion. If he chooses not to, then he has to take the consequences. The IP ranges used by BelloWello have now been blocked for a period by HelloAnnyong. HJ Mitchell turned down semiprotection the talk page of SAU but has fully protected the article for one week. Mathsci (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that FVK got himself in this situation again. It's bad judgment on his part, though I see that there were some mitigating circumstances.  I think BWilkins offer is pretty fair, though six months is a long time to be barred from editing an article that is obviously very dear to his heart.  How about a one month restriction from editing the SAU article, except for the talk page - this would be the same length of time as he would be blocked - with a six month 0RR on all articles?-- Kubigula (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked one month. Due to the time element I've gone ahead but this does not rule out further discussion. User:Bwilkins has stated, 'Someone else can please implement the 1 month block, as proposed..' It is clear that Fountainviewkid edit warred on this article, and the discussion here is about what block or other arrangement might be sufficient to keep the problem from recurring. FVK has been on Wikipedia since 2008. This is a long-running problem (as shown by his block log) so any allowances for being a new or inexperienced editor should have run out by now. Mentorship has not succeeded in changing his behavior. Given the continued disruption at Southern Adventist University the editor should either have a long block or agree to an ironclad deal. A deal has been offered at User talk:Fountainviewkid that would avoid a block if he would accept a voluntary restriction. At the end of a 3.5-hour discussion he had not formally accepted the deal. Negotiations may continue and there might still be some progress. It may be that Kubigula's proposal will be accepted by the parties. Any admin who believes they have consensus can modify this result. Thanks to Atama, BWilkins and others who have attempted to find a solution and to explain matters to Fountainviewkid. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186 reported by User:ItsZippy (Result: Protected, warnings)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link link

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

Comments:

Both users seem to be engaged in the war; that is the reported user and User:69.237.119.134. I'm only making the one report, though. I hold no stance one way or the other as to who is in the right. ItsZippy (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm I reverted three times. Restoring content removed by vandalism doesnot come under WP:3RR. If the reviewing admin feels like I should face a block, so be it. But please link proper urls ItzZippy. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems discussion is taking place, I don't think this is a problem any more; I'll leave it up to the admin who sees this. ItsZippy (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Fully protected 3 days. Legolas2186 does not need a block at this time, though he is warned against more personal attacks. Something strange is going on with the IP edits; a lot of blanking. I am warning User talk:Popaficionado against removing material without explaining his actions on the article talk. I hope the editors will discuss on the talk page whether there should be any concern about copyright violations. They should also try to reach consensus on what material to include. If unexplained blanking continues in the future, blocks or semiprotection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Iluvkolkata and other IP users reported by User:Yunshui (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: plus multiple IPs (presumed to be same user)

Previous version reverted to:


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

Most recent diffs provided; this edit war has been going on for several months. See the article history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by Minimac

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion opened by Asit Madeka, no responses.

Comments: I am not involved in this dispute, but notice that the same information has been added and reverted over 100 times now, often breaking WP:3RR. Suggest administrator warning to all involved users, and potential article protection (although whose version gets kept could be a bit of a bugger to decide). Yunshui (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

- Yunshui is right - protection might be warranted. It can be a 'bugger to decide' which version as he says, so here's some info. I am not familiar with the earlier 'edit wars', but am an alumnus who was given some background by the leaders and I support the bigger alumni group being listed as the default one as opposed to a city chapter - to cause less confusion to alumni. I've recently tried to prevent vandalism by the 59.93 person - talking on the article page logically with a fuzzy set of IPs, as the comments in the edits indicate, are unlikely to work against this kind of vandalism. From what I've seen the two worldviews are completely at odds with each other. The larger group has a website (http://www.spsalumni.org) which although looking like still a work in progress is more current than the smaller chapter (http://www.spoba.org) which was last updated over a year ago. The meeting reported on the home page doesn't have a report, and the leadership list has changed a couple of times since from what I see in Facebook posts. The logo even mentions the name of the city its a chapter of - Asansol - we shouldn't be listing alumni chapters of individual cities in Wikipedia! SPAI is a proper alumni body that has representation from all over the world, including the home country, India: http://spsalumni.org/node/21. The chapter, SPOBA Asansol, has a leadership all drawn from one city - Asansol: http://www.spoba.org/office_bearers.php. The support for the 1,300 number comes from this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/patricks/. An alumni org is supposed to best represent alumni, more than the school itself. In India, alumni affairs are not handled by the schools themselves. The link to SPOBA from the school's website (both SPAI and SPOBA used to be linked there) suggests some temporary influence on an individual basis at the school, but still not outweighing the credibility that a body of thousands of alumni have - not even SPOBA would be able to deny that SPAI is the largest. It makes little sense to suggest SPAI is not related to SPS, and remove it from under "Related Links". Would prefer it's protected by itself. If you admins decide otherwise, you could list both bodies, including only factual data comparing them that would be useful to alumni who find this article. Here's a suggested version:
 * SPAI, or St. Patrick's Alumni International, is the largest organisation of SPS Asansol alumni. Its membership is over 1,300 from India and around the world. Those who have studied at SPS are eligible. Joining is free; donations are optional. The website is spsalumni.org.
 * SPOBA, or St. Patrick's Old Boys Association, is an Asansol-based chapter of SPS alumni. It was founded in the late 1980s. One can join for a membership fee. Those who passed out of SPS are eligible. The website is spoba.org.

But I hope that including a city alumni chapter is seen as unnecessary and excessive - we may end up seeing a whole list of them eventually, tailing this article. A school should have a single alumni body representing most alumni, since the school is not handling alumni relations - and not confuse alumni. Would request this article be protected so that admins have to review changes before they are accepted. Am not very familiar with more complex things in wikipedia like protection. Thanks for all your hard work!

Iluvkolkata (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Iluvkolkata, the place for these comments was the article's talk page, but as far as I can tell you have never participated there, not once. As noted, this edit war has been going on for months. The most recent flare-up started immediately after the expiry of a protection precipitated by it. I count 55 reverts in the last 100 hours or so. Lagrange613 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I will post a variation of this on the talk page if it will make any difference. I do not see any resolution possible without 3rd party involvement from wikipedia. I have never participated there before because I wasn't sure how I'd argue against one guy masquerading as a variety of IPs (just disconnecting the Internet in India gives him a fresh IP). I am new to this even if this battle has been going on for months between the two sides. Other than changing his edits as frequently as wikipedia would allow, I wasn't sure of what else I could do. This article needs protection, and I'm ok with the content being decided by a neutral 3rd party. Iluvkolkata (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected by User:HJ Mitchell to stop the IP-hopper who was making dozens of reverts. I hope the remaining editors can reach a consensus on the disputed points. I suggest that a much longer semiprotection be considered if the IP's campaign resumes later. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cleaghyre reported by User:HerkusMonte (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:41, 23 August 2011  (edit summary: "German version mentioned also in correct place")
 * 2) 15:10, 24 August 2011  (edit summary: "HerkusMonte lead by strong nationalistic POV. Probably by Prussian revisionism (see his home page)")
 * 3) 17:48, 24 August 2011  (edit summary: "Kotinski, Please support historical facts and justice instead private "Wikipedia" issues. One who is Pole knows what I say.")
 * 4) 15:55, 26 August 2011  (edit summary: "Firzt is first. Polish name for Polish person")
 * 5) 20:16, 26 August 2011  (edit summary: "OK. Titke of article is Johhan - it should be Jan (Johhan) Dzierzon. We need not repeat Johhan ... Johhan what satisffy revisonists, and Kotinski why you pretend to be part of POlish poject?")
 * 6) 15:59, 27 August 2011  (edit summary: "It has perfect sense. Jan Dzierzon consider hi9mself a Pole, and at his time Prussian forced using German names. Kotniski  start to read the article and my notes on your page. Do not start editor war.")
 * 7) 16:17, 31 August 2011  (edit summary: "Consensus was never reached, and the discussion was about article title. Beside you start editor war in defence of Kulturkampf and you idol action Bismarck. Wikipedia is not the place to root or defend aggressive primitive ideas. Just stop the revisi")
 * 8) 18:40, 31 August 2011  (edit summary: "I think taking for consideration you revisionism and rooting old nationalistic German politic views you will be blocked first. I am not going to accept result of Kulturkampf on history of most revered Polish beekeeper. Start you arguments if you can")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Johann Dzierzon had a long history of nationalist editwarring (it's still semi-protected), however "Johann Dzierzon" is the consensus article's title after a WP:RMdiscussion (see: Talk:Johann Dzierzon). Cleaghyre now tries to push the Polish spelling in the lead-section contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and the usual MOS. Please also note the aggressive and insulting edit summaries. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

- Yes this is long story of editing wars and they are started by German revisionisms. This kind of people do not know Polish language but attempt to discuss subjects mostly described in Polish litelature. The example is the history and personality of Dr. Jan Dzierzon. However the issue of such revisionisms is not scientific or historic discussion. It is to enforce that the areas which are historical belonging to other nations are/were Germanized. Meantime they attempt to forgot that the Germanization politic in most cases was forced. One of the example was forcing native Polish people of Silesia to have German names. (in this case instead Jan name Johann etc.) Regarding user HerkusMonte, he is definitely POV in to revisionism ideas. Instead enforcing doubtful rules and "consensus" he should start argue on facts. Why a person like Dr. Dzierzon whose live and activity should prove his Polishness should be still offended by German first name. Regards, PS. HerkusMonte you have no scientific arguments thus you start accuse me for some "offensive" language. Where it is?
 * All this has been discussed at length, the result (WP:CONSENSUS) was to use "Johann". Per MOS the lead mentions the different variants of the name, but it would be up to you to substantiate your reasons to push "Jan" in the first place (against consensus). BTW: I think accusing editors of defending "agressive primitive ideas" is offensive. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cleaghyre continues diff (edit summary: "Kotniski !!! you started editor war. You ignore my notice to you, you ignore historical arguments and doing you edits just to satisfy you ego. Stop it!!!") HerkusMonte (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 72 hours for long-term edit warring. Consensus can change, but it does not change by unilateral reverting. Due to the nationalist element of these reverts, I am notifying Cleaghyre of the discretionary sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Emeritahistorian reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Harvey Ellis was an US architect, designer and furniture designer(disputed) around 1900. He is most popularly known (IMHO) for a short time he spent working for Gustav Stickley, a far better-known furniture maker, famous for his "Craftsman" style. It is very widely claimed in popular coffee table books on furniture design that (simplistically) "Ellis designed all the good stuff for Stickley" and that after Ellis' sudden death (only a few months after starting) Stickley's work never achieved the heights it had previously done.

