Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Dougweller reported by User:Architecture and Interior Design (Result: see note)

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

DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION YOU ARE ASKING FOR

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] - DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE PREVIOUS VERSION

1. (cur | prev) 21:00, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Changed protection level of Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC))))
2. (cur | prev) 20:59, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Protected Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC))))
3. (cur | prev) 20:37, 18 July 2010 Arakunem (talk | contribs) (5,108 bytes) (Undid revision. You MUST discuss this on the talk page. See the New Messages left on your own talk page.)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT - YOUR SYSTEM ISN'T VERY USER FRIENDLY

Comments:

So as you are aware there are a few users including users that you have bestowed "Administrative" priviledges to who for some reason insist on providing incorrect information to the world on this subject. They have blocked and locked down the page of course with their erroneous information in place. At the same time these "lovely people" (I use that term loosely) have the audacity to accuse ME of being the vandal and of edit warring. Certainly there is something you can do to remove these people from Wikipedia and not allow them to carry on their abusive behavior. Other vandals included in this consipiracy are as follows: Taroaldo, Arakunem, Administrator Bart133 and Administrator DougWeller.

• This: User talk:Architecture and Interior Design is your user talk page where people leave you messages. Those messages include links as to why your edits kept getting reverted, and links to where to go to discuss them. Please also click Help:Contents/Getting_started which will introduce you to the Wikipedia user interface if you are not sure how or where to do something. Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Please check out the link above as Arakunem suggested. User talk:Architecture and Interior Design is the page you need to be commenting on, not here. Editors will try and help you understand WIkipedia policy there. Dayewalker (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank for you help but I think I now understand the policy here just fine. If you are one of the "in-crowd" when you get your little hall Monitor/Administration designation you get to be a big ole, nasty, rude bully without any consequences. The novice user is SCREWED! I am, however, open to accepting apologies. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the drama above, I think the only thing you should be open to at this moment is a ban for disruption. Sorry to put it so bluntly. --Ragib (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ragib's comment is an excellent example of the "pack mentality" that I've had to deal with in relation to this issue. People like Ragib who aren't even part of the conversation or effected by the issue jump in with rude inflammatory remarks trying to make the issue worse than it already is. This is actually in violation of Wikipedias policies referenced in the section "Please do not bite the newcomers." These people don't just bite. They tear at the jugular. Someone like Ragib should be blocked if not permanently banned from Wikipedia. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design

• Note — The reporter, Architecture and Interior Design (talk · contribs), was blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs). However, another admin, Dougweller (talk · contribs), protected Complementary color (the article in question), and later, the blocked user was unblocked. As an uninvolved admin, I would have only blocked Architecture and Interior Design (talk · contribs) and left the article unprotected had Architecture and Interior Design (talk · contribs) been properly warned of the 3RR (due to multiple editors reverting the user's edits). Otherwise, it looks like this is just a new user getting frustrated. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify, I'm also uninvolved with both article (despite claims above, I've never edited it) and editors, I simply found A&ID's case here and acted. A&ID hadn't been warned and I preferred to stop the edit warring without blocking a new user in any case. I thought a 24 hour block would give time to stop the edit warring and help the new user. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that this has been reviewed and ruled on can it be removed from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In due time it will be archived and become part of the historical record of this page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Freakshownerd reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: No violation)

Page: Phillip E. Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Freakshownerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [1]
• 2nd revert: [2]
• 3rd revert: [3]
• 4th revert: [4]
• 5th revert: [5]
• 6th revert: [6] (minor, but occurred following the 3RR warning linked below)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:Please also note that the user responded to my 3RR warning an inappropriate accusation of three reverts on my talkpage.

Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No violation Freekshownerd's reverts are exempt from the three-revert rule, in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. I agree that the material he is reverting is very controversial to the point that it sounds like editorializing. Please discuss on the talk page the information repeatedly being added. -- tariqabjotu 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's controversial to note, with multiple sources, that AIDS denialism and creationism are out of the mainstream? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No; that's not the problem. The primary concern appears to be that Mr. Johnson may not actually deny that HIV causes AIDS, but that he feels further research should be done to investigate the issue. From what I can tell, that seems to be what the sources actually say. Worse, you're synthesizing sources -- sources that talk about the general idea of HIV denialism -- to heavily imply that Mr. Johnson is a psuedoscientist. I see that the claim has been in the article for a long time, but it's persistence in the article doesn't make it right. The issue is of great enough concern that I believe it should be hashed out on the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated in my comment on your talk page, I didn't write this article; I was merely trying to restore a consensus version. There are three separate secondary sources in the article stating that Johnson promotes HIV/AIDS denialism. That's not simply my opinion, and it's not my synthesis of the sources. Also, I (the previous authors of the article, actually) do not imply that Johnson is a pseudoscientist (he's actually not a scientist at all); they state that his opinions on AIDS and creation are considered pseudoscience, as they most verifiably are. Per WP:FRINGE, this statement must be made; it is done concisely and with references. As for the talk page, I have attempted to hash out the issue there, only to be subject to incivility. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jevansen reported by User:BrianBeahr (Result:No violation )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: St Kilda Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jevansen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

St Kilda Football Club,

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

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]

The person keeps reverting the opening paragraph to a lesser detailed - less factual and biased view that is cleary biased and not a balanced point of view.

Warned the user before - be on its talk page.

Rephrasing for nothing to get edit numbers up a really bad issue on here. How many people live to edit others added info for edit numbers?

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

Comments:

I find it curious that User:BrianBeahr, who is an indefinitely blocked editor, is making a report on here. Of course he usually makes his regular - and always spurious - reports using his IP address. The main problem is that this user believes he has some kind of ownership of the article. The second problem is that he contantly adds far too much detailed and repetitive information in an often poorly written manner with all sorts of grammar, punctuation, spelling and MOS problems which need constant correction by myself and others. He also vandalises other editors' user pages with fake warning and block notices. It should therefore be clearly obvious who the real problem editor is. His misuse of this noticeboard is just another example of his frequent bullying tactics. Afterwriting (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This report is not formed correctly: no evidence of 3RR violation as it is. Should be filed properly or closed... Doc9871 (talk) 08:44, 27 July 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. Two of the diffs presented are ten days old. Courcelles (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note - The filer of this report was subsequently blocked for 3 months as a sockpuppet of User:BrianBeahr. Doc9871 (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ariana310 reported by User:119.73.1.34 (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ariana310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

• 1st revert: [14]
• 2nd revert: [15]
• 3rd revert: [16]
• 4th revert: [17]
• 5th revert: [18]
• 6th revert: [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Hi, I made a small change in Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military and provided reliable source as well as explained my reasons at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign_relations_and_military then Ariana310 (talk · contribs) appeared and started replying in a rude tone, deleting my sourced edits and calling me a pro-Pakistani POV pusher everywhere. Ariana310 violated 3rr after I warned her and refuse to stop deleting sourced content.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

119.73.1.34 has already made the same complaint in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trouble_with_user_Ariana301. I am copying my response:

It's not only me who finds 119.73.1.34's edits as POV and confusion, but other users too agree with me on the same point. Here, here, and here, reverts by two different users User:Begoon and User:John.

119.73.1.34 is overly-emphasizing on Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, while skipping and ignoring more important and healthier relations with other countries. He/She is trying to show off the Afghan-Pak relations to be friendly and without any tension, and is relying purely on one-sided and unreliable sources. A wikipedia article should have a balanced approach; we cannot focus solely on a single country.

I have added reliable sources for the reverts I made and for which there weren't any prior references: in here and here. The rest of my edits were removal of pure POV, for example in here.

