Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive147

User:Itsmejudith reported by User:Catherine Huebscher (Result: redundant with AN/I)

Page: Paul Robeson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Itsmejudith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Hello to an administrator, we are currently dealing with the volatile subject of Paul Robeson's history. A subject who has a history riddled with misconceptions and lies put forth by the mass media/US power structure in-combination with an erasure from history due to cold war blacklisting as well as white washing of his Communist affiliations by Leftists. I'm in a Scylla and Charybdis situation as the majority of other editors currently trying to help have not done indepth research required to clear up the aforementioned misconceptions Robeson. Many want to paint in povs to "explain" his very controversial views. I now am being targeted by Itsmejudith who has already sided with two users with a history of behavioral problems on wikipedia (radh and str1977) and who have used/rationalized the usage of racist terms such as "nigger" and "Uncle Tom." Itsmejudith felt calling Robeson an "Uncle Tom" was fine because "Paul Robeson is dead." Str1977 "reworked" the article with a clear anti-Communist bias riddled with factual errors ("Carnegie Hall in the UK", "Robeson's Soviet sympathies", and other povs) then tagged the article and now has vanished. I am willing to go through sentence by sentence to clear up povs and any mistakes including my own. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC

Should we move this to ANI? This noticeboard is about revert warring. Minimac (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's already on ANI, which is where it belongs, as there is no current 3RR violation, just a dispute over content and general editor-vs.-editor stuff. The posting made by the complainant here is the same text that was posted at ANI ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Catherine Huebscher looks like a better place to discuss this article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia reported by User:MikeNicho231 (Result: No violation)

Page: Asperger syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

• Uninvolved observer here: This appears to be a dispute about non-free images. Also, I don't think the OP here has notified Sandy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The first diff is from December 3, the second from December 6. Clearly no violation here. Grsz 11 17:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It seems like the reporting party is the one that's in some way pushing it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• No violation You're on thin ice, MikeNicho231. Your edits are clearly controversial, and it's multiple editors who reflect that opinion. Form consensus on the talk page first. If you continue edit warring on the page, you will be blocked. Andy Walsh (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:68.96.245.221 reported by User:Professor marginalia (Result: 31h)

Page: Talk:Race and intelligence (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.96.245.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]

This is probably a sock or proxy for contributions, contributions and contributions. Longterm and perpetual disputes in the article were addressed in ([12] arbitration). IP related disruptions in another involved article, Race (classification of humans), were noticed hours ago to AN/I (semi-protection implemented on main-page there). Since the arb comm decision, we've seen proxy editing coming from at least three sanctioned users now--two of them adopting new accounts or IPs with high frequency. Can we extend the article's semi-protection to talk-page?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (mega-discussion mid-way here also on user's talk page here, here and warning linked above.

Comments:

• Blocked --slakr^\ talk / 09:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SyberGod reported by User:SpacemanSpiff (Result:24 hours )

Page: Sachin Tendulkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SyberGod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]
• 5th revert: [19]
• 6th revert: [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21] and [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[Talk:Sachin_Tendulkar#Twitter]

Comments:
Given that four different editors have removed this content and two have commented on the talk page and this one user keeps adding it back refusing to listen, I'm bringing it here. —SpacemanSpiff 12:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours It is true that nothing has happened on the article for quite a few hours. But that doesn't mean this report is stale. One can assume the edit war has stopped because Sybergod's version currently subsists in the article and it's sleep time in India. Given the unambiguous 3RR (5RR?) breach after warnings, a block is appropriate. Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kidman Wheeler reported by User:Jæs (Result: user warned )

Page: Maclean's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kidman Wheeler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The most recent, stable version: [23]

• first revert: [24]
• second revert: [25]
• third revert: [26]
• fourth revert: [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: npov1, npov2, 3rr

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

Comments:

User:Kidman Wheeler has made almost over seventy sequential edits to the article over the past twelve hours, including four reverts reinserting controversial content, making it impossible to show a "single" version being reverted to each time. While the fact that this editor may be utilizing a single-purpose account to create a coatrack out of the Maclean's article is a tad concerning, I think the bigger issuer is their unfamiliarity with how Wikipedia works. The end result is still disruption, and I haven't been able to get through to them in a meaningful enough way that shifts their attention to the talk page. Given the content they're repeatedly reinserting fails numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I hope you may have better luck. jæs (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment  This editor’s first reverted edit to this article was in keeping with his subsequent edits, and thus very telling. It sought to question the place of Maclean’s in Canadian society (“Maclean's claims itself as a significant source of Canadian news and information”), and added material meant to characterize one of the magazine’s columnists and her spouse (“…Barbara Amiel, wife of imprisoned Conrad Black, an ultraconservative who renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001”). This edit was reverted by me with the following edit summary: Reverting material with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues. Also, failing to provide verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). Possible WP:BLP issues. (HG). He was templated with {{Huggle/warn-npov-1}}. This first edit indicated, at the threshold (quite literally since it was his very first edit upon arriving at Wikipedia), the nature of his edits to come. Moreover, a review of his contribs shows that he has only made edits to Maclean’s and Conrad Black.

My concern with this editor, therefore, is that not only does it appear to be a single-purpose account, but it appears to be that variety of SPA known as an agenda account, possibly also engaging in civil POV pushing. Remember: The edit reverted by me, was this editor’s first edit at Wikipedia. At the very least, he should be cautioned about Wikipedia’s rules regarding editors with agendas.

Finally, since User:jæs filed this report, and the editor has had his scores of edits to Maclean’s reverted, he has “retaliated” by adding a slew of {{Citation needed}} templates to the article (see here). Perhaps it is an attempt to make the previously stable version seem unreliable. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note  With this edit, I added a welcome message with links to the various wikipolicies and guidelines that he may find useful and might encourage and guide him to becoming a productive wikieditor. In the 9+ hours that he spent editing the article last night, his efforts certainly show promise, once he can be brought into line with our policies, guidelines, etc. One can only hope that he will read them. However, he has not engaged in any interactions that have been sought with him by User:jæs on either his own talkpage or the article talkpage. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kidman Wheeler has just posted a series of messages on my user talk that may be relevant: Let me explain., a variety of sources and writers is good!, and Wikipedia not for the masses, each within a few minutes of one another. Each contains numerous assumptions of bad faith, although they acknowledge their style of editing was because they were "experimenting". The three sections become increasingly negative, so I don't know if maybe they wrote them earlier and just posted them in succession? Honestly, I don't even know where to start. "Put down the ax and read WP:5P," in slightly gentler terms, hasn't seemed to work. jæs (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Warned about violating WP:NPOV. This isn't technically a 3RR violation, but it is a SPA and he's been warned accordingly. KrakatoaKatie 01:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:75.75.146.148 reported by User:Binksternet (Result:24 hours)

Page: Charlie Crist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.75.146.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28] 04:20, December 22, 2010

• 1st revert: [29] 00:47, December 23, 2010
• 2nd revert: [30] 00:57, December 23, 2010
• 3rd revert: [31] 01:08, December 23, 2010
• 4th revert: [32] 21:55, December 23, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP editor did not take part in talk page thread at Talk:Charlie Crist#Which infobox photo?, where solutions to the edit war were presented.

Comments:
The edit war is over which image is shown in the biography infobox. One image shows the Florida governor sitting on his desk with the state flag and seal in the background, and the other shows a closeup taken from the same source, cropped to give a better impression of the man's face using the same image size. Two article editors have given their opinion on the talk page that the closeup is preferred, and two other editors have concurred by reverting the IP editor's insistent changes.

As User:AndyTheGrump put it in one of his edit summaries, "isn't this one of the lamest edit wars ever?" Yes, it is. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours A short block at this stage despite quite disruptive activity. The blocks will escalate rapidly if the activity continues after the block expires. Mkativerata (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by User:Planuu (Result: protected)

Page: Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

• 1st revert: Revision as of 17:46, 23 December 2010 (undid the previous user's edit and re-inserted an unreliable source)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:26, 23 December 2010 (Undid my removal of original research material in the two edits prior)
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:17, 24 December 2010 (Reinserted same material)
• 4th revert: Current revision as of 00:54, 24 December 2010 (Reinserted same material while adding unreliable secondary sources such as [35])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has already had many 3rr blocks in the past so a warning wasn't necessary. Also, an administrator had given the user a warning 3 days ago.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#You_need_reliable_secondary_sources_for_criticism (I'm the IP)

Comments:

This must be a joke! The accusing User:Planuu, who has just come out of a ban/block for edit warring, hadn't been unblocked for even 24 hours before edit warring again on Criticism of Muhammad!!! (Much more here). In fact, my 1st edit above has nothing to do with the other 3 edits. My 4th edit was addition of new sources, not a revert, and this was done upon request from the exact same user who is now accusing me of edit warring!!! Moreover, it was I who had warned User:Planuu not to break the 3RR rule on his/her talk page. I certainly trust the judgement of the admins on this. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected The recent content disputes seem to span multiple editors over multiple things. Please use the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 04:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:68.224.206.14 reported by User:Mathsci (Result: stale)

Page: Cryptozoology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.224.206.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] (level 1, 2 and 3 warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not applicable given the nature of the edit

Comments:
The user first attempted to add contentious content to the article.[41] After the material was reverted, in the diffs above, he added a note four times to the top of the article which was completely against policy (WP:SOAP, WP:NPA, etc) and essentially vandalized the article. The note read, "Attention wikipedia readers: Wikipedia and it's editors are biased in favor of the so called "skeptics" and professional debunkers and cannot be relied upon to provide fair and accurate information about cryptozoology and it's related scientific disciplines. Please look elsewhere for accurate cryptozoological information. Any accurate cryptozoological information you may post will be swiftly deleted by the facsist wikipedia editors, which is what happened when I tried to post truthful information about the subject of cryptozoology on this facsist and biased website." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsci (talk • contribs) 08:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Stale Not blocked - but this was blatant vandalism. Report in the future to AIV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:24.118.189.156 reported by [[User:— User:Kwamikagami (Result: no violation )

Page: Igbo language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.118.189.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original version: [42]

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:24.118.189.156#warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:24.118.189.156#warning

Comments:
Did not break 3RR, but is repeatedly falsifying a reference. Ref says Igbo pop is 18-25M; anon. changes to over 30M while keeping the ref. Some edits on other articles may be constructive (I can't tell), but some are also troubling, such as changing articles that name Ijaw tribes to claim they are really Igbo. Has been warned by other editors against making unreferenced changes to articles. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• No violation If it's not a violation, why did you waste our time reporting it here? - KrakatoaKatie 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I can't predict your decisions, or that it would be you who made it. That's kind of obvious, isn't it? If you aren't going to act on violations, then I'll do it myself. I was trying to avoid acting on a dispute I was involved in. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless you mean that this is a 3RR noticeboard, and not actually ANI/Edit warring. If so, please move it to a descriptive title so your decisions do not appear arbitrary. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Zubair71 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: 24 hrs )

Page: Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zubair71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours KrakatoaKatie 22:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:67.85.102.114User:173.3.3.253User:71.3.20.40User:67.85.102.114 (All socks/proxies of one another) reported by User:Hokeman (Result: no violation page protected )

Page: Marty Lyons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Multiple socks/proxies see above (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: yes, on the talk page of 173.3.3.253[56]

Yes, the talk page of 173.3.3.253 and the last entry on Hokeman's talk page

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

Comments: General allegations: This IP user is tearing apart apart multiple articles with perfectly good content and references and replacing it with frivilous nonsense, mostly on old New York Jets players pages. He strictly edits under IP addresses, never signs his posts, and changes IP addresses every few edits. I have changed Marty Lyons back to an earlier version, but he has violated the 3rr by reverting three times in 24 hours. Marty Lyons is not the only article he has torn apart. Specific examples: (1) He keeps placing the birthplace in the introduction with the date even though the MOS states that it should be in the main body. (2) He has included a paragraph about an auto accident involving Lyon's ex-wife and has described a bone sticking through her shoulder for no reason other than to introduce blood and gore into the article. It has no relevance whatsoever to Lyon's career. (3) He keeps changing the headings in violation of MOS-Biographies guidelines (4) He has removed perfectly good references in multiple articles. (5) He repeatedly blanked the talk page for 71.3.20.40.