There is (AFAIK) one source that claims otherwise. A 2004 self-published book Reconfiguring Harvey Ellis supported by a blogspot site puts forward an opposing view.

Yesterday a new SPA editor,, was removing content from the Harvey Ellis article that supports the "Ellis designed for Stickley" viewpoint:
 * 1st deletion: There is no evidence that Ellis designed furniture for Stickley so removed paragraph recapping Antiques Roadshow episode.
 * 2nd deletion: Removed inappropriate recap of an Antiques Roiadshow episode. Dealersare not objectibe historians. There is no objective evidence that Ellis designed furniture foir Stickley. See recent catalogs and other publoications.such as Style 1900.
 * 3rd deletion: Insistin g thsat Ellis designed furniture fior

After the third reversion, I decided to expand the controversial section and add a few more references. They're not hard to find - this "Ellis designed for Stickley" view is found in pretty much any history of this popular and well-studied style. As someone who makes furniture in this style, I already have most of the well-known modern books and a small quantity of contemporarty catalogues etc.

Today the same author deleted the old and new content, removing an added image too:
 * 4th deletion: (no summary)
 * Note that this is strictly 8 minutes after the bright-line 24 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned after 3rd deletion

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

Comments:

I suspect that the recent might be the same editor as  who wrote most of this article. I also suspect that there may be WP:COI issues and a possible connection with the authorship of Reconfiguring Harvey Ellis - they may even be Eileen Manning Michels, its author.

I'm also (at risk of sounding like whining) far from happy that an effectively anonymous editor can look down on my scholarly credentials here for being an unknown furniture makier(sic) whilst themselves remaining either anonymous, or actually being an isolated self-published author with a serious WP:COI issue in their contributions. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 24 hours for long-term edit warring. Editor is replacing statements in our article (presumably drawn from reliable sources) with those based on her own research, which appears to be self-published. I hope that some negotiation is possible, but this user has not shown a collaborative attitude or any respect for our policies. Though some facts can't be known with certainty, no justification has been provided for simply removing published references from the article. She seems to do so because she disagrees with their conclusions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:75.243.26.188 (Result: Moot)
Page:

User being reported:


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

User has history of edit warring. This is not a 3RR report-this is a report for edit warring against consensus in order to achieve one's own ends in a content dispute, coming from a user with a long history of such shenanigans.

Comments:


 * This is NOT an edit war. If there's any kind of an issue here, it would be called a "content dispute", and should be resolved through those channels. appears to be adding properly sourced and cited material in an honest effort to improve the article. There's nothing for an admin to do here, other than direct the parties involved to discuss the matter on the article Talk page, or seek assistance at WP:DRN, as far as I can see. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a content dispute, but it is also an edit war. From the above, it appears that Alan did not bother to look at the talk page-Fountainviewkid is edit warring to undo changes that were made based on consensus on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.139.107 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello. Mathsci (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting here not in any admin capacity, I'm mentoring FVK and so I don't consider myself uninvolved. So I just wanted to make that disclosure first.


 * FVK hasn't violated 3RR, as even the IP above admitted. He did reach 3RR and avoided a violation by about 2 hours. So there was some significant edit war behavior.


 * On the other hand, FVK did stop reverting once warned about it. And although multiple wrongs don't make a right, FVK isn't alone, there are a number of people reverting each other. Orlady also reached 3RR (see, , and ) as she and FVK reverted each other. In addition, ElKevbo and Simbagraphix also made 2 reverts each against one another on the page while disputing a different issue, and Binksternet made a single revert. My point is that this looks to be less of an issue with FVK's behavior, and more of a general problem with the article itself and the way that editors at the article have stopped talking to each other. I would personally recommend a temporary full page protection if any further reverts occur that aren't the direct result of a proper consensus reached on the article's talk page.


 * As to the IP, yes it's almost surely BelloWello again, evading his site ban once more. The article is semi-protected so he had no part in the edit wars. I suspect that FVK was singled out in this 3RR report because of the bad history between the two editors. Although this report was probably filed in violation of a ban, I think the report itself is legitimate and the article's issues do need to be resolved. --  At am a  頭 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I need to correct myself... FVK actually did violate 3RR. was the first revert, which restored information that was just removed by ElKevbo; although it did tweak the wording and added sources (which was in response to ElKevbo's stated reason for removing it) it still would be considered a revert. That was followed by  revert of Orlady, and then   reverts which were simply undoing Orlady's attempts to remove the information. That first revert against ElKevbo occurred at 04:09 September 1 (UTC) and the last revert occurred at 03:40 September 2 (UTC), which is just barely within a 24 hour period. I stand by everything else I said before about the article, and my recommendations, but I have to admit that 3RR was actually violated. --  At am a  頭  16:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Moot. Fountainviewkid is already blocked per a report below. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Boot3414 reported by User:Msnicki (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: By consensus, Linux is "Linux", not "GNU/Linux" here on WP, the latter being considered to be a non-neutral POV. This editor appears to edit warring using 2 different IDs, and, and as  to insist it should be "GNU/Linux". Please see also Sockpuppet investigations/Turbo95.

Msnicki (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * and have been blocked as socks of .  Msnicki (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: Boot3414 has been blocked indef as a sock by User:HelloAnnyong. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rangoon11 reported by Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  (Result: 4 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:48,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "Rv - unexplained deletions")
 * 2) 18:59,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "Rv - one image of Gandhi is sufficient")
 * 3) 19:29,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni, faculty and staff */ Partial rv - too many images for section, and existing image of Gandhi is better")
 * 4) 19:48,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "Rv - per previous there are too many images in the section")
 * 5) 20:00,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "Rv - better before")

— Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Plus one more after notice here Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 4 days. User has an extensive block log. He accused the person notifying him of this EW case of harassment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Tarzan1986 reported by Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:04,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "After considering recent member's activity, just changing around alumni photos")
 * 19:05, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni, faculty and staff */")
 * 19:05, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:07, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:09, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:11, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:12, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:16, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:20, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:21, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:22, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:23, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Heads of State and Government */")
 * 19:24, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:26, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:28, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 1) 19:30,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:34, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:36, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:38, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:39, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:40, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:41, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:43, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:45, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 19:46, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 1) 19:51,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Heads of State and Government */")
 * 2) 19:58,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Heads of State and Government */")
 * 19:59, 2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Heads of State and Government */")

— Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Result: Warned. I'm not sure if 3RR was broken, since many of the edits listed above are consecutive. I am warning Tarzan1986 to be more careful. If this continues, a block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:Aprock (Result: Warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

(recent report: )


 * 18:44, 28 August 2011 - 16:34, 2 September 2011: Talk page attempt to resolve dispute
 * 00:16, 30 August 2011 - 14:54, 2 September 2011: Notice board attempt to resolve dispute
 * 21:04, 2 September 2011: 1st restores content cited to online catalog
 * 22:17, 2 September 2011: 2nd restores content cited to online catalog
 * 22:21, 2 September 2011: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 22:32, 2 September 2011: 3rd restores content to another article

After being blocked 8 times for violations of 3rr in 2006-2007, one infers that Rjensen has learned not to walk over the bright line of 3rr. Unfortunately, this may have only changed his edit warring tactics.

The specific issue in question is whether or not content sourced to an advert for an Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure was appropriate for the section "Liberal" as a derogatory epithet. On the article talk page, and at the reliable sources notice board there were several problems with this content as discussed by at least four editors:


 * WP:RS: online catalogs are not generally reliable sources
 * WP:UNDUE: no secondary sources referring to the action figure
 * WP:OR: the doll does not use the word liberal as an epithet
 * WP:CITESPAM: promotion of the doll seems the only reason for the cite

During the entire discussion, Rjensen has been the only one advocating inclusion of the action figure content sourced only to the online catalog, with unconvincing arguments like:


 * : "The OR rule is that statements have to be based on a published source, and all statements are indeed sourced."
 * : "Coulter was and remains very active in attacking liberals. She uses many media from lectures to books to dolls."
 * : "the primary source is the doll itself. the secondary source is the web page describing the doll"
 * : "It's not original research because OR is not cited to a published source."
 * : "the doll is not any doll it's Ann Coulter's voice"

After this extended discussion removed source and related content. Rjensen then reverted him and then myself. Finally, after being warned for potential edit warring by me, he added the content to the lead section of Ann Coulter, where it was summarily reverted by an uninvolved editor for lacking significance:.