I would also ask 119.73.1.34 to show exactly where have I made personal attacks on him/her in Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign_relations_and_military. Ariana (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310, the section is fine the way I edited the Afghan-Pak relations and you may add as much as you want about the relations of other countries. Afghanistan's relations are more with Pakistan than any other country so that's why it is the way it is in the section. Afghan President often says that Afghanistan and Pakistan are inseparable, and he speaks for the nation. Relations between two are not determined by others, they are determined by what the government of these 2 nations state on their official websites. I don't need to further explain all this you can do your own searches, as a matter of fact that is what Afghan government say and you delete their website. That is Afghanistan's official foreign ministry's website you keep deleting. The ruling people of Afghanistan are Pakhtuns and they view Pakistan as their second country because 28 million Pakhtuns make up Pakistan. The capital of Pakistan sits inside Pakhtun territory even thought it is not considered part of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Punjab. It at least tells you that Islamabad, the cultural capital of Pakistan, has heavy Pakhtun influence.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid most of the above is your personal POV. Of course, both governments put friendly texts on their website, but what is important is what the media says. And I provided a reliable scholarly reference on the issue of the long-lasting tension between Afghanistan & Pakistan from the Journal of International Affairs of the Columbia University (here where is says: "Since 1947, serious differences and tensions have existed between the two respective governments at various phases of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations."), but you removed the whole sentence along with its reference: Here. Ariana (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - "Do not continue a dispute on this page." The last two posts especially are related to content, which should be discussed at the appropriate talk pages. Was 3RR violated here by either editor? That question is why you two are at this board. Be patient and let it be processed; and "talk it out" elsewhere, please... Doc9871 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the above comment - this content dispute has been spread across ANI, here, my talk page (a bit), and the article talk page. Please consider WP:3O or WP:DR if you really, really can't just work it out on the article talk page. Recommend a bit of calm, a lot of respect for others' points of view, closing this and pursuing better avenues to resolve the dispute.  Begoon^talk 11:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I closed the ANI thread. It's clearly a content dispute, and any administrative action would be more appropriately considered here. I endorse the above comments by Doc9871 and Begoon. In particular WP:3O appears to be an excellent suggestion. TFOWR 12:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I filed this report because Ariana310 violated 3rr. Let's just focus on that please.119.73.8.27 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Result - Submitter blocked for one year as a sock of NisarKand (talk · contribs) per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed shahi. This is one of two 3RR reports filed by the same IP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Darth007 reported by User:SoWhy (Result:Warned, and will monitor )

Page: HTC Desire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darth007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Note: User has indicated that they are well aware of WP:EW.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On user's talk page, by multiple users, see User_talk:Darth007#HTC_Desire

Comments:

As an involved user, I cannot sanction this user myself but their tiresome reverts to a copyrighted image violating WP:NFCC#1 have to stop one way or another. A block might not be necessary at this stage but review by an uninvolved administrator, maybe with an "official" warning, should be helpful in this situation. Regards SoWhy 10:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Hasn't reverted four times within a 24-hour period, but formal, template warning left as an uninvolved administrator. Courcelles (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:SwordBrethren reported by WuhWuzDat (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Elizabeth I of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 22:48, 22 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ About the increased severity of persecution of Catholics")

1. 22:37, 26 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")
2. 00:48, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")
3. 17:45, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")
4. 17:51, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */")

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of previous warning here

—WuhWuzDat 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Mb: 48h; Bi: 24h)

Page: Art student scam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

• 1st revert: [29] 16:58, July 26, 2010
• 2nd revert: [30] 17:13, July 26, 2010
• 3rd revert: [31] 11:43, July 27, 2010
• 4th revert: [32] 12:07, July 27, 2010

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:

At Talk:Art student scam#Binksternet's version of the article, and below that, I state that I came to the article from a post at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where I had seen a question about a magazine article written by Christopher Ketcham. I looked him up and determined that Ketcham is quite notable, having published in a wide swath of mainstream magazines. Another editor there thought Ketcham deserved his own Wikipedia biography—he was that accomplished. I went to the Art student scam article and brought the Ketcham piece into the text, adjusting what was already written to include his conclusions.

This is where User:Mbz1 began the string of four total reversions, each time taking out the Ketcham piece. I started a talk page discussion but Mbz1 did not take part in it. Instead, Mbz1 began a poll asking other editors whether the article should return to the condition it was in before I arrived. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Users MBZ1 and others appear to be ganging up to whitewash the article of references to Israel described in detail in sources that have been determined to be reliable. MBZ1 also reverted the revision of RomaC.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." Both editors were edit warring. Protection may be needed but both should suffer the same consequences if ti is deemed appropriate.