* No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. It would be better to discuss each individual source rather than full reversion of each other's edits. That article's talk page hasn't been edited, even by a bot, in 18 months! Get to talking, people! :-) At any rate, there's no 3RR violation. If you suspect sockpuppetry, raise it at WP:SPI, but those IPs are not open proxies. KrakatoaKatie 22:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Upon reconsideration and more information from User:Hokeman, I semi-protected the page. KrakatoaKatie 02:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Alexandre8 reported by User:86.159.95.24 (Result: page protected )

Page: English Defence League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alexandre8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

• 1st revert: [58]
• 2nd revert: [59]
• 3rd revert: [60]
• 4th revert: [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

Reversion of multiple editors to remove of the "what it sees as the" clarifier which has been discussed by other editors on the article's talk page at Talk:English_Defence_League#Lead where the editor has failed to take part. 86.159.95.24 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected by Will Beback. KrakatoaKatie 22:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:95.148.158.141 reported by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) (Result: page semi-protected )

Page: Socialist Workers' Party (Britain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 95.148.158.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:00, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "rv, per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV. Undid revision 403983086 by Johnbod (talk)")
2. 20:03, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "rv per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV, non-notable journalist. Undid revision 404075867 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk)")
3. 20:07, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "it's an op-ed by a non-notable journalist, it doesn't justify an entire section and sub-section either")
4. 22:20, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "rv pov, the swp has had a lot of coverage after the student protests and was criticised by government minister Michael Gove, if you want to add that then go ahead")

Comments:

IP editor is edit-warring to remove an article section, despite having been asked to discuss it on the Talk page. First removal was by IP 95.148.160.43 using POV judgment that the writer of the source material was "non-notable", so we have a dynamic IP editor here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected semi-protected, as it's a dynamic IP POV-pusher. KrakatoaKatie 22:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Aram-van reported by 82.52.180.115 (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Kingdom of Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aram-van (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 18:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 16:05, 21 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 12:32, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 15:57, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 17:15, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 17:46, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
6. 18:05, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")

Comments:
There were repeated questions about the added contents in the Talk Page and the user was already warned on his page (User talk:Aram-van) and invited to discuss and to edit the correct pages instead of this one, but apparently he is not interested in discussions (User talk:82.52.180.115). (I'm registered as Ghepeu but I don't have access to my password on this machine and I can't login. You'll see that I violated the rule too before remembering that it existed.)

—82.52.180.115 (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours While technically you violated 3RR as well, I note that a) his editions were a format mess, and b) his only response to a request to talk was a succinct "no." That counts as disruptive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:74.198.164.139 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 24h)

Page: Rujm el-Hiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.198.164.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

I am filing this report as a violation of the 1rr (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) present at all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:[64]

Arbitration request for clarification shows that violators of this can be reported to this noticeboard:[65]

• 1st revert: [66] removes the infobox
• 2nd revert: [67] removes the infobox

The IP has been warned about the 1rr [68]

Comments:

This IP has been following me and two other users around reverting our edits in a destructive manner:[69][70]. I would also appreciate it if you could lock all articles this IP has edited so that only accounts can edit them. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours First off, thank you for the in-depth report; it makes deciding much easier (my only recommendation is to give the templated Israel/Arab warning to violating users, rather than just a text warning). I'm not protected other articles; there are just too many between the two IP editors you mentioned. If the editor returns and continues to be disruptive, feel free to report at AN3 again, linking to this thread. Also a reminder: the Israel/Arab sanction doesn't apply to reverting IP edits; you, as an established editor, are free to revert IPs more than once per day. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:ActuallyRationalThinker‎ reported by Jayjg ^(talk) (Result: indef)

Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ActuallyRationalThinker‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 03:07, 23 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Netherlands */ Replaced paraphrasing with quotes, added information, and improved formatting")
2. 22:36, 23 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 403855514 by Jakew (talk) (rv change based baseless undue weight assertion)")
3. 10:11, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404006416 by Jakew (talk) (rv changed based on baseless assertion of undue weight; also, rv other changes unnecessarily included.")
4. 19:02, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404022243 by Jakew (talk) rv changed based on baseless assertion of undue weight; also, rv other changes unnecessarily included.")
5. 18:21, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Netherlands */ After a series of unpersuasive and self-serving arguments against, I am reintroducing the material regarding the stance of medical organizations in the Netherlands.")
6. 18:41, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404194302 by Jakew (talk) (rv, please reach a consensus before changing)")
7. 00:25, 26 December 2010 (edit summary: "Wow. A third Jew, Brewcrewer--who has NEVER edited the circumcision article even once before--appears out of nowhere to join the cabal.")

• Diffs of warnings: here and here

Comments:
ActuallyRationalThinker has just returned from a lengthy wikibreak (since May), and has immediately begun edit-warring, restoring WP:UNDUE material to the article that had been removed by consensus in mid-June. When asked to discuss instead of reverting, his responses have all been extremely hostile: for example, he

• warned me for edit-warring, even though I haven't edited the article at all;
• made mocking responses duplicating my own comments to him immediately above, and, inter alia, describing Judaism as a "tiny cult";
• insulted other editors, for which he has received a civility warning.
• refers to another editor as "A third Jew", part of "the cabal".

His edits have been opposed by 5 different editors. I didn't report him when he initially violated 3RR, but he's reverted 3 times since then, and it's clear he will not stop edit-warring regardless of what is said on the Talk: page or how many editors oppose his edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. We don't need editors like that. No apparently intention other than to push a single point of view. On a separate note, don't I remember hearing about a blocked sock with an agenda to push regarding circumcision? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Olyus reported by User:NorthernCounties (result: malformed report)

Page: Tampere-Pirkkala Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olyus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

I'm filing this report due to the editor reverting edits four times even after receiving a warning here, responded in the same manner as always here, and reverted again. Edits are non-constructive and contested by three separate editors.

• 1st revert: [72] reverts constructive edit.

• 2nd revert: [73] reverts constructive edit again.

• 3rd revert: [74] reverts yet again.

• 4th revert: [75] reverts yet again.

• 5th revert: And again... [76]

Editor was warned here.

Comments:

This editor is not helping other editors being constructive. And fails to listen to any argument that contests him. He argues a route is not seasonal and removes the destination completely from the page. When the route is bookable. Not helpful at all. I appreciate your time looking into this matter. --NorthernCounties (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. KrakatoaKatie 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:74.198.164.200 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: /24 range blocked for 48 hours)

Page: List of Israeli airports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.198.164.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

I am filing this report as a violation of the 1rr (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) present at all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:[78]

Arbitration request for clarification shows that violators of this can be reported to this noticeboard:[79]

• 1st revert: [80] removes the disclaimer that some of them are located in the occupied territories and replaces East Jerusalem with just "Jerusalem".
• 2nd revert: [81] removes the disclaimer that some of them are located in the occupied territories and replaces East Jerusalem with just "Jerusalem".

The IP has been warned about the 1rr [82]

I filed a report yesterday for another 1rr violation the IP was blocked [83]

The IP evaded his block with another similar IP: [84]

And now the IP continues to violate his block and continues to violate the 1rr. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Range blocked, /24, anon only. I'm trying to keep the damage, so our mischievous character may return at any point; FYI, no need to fill out a full report in the future if this continues; just put a quick notice here or at ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Basket of Puppies reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: No action )

Page: Schizophrenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 04:55 December 26

• 1st revert: 06:54 December 26
• 2nd revert: 02:37 December 27, also 02:39
• 3rd revert: 02:49, also 02:50
• 4th revert: That is only three current reverts, however, Basket of Puppies is recalcitrant on talk, [85] [86] and this has been a long, slow edit war; he has been repeatedly warned on article talk that this edit does not have consensus and is not supported by sources. See previous installations and reverts of his assertion that schizophrenia is neurological at 03:46 December 24, 18:25 December 24, and 23:16 December 25.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:57 Dec 27 and previous 3RR block on another account, so he knows 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First, second, third, and fourth.

Comments:
Basket of Puppies submitted Schizophrenia to FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive3) and although multiple editors are working to retain the article's FA status, and he has been told that his edits are not supported by sources, BoP is edit warring and editing against consensus and jeopardizing the chance that the article can retain featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

His edits are supported by sources. Have patience. DS (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS and article talk; his edits are not supported by high quality sources as required for a featured article, and even if they were, that does not excuse edit warring against talk page consensus, where no one has agreed with his changes, and others are attempting to salvage the article's featured status; his edits are disruptive and tendentious, and have been occurring for mutliple days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Further, this is an FA that gets 15,000 hits per day, and rather than gain consensus on talk or work in sandbox, BoP has left it in this shape, compared to a perfectly readable and acceptable article before he began reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SG, 15k people a day deserve to see accurate information, not an article that is wrong and vastly out of date. I am working on that at this very moment. Regarding the state of the mechanism section, this. Basket of Puppies 03:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Work in sandbox, learn reliable medical sources, gain consensus for your edits, and don't insult fellow editors; regardless of what you think may be correct text, edit warring and leaving articles in a damaged state is not how we work on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Declined. "Work in sandbox, learn reliable medical sources, gain consensus for your edits, and don't insult fellow editors; regardless of what you think may be correct text, edit warring and leaving articles in a damaged state is not how we work on Wiki." applies to both of you. Prodego ^talk 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Good, I guess you studied the article history and talk.[87] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:ClaudioSantos reported by User:Xanthoxyl (Result: 72 hours )

Page: Non-voluntary euthanasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

• 1st revert: 04:37, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "each edit was clearly explained")
• 2nd revert: 14:28, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revisión")
• 3rd revert:
  • 15:36, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "It id a legal no medical statement as it goes on the LEGAL DEBATE")
  • 15:40, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "Nothing to do with wp:own. Just deleting a reptares argument , why to put it twice? The referente was kept")
• 4th revert: 16:37, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "This version was discussed months ago with other users and we got a consensus. Instead editing warring, deleting sourced contents just go to discuss page.")
• 5th revert: 20:20, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "instead of revertion, just discuss the thing in the discuss page as I'm already doing")
• 6th revert: 21:14, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "I already told you: let discuss the thing in the discussion page as I'm doing. You are deleting contets which was edited by consensus months ago. You are editing warring. Read WP:3RR")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:
Spanish-speaking SPA. Edits this article and Action T4, and stubbornly reverts until he gets his way. Likely to be the same user as the IP-hopper 190.x.x.x whose edit warring (see the talk page) resulted in this page being protected in November 2009. There is a possibility that it is the same person as User:PepitoPerez2007 but I'm not sure. Xanthoxyl ^< 22:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

TickleMeister was deleting sourced and contents made by consensus. SO I was reverting. Any way I invited him to discuss the thing in the discussion page. But he wouldn't. Then he enocuraged Eddylandzaat to do the same[91]. Xanthoxyl also joined them, all together deleting exactly the same editions which were made months ago by consensus and are well sourced.