Despite avoiding the bright line of 3RR on a single article, Rjensen has effectively demonstrated that when discussion does not favor his perspective, he is willing to edit war against consensus across multiple articles to preserve content which violates multiple wikipedia policies, restoring deleted content three times in less than 90 minutes. aprock (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aprock
 * Aprock invents new rules for Wikipedia and tries to enforce them. he appealed this case to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and did not get much support (Rick Norwood opposed him and John Shandy agreed with him) so he imposed his opinions in any case and now appeals here.... Rjensen (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. This looks to me like tendentious editing. Rjensen must be checking to see how close he can get to being blocked, without falling over the edge. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Metalvayne reported by User:Gunmetal Angel (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

A version from before all the reverting took place


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

Diff of edit warring: here (and gave him a comment that he would be getting in trouble if he kept up his edit warring here)

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

Comments: Another user and I reverted this guy's edits since they went against the perspective of the WP:NPOV guideline but he one-by-one edit warred with us. I tried reasoning with him, I told him he's gonna get in trouble if he keeps this up but he still did it. I even made a talk page thread after his very first revert to try to settle this, but he didn't participate in that and edit warred some more. Finally, his most recent revert (the one that crosses the 4th line), he says that I and the other experienced user are "trolling" and that we should "find some place like last.fm or similar,because this is not a place for trolls." of which qualifies as a personal attack. • GunMetal Angel  10:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are close to violating 3RR yourself as well though, and User:Metalvayne did try to discuss your changes on 3 different occasions (fyi, "heavy metal" has been the status quo for several years, including when it was promoted to FA status). Furthermore, it is "bold, revert, discuss". I don't see you replying to MrMoustacheMM on the talk page. Might want to start there. Nymf hideliho! 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 24 hours for 3RR violation. The personal attack about 'trolls' in his last edit summary did not help. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:60.226.96.48 reported by User:Camw (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane_Roar_FC&diff=prev&oldid=447756567


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane_Roar_FC&diff=prev&oldid=447855475
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane_Roar_FC&diff=prev&oldid=447857218
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane_Roar_FC&diff=prev&oldid=447942949
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane_Roar_FC&diff=prev&oldid=448191007

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A60.226.96.48&action=historysubmit&diff=447858881&oldid=447855973

Comments: User has not responded to warnings on talk page, has only continued to edit war against two established editors to introduce an inappropriate non-neutral term into the article on 6 occasions with this particular IP address. I have not taken any administrator action as I am definitely considered involved. Camw (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cerejota reported by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Result: Facepalm)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; previously I listed the first three reversals, noting that each was a (prohibited) edit of my comments, each a blockable offense (14:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, during which he received very civil admonishments that he should not remove my comments from his editor review, from Cullen_328 and LK.

This could be a violation of 3RR's "gaming the system", because 3 reversions happened in one day and the 4th the next. It also could be edit warring. In any event, the editor review is a public forum and should not be confused with the user's talk page, where he would be free to remove my comments totally, rather than cherry-picking favorites. I would appreciate another editor's restoration of my comments, which were improperly deleted 4 times. (I shall not restore them for at least 48 hours if not restoration has occured before.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You restored your comment and filed this report after admin 28bytes closed the ANI report with the statement "I have reminded Kiefer.Wolfowitz that edit-warring is unwise, especially edit-warring with an someone on their own editor review. I don't believe there's anything else here an admin needs to do here." I don't think that was constructive. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sean, as you know, I corrected my comments "for the record" (to facilitate my comments' proper restoration (14:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cerejota&diff=next&oldid=448210893 before reverting back to avoid even the appearance of edit warring.
 * This noticeboard has to decide whether you and "admin 28bytes", who disagree with Cullen and LK, are correct that the editor review should be regarded as the editor's property, analogous to the editor's namespace. If so, then the description of Editor Review should be changed, because no such assertion is made.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You left out admin Elen of the Roads who said Indeed. I would have thought that talkpage rules apply - if the user removes it, they are presumed to have read it. but forget to sign the comment. Nevertheless, you were the one who was told that edit warring was unwise and yet you are the one filing the edit warring report. What do you hope to achieve ? You were the one who felt compelled to keep restoring your comments despite the fact that the editor had made it quite clear that they didn't regard them as being within scope of their review. What were you thinking ? It's their review. Why not let it go ? I wouldn't hesitate to remove comments from my editor review if I had one because I regard everyone else's opinion as trivial and uninteresting but surely the right place for this is the talk page of editor review rather than here if it is something you think needs to be addressed by the community in a constructive way. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly. An editor review is meant to be a collegial environment in which editors can receive constructive criticism as to their editing.  It is not meant to be a muck-raking exercise.  Whilst there's absolutely no way I'm going to be blocking anyone for such silliness, a number of people can take it that a virtual trout is being swiped repeatedly across their heads. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Elen, beyond not identifying herself, clarified that she was not speaking "ex cathedra" but from her own thought. Disregarding you and 28bytes, we still have to decide whether Elen or LK/Cullen have the better understanding of WP policy.
 * I emphasize that the editor review does not occur in namespace, and that no editor can partially edit another's comments anywhere on WP (apart from violations of WP:NPA, BLP, etc.). Would you address this point, please? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, I don't infantilize editors. Wave your trout as much as you want, to impress yourself, but not me. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll just note that User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has reacted to this close with an attack on myself on my talkpage and when questioned on this, an attack on me on his own talkpage (see edit summary). I think that this summarises the level of this particular report quite well. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply What we see is a repeated, deliberate violation of WP:Civility by an administrator against a plebe, by an administrator who threatens to slap plebes with trouts. Facepalms are used by teenage punks. I made no personal attack. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? After all, making fun of my content contributions by sarcastically linking to my edit-count from my RFA four and a half years ago is clearly a very mature act.  The 'facepalm' is not attacking you per se - it's clearly saying this is not the venue to have a silly argument like this.  I could have protected the page, I could have blocked you both - I didn't.  I attempted to inject a little bit of light heartedness into the heat.  Obviously it didn't work. You need to calm down. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say that your face palm was a personal attack. It was obnoxious. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - regardless of whether you agree with Kiefer, the important question is whether a voluntary user review can be treated like a personal Talk page. If I write "Tell me your thoughts about me." and people respond, then the goal of that request is met. As Elen said, by removing it, the user is implying that they've read it, so I agree with the point made there. If the goal is to receive feedback, and feedback was viewed, it doesn't mean it is required to stay there in order to have had an impact on the editor asking for feedback. If the goal of an editor review is more to show the community what the community thinks about another editor, then we need to leave the comments alone, but if it is a tool that is supposed to help a specific editor understand where they might need to improve, then I think the goal is met whether they leave the comments or not. -- Avanu (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the most important issue. I have no objection to a change in policy stating that the ER is regarding as being analogous to the reviewed editor's talk page. Of course, partial editing of another's comments is prohibited. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The definition of "editor review" from the page:
 * Editor review is a process that allows users to have their behavior and contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may request a review, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia.
 * -- Avanu (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One issue here is whether an Editor review is solely for the purpose of giving feedback to that particular editor. Other editors may look at the review to see how the editor has been viewed by third parties. They would probably not take into account that comments may have been deleted from the review page. Of course, there is nothing on the ER page that explicitly says that other editor may make that assumption when reading the page. To deal with that issue, it would be best if the ER guidelines either explicitly declare that the ER page has the same status as a user talk page, and therefore cannot be used as a reliable source of information about the editor, or, alternatively, that the ER page belong to the project space, and have a status similar to an article talk page. In the latter case, editors may not delete comments unless they are personally insulting etc. Cs32en   Talk to me  16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that this request has pointed to a lack of clarity with regard to the status of an Editor review page. While it may well be appropriate to close it as "no action taken", I think that it would not be helpful to close it as "Facepalm". Even for misguided requests (and I don't think this request is misguided), we should choose neutral language for administrative actions. Cs32en  Talk to me  16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC) -
 * I've added another bullet point to the set of 'rules' on the Editor Review page for people wanting to be reviewed. It might need a bit of tweaking, but generally it explicitly tells editors who have requested review that they have the right to remove comments, discuss comments, but not refactor them. -- Avanu (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :)
 * At least some good came out of this.
 * Now I join Black Kite in seeking this thread's closure.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Face palm: Talk to the hand
"Talk to the hand" is a particularly contemptuous form of "shut up". Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought facepalm meant like you are slapping your forehead with your open hand like "I can't believe this is really happening". In other words, I think BlackKite is saying, this isn't a big deal, let's move on, and just be more relaxed about things in the future.  I do agree with you that it would be helpful to know the guidelines on the page, because it could get confusing about knowing whether User page standards apply or not. -- Avanu (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If that was the intention, then I am very sorry for misunderstanding and reacting inappropriately. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, good. Avanu is correct about what I meant.  Can we close this now, please? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * More information is available at our facepalm article, which clearly needs more attention from serious content contributors, since cluebot seems to be valiantly fighting vandalism alone there, and losing (although I've just helped it out a little.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made further apologies on my talk page and on Black Kite's. Sorry again for turning BK's good faith close into a Jerry Springer episode. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We even have a template for this: TMCk (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I left a note about the possible confusion at the template's discussion page. May no other editor make this mistake! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 reported by User:Dessources (Result: no vio)
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 User:Jmh649 talk page: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1st attempt:
 * 2nd attempt:

Comments:

User User:Jmh649 bounces back with each revert with the same peremptory argument - "the reference is appropriate", ignoring my argument in favour of its removal, while he himslef, when he inserted the reference, said that it was not really needed (see ).