Reversions by Binksternet:

1. 23:57, 26 July 2010 (edit summary: "Restoring the Ketcham piece as very reliable journalism")
2. 00:11, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "Restoring my version as it addresses both possibilities, that the Israeli art scam may be a spy ring, and that it may be a simple scam.")
3. 00:39, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 375643734 by Mbz1 (talk) I see no consensus among involved editors. Can you point out how you arrived at that conclusion?")
4. 18:45, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "Restoring per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive")

—Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1

1. The article in question undergone a deletion request and was kept as no consensus with the condition of removing POV.
2. The discussion on the article is ongoing here So far 6 editors voted to keep an old version, and only 2 to re-write it.
3. Here I asked to wait with doing major changes to the article until the votes is closed according to BOLD, revert, discuss.
4. There are many POV issues and the sourcing in the revised version.Here's only one example: "Fox News Channel included aspects of the scandal in a series discussing potential Israeli espionage in the United States. These included allegations that Israeli agents had also penetrated military bases and other government offices" The reference given to that statement is like that: Carl Cameron (December 11, 2001). Special Report with Brit Hume (Television). Fox News Channel. Event occurs at 2:10.</ref> , linked only to Wikipedia articles, and not to the program itself. I could provide more of the problems by request --Mbz1 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked There is clear evidence both editors edit-warred and that they were the primary edit warriors on this article. However, Mbz1 has a much more prolific block log, so I blocked him for forty-eight hours, while only blocking Binksternet for twenty-four. I think if these two can quit claiming various ArbCom cases support their edit warring and realize what they're doing is simply... well... edit-warring, this can be resolved amicably. Okay, probably not, but I'll give them a chance. Subsequent blocks/sanctions will, obviously, be significantly greater, especially for Mbz1. -- tariqabjotu 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by RomaC User:Binksternet tried to bring some policy-based sense to an article basically being managed by a team of editors. As things heated up, Binksternet tried to reason with Mbz1 on his Talk page. Mbz1 deleted the comments with a "not interested" summary. Mbz1 then turned on Binksternet on the article Talk[35], notched several drive-by endorsements from comrades, then reverted to a weeks-old version of the article. He was reverted by two different editors. Clearly Mbz1 was the disruptive and uncommunicative editor here, we should not allow him to drag down another editor. RomaC ^TALK 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I dragged nobody, I was dragged to this board by another user, and I not even complain about them in my statement.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Shuki

I don't understand why the different treatment here. Besides that Mbz1 was editing according to consensus, Binksternet is a supposedly veteran editor was blocked 2 times for edit warring before this one. Edit war is an edit war. --Shuki (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Preciseaccuracy

Apparently, MBZ1 has been blocked between 7-9 times in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz1#Blocked Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Do not count my blocks, better see what positive, if any, contributions you have done on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry reported by User:Gonads3 (Result: Warned)

Page: 2010–11 Manchester City F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry (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: [40] Blanked whole section.

I attempt discussion here: User talk:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry

Started discussions: Talk:Manchester City F.C.#Squad Numbers 12 and 43 and Talk:Manchester City F.C.#Squad Names.

Comments:

So far this user has failed to discuss this issue in the wider community to gain concensus. I've tried my best to settle this through discussion, without biting, but consider it a failure. The main Manchester City article has these types of change reverted almost immediately by many others (including myself). The official source is here [41], albeit a little out of date, but no other reliable sources exist. I believe his video source to be invalid in this case, as it's pre-season. They may well have a shock when they have the ability to edit the main article and try this. I may be in error, but welcome a resolution. Thank you for your consideration. gonads³ 20:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. The discussion at User talk:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry#Alex Nimely suggests this editor is planning to keep reverting to get his own version into the article, regardless of what others think. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mir Harven reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Protected)

• Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mir Harven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mir Harven is engaged in a slow but long-running edit war to censor the linguistic lineage of Croatian, despite all evidence and common sense. He appears unable to separate this issue from his political/nationalistic priorities. The consensus, based on a huge number of reliable references, is that standard Serbian and Croatian are registers of a single dialect, that the inclusive term for them in English is Serbo-Croatian (at least, that is the name we are currently using for the article), and that therefore this should be reflected in their classification. Mir Harven also has problems with civility, since his arguments have not convinced the rest of us, but for now I'm concerned with stopping the edit war. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protected -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerzeykydd reported by User:William S. Saturn (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47], [48]