Just see the history here:[92]

Reversions of TickleMeister: [93] [94] [95]

reversions of Xanthoxyl: [96][97]

reversions of Eddylandzaat: [98][99]

I've invited them to discuss the thing in the discuss page, for example: [100]. Actually I opened a section in the discuss page to discuss the thing:[101] but instead of arguments or discusion, I've got revertions from 3 persons and personal attacks like this one:[102], answered by me here[103] warning that non-encyclopedic attitude from TickleMeister against me. In Aktion T4 finally I've accepted[104] the deletion made by Xanthoxyl so who are acting disruptive and not looking for consensus??

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Persistent reverts are not acceptable, regardless of what the consensus might previously have been. All editors are reminded to avoid edit warring and discuss unresolved issues on the talk page. Trebor (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kidman Wheeler reported by User:Jæs (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Maclean's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kidman Wheeler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• first revert: [105]
• second revert: [106]
• third revert: [107]
• fourth revert: [108]
• fifth revert: [109] (as 99.231.203.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• sixth revert: [110] (while blocked, as 99.232.234.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• seventh revert: [111] (while blocked, as 99.231.48.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

past 24 hours:

• eighth revert: [112] (following expiry of block)
• ninth revert: [113]
• tenth revert: [114]
• eleventh revert: [115]

Diff of edit warring warning: [116], [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

User:Kidman Wheeler, a single-purpose account, was warned against edit warring on December 24, continued, and was blocked by User:KrakatoaKatie on December 25. They evaded their block and edit warred throughout it and, since its expiry, have proceeded to continue their campaign at the Maclean's article. They've refused to discuss their concerns on the talk page — and have instead solely used my user talk page to go on a tirade against Wikipedia. They apparently have no interest in familiarizing themselves with any of the relevant policies, despite repeated pleas (wp:undue, wp:rs, and wp:primary come to mind as having been recommended reading). Given their past block evasion, I suspect semiprotection may be necessary in addition to any further block. jæs (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan reported by User:Kookoo Star (Result:No violation )

Page: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Betty Logan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

• 1st revert: [120]
• 2nd revert: [121]
• 3rd revert: [122]
• 4th revert: [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124] (was removed by user being reported)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments: User:Betty Logan has been reverting various adequately sourced details on this article in favour of her own preferred version of the page (which tends to be more favourable towards the film). Despite discussion on the article's talk page and a 3RR warning on her talk page from another user, she has continued to revert other people's edits and has now reverted accurate details 4 times in less than 24 hours without gaining consensus.
Kookoo Star (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• The editor is misrepresenting the circumstances, and furthermore has not informedme of this report so I can present a defence. The first revert followed this edit [126] which removed verifiably sourced information. The IP removed it on the pretext that it was "wrong", but in truth the figure was only slightly out. The editor must have checked the source to know it was "wrong" but chose to obliterate the information instead of correcting it. That is just one step up from vandalism in my book. The second two edits are not separate edits, they were made one after the other after the IP removed sourced information form te article and placed production information in the marketing section. The rules state that successive edits only count as one revert. The fourth revert—or third if we play by the rules—was made after my comments in the discussion on the talk page: [127]. I moved the production information from the Marketing section and placed it in the Production section since this is where the production budget should be covered. Marketing and Production are two separate entities on a film, and sometimes even carried out by different companies. Marketing costs go in Marketing, production costs go in Production. The other part of that edit was explained on the talk page. I replaced the figure in the infobox with the official figure (as given by the producer in the Wall Street Journal) and moved the unclarified figure to the prose section of the article. This was based on the precedent of the Avatar (2009 film) article, where the official released budget goes in the infobox and all other estimates in the prose. Clearlly my first edit was clearly justified; my second (edits 2 & 3 here) edit could have been better though out; my third was a concerted effort to incorporate the IP's content into the article based on the precedent of other articles, so while still a revert (I partially undid another editor's actions) it was clearly a constructive edit based on discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you have managed to respond to the report before anybody has, you can hardly claim you didn't know about it. Each of the four reverts you have made on the page in the past 24 hours is removing sourced information where another editor has either corrected or added to the article page. The first edit you reverted was after an exaggerated box office gross was added to the page which was not stated in the source given for it (the claim said $232m but at the time the source given only said $192m - a huge discrepancy). Wikipedia policies states that any unsourced material can be removed, and since the figure quoted was not what the source said, it was therefore not sourced. The edit summary for this was quite clear, though you chose to revert and restore the incorrect figure (if you were so bothered about the other editor correcting it, why didn't you correct yourself?) Edits 2 & 3 above are two separate reverts you made to two separate parts of the article, and yes - they both count. You reverted sourced information on both counts here (both pertaining to the film's budget) no doubt in order to put the film in a more favourable light. The fourth edit listed above is where you once again reverted the film's budget to your preferred amount in the infobox - despite the figure you reverted being adequately sourced (in fact, better sourced than your version). Trying to argue that you edit warred because you believe you are right is not a defence, the fact is you have still been edit warring. Given that you have already been blocked before for disruptive editing, it's clear to see that you are merely resuming your activities. 88.110.248.232 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I advise the admin dealing this case to cross-check the reporting editor and the IP, I strongly suspect they are the same editor since the file reporte appeared out of nowhere in the dispute. I have only performed three reverts. Thr first was clearly justified—out of date or incorrectly updated information is clearly not a valid reason for completely removing sourced content; box office information changes daily so is frequently incorrect. Just because it is wrong does not make it unsourced. Therefore, there are only two reverts (hardly edit-warring, and certainly not 3RR) that can be called into question. The last one only moved the content from the infobox to the prose, and was clearly a constructive edit which I gave the reasons for on the discussion page. These editors are clearly trying to game the system. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)* No violation Betty Logan has not yet violated 3RR as consecutive edits only count as one edit for this purpose. However, none of the statements in her defense are exemptions and a 4th revert would be a violation. I suggest everyone try to work this out on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I note the reported editor's comments, but even if they were the same editor, they have not both edit the page. And Betty Logan, you are at 3RR, this is not a BLP article. I suggest you reread WP:3RR as if you revert again during the 24 hours you will be blocked, and you can be blocked if you do it just outside the 24 hours, although I'd probably block you only if you revert again during the 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've requested a third opinion at the Film project anyway so if I make any further edits it will only be to enact a consensus if one emerges. Betty Logan (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

various IPs (probably User:Grace Saunders reported by User:Boleyn (Result: Semi protected)

Page:Grace Saunders

IP has added a link to a userpage on this dab about 8 times, has been reverted by several editors but won't stop. Perhaps page could be protected from IPs for a while?Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Semi-protected. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Pkmishra264 reported by Dmol (talk) (Result: stale)

Page: Bird Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pkmishra264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 10:19, 21 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 07:38, 22 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 06:07, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 06:27, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 09:15, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]
Comments:User has a conflict of interest and is adding reams of promotional material to the article. After trying to trim article to an acceptable size and tone, user has repeatedly added cruft again. Article is now listed on AFD as spam. User has stated on the AFD page that they will "remove all kinds of promotional messages", however the reverts are almost identical. Reason for my edits (and those of user EEng who is also trying to fix article) have all stated the reason for our edits is the removal of spam and uncited promotional info.
--Dmol (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Stale Page is deleted anyway. Apologies for long waiting period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Luph25 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: 72 hrs )

Page: Mercedes-Benz C-Class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Luph25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 04:04, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 04:20, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404760992 by CZmarlin (talk)")
3. 04:55, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404764432 by Falcadore (talk)")
4. 05:17, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404767167 by CZmarlin (talk)")
5. 05:18, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Motorsport */")

• Diff of warning: here

—CZmarlin (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazing! Yet another revert! Current revision as of 06:13, December 29, 2010. CZmarlin (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for 3RR and personal attacks on other editors. KrakatoaKatie 07:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Luph25 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: already blocked )

Page: Audi A4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Luph25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC # 04:04, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* R14 (2008) */")

1. 04:20, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404760465 by CZmarlin (talk)")
2. 04:38, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Technical specifications */")
3. 04:45, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Technical specifications */")
4. 04:50, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404764812 by Falcadore (talk)")
5. 04:51, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Technical specifications */")
6. 04:53, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Technical specifications */")
7. 05:17, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404767323 by CZmarlin (talk)")
8. 05:18, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* R14 (2008) */")
9. 06:07, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404773061 by Falcadore (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here
• This is the second article this user does not seem to be able to conform to the resolution of the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Large crufty additions to roadcar articles.

—CZmarlin (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is yet another mass replacement ... with the addition of "no revert" in the article's text: Current revision as of 06:14, December 29, 2010. CZmarlin (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User clearly does not understand what they are doing, as they continue to attempt to use Page Protection templates to get their edits to stick. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked You guys don't have to tolerate that level of personal attacks. I don't remember who reported him to AIV, but that's the place to go for the stuff he was pulling tonight. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AndeanThunder reported by User:Pfainuk (Result: Blocked for 55h)

Page: Talk:Falkland Islands (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AndeanThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

• 1st revert: [131]
• 2nd revert: [132]
• 3rd revert: [133]
• 4th revert: [134]
• 5th revert: [135]

Note that one of the reverts is an IP. I believe this IP to be AndeanThunder, per this edit and the fact that they were reverting to the same thing at the same time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Comments:
Note that the text that AndeanThunder is reverting to includes multiple personal attacks, and calls upon editors to disrupt the article. Note also that talk page was protected earlier this month because of the sockpuppetry involved - this is the text that the sockpuppets wanted to include. Pfainuk talk 10:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 55 hours. Third edit-warring block. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MFIreland reported by Dingo (talk) (Result: No Violation)

Page: Category:7.92 mm firearms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Gewehr 98 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other members of the Category, 7.92x33mm Kurz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MFIreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User talk page: [138], resolution attempt was reverted without any comment.

Comments:

In Talk:8x57_IS#German_military_designation.3F and before in the Request to Move, I discovered that there seem to be NO references in German literature about the 8mil-calibres as 7.92mm. No sources could be cited otherwise until now. The calibre designation is either 8mm (civil) or 7.9mm (Wehrmacht, Reichswehr and users before). Sources have been cited that it's either "cartridge 7.9mm" or "8x57 IS".