Dessources (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * and this looks like a content dispute. Consider dispute resolution. Reporter is lucky that I don't block them, because their behaviour is clearly more disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:Runehelmet (Result: no action)
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:

I have noticed on his contribution list:, that he revert more then Edit. And he is reverting all my edits, even when I show the sources and related articles. How can I add information on Wikipedia when he reverts everything. Runehelmet (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you've made a mistake. First of all, Yopie has not broken the 3RR rule. Second, you did not try to resolve this problem on the ARTICLE talk page, but on Yopie's USER talk page. Yopie already started discussion on the article talk page, which you have not yet answered. The reasons you should discuss this on the ARTICLE talk page, and not on Yopie's USER talk page, are 1) Yopie asked you to, and if he doesn't want something discussed on his talk page, that's his right, and 2) so that other editors working on the article can have their say. Second of all, the material you added was unsourced and irrelevant, as explained by Yopie. The burden is now on you to 1) source your material (there are STILL no sources), 2) make a convincing case for why the material is relevant, using reliable secondary sources, and 3) get consensus for your change. Instead, you basically kept reverting Yopie, which is just edit-warring. Sorry, but it looks like you're the one to blame for the present situation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur generally with Mr. Vobisdu's position, although I take no side in who is 'right' or 'wrong'. I see no bright line violations; both editors should cease reverting, and utilize the article talk pages for discussion.  Kuru   (talk)  22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Toss.er live reported by User:Superbeecat (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Nadine Dorries

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 adding non-notable, emotionally charged blog to article, 3RR versus multiple users. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 21:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kuru  (talk)  22:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:68.101.39.143 reported by Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:19,  3 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448267933 by Demiurge1000 (talk)")
 * 2) 21:06,  3 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448282483 by Freshacconci (talk) LOL @ there being a huge debate and calling it consensus just because that is your position")
 * 3) 21:26,  3 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448283412 by Freshacconci (talk) the "consensus" said there wasn't any main stream coverage.  I provided 3 sources.  Time to admit  you are wrong.")
 * 4) 22:39,  3 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448286952 by Demiurge1000 (talk) There is no consensus that it shouldn't be included.  Just saying there is doesn't make it so.")
 * 5) 22:42,  3 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448295153 by Freshacconci (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here (note this warning was after reverts #1 and #2... reverts #3, #4 and #5 all took place after this warning)

Note: page was recently semi-protected for two weeks, but since then only this single IP has wished to edit-war on it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No other actions taken; if there are future problems we can explore semi protection. Kuru   (talk)  01:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Loonymonkey reported by Starbucksian (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:33,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Discrimination Controversy */ opinion pieces are not reliable sources in WP:BLPs and this is extremely WP:UNDUE. Also, not worded neutrally.")
 * 2) 21:24,  2 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448086345 by Starbucksian (talk) Opinion pieces cannot be used as WP:RS in a WP:BLP (and it's not written neutrally.")
 * 3) 16:49,  3 September 2011  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 448105999 by Loonymonkey: Don't edit war by adding BLP-violating material, please.. (TW)")

—Starbucksian (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Chu&diff=447968161&oldid=447062281
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Chu&diff=448105999&oldid=448086345
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Chu&diff=448248574&oldid=448127373
 * 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:

This user is stalking edits made by me and another user. He is tendentious in his edits and refuses to work for consensus on the page, preferring to section blank. I'd like it if an administrator came in and worked on the page. I see nothing wrong with adding material from the Wall Street Journal.Starbucksian (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that LM has only reverted three times, he is actually correct - you can't use opinion pieces as criticism in a WP:BLP. Whilst the facts are undoubtedly correct - the subject has done X and Y - extrapolating that to "the subject has done X and Y and is therefore a hypocrite" is opinion and synthesis. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't an example of WP:SYNTH. The source accuses her of hypocrisy.... Starbucksian (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Misessus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

User has clearly exceeded the 1RR sanction.
 * 1st revert: (reverting changes by S. Rich)
 * 2nd revert: (reverting changes by Wragge)
 * 3rd revert: (reverting changes by BigK HeX)
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Per Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive718, User:Misessus is under a 1RR sanction. BigK HeX (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Result: Fully protected two weeks. Whether the 1RR on DarkCharles and Misessus went into effect is unclear, since the ANI thread was archived without closure. If overall behavior over the last month was considered, Misessus might not be the only one up for a sanction. The talk page has a healthy although angry discussion. The value of the talk discussion is greatly reduced since many participants are reverting without waiting for consensus to be reached. Two weeks of protection would allow time for RfCs to be opened on some of the contentious items. After protection expires, I suggest that blocks be considered for any reverts that are made without regard for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * RE: "Whether the 1RR on DarkCharles and Misessus went into effect is unclear"
 * This notice by an admin is pretty darn unambiguous: . It is possible that the question of whether any further action might be taken in considering an appeal might be unclear due to the archiving of the ANI, but that an admin notified User:Misessus that he was under sanctions is unquestionable. BigK HeX (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If another admin wants to impose a block in addition to this protection, it's fine with me. In my opinion the bad behavior of several parties on this article over a period of time is more important than the question of who gets blocked this very second. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the behaviour of many editors has stirred up this slow-burning edit war. I've blocked misessus 48 hours for breaking 1rr and setting off the latest flurry but the others were edit warring too and have been for too long. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: template protected )
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) 10:55,  4 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision by FleetCommand  Things other than blue links can be on a template.  It looks rather incomplete otherwise, and some of those books are probably bestsellers as well and thus deserve an article")
 * 2) 02:05,  5 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448501607 by FleetCommand (talk) I reverted you once, that not edit warring.  Others have reverted you as well.  YOU are now edit warring.  Use talk page")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is in violation of Red link but is unwilling to discuss the violation itself. Rather, his edit summary and talk page message basically reads: "I revert you because I love hitting the revert button and you can't do a damned thing about it because I have not reverted thrice".

I don't think there is any point to wait for three reverts, especially since this template has seen much reverts from others and the belligerents are simply unwilling to form a consensus. While I waited 3 days after my 31 August message in the talk page before removing red links and then proceeded per Silence and consensus, I still see reverts but no communicationon the content itself, save an initial "I Love Dale Brown". Fleet Command (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything of the sort. I said you can't threaten to report someone for edit warring just because they did a single revert on you.  Also, read the responses I did to your last two edits on Wikipedia.  There is no violation of Red Link, as I have pointed out.  Having two people revert you on that page, can not be considered edit warring, while your actions on the other hand could be.   D r e a m Focus  02:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt anyone will take him seriously in this, but just in case, I'll clear things up. I reverted his removal of red links, after having already agreed with another editor on the talk page who had reverted him previously for that.  He then reverts me saying: 02:00, 5 September 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Dale Brown ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Dream Focus (talk): You are edit-warring, Dream Focus. Either continue the discussion or I will report you.) He then puts an edit warring warning on my talk page for my first revert ever on that template page.  He goes and asks for page protection claiming there was edit warring.  And now he comes here.  Can someone reason with him please.   D r e a m Focus  02:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely true! I have reported you per Snowball clause: There was no point on putting an strain on Wikipedia servers because it obvious that you would go on reverting. All the more, if any admin insists on three reverts, I can give it to him in three minutes. Fleet Command (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an essay. Read the rules at the top of this page, which clearly states what it is for: "Use this noticeboard to report active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule." Its not here because you believe someone might eventually violate the rule.  You felt this would happen after my first revert even, strangely enough.  And would more people go to the talk page and comment so we can end this mess quickly.   D r e a m Focus  03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Template has been protected (intentionally protected the Wrong version  of course). Both of  you, work it out on  the talk page instead of  this. Consider this an equal final warning for both of you.  -- Jayron  32  03:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Lambanog reported by User:TransporterMan (Repost 1) (Result: 48h)
User being reported:

Prior report and background on this tag war: here


 * 23rd revert: restoration by Lambanog

As of this writing, the other warring editors have not reverted since the last report linked above.

— TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked Lambanog if he is willing to wait for consensus before restoring the POV tag again but did not get a positive answer. He seems to be the only one currently participating at Talk:Coconut oil who thinks there is a POV issue. Since there have been previous lengthy discussions, I think time is running out and a sanction may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. This is a long-term war in which Lambanog insists on restoring a POV tag to the article. The submitter of this 3RR report, TransporterMan, claims that it's Lambanog's 23rd 12th revert. Inquiries on Lambanog's talk page have found nobody but Lambanog who sees a continuing POV issue that would justify a tag. Underlying this seems to be a dispute on whether WP:MEDRS should be the sole criterion for what sources can be used in the article. I have no opinion on that, but to resolve that we would need a good-faith discussion not just lots and lots of reverts. For more details, see my dialog with the editor at User talk:Lambanog. I offered to defer a block if Lambanog would wait for consensus before restoring the POV tag again. There was no proper response to my offer, just an accusation of tag teaming by the other side. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lambanog's above revert was the 23rd by all parties but only the 12th by him personally, per a clarification by TransporterMan on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Noda297 reported by Randy2063 (talk) (Result: Indefinite block)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 01:41,  5 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448489754 by Randy2063 (talk) rv Advocacy")
 * 2) 02:34,  5 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448503792 by Randy2063 (talk) clearly  Advocacy")
 * 3) 03:08,  5 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 448507735 by Randy2063 (talk) this is clearly Advocacy read it")
 * 4) 03:17,  5 September 2011  (edit summary: "remove  Advocacy Wikipedia not WP:NOTADVOCATE")
 * 5) 03:32,  5 September 2011  (edit summary: "this is clearly Advocacy")

Note: This vandal is a special account apparently created just to harass me.