Talk page consensus supports the inclusion of individuals who have been speculated as presidential candidates in reliable sources in the past six months. The above user continues to remove an individual that meets the criteria, simply because of his POV that the individual cannot run, completely ignoring the valid references.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ariana310 reported by Ali Khan (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ariana310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]
• 4th revert: [53]
• 5th revert: [54]
• 6th revert: [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Ariana310 is disruptive, she is edit-warring with everyone and pushing POV. This request was first skipped so I made a new one.--119.73.8.27 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310 has opened a case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed shahi which argues that this IP is a sock. He is in fact editing from the range 119.73.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) which was blocked for three months on April 5 due to NisarKand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The latter was indefinitely blocked in 2007, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NisarKand shows he has been socking vigorously since that time. I'm looking at the SPI report to see if the rangeblock should be extended. An SPI clerk has given their support to Ariana310's conclusions on grounds of WP:DUCK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reporting user's IP range blocked due to sockpuppetry. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment:This should probably be combined with the report above for archiving. I won't do it myself in case I break something :-)  Begoon^talk 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have closed the duplicate 3RR complaint. Details of the blocks are in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed shahi. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Miacek reported by User:Xashaiar (Result: No action)

Page: Iran–Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Miacek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user 1. I think he made personal attack here in his edit summary by inappropriate use of the term vandalism. He did provide wiki-link to the term he used and hence he should have been aware of the meaning. 2. The user did violate 3rr rule on the page Iran-Iraq War (please see history page. or diff1, diff2, diff3). Xashaiar (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

With just 3 rverts, I did not violate that rule (besides, I think this rule does not cover reverting vandalism, such as your adding Kuwait as combatant on Iraqi side). Xashaiar is a user who has been POV-pushing on this article for years [58].
Although the consensus at talk so far has been that the US (let alone Kuwait!) did not fight along the Iraqis as their cobelligerents, this user keeps propping up from time to time to add the US and the Arab League (and in some edits, also the Soviet Union and even Kuwait!) as combatants along the Iraqis.
In the course of the months, has been supported by a bunch of IP editors (might be his socks, might not be; cf. particularly disruptive one) [59] + plus recently another user with POV record.All other established users keep removing this stuff [60], [61], [62], [63], 80%93Iraq_War&diff=375895692&oldid=375853799, [64].
This is clearly a case of falsification and POV pushing. The users have presented no sources, no information on the US troops supposedly fighting alongside Iraqis in battles simply because there are none. That the US forces defended Kuwaiti tankers both against Iranian and Iraqi threats did not make them a cobelligerent of either side, they remained a third party. Dixi. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What POV pushing when the sources support the addition of US as involved party in the war. Kuwait and soviet union are not my additions anyway. You need to concentrate on the issue. The issue is removal of sourced materials by you and violating 3rr and your PA (By calling a sourced and years old stable version edit vandalism). .. Xashaiar (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Update Only now did I notice that User:Xashaiar is currently subject to sanctions by which the User has confirmed they will abide by 1RR in disputed area, and use process for resolution. He was apparently indefinitely blocked for his disruptive editing, and promised to be more constructive, but has reneged on his promise, so to say. It is up to the sysops to decide, whether to re-instate the original permaban (of 00:26, 18 October 2009, sysop LessHeard vanU) for that account. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that Iran-Iraq war is related to Cyrus Cylinder on which I agreed to limit myself to 1 revert rule. Xashaiar (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. Three reverts by one party and two by the other. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. Xashaiar is not under a 1RR on this article, and none of the recent edits should be called vandalism. If the parties continue to revert without trying to win consensus for their view on the talk page, sanctions may follow. The 'old version' has no special magic. If the consensus is not evident, consider opening an WP:RFC. Use WP:RSN if there are questions about relying on 'conspiratorial' publications as sources of factual information. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Christopher Carrie reported by User:Tonyinman (Result: Protected)