Therefore, after the movement of 8x57 IS, I began to correct other articles in category:7.92 mm firearms, as well as the category itself. User:MFIreland began reverting. With references on above talk, I reverted again (2nd revert) and wrote to User:MFIreland. He reverted again (3rd revert), and reverted without comment my comments on his talk page. So, I don't think this is going to be resolved communicatively. --Dingo (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have not made more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. User:Dingo added a 3RR warning notice onto my talk page despite this. I asked user:Dingo which article he claim's I made the 3RR violation and he replied saying Category:7.92 mm firearms, Category:7.92x33mm Kurz and article Gewehr 98. One of the category's which user:Dingo claim's I made 3RR does not even exist. I have never made an edit on the other category which he claimed and the article Gewehr 98 I have only ever made 2 edits. Any edits I reverted made by user:Dingo was because they where unsourced and/or original research.--MFIreland • ^Talk 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not true. MFIreland made reverts in members of Category:7.92 mm firearms as well as in the article 7.92x33mm_Kurz. Extensive sources backing my edits is provided in Talk:8x57_IS#Contemporary_sources_for_the_8mm_designations. --Dingo (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No violation Dingo, please gain consensus or cite sources before adding new material. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, there is no consensus to be gained because MFIreland seems to be totally uninterested in consensus. In Talk:8x57_IS#7.92mm_dispute, a discussion was begun, but MFIreland is not partaking. Sources backing my edits are compiled in Talk:8x57_IS#Contemporary_sources_for_the_8mm_designations. Instead, MFIreland vandalises my talk page by giving fake templates, while not accepting an arbitration. Please help by naming an arbitrator. --Dingo (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Dingo reported by User:MFIreland (Result: No violation 12 hours; reporter blocked 3 hours)

Page: Enfauser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dingo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [139]

• 1st revert: 00:40, 29 December 2010
• 2nd revert: 01:30, 29 December 2010
• 3rd revert: 01:45, 29 December 2010
• 4th revert: 23:12, 29 December 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MFIreland (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion about the matter is not on Talk:Enfauser, but on Talk:8x57_IS#7.92mm_dispute. In Talk:8x57_IS#Contemporary_sources_for_the_8mm_designations, it could be determined that the edit was not "original research", but there were NO contemporary and WP:PRIMARY sources to be found for MFIreland's allegations. The C.I.P.-drawing is at the moment offline, but the SAAMI drawing at [142] clearly supports the edits, too. On User talk page: [143], it was tried to gain consensus, but resolution attempt was reverted without any comment. Furthermore, MFIreland and others began a veritable orgy with Template:cn on 8x57 IS that's now a textbook example of Wikipedia:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue#Over-tagging. If MFIreland was ever interested in constructive resolution, he would partake in Talk:8x57 IS and not make an alibi statement on Talk:Enfauser. --Dingo (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No violation First "reversion" was in fact not a reversion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked On second thought, there has been more edit warring since the last report was declined, and the attempts to discuss on the talk page are mimimal. Dingo blocked for longer for ignoring the WP:BRD cycle and the advice of admin immediately above; MFIreland blocked because his last edit was not technically a revert in content, but the context ensured this was another edit to cast doubt on the information, and because his attempt to talk was flagrantly unconstructive [144]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record: The WP:BRD cycle was more than satisfied, as well as the "advice" above; the discussion is on Talk:8x57 IS. Pity for the hours I invested in Talk:8x57_IS#Contemporary_sources_for_the_8mm_designations, which turned out to be just troll-feeding. I have requested to be blocked infinitely; MFIreland has stolen me >8 hours of my lifetime and I surely never want to have that again. --Dingo (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.182.88 (talk)

User:Kary247 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: warned)

Page: Rare groove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kary247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:58, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "added link to groove")
2. 00:29, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "I don't like the sources language choice 'exotic' it seems to imply 'alien' and associates this idea with rare groove which I feel is not politically correct")
3. 10:06, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "removed 'once-exotic music' ref - see discussion page")
4. 10:07, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "removed 'once-exotic music' ref - see discussion page")
5. 10:19, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "inserted link to Groove")
6. 15:48, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* History and development */")
7. 16:03, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "restoring an internal link")

• Diff of warning: here

You may need to look at the whole picture, as the reverts are not all the same. Basically, this editor is repeatedly undoing in whole or in part any edits by myself and Machine Elf 1735. Examples include repeatedly re-inserting links to Groove and/or Groove (music) and/or eclectic after they have been removed. Also reverting headings to non-MoS compliant capitalization, undoing paragraph splits, undoing removal of overlinking, repeated removal of a source that she doesn't like, etc.

—Yworo (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Warned SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Seokmin Sean Lee reported by User:Crusio (Result: blatant copyvio, reverted, user warned )

Page: The Millennium Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seokmin Sean Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not technically-speaking an edit war (yet). however, an anonymous IP and now User:Seokmin Sean Lee keep adding material to this article that looks to me to be inappropriate. Not only does the whole "Timeline of The Millennium Project" look like OR, but the sections under "Current Research" are copied verbatim from the homepage of this project (external links for verification of this are conveniently placed directly beneath the copied text. There is no discussion of this matter on any talk page. the reason for this is that I was emailed, first by Jerome C. Glenn (who is the head of this project), then by Seokmin Lee, who claims to be an "intern" working for the project. I should note that they did not use the "wikimail" link on my talk page, but apparently found an email address through Google (I edit under my real name). Although I have kindly asked them not to handle this by email but post their comments on the appropriate talk pages, this has not been done. In the email I explained some of the problems (this initially only concerned the timeline) and also alerted Seokmin Lee to WP:COI. I don't want to start an edit war about this (and this article is very peripheral to my interests anyway) and am not really sure how to handle this. If this is not the right forum to ask for assistance with this issue, I apologize, in that case please point me to the correct place to go. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Warned He was adding a blatant copyvio. If he persists after being warned, report him to WP:AIV. KrakatoaKatie 03:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kary247 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result: see above, user warned)

Page: Rare groove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kary247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 17:10 on 29-Dec

• 1st revert: 00:08 30-Dec
• 2nd revert: 00:49 30-Dec
• 3rd revert: 15:48 30-Dec
• 4th revert: 15:48 30-Dec
• 5th revert: 16:03 30-Dec
• rv 3.5 or sock? Kary247 IP sock, 12:24 30-Dec (Special:Contributions/94.175.145.18)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: uw-3rr3 from Machine Elf 11:00 30-Dec and uw-3rr from Yworo 15:53 30-Dec

Also, uw-delete4 for 01:19 29-Dec and even some logical advice 16:42 30-Dec.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145]

Comments: It might make sense to look at my reverts: (00:20 30-Dec and 01:13 30-Dec).
—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It took me awhile to put this together I guess... Yworo posted after I did the talk page. Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, for all the good the last block did. I guess I have to post something on COIN.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Warned by Sarek. Hasn't edited the article since that I can tell. But you should re-report or let one of us know if another revert occurs. KrakatoaKatie 03:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:BT35 reported by User:Professor marginalia (Result: 48 hours )

Page:Talk:Race (classification of humans) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BT35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [146]

• 1st revert: [147]
• 2nd revert: [148]
• 3rd revert: [149]
• 4th revert: [150]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [152]

Comments:

Talk pages in articles related to Race have lately attracted "new" editors (many proven to be socks) coming to debate "the truth" about race and "conspiracies" to silence it. To reduce the disruption we've been closing the curtains on the talk page rants and tantrums. This user was made aware but chooses to ignore it.[153] Professor marginalia (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I have a feeling this is not a new editor, so 48 hours is appropriate for six or seven reverts after being asked several times to stop. KrakatoaKatie 04:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:71.164.114.50 reported by User:Nahome (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Bambu rolling papers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported : 71.164.114.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

• 1st revert: [155]
• 2nd revert: [156]
• 3rd revert: [157]
• 4th revert: [158]

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

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

Comments:

This IP supposedly traces back to the company from what a different IP warrior posted. It seems to be the same user as ArnaudMS, trying very hard to put up promotional text and removing referenced items that are contrary to his Bambu brand. Please PP the page for 30 days, it was already protected for 7 but that didn't stop them. As soon as the PP expired they were all back at it again. Nahome (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC) The user is still at it, I tried to remove all of the disputed unreferenced text but they really want promo stuff up there :( Nahome (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. Both an IP and a registered editor seem to be adding unverifiable material. Promotional editing has been going on for a long time. If Nahome has the patience, I suggest they might open a report at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This will help admins determine whether further blocks can be justified. It also would give the editors who may have a COI a chance to explain their thinking. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Javalizard reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: already blocked 31 hours )

Page: Money creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Javalizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]
• 5th revert: [163]
• 6th revert: [164]
• 7th revert: [165]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166] [167] and finally [168].

Various attempts at resolving problem on talkpage (it's a long page). The latest section is this, no response yet.

Comments:
Javalizard has made previous attempts to insert related content, which got removed by various editors, but not more than once per day - for instance this and this and this. Also some worrisome edits over at Money multiplier but that hasn't hit 3rr yet.

bobrayner (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked 31 hours - see below report. KrakatoaKatie 06:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Javalizard reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Money creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Javalizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [169]

• 1st revert: [170]
• 2nd revert: [171]
• 3rd revert: [172]
• 4th revert: [173]
• 5th revert: [174]
• 6th revert: [175]
• 7th revert: [176]

(Because of the large number of reverts, I may have missed some from the history.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
User was warned several times in edit summaries about OR and edit warring. E.g.:[177]
and also warned on the article talk page:[178]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [179]

Discussion about original research and request to stop edit warring was also carried out between Javalizard and myself on my talk page:[180]

Comments:

Javalizard seems unable to recognize that he is introducing original research and is edit warring to do so. He continues to argue the TRUTH of his edits and to revert to his preferred version.

This complaint duplicates the one on top. I started filing it before the above complaint appeared.

--LK (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours KrakatoaKatie 06:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Olyus reported by User:NorthernCounties (Result: Page protected)

Page: Tampere-Pirkkala Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olyus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

• 1st revert: [182]
• 2nd revert: [183]
• 3rd revert: [184]
• 4th revert: [185]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187]

Comments:

This editor is not helping other editors being constructive. And fails to listen to any argument that contests him. He argues a route is not seasonal and removes the destination completely from the page. When the route is bookable. Not helpful at all. I appreciate your time looking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernCounties (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 3 weeks Apologies for taking so long to get to the report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Magog, and don't be silly, it's xmas! --NorthernCounties (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Asifkhanj (Result: No vio)

Page: Asghar Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asghar_Bukhari&diff=prev&oldid=405100925
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asghar_Bukhari&diff=prev&oldid=404315958

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asghar_Bukhari (Updates/Reversion section)

Comments:
This will likely be an edit warring by Plot Spoiler. On other pages people have discussed specific areas of concern and we agreed to changes, but Plot Spoiler keeps on doing whole sale reverts and keeps on mentionin POV without specifying what areas of the article are creating concern as I believe the article did not have a neutral POV, and I organised and referenced and added content to ensure the article does not digress and discusses the controversy better. Plot Spoiler started off by reverting without discussion and keeps on doing that. I suspect this will remain the case. He might be forcing a revert warring violation which can result in my account being banned. Asifkhanj (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:FrankieRyan1936 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Vladimir Lenin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FrankieRyan1936 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [188]

• 1st revert: [189]
• 2nd revert: [190]
• 3rd revert: [191]
• 4th revert: [192]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [193]

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

Comments:

Clear sockpuppet of banned user Ledenierhomme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also edit-warring on my own talk page: [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201] This editor is also returning to ongoing vandalism of Expédition d'Irlande, previously protected as a result of his vandalism; and is repeatedly vandalising my talk page. RolandR (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked Indef'd by NawlinwikiHJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:JacobJosephFrank reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: 24h)

Page: Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JacobJosephFrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [202]

• 1st revert: [203]
• 2nd revert: [204]
• 3rd revert: [205]
• 4th revert: [206]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [208]

Comments:

• - Reguest and offer to the user to self revert the violating fourth revert - [209] Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:174.0.35.250 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Protected)

Page: The Busy World of Richard Scarry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.0.35.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All times are UTC.