—Randy2063 (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely, as the account seems to have been created specifically to target you, and in any case it's not OK to repeatedly remove someone's comments from their own talkpage for no good reason. MastCell Talk 05:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

<S>== User:Sean.hoyland and User:87.68.214.154 reported by User:Shrike (Result: ) ==

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sean.hoyland#September_2011

Comments: The area is covered under WP:ARBPIA.It very contiguous and fragile area though 1RR not apply because they reverted IP but nevertheless 3RR do apply. Also please warn the user under WP:ARBPIA.

You havent notified Sean of this. Additionally, Sean's edits are backed up by consensus, which the IPs were simply ignoring, knowing that they could cycle their address if and when they were blocked. If people start getting blocked because they are reverting disruptive socks who ignore policy and consensus then this place really has a problem. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 87.68.214.* (multiple IPs in this range), who has never edited any article except this one, and never touched the talk page, was trying to make trouble by inserting obviously unacceptable material and Sean and several other users were trying to fix it. Strongly suspect IP is a sock, but anyway the correct response is to range block the IP for a week or two. That will entirely fix the problem. Zerotalk 15:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it probably one person that Sean edit warred with.I still think he should have waited for someone else to do the revert even if he thinks that he is right and not break 3RR--Shrike (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Chesdovi (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Debresser was blocked for 48hrs on 18:40, 1 September 2011 here for not resorting to talk. After block continues to revert umpteen times.

Comments:

This is not only related to this page. See:, ,. User is removing "Palestine/Palestinian" from sourced references:

I haven't yet been informed of this discussion, but I suppose Chesdovi was about to do that. These are not reverts, but rewrites of the text, bringing out various important facts, relevant to the subject of the article. Note that only two edits are identical. The real problem here is that Chesdovi is pushing the term "Palestinian" and "Palestine" where other terms are more appropriate, resulting in inferior articles. Needless to point out that the only editor reverting here is Chesdovi himself, who seems to want to WP:OWN the articles (properly "stubs") he has written. And since we are calling names here, please notice that this editor is topic banned from all articles relating to the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As to the other edits, I just try to protect the project from Chesdovi's propagandising (meaning, using a term where other terms are more correct for the sole purpose of furthering some agenda) of the term "Palestinian". The edit in which I removed a source was based on an argument discussed on the talkpage of that article, definitely not something done lightly. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They do not need to be identical. These are reverts and partial reverts; please self-revert that last change while you have the opportunity as it puts you over 3RR on that article.  Kuru   (talk)  14:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These articles have nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict and so have nothing to do with Chesdovi's topic ban, nor with the AE sanctions on that topic. Zerotalk 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with Debresser. He thinks using the term "Palestine" in Jewish articles is part of the conflict he is determined to "fight with all his might"! It is really causing a lot of problems. Chesdovi (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I already said where I think the real problem lies. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In reply to Kuru 's suggestion to self-revert my last edit. Are you sure you mean my last edit? Debresser (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To explain my wonder. That edit removed information lastly edited by me, and is by no means a revert of anything. In addition, I have explained that edit on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In short, this article is being worked upon by Chesdovi and me. We disagree about many things, but this is not an edit war: no simple reverts; the article is being changed in the process, and change for the better. And I do hope nobody doubts my intentions in this regard. I think that my last edit proves that I am willing to remove information edited by me, when it is incorrect. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kuru, if you meant I should revert the fourth of the edits above then, even if you'd disagree with me that they were rewrites rather than reverts, the last edit I made to this article removed that sentence completely, thereby - hopefully - resolving the issue to your content. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not be swayed by the innocent looking explanations Debresser is trying to tout. This is edit-warring thru 'n thru. Debresser is repeatedly removing any mention of the word Palestine from Jewish related pages, whether it be inline, ref or category: . Chesdovi (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit here is a revert of the content added here. The edit right before it was also clearly marked as a revert.  You seem to still be confused about what a revert is, or you're just playing.  I have blocked you for 3RR at this article and for the edit war you've been building in the meantime at Serge Gainsbourg.  I'm not sure how much clearer we can be about this: do not continue to revert other editors when you're in a content dispute.  Resolve the issue on the article's talk page before reverting.  Kuru   (talk)  15:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I thought we'd made it abundantly clear that the Chesdovi-Debresser situation would lead to blocks to BOTH users, and interaction bans if you two couldn't stop pushing each other, and I'm prepared to implement both blocks and IB's right now ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a question. Chesdovi (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Chesdovi's hands are not really that much cleaner than Debresser's (I'm counting three reverts for him, which isn't really substantively better than Debresser's). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not know the history of this. I have just re-read the two previous relevant threads which were all non-conclusive hot air: The point here is that as Debresser continues to enforce a “sans-Palestine” policy at all (new) Jewish pages, I have my hands tied behind my back. This issue is pending a Rfc/DRN but Admins are dragging their feet over closing another related discussion, preventing this from starting (I have attempted to do so twice) We cannot have situation where Debresser continues to run riot unabated. Before recent reverts, I twice notified an Admin who did not take up the issue. Debresser recently blocked for this, should have known better and gone straight to talk if he has issues. We can see his type of behaviors induces others to edit wars as seen in a totally different French subject matter. Chesdovi (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been in the process of digging through the history of the conflict between these two before making the second block - no problems if someone takes action before I finish. Kuru   (talk)  16:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is as soon as Debresser was unblocked, he continued his cycle of edit-warring. What happens if I do not revert to the original, is that Debresser's edits are kept, as in Tachlifa of the West, which was originally called Tachlifa the Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why were offer many forms of dispute resolution; you do not need to take it upon yourself to protract an edit war. I'm not questioning the nature of the person you have a dispute with; clearly there's a recurring problem there.  From a cursory glance through the archives, if you'll pardon the local slang, this does not appear to be your first rodeo either.  Kuru   (talk)  17:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * , No, but it is unfair for one editor to continuously enforce his edits, while the others are "put on hold" indefinatley. If you wish, please consider closing Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive95 so I can for the third time safely proceed to DRN on this matter. Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't have the personality type that would lend itself to digging any deeper into AE areas in general. Too many games, too little intellectual honesty for me to justify spending the little time I have on such endeavors. There are administrators working in that area with much more devotion; contact them. Kuru   (talk)  21:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Geremia reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 02:09, 5 September 2011


 * 1st revert: 05:00, 5 September 2011 (readds cleanup tag and other changes)
 * 2nd revert: 07:11, 5 September 2011 (again re-adds cleanup tag and other changes)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notified of 1RR at 05:25, 5 September 2011, before 2nd revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: article talkpage thread, user talkpage threads.

Comments:

Abortion-related articles are under 1RR (see General sanctions/Abortion/Log). This is a clear-cut 1RR violation, despite warnings to the editor to ensure that they were aware of the restriction. MastCell Talk 19:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours and logged at General sanctions/Abortion/Log. either way (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Dinner for three reported by User:SamiraJ (Result: SamiraJ notified of ARBMAC)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

He removed 4 times a well sourced relevant foreign name

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (on 3 articles by 3 different users)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Previous edit wars: (3 reverts today)     and so on (SamiraJ (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

That is a misleading nonsense, the first that he shows as revert is NOT a revert, I know the user want to get me blocked but I haven't reverted more than three times and the administrator MUST check the edit history. Not to mention the POV-pushing, extremely fringe views and tendencous sources that he identifies as reliable I had to revert from him today.Dinner for three (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you tell it is not a revert? When I am saying revert I refer to the elimination of the Romanian name from the lead. If you made here an additional change together with this removal, it does not mean it is not a revert anymore. It is not mandatory to restore the exact version before my edit. In this way it would very easy to game the system by adding/deleting a comma to to make the after version not identical with the before version and thus

to make it a "non-revert"
 * I explained since the beginning on the talk page why I consider this name relevant. but you preferred to edit war instead of answering on that thread (SamiraJ (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC))


 * It seems like an edit-war from both sides, as User:SamiraJ has four revert on the same page in just 3 days. Moreover, his account was created on August 22 and pretty much went straight into two edit-wars (after some similar edits on the Chisinau article). Not to put to fine a point of it but he seems to have made quite some reverts on Second Bulgarian Empire. This entry on the noticeboard seems to be more of an attempt to dispose of a competitor than anything else. -- L a v e o l  T 10:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a nonsense. I haven't violeted the three revert rule. The user insist for an edit which was not a revert to previous version, neither consisted any copies from previous versions] to be such. Just check is needed. Dinner for three (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it, do you? You removed 4 times the Romanian version of the name, this is a violation of 3RR. Laveol, I did not break 3RR anywhere, you are free to make a report if you think so(SamiraJ (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC))