Page: Tolkien family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:
Possible smell of sock/meat puppetry re user Christopher Carrie and user ddgrant2010

isfutile:P (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected two weeks. I deleted the section about Royd Baker from the article, until such times as editors on the talk page can double-check it for BLP issues. Taking out that section has the effect of removing mention of Christopher Carrie as well. On talk, ddgrant claims that the material at poynter.org about Carrie 'extorting money' was actually posted at poynter.org by Royd Baker. I hope others will check this out. Whether Royd Baker is important enough to be in the article might be discussed. (The internet law case is not cited to any major newspapers. If it was a truly significant case, why did they not cover it?) A carefully-sourced version of the 'extortion' dispute might need its own article to be covered in a balanced fashion, but might not be important enough to deserve its own article. Given our limited resources, and the lack of direct relevance of this dispute to the life and work of J.R.R.Tolkien, this might incline the editors to leave it out. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:91.152.84.165 reported by User:Sander Säde (Result: Warned)

Page: Johan Bäckman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.152.84.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Johan_Bäckman#Peltimikko_delivers_false_information_about_B.C3.A4ckman

Comments:
Anon user has a long history of tendentious editing and edit-warring in Johan Bäckman and related articles (Rantala incident, Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee ). He is rather rude, accusing me of lies, "campaining against Johan Bäckman", accusing Peltimikko (talk · contribs) of "constantly delivering false information about Bäckman" etc. His talk page is a string of warnings.
Editor has previously been discussed at AN/I and COI noticeboards.

--Sander Säde 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Editor warned. I see only three actual reverts. While this IP is not the world's most cooperative editor, he does participate on talk and comment on sourcing. I could imagine a block for a week or more if he continues to do multiple reverts in one day. Though this editor often defends a pro-Bäckman point of view, the previous threads at ANI, COIN and SPI were inconclusive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Copperheart0718 reported by User:Paralympiakos (Result: Protected)

Page: UFC 117 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Copperheart0718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version prior to reverts: here

• 1st revert: First
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80] - after this one, I gave up changing it back. It became clear that the user wasn't responding and wasn't willing to discuss the matter in any manner other than "He's American because I say so" after being clearly pointed out to a talk page with sourcing proving him/her wrong. It was only after the final change that the user decided to come up with an incorrect sourcing job.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a diff link, but a link to the entire talk page which is littered with comments by me, as well sourcing to prove it. No such discussion was made by the user being reported, who decided to alter my hidden message, alter the flag and not discuss the changes other than poor edit summaries that gave no factual detail or sourcing.

Comments:

I also reported this page to WP:RPP to get it locked so that editing was stopped on both sides. I did this before I violated 3RR myself. However, the user being reported violated 3RR by once again changing the flag. A poor argument was then made on the talk page for the first time, but this was despite requests for the user to take it to the talk page before making changes, not one then the other. For the first three changes by the user being reported, it was clear that no communication was going to take place and that the argument by them was degenerated into a "I'm right because I say I am" argument, after blatantly ignoring requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Fully protected by User:Beeblebrox. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:93.62.4.207 reported by User:Ophois (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Zhang Ziyi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.62.4.207 (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: Myself and User:Oncamera believe this anon to be a sockpuppet of User:InkHeart, who has been banned but keeps returning as socks and anons. We also believe that Special:Contributions/Yoyuta, an account that was created today and follows the same editing style, is another sock of hers, as well as Special:Contributions/Jenaveev18. Ωphois 01:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Elockid.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ginelli reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

Page: San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ginelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

• 1st revert: [82] 22:36, July 27, 2010
• 2nd revert: [83] 17:14, July 28, 2010
• 3rd revert: [84] 17:40, July 28, 2010
• 4th revert: [85] 17:42, July 28, 2010
• 5th revert: [86] 17:45, July 28, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Discussion topic attempting to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:San_Francisco_Bay_Area#MSA_name.2C_CSA_name.2C_etc.