• 1st revert: 03:36, December 31, 2010 (repeated restoration of unsourced content of the article)
• 2nd revert: 17:12, December 31, 2010 (2nd restoration of unsourced and false content, along with the restoration of flagicons, which are deprecated in the infobox)
• 3rd revert: 17:29, December 31, 2010 (3rd restoration of the 2nd revert)
• 4th revert: 17:37, December 31, 2010 (4th restoration of the 2nd revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [210]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page [211]

Comments: Please note that this edit war has been going on between the IP that I am reporting and another IP, 68.202.56.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), since December 7, 2010 if you check the history page of the article. The IP has been constantly adding unsourced information to the article, like adding an unsourced claim about Playhouse Disney to the infobox. In assuming good faith, I removed the flagicons per the guidelines at WP:MOSFLAGICON and Template:Infobox_television#Attributes, and listed only the original channels where the program originally aired at (i.e. Nickelodeon and Showtime), but it was reverted by the reported IP. Today, I reverted only three times to this article within 24 hours, therefore, I did not violate 3RR, but I feel that filing a report here is necessary. Also note that I have opened up a discussion to see if this dispute can be resolved at the Television WikiProject's talk page, as seen in the resolution difference above. On the article's talk page, Trainfan01 posted a note asking of Playhouse Disney is sourced, and an IP replied that there are no sources to be found for the repeated additions and removals of this information (the discussion cam be found here). I understand very well that edit warring will not be tolerated and will make things worse, and I sincerely apologize if I did get involved in this edit war. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Serienfan2010 reported by User:Aoi (Result: Serienfan2010 2 months (3rd offense), IP 1 month (block evasion) )

Page: ICarly (season four) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Serienfan2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [212]

• 1st revert: [213]
• 2nd revert: [214]
• 3rd revert: [215]
• 4th revert: [216]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [217]

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

Comments:

The user in question has apparently been blocked for edit warring twice before, according to his/her talk page. Not sure if this is a 3RR violation because the IP user s/he is warring with is apparently a sockpuppet of the banned user Simulation12[218] 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked Serienfan2010 was warring at this article and at Zendaya Coleman. Apparently a one month block didn't suffice to get the 'no edit warring' message, so let's see if two months works. The IP was blocked for one month (static IP) for confirmed block evasion and edit warring. KrakatoaKatie 22:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Deliciousgrapefruit reported by User:Cptnono (BLP violation) (Result: Was no action, now 48h for vandalism)

Page: Glenn Beck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [219]

• 1st revert: [220]
• 2nd revert: [221]

The user has not crossed 3/rr but I have little doubt that he would if we kept on reverting due to the rapid reverting. It does not need to be 3/rr to be edit warring anyways. I am bringing this up now since it is a BLP. There has been lengthy discussion and there is no consensus for the edit. More than one user disagrees with its inclusion and another agreed that it could be included but there was further discussion on how to handle the edit. The user can continue to seek consensus through more discussion or even an RFC but I am seeking a short block of the editor to limit disruption and removal of the contentious edit until consensus on how to handle the material is achieved.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [222]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Glenn Beck#Believes 10% of Muslims are Terrorists/Talk:Glenn Beck#Beck's view on Muslims

Comments:

I would just like to say in my defense, this user is using consensus and other wiki policies as a weapon. My entry is cited, is relevant, and no one presented a valid reason for not including it. I strongly suggest a review of both my edits and comments, and Cptnono's edits and comments before you assume I am the party behaving badly here. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono points out that more than one editor disputed including my entry. I strongly suggest people look at those objections. They include such statements as (paraphrasing) "muslims should take it as a compliment since they are raised to be terrorists. Its part of their religion." It is also clear from the thread that many people who opposed inclusion, explicitly voice their support of beck and his statement.

1) This is a notable dispute appearing in major news sources and involving two big time pundits

2) My sources are reliable

3) This dispute dragged on long enough for Beck to follow up with a segment about it on his radio program, responding to Zakaria's complaints. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not for discussing content. This report is based on you making rapid reverts without consensus on a BLP.Cptnono (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you are reporting me for reverts, I think I am allowed to comment here, and discuss the reasons behind my reverts. Can you cite the policy that prohibits me from doing so please, or at the very least direct me to another recourse. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this editor appears to be requesting a block when I haven't even made 3 reverts. I believe this editor is unfairly targeting me because of the dispute between us on the glenn beck page. I have made multiple requests for third party involvement, but haven't received any help. Could someone please step in and settle our conflict. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I already provided you links to BLP (policy) and BRD (not policy but good practice). I assume you have also read up on the consensus building process even though you have already said that you do not think Wikipedia should use it. Your reasoning for reverting does not matter. You are repeatedly inserting contentious material on a BLP without consensus.Cptnono (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again. I read the BLP policy and it clearly doesn't apply. I read the consensus policy, and you are misapplying it. It doesn't call for 100% consensus and it requires valid objections. I suggest you review it. And I suggest you stop using so many imperatives. I am not your employee nor am I your subordinate. Thank You. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between 100% and something like 20%. And the arguments provided have been valid even if you disagree. It is understandable that consensus will not always be 100% and some !votes will be ignored when appropriate reasoning is not provided. That has not happened here. You reverted twice when you should have kept it on the talk page and maybe opened an RFC. The edit is now live and it needs to be removed. You should be blocked to foster a quicker understanding but my primary concern is getting that edit out until it has more support. You edit warred while ignoring further use of the talk page since you were sick of dealing with it. It was on a BLP. It is not OK.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And the problem is that discussion was packed with people who explicitly said they favor beck. And their objections amounted to "Muslims are bad" or "Beck is a great guy" or "CNN sucks". All hail cptnoono king of wikipeida. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I was all set to support you, but then I read your single person crusade on this matter. On WP, when you fail to get anyone at all seriously backing your claims, and you even fail to find reliable sources backing the claims, there is a reasonable chance that WP policies do not favour including your claims in an article. Articles are better served by having too few words to say, than by having too many which are not reliably sourced, especially in a BLP. Collect (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And the rudeness from DG continues. Anyways, two editors (including myself) have already expressed that they are not fans so stop twisting the discussion. Anyways, you were kicking off an edit war. BRD is good and you bulldozed the edit in after you failed to achieve consensus.Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action. I see only two reverts on each side. In my opinion there is no BLP problem with the stuff that Deliciousgrapefruit wants to add, since it is well-sourced. (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com is authored by CNN staffers). It is up to consensus whether this item belongs in the article. In the discussion thread at Talk:Glenn Beck#Believes 10% of Muslims are Terrorists I don't see anyone but Deliciousgrapefruit actually favoring inclusion of this material. If you can't persuade any of the editors currently working on this article to support you, you should probably let the issue drop, unless you want to follow the other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked by another admin for vandalism --slakr^\ talk / 01:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous reported by User:Cresix (Result: 48h)

Page: Eric Clapton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff immediately before user's first revert: [223]

• 1st revert: [224]
• 2nd revert: [225]
• 3rd revert: [226]
• 4th revert: [227]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228] and [229].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion at Talk:Eric Clapton#One of the most influential....
Cresix (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Comments:

There is no fourth revert or a third, though I am mindful that this not a hard line to run up against, and there may well be two revets, and they are enough to cause a block. I'm going to beg the admin's forbearance and indulgence and plead the following. The fourth third diffs are good edits incorpoating good faith edit attempting valid points and mine. Cresix helpfully cited Rolling Stone Magazine as a source for Eric Clapton as the 53rd greatest artist in popular music. However, the source for the resolute evaluation that EC is one the most important and influential guitarist, period, is from the respected and renowned guitarist Little Steven, who in effect wrote a guest editorial which we would more accurately call a peer's tribute. (No one would cite a David Brooks Op-Ed piece as an opinion of the NYT's. Or, to press the matter, no one would suggest that a Traufaut tribute to Hitchcock would actually be the manifest opinion of Paris Match, if that was where it might have appeared.) The 3rd and 4th diffs instead clarifies the context, clearly establishing that the praise is from Little Steven, and the 53rd greatest designation is very much RS's. (As an aside, two citations Perry Meisel and BBC's website no longer referenced by Cresix's edits have been removed as extraneous). The fourth diff is is not my latest edit, and this diff I believe further establishes that I was editing in good faith. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are four full or partial reverts (and partial reverts are considered reverts in the definition of 3RR). I'll ask an admin to examine the diffs I provided for the reverts. As for the other information presented above by The Artist, that's content dispute. I am much more concerned with his pattern of edit warring after being asked politely and then warned not to do so. He made four reverts within a 24-hour hour period with ongoing discussion on the talk page and two requests/warnings not do so. Cresix (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked that discussion be entered into before the material was removed again. Although the material was yet again tampered with before discussion had taken place I believe the situation has been resolved.

The problem was that there was no real differentiation between guitarist and artist. Obviously Clapton will rank higher on a guitarist table than an artist table and that was not really clear as the lead stood before discussion started.

Consensus appears to have been reached on the present state of edits [230] and I am satisfied that the current lead is more reflective of the true situation. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect Chaosdruid, your comments are premature. There is no consensus on the talk page, but that is largely beside the point on this 3RR page.. The point here is that The Artist did, in fact, edit war after being asked and warned not to do so, and in the midst of a talk page discussion on the disputed material. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 48 hours for edit warring. The Artist may have useful contributions to make to this article, but he should stop reverting and wait for the discussion to finish when it is clear that disagreement exists. Last block was for 24h on 19 November. I recommend that The Artist remove the notice on his talk page that associates any comments by Cresix with harassment. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Schpinbo reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: warned; update if user continues)

Page: Battle of Corunna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Schpinbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [231]
• 2nd revert: [232]
• 3rd revert: [233]
• 4th revert: [234]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [236],[237],[238],[239]

Comments:
Starting out on my talk page User:Schpinbo contests that the websites he/she links are reliable sources, yet none of the sources used by the website state "French strategic victory".

As seen on the talk page of the article, the sources that could be accessed state a British victory. Yet what is not found is any mention of a "French victory" making User:Schpinbo's assertion, original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Although the user has edit warred on this article once before, it looks like he never received a warning before when it comes to cautioning against edit warring. If he continues despite the warning, then either update this thread, let me/another admin know, or re-submit a new report. --slakr^\ talk / 01:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just added additional bibliographic information to the page in question that should satisfy User:Kansas_Bear. Permit me to suggest that he will see, referenced in a scholarly source published by a non-vanity press, a reference to the battle in question being a "French victory."

User Kansas Bear has systematically sought to act as overseer of the page in question. He has not sought to collaborate or acheive consensus, but to simply remove my additions. In my view he is furthermore violating the spirit of Wikipedia's editing protocol: 2. Past issues raised by Kansas Bear regarding reliability of internet-based sources used have now been addressed by use of published scholarly source.

Schpinbo (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Schpinbo

User:Lihaas reported by User:Khips (Result: 24h to Lihaas and JPosten)

Page: 2011 Alexandria bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [240]
• 2nd revert: [241]
• 3rd revert: [242]
• 4th revert: [243]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [244]
• [245]

Comments:
Another user User:JPosten has been also edt warring with User:Lihaas on this article, but has not broken the 3RR rule yet. --Khips (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

any investigation of the current event will find the 2 editors are new [246] and [247]. i just came back to find that, and the fact that older info was removed despite cites. duly mentioned on the talk page as well. since which ive told the editor to add back his info without removing other cited info, youd see the reverts then were blindly reverted. not much for controversy here as his edits (ive told him) are more than welcome to add back.

Alright just read his last line and...: (well the 3rr page has changed but it used to say a reporting editor who has not warned or followed the rules is liable to be blocked. (#1 [248], #2[249]#3[250]. perilously close...though as seen in the message above he just reported WITHOUT any warning, a clear violation of WP's own rules. its open and shut against him for not trying dispute resolutuin (of which you can see i have both discussed and explianed in summarieds))) and "claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary " (duly noted each time)

also i thinkwe all agree that the other user needs an admin warning ifnot a block for [251][252][253] despite warnings at User talk:JPostenLihaas (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the user means by this: [254] --Khips (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

i also told him to add back the content without removing cites which was claearly an accomodation to resolving disputes. ive edited such new aticles beofre and reviewed them fr pov while ongoing vs. the new editor not familiar with rules.Lihaas (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a nice gesture. I will add back the material we agreed upon, and I will can also add back some of the stuff you added and was removed, with your permission. --Khips (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But please note that both users User:Lihaas and User:JPosten are now edit warring on Template:Modern persecution of Coptic Christians. --Khips (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

seems resolved with this info. the other editor i think we agreed is clearly is violation of not attemptiong to resolve disputes.