 * You are behaving at least as badly as the other user, hence I find it awkward that you filled in a report against him. All you have contributed insofar to the encyclopaedia is constant battles. For a new user you seem fairly comfortable and knowledgeable about, which is fine as you might have read a lot prior to editing, but the pattern of your edits tells you might be more of a returning warrior. -- L a v e o l  T 11:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And remember that 3RR is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. And you are so sure that you did not brake it because you were really careful not to do it. You wanted to battle it out to the exact border, not crossing it, though, not because you want to refrain from edit-warring, but because you are afraid of a block.-- L a v e o l  T 11:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Making 3 reverts / day is not punishable. On the other hand User:Dinner for three made 4 reverts / day so he violated 3RR rule (SamiraJ (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

What is the punishment for long manipulation that a user violated 3rr?Dinner for three (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To make a clarification against the manipulation of this user - I haven't reverted anything fromthis version which he shows as "previous version reverted to". That was a new edit, not a revert, and that was the previous version I was reverting to. The user before me has also deleted the Romanian name but I am not required to know what the user before me has done and that does not mean that I reverted something from his version. Dinner for three (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: SamiraJ notified of WP:ARBMAC. SamiraJ seems to be trying to make a historic Bulgarian leader into a very early Romanian. No block because it seems that the editors are working out a compromise. Those who want to put in the lead that Kaloyan of Bulgaria was ethnically Vlach rather than Bulgarian should probably open an RfC or use some other method of gaining a broad consensus. Existing material in other articles such as Asen dynasty and Peter IV of Bulgaria is not consistent with that theory. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Premlalkp reported by User:Sitush (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:

This is an ongoing issue relating to failures to comply with WP:V and WP:NLIST. It seems possible that the user reported is also editing while logged out but in any event the edit summaries from myself and have referred them to the talk page comment. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:71.13.142.199 reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No, didn't try to resolve on the article's talk page since I felt the IP user was actually vandalising and using the article talk page as a forum.

Comments:

After I placed a 3RR warning (with a customized note) on the IP user's talk page, the IP user proceeded to cut and paste the same warning and place it on my own talk page. The user then proceeded to call my reverts "vandalism" and aimed "Don't be a WP:DICK" at me in the article talk page edit summary - this followed the user reverting his soap box talk page contents and restoring the edits I identified as vandalism back into the article. The IP user doesn't seem to want to discuss or play nice. My hope is that someone can convince him that discussing, editing cooperatively and playing nice is preferable over edit warring, attacking, and vandalising. After all, there is no deadline in Wikipedia. Additionally, if I was wrong in how I handled the whole thing, I'd be more than willing to hear/read it from an uninvolved editor and/or administrator. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are issues with personal attacks and disruptive editing, please start a thread at ANI. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn reported by User:Screwball23 (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:

Saturn has stated explicitly that he is refusing to discuss this on the talk page. I have had discussions with him on the talk page before, and he has attacked me personally in the past.


 * Please provide a diff where I personally attacked you. I can provide several where you attacked me:, , . As an aside, I think it would be beneficial to read the WP:Manual of Style.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarification, the large edit was to carry out Talk:Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. The smaller edit was to rename "Major candidates" to "Candidates invited to debates" for a more descriptive and neutral title.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:58.178.233.130 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result:12hr block )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

All below occur on September 6
 * 1st revert: - 02:29, 6 September 2011
 * 2nd revert: - 15:06, 6 September 2011
 * 3rd revert: - 15:07, 6 September 2011
 * 4th revert: - 15:31, 6 September 2011
 * He has now made a 5th revert, of an another editor: - 15:52, 6 September 2011


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * ClueBot also reverted one of his edit as vandalism:

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

Comments:

User continues to add an uncited claim despite being asked to A) provide a cite, and B) to discuss. He refuses to do either. I can find no reliable source for his claim. And he ends his most recent edit by calling me an "idiot", here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I have just added a citation-request tag to 58.178.233.130's edit. This is not a revert to his edit, which I left in place pending an admin looking at this. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So, are you reporting .13 or .130 ?? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * , even considering the 4th was a self-revert ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoops. Sorry. 130. My apologies for the error. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ...just makes for extra work :-) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Digirami reported by User:Strawberry on Vanilla (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: He doesn't understand that consensus doesn't mean anyone is right (after all, millions of people wanted to assasinate Galileo because the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth and he proved them wrong). Cited sources outtriumphs any claims or original research by anyone. It is not the first time he does this sort of thing and it is why I refuse to join any Wikiprojects, where tag-teaming is becoming common, regardless of improvement, logic or correctness. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What the above user does not understand is that there is a long standing consensus at WP:Footy where in a footballer's infobox, only the number of domestic league apps and goals. There are two main reasons: 1) consistency across the usage of the infobox; 2) practical reasons since finding the careers stats in a league is easier than all career totals. Pele's infobox currently has the career totals of ALL domestic competitions (see Pelé). What's troubling in this situation is the above user's inability to deal with consensus on Wikipedia (his first sentence in the above statement is a great example). Digirami (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also find it interesting that he (SoV) tried to resolve the edit war in the talkpage after we both broke the 3RR rule. If he really wanted to resolve it, he would it done it after 1RR or 2RR. Digirami (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You've both exceeded 3RR; please note there is no exemption for 'consensus' reverts. I've locked the page for a week so that you may work out your differences. If you come to an agreement before then, please request unprotection.  Kuru   (talk)  17:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight...if the consensus in wiki is that the moon is green, I will be blocked, regardless of whether I am right or not, because of consensus?


 * Please let me know so I can stop wasting my time here and simply copy everything from here and create a wikia page for football. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS is a policy on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As exciting as your example is, you should be able to convince your fellow editors if there is a better way to solve a problem and change the existing consensus. The way to do that is not by rapidly reverting back to your version of an article.  I can't help you in the evaluation of your position, since I have no knowledge of the subject area, but creating your own wikia is probably not a bad approach if collaborative approaches are difficult for your style of editing.  Kuru   (talk)  18:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Talkaboutitnow22 reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Talkaboutitnow22 - Janelle_Pierzina

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Janelle_Pierzina - issue is about citation improvement templates - the user is absent from the talkpage attempts to discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:88.104.46.22 reported by User:Carl Sixsmith (Result: Stale)
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:

Checking through user contributions, anon doesn't seem keen to justify numerous revisions in edit summaries, an attempt to discuss the situation calmly initially seemed to work, but then the user waited for the next day and reverted again, along with leaving a personal attack on here.


 * This was good at the time, and I'm not sure why action wasn't taken, but the edit warring seems to have come to a halt. If it picks up again, please re-report. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Keeping it simple, as there are a lot of edits from this user that have caused bad feeling to many other editors, myself included.

In July they were blocked for edit warring - stripping a consensus-supported category, Home computers that they alone objected to from this article. See Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive162

Tonight, after no further discussion by any party since then, they repeated the category-stripping
 * 

Note also the edit summary ' sp; still not a home computer '.

This is admittedly only a 1RR. From any other editor it wouldn't be an issue. But User:Wtshymanski has previously built up such a reputation for this sort of "I'm right regardless" behaviour, that I see even this as edit-warring and a deliberate snub to any collegial working with other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we not supposed to fix errors in the encyclopedia? If in 1977 you'd give little Jimmy an H11 for Christmas instead of the PET that all the other kids were getting that year, you'd have one disappointed child on your hands. I'm not plural. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk page consensus was clearly against your position; you were the sole bearer of that opinion. Also: A child's computer is not equivalent to a home computer. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I haven't dealt with User:Wtshymanski recently, but he can be a difficult and ascerbic editor. Given the history, his edit appears to be provocative.
 * I did have an ecounter with Andy Dingley on 5 September. I was surprised that AD posted this Talk:Tinsel_wire comment:
 * Agreed. How long before someone pops up to delete it? Wtshymanski? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AD's comment was posted before Wtshymanski's Septembrer 6 H11 category edit listed in the complaint.
 * AD's comment is strange because the previous talk page comment was almost two years before on 19 Nov 2009. Furthermore, Wtshymanski has not posted to the tinsel wire article or talk page. There is no indication that the tinsel wire article is in significant jeopardy.
 * Glrx (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a note for Wtshymanski. He has been previously blocked over this issue on this very article. The last report was at the 3RR noticeboard in July. The earlier 3RR includes a listing of seven previous complaints about edit warring. It might be a good move for him to comment here and promise to stop warring. If normal block escalation is followed, the next block would be 48 hours or more. The list of seven previous complaints invites a stronger action. I issued the last block, so some other admin should decide what to do this time around. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surely familiar with the process. If I'm not trusted to edit the encyclopedia, then my promises mean nothing; surely a promise under threat of blocking is equally valueless. I've done nothing to warrant a block. Note that the reporting user is so inflamed by my presence on the Wikipedia that perfectly correct edits by myself can be reverted by him, reintroducing the error, along with a nastygram, viz . It's really difficult to predict which of the edits I make will set this particular user off. His responses often seem a little disproportionate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And it seems we have a legitimate debate on the category and at least one positive suggestion on a new solution to the problem. It may have been a good time to reopen the discussion. WP:BOLD - remember that? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one would have complained if you'd tried to discuss this. You didn't, you did the opposite. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Tinsel wire Wtshymanski has a long track record, commented on by many editors, of broadly negative contributions. If he can't delete an article, he'll delete section. If it's too short to delete sections, he'll merge it into another, no matter how inappropriate. As tinsel wire is only lightly supported by referencesm then despite the fact that editors had already commented on how it was actually a good, clear and useful article, then this is just the sort of article he will see as a target. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing Tinsel wire to my attention. It was incomplete (left out power cords), and I found antother reference for it. It's also a stub that could easily be merged into Wire. To edit is also to cut, you know. And we're talking about the H11 categorization, are we not? WP:BOLD suggests better to ask forgiveness than permission. Edit first, jaw-jaw after. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * . Yes, please do WP:BRD, or other forms of WP:DR ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Phanuruch8555 reported by User:MulroyHypercam30 (Result: No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments:

User started to change the image in the infobox, the reason that he given is "The pictur is in 2009 GP2 Series season because he is racing in GP2 in that year. --MulroyHypercam30 (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * . Premature report - please pursue options under WP:DR. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:170.54.58.4 reported by User:Milonica (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:

Editor believes the call letters of said station are WHO-HD. Looking at all the evidence I can find, the call letters are still WHO-DT. WHO-HD is a branding, not a call letter. The station can call itself whatever, but that is not its legal call sign. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  22:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Revil facts reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:27,  7 September 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 20:53,  7 September 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 21:12,  7 September 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:12,  7 September 2011  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 00:47,  8 September 2011  (edit summary: "so many webmasters cheated by them and its true so please don't remove it people need to know everything")
 * 6) 00:55,  8 September 2011  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: 00:50, 8 September 2011

Comments:

User appears to be soapboxing over personal grievances with business practices of the article subject - however, the additions are unsourced original research. —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (his first removal of the comet example)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Long standing version:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: already warned the last time he made these reverts, has been blocked 6 times already for 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters

Comments:

Dicklyon was blocked 1 week for 3RR in a guideline, removing some examples that didn't support his position in a content dispute 3RR/N thread. Now that his block has expired, he has reverted again, claiming that he is reverting back to the long-standing text. In reality, he is using all the long-standing text except the examples that he had tried to remove. In other words, he was just continuing the exact same removals under a different excuse.

In his second revert he changes his rationale, claiming, in a perversion of WP:BRD, that the long-standing examples have to be removed because they are "contested".

Discussion continues at the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at this and am going to wait and review this later and/or let someone else review it later to see how it unfolds; seems a little early. In the meantime, any other admin is free to take action. slakr  \ talk / 02:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The upper/lower-case thing is something I haven't formed a definitive line on yet, at least in this difficult and subtle case. I reverted User:Enric Naval's edit, once, a few days ago, because it didn't make any sense grammatically: I just couldn't work out exactly what was intended; in addition, I wasn't sure whether the two examples were optimal (although I believe his claim that they were in the guideline before this instability started). I left an apology to him at the talk page for having to revert, which was met with an angry templated message on my talk page accusing me of edit-warring (I hardly think so). Enric Naval should cut fellow editors a bit more slack, I think. The page appears to be stable in the long-term, so you might consider protection for three days or a week and a request that both users cool it ... take a break and return to calmly discuss it, or not at all. Tony   (talk)  02:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a note for Dicklyon asking him to comment here. So far his only response to this issue was to delete the 3RR notice from his talk page. He was previously blocked one week for revert warring on the same MOS page, and this report complains he is continuing the war. It is not easy for an outsider to MOS debates to even know what is going on here. One talk thread suggests to me that the parties might be close to agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is just Enric being dramatic, as his first report was; I welcomed the week off, though I thought it was absurd to interpret what happened as edit warring; go back and look at the the comments from Trovatore, the guy I was supposedly edit warring with, and the discussions that were ongoing at the time. What happened in the meantime is that it became very clear that the approach I was promoting didn't have consensus in the astronomy community, where usage in sources and opinions among wikipedia editors are split 50-50.  Given that, it seemed rather presumptuous for Enric to claim that it was settled in his favor and put back the contested examples as if they were agreed prototypes.  So I reverted him once after he reverted Tony.  I'm staying out of it now.  The thing he calls "first revert" was also an undoing of a bit of his pushing for non-consensus policy.  If that's what we mean by continuing to edit war, by all means please block me for a month or two, as I need to get some work done. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dick, if you believe that consensus on the talk page favors your position, can you state what the consensus is? And can you give the names of one or two people who agree with you?  Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Dick said there was no consensus pro or con - that the community was split 50-50. I was one of those supporting his proposal.  Joja  lozzo  23:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So if there was really no consensus, what should happen? Does anyone want to open an RfC? If there is no volunteer to create an RfC, how about reinstating the previous version of the guideline?  EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably some broad RfC or two. First, to see if we can converge on general principles for deciding what is to be treated as a proper noun; depending on how that comes out, maybe more to see if we need specific exceptions for things like astronomy to follow the style of the IAU, and dog breeds to follow the style of the AKC, instead of following the WP style of not over-capitalizing.  But I won't be able to take this on; too busy in RL.  I thought it was going to be easy based on the discussion we were having at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters, but I pushed too far too fast and raised the immune system, so we should probably wait for the inflammation to go down.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It appears that Dicklyon has agreed to a way of resolving this. I hope one of the parties will explain on the guideline talk page what has transpired. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The latest general discussion on the problem is going on at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital letters. Hopefully Enric will not get back to restoring contested examples until it's worked out.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:112.198.79.3 and other IPs reported by User:Lagrange613 (Result: semi-protected)
Page:

Users being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP user (jumping addresses but it's the same user) has persisted in adding encyclopedic content and ignored numerous warnings from other editors. No talk page participation at all. At its peak the article was >391KB, mostly a list of resolutions passed by the local government. It's presently >227KB. Semi-protection and/or a range block may be warranted, especially considering the range's long history of disruption. (See User talk:112.198.79.1, User talk:112.198.79.2, User talk:112.198.79.3, User talk:112.198.79.4, User talk:112.198.79.207....) Lagrange613 (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: With this revert of Biker Biker, the article is now >402KB. Lagrange613 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The content is clear copyright violation in addition to being utterly trivial. I have listed the page at WP:RPP for semi-protection, which would stop this editing pattern in its tracks. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is not a content dispute - I've semi-protected the page. Kuru   (talk)  14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:K.yusifov reported by User:Movses (Result: warned)
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

--Movses (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The warning you gave him is for removing content, not for edit warring. It is possible he's just not aware of the policy.  I'll leave him a warning and will watch the page for a response.  Kuru   (talk)  14:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:98.88.176.242 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: User already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (edit summary: he the man)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (edit summary: stop deleting this man.)
 * 4th revert: (edit summary: I WILL CONTINUE TO ADD THIS PERSON FOREVER SO YOU BETTER BLOCK ME OR LOCK THE PAGE!)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Edit summary requesting the user take it to the talk page, however, I admit I didn't actually start a talk page discussion myself.)

Comments: No additional comments at this time. - SudoGhost 05:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP has resumed their editing without discussion, continuing the inserting the exact same edit as soon as the block expired. - SudoGhost 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This typically requires a new report, however I have protected the page, seeing as the IP clearly has no desire to follow any socially-acceptable activities ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Redeightyone reported by User:Moneywagon (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: [diff]

This user continually adds unreferenced material, and completely falsified information, when i attempt to correct his additions, he reverts back and replaces his information with other completely false information, getting really annoying to have him continuously changing the information for my place of work


 * You must notify Redeightyone of this report or it will not be considered. It appears you did not give him a 3RR warning either. You left a personal attack 'full of shit' in this edit summary, which doesn't get you off on a good start if you want to complain to admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The last edit by Redeightyone was over 6 days ago. GB fan please review my editing 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Per above. No warning was given, and the last edit by User:Redeightyone to the page in question was nearly a week ago.   F ASTILY  (TALK) 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Hillcountries reported by User:Blackknight12 (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: as of 12:59, 23 August 2011


 * 1st revert: 18:26, 23 August 2011 (tags and section)
 * 2nd revert: 12:20, 24 August 2011
 * 3rd revert: 01:42, 8 September 2011
 * 4th revert: 11:51, 8 September 2011
 * 5th revert: 13:40, 9 September 2011


 * 1st revert: 23:09, 23 August 2011 (nation)
 * 2nd revert: 12:35, 24 August 2011
 * 3rd revert: 01:26, 8 September 2011
 * 4th revert: 12:23, 8 September 2011
 * 5th revert: 13:35, 9 September 2011


 * 6th revert: 14:09, 9 September 2011 (both)
 * 7th revert: 14:52, 9 September 2011
 * 8th revert: 15:25, 9 September 2011

This user is involved in a dispute with other users, including myself, in which he is smearing the Sri Lanka article with civil war related POV and terrorist related propaganda. Until recently he was not willing to settle these disputes and even in a two week protection of the page, which I requested for, he did not appear to defend his edits but rather commented on the edits of other users, digressing from the whole dispute.

The Island nation/state dispute may seem stupid but it is this users way of questioning the sovereignty of Sri Lanka because the LTTE, the terrorist organisation involved in the civil war, lost. He is simply following the propaganda of that terrorist organisation, as seen here in a pro terrorist website. He also clearly states here and here that he is adding his point of view into the article even though editors, including me, have told him he can not do that.