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:JPosten

• now that the above was resolved this other editor has continued to revert without discussion and warnings not to do so. seems liek he nees a word.Lihaas (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours to Lihaas and JPosten for edit warring. JPosten only went up to 3RR but kept making blanket reverts without ever posting on talk. He has also reverted at Template:Modern persecution of Coptic Christians, and seems not be a genuinely new editor. Khips played a moderating role in the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Slow-moving edit war on Meenas (Result: Semi, warning)

• Page: Meenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Users being reported:

Bigbrothersorder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vs. IP editor using

86.12.227.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

82.17.249.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

81.101.116.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Since December 9th, these two have been edit-warring on whether to call these people a "tribe" or a "caste". I have no idea who has the better case, but there's been no discussion on the talk page at all, simply reverting and some edit summary remarks. The IP has vandalized at least once with an anti-Meenas remark, which BBO cleaned up, but BBO, who has socked as User:Agnivanshitribalmeenas also shows ownership issues with the article. I have no connection with the issue, and have never edited it or related articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected the Meenas article for three months. Warned User:Bigbrothersorder not to revert again on the subject of tribe vs caste without getting consensus first. All three of the IPs are from Belfast. User:Ashishmeena gives a work address at Belfast on his user page. He should not use IPs on the article if he already has a registered account, per WP:SOCK. He asserts he is the creator of the Meenas article. Let him make any further changes with his registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Danjel reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: No action)

Page: Talk:Xavier College (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [255]

• 1st revert: [256]
• 2nd revert: [257]
• 3rd revert: [258]
• 4th revert: [259]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: editor is aware of 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [I am not involved in this dispute at all]

Comments: That's it. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Looking into this as an administrator, as Danjel's reverts have been edit summaried with an objection to the refactoring of his comments. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  To be fair, the "refactoring" seems to be the addition of a sub-heading of 'Off-topic' which also covers other editors' comments. Looks more or less reasonable. And if anyone objected to that, they shouldn't have revert-warred over it...? ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Note Have made an offer to Danjel on his talk page explaining why the comments that were refactored should be—and offering to close the report with no blocks or other sanctions. Waiting on his reply. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What's all this, "without admitting you broke 3RR..." nonsense? It's not a matter of admission. He made four reverts on the same page within one day. It's objective fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for those reverts, as they were reverting vandalism, in this case, attempts to WP:REFACTOR my comments. In the edit summaries, I repeatedly noted that I disagreed with the reverts for the reason that it hid my objection to the WP:UNCIVIL behaviour on the part of User:Pdfpdf. On the last two occasions warned Pdfpdf for his insistence on refactoring my comments at [[260]] and [[261]]. He has since removed both those warnings.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty in appreciating TreasuryTag's involvement in this situation. Pdfpdf noted in his removal of my last warning that I should "see [my] talk page" [[262]], which was 11 minutes before the addition of this entry here at AN3 [[263]], which would suggest that TreasuryTag is working closely with Pdfpdf. This smacks of a concerted effort at baiting.

To respond to TreasuryTag's raising of my previous block for "edit warring", that block was removed. [[264]]

In terms of moving to a resolution, I have walked away from the dispute that was in progress at Talk:Xavier College because of the wholly WP:UNCIVIL behaviour on the part of Pdfpdf. That being said, I object to my protests against that WP:UNCIVIL behaviour being refactored in an attempt to "hide the evidence", or what have you. -danjel (talk to me) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I only raised your previous block to prove that you had been aware of the 3RR before, that's all. I resent the completely false accusation of baiting and would ask that you retract it. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggest reading WP:VAND, as the refactoring was explained both by the user making the edits and now by an uninvolved user here, and was clearly not a deliberate attempt to undermine the project. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag: if you're saying that it was mere coincidence that Pdfpdf told me to look to my talk page 11 minutes before your post there, with no further posts from Pdfpdf, then I'll strike my statement out. -danjel (talk to me) 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I had Pdfpdf's talkpage on my watchlist from a previous dispute, happened to see the warning being removed and looked into the page history. I saw you violated the 3RR and reported you accordingly. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 17:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at Pdfpdf's edit history, his next edit was this comment at User talk:Danjel where he explained his removal of the template and replied to the warning. I think it's fair to say that's what "see your talk page" meant. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So you noted my warnings to Pdfpdf, because, as you say, you were watching his talk page. And then you brought me here, after finding that I was reverting his refactoring? I'll assume good faith, but I find it extremely hard in this instance. -danjel (talk to me) 17:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain again why you think I was acting in bad faith? Why would I have any interest in this (exceptionally dull) dispute at all?! ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 17:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

C.Fred, that's true. TreasuryTag: I don't know why you have an interest in this situation; you brought it here not me. That being said, and keeping my assumption of good faith on your part in mind, I'll apologise to you, TreasuryTag, otherwise unreservedly. My entry was made on the basis of a suspicion and may have arisen out of my irritation with this whole situation. I should not have let it get the better of me, and I'm sorry. -danjel (talk to me) 17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Going to sleep now. I'm not quite happy with C.Fred's suggested path to resolution at User_talk:Danjel#Talk:Xavier_College, but, sleeping on it may bring me around. -danjel (talk to me) 18:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course in the meantime, you may well be blocked by another admin as having blatantly violated the 3-revert rule... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That's true. But I think I've explained myself above; it was not a blatant violation of 3RR, as it's definitely in the grey area. It's a risk I'll have to take. -danjel (talk to me) 18:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it in a grey area? You made more than four reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, and none of them were reverting vandalism, BLP violations or copyrighted material. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• A block now would be punitive, since the respondent has acknowledged this and appears to be offline. While it was technically a 3RR breach, the other parties were wrong to repeatedly collapse Danjel's comments without attempting to discuss it with them. Tl;dr: no action necessary at this time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • without attempting to discuss it with them. - Huh? I repeatedly tried to discuss it with him. Perhaps you should re-read what was there? (On second thoughts, don't waste your time.) I was trying to improve wikipedia by indicating which parts of the text were not relevant to the topic, in an attempt to make reading the topic easier for others - there is nothing relevant to the topic in the areas I was indicating. But never mind - this little outburst from danjel has already wasted far too much of everybody's time. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW: For the record: My actions were independent of Treasury Tag. The time lag between the events mentioned was due to me going and making a cup of coffee. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Again for the record: Examination of danjel's actions will quickly show that his modus operandi is to not read things properly, then jump to the wrong conclusion, them make false accusations. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've just read User_talk:Danjel#Talk:Xavier_College. Some comments:

• Despite danjel's repeated false accusations, I will repeat here what I have already said at Talk:Xavier_College#The_Last_Post

are you afraid of people seeing what you and I said? - No. Far from it. If I was "afraid", I would have deleted it. The material I "hid" is irrelevant to the topic under discussion, and hence of no interest to anyone trying to follow the topic.

• I am quite happy for danjel's strange accusations, and my responses to them, (and HiLo48's responses - provided, of course, that HiLo48 agrees) to appear anywhere that it is relevant for them to appear. However, in the middle of a conversation about multi-campus schools is not a relevant place for them to appear.
• Regarding C.Fred's proposal at User_talk:Danjel#Talk:Xavier_College:
  • 1.Refactor by collapsing the discussion as described above. - Fine by me.
  • 2.Remove entirely the Talk:Xavier College#The Last Post as a comment about an editor and not the article - agree that it is off-topic. (That's why I tried to indicate it as such.) However, if you are going to remove that section, then I insist that you also remove danjel's strange accusations and other off-topic postings.
  • 3. & 4. - No comments.
• Regarding some of danjel's comments at User_talk:Danjel#Talk:Xavier_College:
  • In regards to your 3rd point, no dispute resolution is necessary as I have walked away from the dispute. - Errrr. There seems lots of evidence that danjel has not "walked away from the dispute".
  • I'll agree that it was off topic, but a casual observer might wonder why I've suddenly withdrawn from my proposal. - Hmmm. Fair comment. Perhaps add a step to C.Fred's proposal? e.g. 5. danjel to add a WP:CIVIL non-personal posting to Talk:Xavier College#Proposed new articles for Burke Hall and Kostka Hall Campuses to the effect of "I have decided to walk away from this discussion because ... " (C.Fred & danjel to mutually agree the wording.)
• And for the record: I disagree with danjel's highly biassed (i.e. false) and WP:UNCIVIL comments about my motives. Perhaps it might have been wiser for him to ask me why I was doing what I was doing, rather than to assume that he knew (knows?) what my motives were/are? As I have already said at said at Talk:Xavier_College#The_Last_Post:

BTW: Stop putting your words into other people's mouths, and then accusing them of statements they didn't make. You have provided a multitude of examples of this, and I have yet to see even one case where your assertions of your opinions bear even a passing relationship with reality.

Finally, I have no particular desire for danjel to be blocked. However, I do wish he would read things properly and I do wish he would stop jumping to wrong conclusions. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record: In response to C.Fred's suggestions, as a sign of good faith I have refactored Talk:Xavier College#The Last Post. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Time for me to add just a little here. I responded to a comment from Danjel that he had no knowledge of some other schools in Melbourne, whose situation and articles I thought relevant to the Xavier article. He had proceeded to comment on these schools' articles. My response was that not knowing anything about those schools was "a bit of a problem". Danjel's response to me was "So having intimate knowledge of those schools is now a requirement for editing those schools? Don't be ridiculous. What an absolutely offensive thing to say. This is argumentum ad hominem..." Obviously I had NOT suggested that intimate knowledge was required. I called him on the misrepresentation and overreaction, and judiciously withdrew from the conversation. Danjel was not discussing things. He was (over)reacting, and misrepresenting what others said. Not helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Admins C.Fred and HJ Mitchell have made an effort to close this 3RR in a diplomatic way. The alternative to diplomacy might have been blocks for Danjel and Pdfpdf. When a case is closed quietly, the hope is that those involved in the dispute won't keep coming back to the report to add their grievances. No more admin action should be expected here so there is no point in further discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: No sanction)

Page: Back to the Future (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [265]

• 1st revert: [266]
• 2nd revert: [267]
• 3rd revert: [268]
• 4th revert: [269]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [270]

Comments:
Rusted AutoParts seems determined to insert information not relevant to the Back to the Future article; information that is covered in-depth in the sequel article. Normally, I would let this go, but his ownership issues, along with his decision to falsely label another edits as vandalism led me to this report. He was warned abot breaking 3RR, and still continued to revert. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're both equally at fault for this revert war. The only difference is that RAP has crossed the 3RR line (only very barely within 24 hours). The reason you're both equally at fault is the ongoing reversions without discussion. MW: you should have explained the revert on the talk page and stopped reverting. RAP: you should have defended the addition on the talk page, and also stopped reverting. So either I block you both or I block neither. I'm going to block neither, revert the article myself to the status quo (per WP:BRD) and ask both parties to hash it out, seek outside opinions if need be, with a strong warning that any further reversions (whether 3RR or not) are going to result in a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that's all I asked... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. For anyone passing, I note I haven't protected the article because there are too many other editors trying to edit the article and I don't want to lock them out. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Closing this as no action per MK, but if you don't follow his advice, I'll block the next person who reverts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Stonemason89 (Result: Protected)

• Page: Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not technically a 3rr violation, but rather an edit warring pattern. Off2riorob has been going right up to the limit (i. e. making 3 reverts but refraining from making the fourth) repeatedly. One other user has already been blocked twice for edit warring and 3rrvio on this highly contentious article.