He has also started other edit wars on the following articles: Anula of Sri Lanka, Mahasiva of Sri Lanka, Suratissa of Sri Lanka, Uttiya of Sri Lanka, Pandukabhaya of Sri Lanka and Mutasiva of Sri Lanka

This user has been warned twice before me, for the month of May and June.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My warning to him. and warning by user Tbhotch

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Our attempt to resolve the dispute is on the Sri Lanka talk page Talk:Sri Lanka

Comments:


 * Upon review, there appear to be multiple editors involved in this edit war. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 09:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think a page protection will do much to stop this and other users, there had been one in place for two weeks before and none of the uses bothered to discuss, but only to argue.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:113.165.27.53 reported by User:Yoenit (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: none yet

Comments: Material is bordering on vandalism, but IP does not appear to be a vandal. Yoenit (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Kuru  (talk)  12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by 75.80.58.122 (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lanix&oldid=449136512

I realize that he has not reverted over 3 times yet but he always does this same thing and I have kept it at his incorrect edit until the issue is resolved as to avoid disrupting the article
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

In the talk page you can see all of the issues people have had with him. While he has contributed some postivie things such as weeding out innapropriate citations he has also done far more harm to the article. 

Comments:

This editor seems to have a grudge with the company and has tried to have it deleted when he couldnt get his way. He has edit wared this page multiple times and always tries to delete information he dosent like even if it is cited. Inversly he inserts his own incorrect uncited gues works and imposes his incorrect information upon others and even admits that he inserts uncited information and then to defend it states that it is better written, this is a repeat pattern for him: This is an exchange between the two of us regarding him inserting incorrect uncited information.


 * My copy is better written. Let's change it back and then start adding citations at my copy, ok? The extra info. can be added later, but my copy is better written so that's what should show up when someone reads it. Fleetham (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont think one version is more well written than the than the other but the other gives much more information and your edit breaks the article up into poorly selected sections which dont provide a very detailed view of the company.75.80.58.122 (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your contributions to the page, however, and I will keep them in the article even if some are uncited. My copy is better written than the one I edited. My version removes all uncited numbers, too, which is crucial. Fleetham (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

He also outrights lies and states that there is a concensous in his favor constatnly however if you examine the talk page it is obvious that half the time he says this it is not true.

He has been banned multiple times for editwarring the page with incorrect information and inserting conjecture.

Recently Fleetham has started another baseless edit war on the Lanix page. I added it to the catgory "mobile phone manufacturers" and he said that Lanix isn't a mobile phone manufacturer despite Lanix that they make all their own products. He's saying that Lanix's claims that they manufacture phones are not good enough, despite there being multiple links to Lanix's mobile phone division. He also brought in to question whether Lanix made the first domestically succesful computer so I added a citation to back this up and he then deleted it and then said there is no citation! He is being downright underhanded and dishonest!

He has displayed this same editing pattern for months now and there have been numerous attempts by both users and admins to get him to stop which only stop him for a limited amount of time

In addition he keeps saying "please don't revert, it is impolite" but hypocritically keeps doing it himself and outright ignore citations including ones from sources such as CNN, the official Lanix website and Telmex!

If you look through his his talk page you will see he has been blocked for doing this sort of stuff to the Lanix page multiple times in the past, and multiple editors and adminstrator shave condemed his actions and keep telling him he is wrong by providing cited arguments to back up their claims while he has added a lot of his own guess work. He only listens to ciations when they suit him and will not accept others viewpoints. Myself and other editors have gotten very tired of dealing with this behavior and am requesting some form of admin action be taken. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Both of you are at 3 reverts; I've protected the page for a short period to prevent further edit warring. There seems to be an active discussion on the talk page.  Please resovle issues before reveting back and forth.  I've glanced over the discussion, but the primary sources seem to be offline at the moment; I'll leave a note there.  Kuru   (talk)  13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Geremia reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: (restores AAPLOG material after it was removed)
 * 2nd revert: (restores AAPLOG material after it was removed)

Abortion-related articles are under 1RR.

User's block for edit-warring on this very same article (subsequently extended for sockpuppetry on said article) expired about twelve hours ago, so he's obviously aware of the sanctions and of the policy against edit-warring.

Discussion on the article's talk page is ongoing, but there's general agreement that undue weight is being given to one study representing a minority position.

–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See also here. MastCell Talk 04:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: 1 week. Repeated 1RR violation on the same article. The person chose to evade the previous block using IPs. If this editor truly has no intention of following Wikipedia policies, he should consider another pursuit. Some other links that are relevant to this complaint are:
 * Coren's last chance offer to Geremia
 * Previous 3RR report,
 * Log of actions under the Abortion general sanctions.
 * Details about the block evasion.
 * User talk:Coren: A dialog which led to this dispute being filed as a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 14:56, 8 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Kaley Cuoco's broken leg */ rmv unecessary section, covered at the article heading")


 * 1st revert: 13:28, 9 September 2011  (edit summary: "/* Kaley Cuoco's broken leg */ revert. It is pretty well covered in not only the header, but the episodes she was absent in. Unecessary")
 * 2nd revert: 13:43, 9 September 2011  (edit summary: "justifies nothing. Unimportant event that only affected a few episodes does NOT entitle seperate section. Covered in header and episodes.")
 * 3rd revert: 19:01, 9 September 2011  (edit summary: "rmv disputed content until a consensus is reached")
 * 4th revert: 22:24, 9 September 2011  (edit summary: "content still omitted until consensus.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Rusted AutoParts chose to remove content from List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 4) because it was covered in the lede. Since the lede is only supposed to summarise the article, and not replace the article body, I reverted, explaining why in my edit summary. Rusted AutoParts then reverted, arguing that it was covered in the episode summaries. As this was the reason the content was originally added, I reverted and directed him to the talk page in my edit summary. After Rusted AutoParts reverted again I left a message on his talk page, asking him to discuss the edits, and then initiated a discussion on the article's talk page. Rusted AutoParts then made a single comment on the talk page, but, despite a reply by me and comments by other editors (all in support of retention of the content), has made no further attempt to discuss. When he reverted a third time, I left a personalised (i.e. non-template) 3RR warning on his talk page, noting that he had previously been warned about breaching 3RR. Despite this, Rusted AutoParts made his 4th revert nearly 2.5 hours later, breaching 3RR at that time. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that despite multiple edits since a "last chance" warning by EdJohnston 25 hours ago, Rusted AutoParts has made no attempt to explain his actions here. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. Rusted AutoParts has not continued the war on that particular article. Someone else reverted his last change and he has not touched the article since. If you see further problems, resubmit. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Nightspore reported by User:ElKevbo (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:

Comments:

Two different editors have discussed this behavior on the editor's Talk page and on our own Talk pages to no avail. ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are all the diffs with times and edit summaries included:
 * 19:19, 9 September 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 449264931 by ElKevbo (talk) Ask for sourcing, then, though this counts as Subject Specific General Knowledge")
 * 19:22, 9 September 2011  (edit summary: "Removed inappropriate tag.  The list and the sources are the same, as is generally true with subject specific general knowledge in WP")
 * 03:37, 10 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 449397695 by ElKevbo (talk) Everything there is verifiable, by inspecting, e.g., the cited films. You think item's wrong? challenge it.")
 * 14:07, 10 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 449436018 by Drmies (talk) Undoing wholesale NN deletion. See User_talk:Drmies and delete piecemeal if warranted")
 * 17:22, 10 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 449552196 by ElKevbo (talk)I repeat: the citations ARE the works listed. This is subject-specific common knowledge. Challenge individually or take it to a vote.")


 * —EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already indicated that I'm not going to revert again. I took this to the talk page, but the two editors who ganged up on me (and felt it appropriate to flame me by calling my contributions "utterly trivial" and "nonsense" decided to report me instead. Block me if you want, but as I say, I've already said I wouldn't revert again.  I would hope that they would go to the talk page, but I'm not optimistic. (I am optimistic that others will revert their wholesale and unwarranted deletions though.) Nightspore (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, based on Nightspore's assurance that he won't revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: 48 hours )
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:

Comments: The hidden information was originally added by Orfeoedeuridice, a few days ago and again today, but it was removed by myself and Masem because it is not properly sourced and it is generally unwanted on the page. Intoronto1125 has been repeatedly been replacing the hidden content, despite requests for it to be left off of the page from two separate editors (in edit summaries and on his talk page).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The rule applies to reverting one editor's edits. In this case I have reverted one editors edits three times and another two times. It does not violate the rule. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   00:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The rule states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." That does not make any mention of how many times he has reverted any particular other editor. You have most definitely reverted myself and Masem for a total of 5 times, which is all that matters.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   00:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have reverted five times on a single page. The fact that you reverted myself and Masem does not give you a free pass to possibly revert six times should Masem act next. There is absolutely no clause that limits the reverts you make to be reverts of a single user's edits. It is any user, any reverting edit.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrator, please consider, and .  Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   00:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Intoronto1125 has reverted me again, when I decided to incorporate some of the disputed content into the article and assumes that I am only opposing his content now because I have opposed him in the past.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Intoronto, you are dead wrong in your reading of the policy. Please self-revert while you can and state that you will cease edit warring.  Kuru   (talk)  01:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't meant to revert your edit. Rather I though I made a mistake by leaving it "visible" which was your concern. If you had used the edit summary to explain what you were doing I would have never done those edits. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   01:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned with your fifth revert than your sixth. Once more, please revert the material you have re-added and state that you will cease edit warring on this article, please.  Kuru   (talk)  01:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 48 hours for the 3RR violation. I have also removed rollback from his account as he used it during this dispute and has misused it at least one other time this week. either way (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He has responded by ragequitting.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)