3 reverts within 24 hours on 2 January 2011: [271] [272] [273]

Fourth revert: [274]

3 reverts within 24 hours on 31 December 2010: [275] [276] [277]

The talk page thread surrounding the discussion. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: With this revert made just a minute ago, this is now officially a 4rr situation. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of explanation on the talkpage to which this user has not joined in at all. His input is a drive by revert. I have presented and investigated the citations on the talkpage today and IMO the addition is unsupported and unattributed by the citations and as such is a BLP violation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with O2rr on this one, stating someone is "anti-Islamic" is highly contentious and POV; use the sources available to refer to their actions etc. as appropriate, but it's not for us to label an individual as anti-Islamic (though it's less problematic to state that the media have labelled her anti-Islamic, if that's referenced). Reverting BLP violations is an exception to the 3 revert rule. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But mainstream coverage of Geller almost universally portrays her as either anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. Her self-description isn't a reliable source for anything other than her self-description. The idea that America is currently being "Islamified" (as implied by the name of Geller's group) is a decidedly FRINGE idea, and one that doesn't have wide acceptance. That idea in and of itself could be considered an anti-Muslim canard. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

One improvement to the article could be to find a picture that makes her look less like a vampire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected for three days to let discussion on the talk page and any other dispute resolution proceedings to take their course. I've deliberately protected the non-contentious (O2rr) version (that's not to say I prefer that version, but the non-contentious version should subsist until the dispute is resolved). Mkativerata (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Amraamny reported by User:Zabanio (Result: No vio)

• Page: Chengdu J-20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Amraamny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I warned the editor on their user talk] page, which they reverted. I discussed the matter further on talk page. Please note I believe this editor is involved in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. He has just started a brand new Wikipedia account and he is quoting Wikipedia policy, that a newcomer should not know.

User:Amraamny started the article Chengdu J-20, it was written poorly with no citations and another editor placed a "no citations +tag" on the article. I rewrote the article using some of the information in the original article and I place proper citations in the article. User:Amraamny essentially keeps reverting the article back to its original state, removing the majority of what I and others have written including the citations.

Thank you Zabanio (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for looking into the matter. All four reverts are within 24 hours:

• Revert 1 = Revision as of 21:54, 30 December 2010
• Revert 2 = Revision as of 21:58, 30 December 2010
• Revert 3 = Revision as of 22:40, 30 December 2010
• Revert 4 = Revision as of 01:47, 31 December 2010

These 4 reverts happened within 5 hours, well within the 24 hour 3RR rule. Thank you Zabanio (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That was 21:54 last night. To blcok almost a day alter for that would serve no purpose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR happened within 24 hours and the editor will be back again, trust me. So, block him now before it starts over again! The 3RR policy is clear, and the editor is in violation. Thanks Zabanio (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't required to issue blocks. There seems to be a bona fide dispute about the quality of the sources, in which Amraamny has a pretty good argument, though he should not have continued to revert. It would be sensible for Zabanio and Amraamny to discuss the quality of the sources (blogs versus Aviation Week) on the talk page. I have notified Amraamny of this report and invited him to respond here. If agreement can't be reached, use WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

err what? I'm being discussed here. Seems hypocritical to the nth degree that Zabanio says I should be banned because I reversed 4 times. Did he not do the same? I am the creator of the article and just wanted it to the based on facts and truthful. Zabanio apparently does not believe the credibility of sources is important. What else can I do? I already left messages on the "talk" page of Zabanio and the article itself. Amraamny (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:71.164.114.50 reported by Nahome (Result: 31h)

Page: List of oldest companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.164.114.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 16:34, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Someones messing with a brand from a competitor, its so obvious and ridiculous")
2. 04:48, 31 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 02:00, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "once again reverting back to the old after Bambu brand saboteur references with obscure spanish essays.")

I have reported this user before but not for this particular edit war. User seems to be intent on promotional text without references (and deleting well referenced text that must be contrary to their goals or perhaps their marketing). Please assist with a review and page protection (preferably long term) and thank you - happy new year everyone! —Nahome (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 31 hours for personal attacks by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please give a full protect to the page and to Bambu rolling papers, the Bambu promoters are back and reverting all of our hard work again :( Please assist and thank you Nahome (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Smyth (Result: 72h)

Page: List of Top Gear episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [278]

Last week I gave the user a warning on his talk page which he removed without responding.

Since then he has made at least two non-overlapping infringements:

1. 03:26, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "Restore to sourced version. See talk page.")
2. 08:53, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "See discussions")
3. 19:44, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405364399 by Nfitz (talk) Original discussion did, new source doesn't. Don't revert until we get that issue sorted out.")
4. 00:05, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405389614 by Nfitz (talk) See WP:CONSENSUS")
5. 16:10, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Please give consensus process time. There ia more than one option under discussion.")
6. 20:34, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Clean up the mess the BOT left") (despite edit summary, this is also a reversion)
7. 01:38, 3 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405602701 by 193.35.132.43 (talk) Rvv.")
8. 08:11, 3 January 2011 (edit summary: "Once more -- see discussion and help us reach consensus on the correct listing")

• Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_Top_Gear_episodes#Episode_numbering_and_removal_of_sourced_series_numbering

– Smyth\^talk 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Seems to have been aggressively reverting for several days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:70.82.96.170 reported by User:CapnPrep (Result: Protected)

Page: History of French (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.82.96.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 02:37, 1 January 2011

1. 14:00, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 18:18, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405340432 by Tty29a (talk)")
3. 15:51, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "No since Vulgar Latin came after")
4. 19:58, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "previous is a well known vandal")
5. 20:21, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405550492 by Nortmannus (talk)")
6. 20:55, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405552795 by Nortmannus (talk)")
7. 01:57, 3 January 2011 (edit summary: "illogical process because the syntax has never changed")
8. 14:59, 3 January 2011 (edit summary: "This is not vandalism")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [279]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

Comments:
Aside from edit-summary bickering, there has been no discussion among the editors involved in this dispute. Registered editor Nortmannus is unfortunately also in violation of 3RR.

CapnPrep (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Reisio reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: No vio)

Page Standard diving dress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reisio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [283]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [284]

Also [285] and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reisio&diff=prev&oldid=405748103

Comments:

I did tell him to read WP:3RR, guess he didn't bother. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hallows Horcruxes reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: No action)

Page: Harry Potter (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hallows Horcruxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [286]

• 1st revert: [287]
• 2nd revert: [288]
• 3rd revert: [289]
• 4th revert: [290]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [291]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [292]

Comments:

The accused editor is point of view pushing on the article. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was made as a single production and is going to be released in two parts. The editor maintains that the two parts constitute just one film rather than two films, even though they will have two releases, two box office runs etc, audiences will have to buy two tickets etc. Another editor clarified that the franchise would consist of eight films and I added sources from the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal that explicitly state there are eight films in the series. If the producers (and this editor) wish to maintain there are only seven films, then that is their point of view (and one maybe worth documenting in the director's case), but by the standard definition of the word and how it is interpreted there are eight films, and this is backed up by high quality sources. It's not the place of editors to say how many films there are, if it is disputed the claims should be backed up by reliable sources which is what was done in the article, but the editor is removing perfectly valid and reliably sourced content to maintain his point of view. Betty Logan (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor was informed of this case but has deleted the message: [293] Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to have just resolved itself (see respondent's last edit summary), but if the edit warring continues, let me know or come back here. I'll leave this open for an hour or two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, I think the editor might be quite young and not quite grasp the idea that points of view need to be sourced though. He works quite hard on the Harry Potter articles, maybe a mentor would be the best way of dealing with him? Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Knowitallfortoday reported by User:Drmies. Take a deep breath. (Result: Out of scope)

Page: Clan of Xymox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [294]
• 2nd revert: [295]
• 3rd revert: [296]

This is a complex issue, and I cannot easily follow the template. What it boils down to is this: the user I am reporting has, over the past couple of days, consistently thwarted my and others' efforts to improve the article. When I first ran into it, in November 2010, it looked like this. After cleanup, it looked like this. Not good, I grant you, but a bit better. Two edits by Knowitall later, it looked like this--note the unverified claims of grandiosity, the broken English, the fan talk. Then, another editor alerted me to the state of the article, and I got to work, rewriting, cleaning up, and adding references--on 1 January, I had this version. Since then, it's been going back and forth, with Knowitall preferring versions like this one. I have resorted to tactics I really don't like, like wholesale reverts--but all the while I have tried to discuss matters with Knowitall (much of which was blanked on their talk page), up until recently, here. To no avail.

To show my good faith, after I saw that Knowitall had dropped a Flickr link on their talk page, the URL of which they had inserted as bare URLs for a reference, I went to that page and looked at every individual article, including the information I deemed valuable--see here and here. But look at the most recent series of edits by Knowitall, this one, and you'll see that even those nicely templated references were undone, in editing moves that make a mockery of WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:NEUTRAL, and proper English (no alphabet soup necessary for that one).

I have focused, in the diffs above, on the founding date, for which I have found a very reliable source. Plow through all the diffs, all the references, and you'll also find 1983 and 1984--but 1981 is pretty solidly referenced by The Great Indie Discography, by Martin C. Strong. I could list every single diff, every single dispute, but life is too short for that. I am tired of this hot mess, and a call on WP:ANI for help was not responded to. I personally think that this is disruptive editing beyond the point of reason, I think this user should be blocked, but definitions of vandalism and disruption differ--an edit war is clearly verified, though, by the history.

Speaking of said history, it is entirely possible that I've gone well over 3RR, though you'd have to look carefully at which edit undid which edit. I believe, though, that my reversals were in the best interest of the article: I have added references, made copyedits, and continuously tried to communicate, in edit summaries and on talk pages, including the article talk page, Knowitall's talk page, and other involved editors' talk pages (see User talk:Anka Wolbert and User talk:Hablador). If my actions are reproachable or blockable, that's fine. If an admin decides that I should stay the hell away from the article, that's fine too--I'm sick of it, but I'm even sicker of a bunch of band members and fans fighting stuff out on Wikipedia's pages. Yes, it's a larger story--see the efforts of Knowitall to remove remarks about the singer's English here and here, and their comment here. I'll stop now, and will bear the consequences.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [297]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, see the talk page, and its history.

Drmies (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

I hate to say it, but I don't think this is the appropriate venue. I think this need wider input than a single admin or the small number of admins who patrol this noticeboard. It might be advisable to go to ANI and seek community input. I don't really think this is a 3RR issue. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Keith-264 reported by Brookesward (talk) (Result: No vio)

Page: FN FAL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Keith-264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 13:36, 4 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "The usual purpose is to inform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material are not from transcription.")

—Brookesward (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have warned this user. He is very close to violating 3RR, as he reverted to his preferred version three times. Minimac (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:97.83.77.172 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Rick Scott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) , List of Governors of Florida, and various other articles on U.S. state governors
User being reported: 97.83.77.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [298] (for Rick Scott); [299] (for List of Governors of Florida

At Rick Scott

• 1st revert: [300]
• 2nd revert: [301]

At List of Governors of Florida

• 1st revert: [302]
• 2nd revert: [303]
• 3rd revert: [304]
• 4th revert: [305]
• 5th revert: [306]

The user has made similar edits at many other articles on governors of U.S. states.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [307][308] [309][310] and [311]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [312][313]

Comments:
This editor has been placing information at various articles on US state governors indicating that the governors are called by the honorific "his excellency", despite repeated requests from various editors that they stop. This has resulted in disruption at a wide swath of articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Was about to report this editor as well - Another definite 3rr violation on Governor of Michigan. Dpmuk (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:BrendanFrye reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:Both editors warned)

Page: Men in Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrendanFrye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [314]

• 1st revert: [315]
• 2nd revert: [316]
• 3rd revert: [317]
• 4th revert: [318]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [319]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [320]

Comments:
According to the editor's talk page (see this section, and this}, this editor appears to have ownership issues with the article in question, and has edit-warred with other editors in the past over this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're one to talk. You're at 3 revisions yourself. I wasn't aware that I was about to violate 3rr. Thanks for the non-warning. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the first edit wasn't a revert. Looks like we are we both have three reverts BrendanFrye (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm at one initial edit (where I did not blindly revert, but consolidated and added information) and two reverts. As for not knowing, I did warn you. You need to get over your ownership issues on that article. Deal with it. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have the "ownership" issue as well. We are both at three reverts. Deal with it yourself. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Warned Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:166.137.139.221 reported by User:Lihaas (Result:No violation)

Page: 2011 Alexandria bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.137.139.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [321]

• 1st revert: [322] (despite his summary its not a "copy edit" its a blind revert of ALL content without explanation)
• 2nd revert: [323]
• 3rd revert: [324]
• 4th revert: [325]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:166.137.139.221

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2011_Alexandria_bombing#IP_Vandalism

Comments:

Well i explained to him on his talk page, and then requested page protection too, he comes back in attack mode to tell me "rvt vandalism yourself" he asked me what was vandalised since he claimed a "major copy edit" i duly explained.

Im afraid to revert again (even though at this point obvious vandalism/pov/warring), as i got a block previously.

(someone on the IRC help channel also suggested i come here)Lihaas (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

for warring..(and not good faith)Lihaas (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the confusion you may have Lihaas. If you wish action on edit warring, you would need to give more diffs proving long term edit warring. Your four diffs were alluding to a 3RR issue; and the first diff clearly wasn't a revert. Please read up on 3RR, Dispute resolution, Disruptive editing. Please contact me directly on the talk page in case you need additional assistance. You may file a new report citing edit warring over a long term. You may also file a new report on 3RR being violated, should this happen in the present or future. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Spalds (Result:Warring editors blocked; page protected 24 hours)

Page: Jim Gibbons (U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [326]

• 1st revert: [327]
• 2nd revert: [328]
• 3rd revert: [329]
• 4th revert: [330]
• 5th revert: [331]
• 6th revert: [332]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [333]

Comments: I'm not the one reverting the edits myself, simply reporting the violation. I did not warn for 2 reasons, first, DTTR applies, and second, I feel uncomfortable warning such a senior user. While I am not specifically requesting a block, I do want some type of resolution. The link that they are reverting to isn't exact, because it is difficult to determine exactly which edit is being undone. Spalds (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. A related edit warring ip also blocked for a similar issue. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Page protected for a period of 24 hours Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ and User:Pdfpdf reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: No action for now)

Page: Canadian Forces Land Force Command (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Pdfpdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [334]

• 1st revert: [335]
• 2nd revert: [336]
• 3rd revert: [337]
• 4th revert: [338]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [339] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [340]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [341]

Comments:

users edit warring since 5 am, over images, Δ arguing they violate NFCC Pdfpdf arguing they can be used --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• User:Δ is exempt from 3RR here - removing copyright violations is an exemption per WP:3RR - "Removal of ... content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.". I will leave it up to another sysop to decide whether the other editor should be blocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Well, Pdfpdf has made three reverts, which isn't a 3RR violation, but this was followed by him posting Δ to AIV [342] which quite frankly, Δ's edits definitely wasn't vandalistic. Does this still warrant a block? Minimac (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Non-free content violations and in particular the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard posting hyperlinked therefrom. Let's not have blocks and vandalism accusations, because we know where this leads with Betacommand, non-free images, and the three-revert rule. Both editors have stopped, and the focus of attention should be the substantive content issue, for which there is a section on the article's talk page. Let's not repeat past Betacommand-reverts-and-images incidents ad nauseam. Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action unless either party resumes warring. I agree with Uncle G that we should focus on the substantive content issue. Obvious violations of WP:NFCC are exempt from 3RR, but it is not certain that these are obvious violations. The advice given by User:Jayron32 in the above-linked ANI thread seems apt: "This could be better handled by "Revert once and escalate to WP:MCQ" which is where ALL discussions regarding issues of this type should be handled." At least one admin has expressed willingness to block if the reverts continue. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Mrtk1 reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result:24 hours)

Page: List of unusual deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrtk1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: 16:23, January 6, 2011
• 2nd revert: 18:02, January 6, 2011
• 3rd revert: 18:30, January 6, 2011
• 4th revert: 18:55, January 6, 2011
• 5th revert: 19:04, January 6, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:56, January 6, 2011

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

Comments: The editor has been warned several times through other editors' edit comments about discussing on the talk page. Seems to be defiant, though, especially given the edit summary on the fifth revert. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 8 minutes was long enough for the editor to digest the warning given, and edit summaries had earlier implored him/her to take it to the talk page. Looking at the edit summaries and frequency of reverts, I'm convinced he/she was clearly just going to keep reverting. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Koakhtzvigad reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Israel and the apartheid analogy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koakhtzvigad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

• 1st revert: [343] "Undid revision 406266408 by Dailycare"
• 2nd revert: [344] "Undid revision 406354727 by Ryan Paddy"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [345]

Comments:

This article, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Page: B'Tselem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koakhtzvigad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [346]

• 1st revert: [347] "Undid revision 406277545 by Sean.hoyland"
• 2nd revert: [348] "Undid revision 406375651 by Malik Shabazz"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [349]

Comments:

This article, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This editor is also edit-warring in order to insert original research into B'Tselem: Version reverted to: [350]

• Ist revert: [351], edit summary "(Undid revision 406277545 by Sean.hoyland it is sourced from the organisation's website, and give the focus, who does what is important)"
• 2nd revert: [(Undid revision 406277545 by Sean.hoylandit is sourced from the organisation's website, and give the focus, who does what is important)], edit summary "Undid revision 406375651 by Malik Shabazz it seems to me very clear that ethnic Arabs would have ethnic Arabic names!". RolandR (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that I am edit-warring. I edited by providing important data to improve the article, backed by reference to the organisation's website. This was removed without discussion. The only explanation give was in edit history comments as by Sean.hoyland (rm apparently unsourced ethnicity info. looks like original research. However, anyone remotely familiar with the subject matter would easily distinguish Arabic names from Jewish names. No 'research' was involved. That this is pointed out is not unusual because many human rights organisations employ members from communities in which they work for liaison. In fact the other organisation mentioned, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, says so on their website! "ACRI's Jewish and Arab staff members include attorneys, fieldworkers, public hotline coordinators, public outreach and media professionals, and educators." [352] I can locate many other human rights groups around the globe that employ staff indigenous to their communities, so I see no problem in mentioning this on the B'Tzelem's article, why do you? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It could be I'm in need of clarification, but as it says on the template

All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

Now to revert takes two editors, one to undo editing, and one (me) to revert this. So far I have reverted in three such cases once in respect to three editors, therefore I have not exceeded the 1RR in 24-hour period in respect to these individuals as per the rule that says

"A "one-revert rule" is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert"."

The three-revert rule in turn says "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 it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

It therefore follows that a single account (me) may revert other editors once every 24-hours, otherwise there would be constant tag teaming.

However, if I am wrong, I would appreciate someone clarifying the rule. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see 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. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."

When you undo an edit by editor A, then editor B edits the article and you undo editor B's edits, you have made two reverts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have misunderstood. You are allowed to one, and one only, revert per 24 hour period and per article. It doesn't matter if you are reverting multiple editors. As was already been suggested on your talkpage by Malik Shabazz, I suggest you revert your last reverts asap, or you may be blocked for a short period. --Slp1 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like the rule clarified. one come please.

I edited the article.

Another editor came and reverted the article without editing. Thats' his/her one revert in 24 hours.

I returned and reverted editor A's revert. That's my one revert in 24-hours in respect to that editor.

It seems to me that this is how one-revert-rule is described in the rules section.

There is no mention of me being constrained to reverting a revert of my editing to one editor, since clearly if more than one editor collude to keep something from an article, no single editor can ever get anything done without their acquiescence.

Please note that the rule applies to reverting editing and not to reverting reverts, since reverts are not contributions to the article through editing. I.e., as I see it there are two distinct types of actions under consideration here, those of editing articles (positively changing content) and reverting (not contributing to changing content either positively or negatively, i.e. through vandalism, OR, etc.)

Now one of the reverts asserted that I included OR in my editing, but deemed it unnecessary to either discuss this in the talk page, or to contact me before reverting, with seems to me to be a rather uncivil way of going about Wikipedia. Regards Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I and another administrator have explained the 1RR already. You are allowed to undo one, and one only person's edits once in a 24 hour period. It doesn't matter whether you revert edits or reverts or what the content is. You have made clear and obvious reverts (using the undo function, no less) twice on the Apartheid article [353] [354] and twice on the B'Tselem article [355][356]. You are in obvious violation of the 1RR, and if it helps you understand, just consider that your version of the rules would allow you to revert 100+ editors who disagreed with your edits without sanction. This would hardly decrease the edit warring, would it? I suggest you revert and accept this as a lesson learned. Last chance. Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While the rules may be clear to you, they are hardly clear to me. According to your own evidence I have only reverted editing of one editor, as "reverting" is defined in the ruel "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors". This revert was in the process of my own editing where I removed the word 'investigative' from an article since the function is not included in the UN description of the role. It has now been restored through reverting of my edit. Please note that I posted a query on the relevant talk page.

As to your suggestion that "your version of the rules would allow you to revert 100+ editors who disagreed with your edits without sanction", it is not my version, but what I am reading in the current version of the rules. And, what mechanism is available to a single editor to defend his/her edits from 100+ hostile editors? Not one of the people that reverted my editing (as a contributing editor) had attempted to communicate by other means to show their good faith. However, not one contributed anything to the article in this particular case. Doing so may have PREVENTED edit-warring in the first place.

So far the only lesson I have learned is that two people are seemingly ignoring the written rules of Wikipedia to force their POV on me by intimidation of using their administrative tools.

I would like to approach this issue in a more constructive manner by allowing you to explain the rationale for how you see 1 or 3RR rile working for the contributing editor (assuming this is in good faith).

Please resist using intimidating language like 'last chance' as if you are holding a gun to my head.

Oh, and in any case, happily I have no idea how to revert my reverts :) Regards Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

At this point you have a choice to make. You can undo your edit Israel and the apartheid analogy- you obviously know how to do it, since you knew how to undo the edits of Ryan Paddy and Dailycare there - and then read WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS to figure out your misunderstandings on this matter, and calmly ask any questions you have about the matter. The other alternative is that I or another administrator block you for 24 hours while you figure it out. As I pointed out, you have reversed the actions of other editors twice within a 24 period, on two separate article. The only mechanism for you to defend your edits against multiple editors is to convince them of the merit of your edits; you simply are not allowed to revert others more than once if they disagree. That's it. --Slp1 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• No self-revert and has edited the article since. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Slp1 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)