Comments:

User wants to replace the common name of the San Francisco Bay Area with a government demographics classification: "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area". The common name is by far the one in greater usage. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The San Francisco Bay Area is more accurately referred to as simple the "Bay Area" dues to the fact that the region surrounds several different bays, not just San Francisco Bay. Also, the official designation of the are by the US Census is the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland area. Ginelli (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by various meat/sockpuppets at Sarandë (Result: Semiprotected)

• Sarandë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are apparently several Albanian nationalists who object to the idea that there could possibly be Greeks living in Sarandë. The edit warring has gone on there for several days now (see the article's edit history). I was not involved, have not been involved, and don't care one way or the other, but when a new user with no prior edits suddenly shows up trying to claim that they know what should and should not be in Wikipedia articles, then it's time for something to be done. Semi-protection, maybe, or some blocks against the edit warriors? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave them a level 2 warning for removing my talkpage comments. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Looks to be a short-term problem, so two weeks of semi should do it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. Semi is ok but there are also accounts. I guess we'll have to wait and see if more measures are needed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Norcalal reported by User:Ginelli (Result: )

Page: San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Norcalal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: 08:47, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,117 bytes)
• 2nd revert: 08:46, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,108 bytes)
• 3rd revert: 08:49, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,072 bytes)
• 4th revert: 00:35, 29 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs)(95,108 bytes)

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

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

Comments:

It seems that Norcalal is using intimidating or harassment tactics to discourage me from making valid edits to the San Francisco Bay Area page. He has an obvious bias toward San Francisco and for some reason seems to think that I am biased toward San Jose. I have tried communicating with Norcalal civilly by e-mail without success. Wikipedia should consider banning this individual until he or she improves their behavior.Ginelli (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ginelli (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - As a WP:CAL member, I am familar with Norcalal and have seen his edits. I consider his edits level-headed, mature and beneficial to all the articles he visits. On the other hand, I just reviewed the article in question, San Francisco Bay Area, and see that three other three other editors have reverted Ginelli for the same reasons as Norcalal has. In fact, had I seen the edits, I would have reverted Ginelli too. Ginelli's talkpage is very revealing as well. In this series of DIFFs, Norcalal chose not to template Ginelli by engaging him to discuss the matter.

From this next DIFF, TJRC made the same attempt to get Ginelli to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. TRJC is one of the other editors who has reverted Ginelli.

In the next DIFF, TJRC issued Ginelli a formal 3RR warning.

In this next DIFF, Binksternet notified Ginelli that his actions were being addressed at this board. Binksternet also has reverted Ginelli.

In the last formal warning on Ginelli's talkpage, TJRC warned him in this DIFF about no no personal attacks.

It's probably too late for Ginelli to rescind this section or report, I would urge him to do so and apologize to all concerned. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:80.82.209.127 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: blocked 24h)

Page: List of Leverage episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.82.209.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]
• 4th revert: [92]
• 5th revert: [93]
• 6th revert: [94]
• 7th revert: [95]

The following reversions have all occurred within the past 24 hours

• 8th revert: [96]
• 9th revert: [97]
• 10th revert: [98]
• 11th revert: [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: An active discussion about this has been underway on the article's talk page at Talk:List of Leverage episodes#Identifying multi-parters since 15 March 2010. (Yes, it's incredibly ridiculous) I told the IP that he needed to discuss the matter here, as several other editors have reverted his edits. Some time after that he made his third revert for today.

Comments:
I've only really weighed into this ridiculous situation today, although I did previously comment on 13 June 2010 on the talk page.[101][102] User:80.82.209.127 has clearly been reading the edit summaries so, even though he hasn't engaged in the discussion on the talk page, he has been engaging in discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This IP is the latest in a long line of IP's which, by the editor's own admission, belong to the same editor, who clearly uses them to evade 3RR,edit war, engage in uncivil editing, and to edit against consensus. The Leverage situation was resolved back in March, until this editor waded in to revert against consensus with the first of his series of single-purpose IP's, which he can clearly change at will. Drmargi (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It was resolved until Drmargi started it up again, once, twice and now trice, didn't care to go earlier, all of which came after some time of a stable page. And I can't change my IP at will. Removal of content that is both sourced and accurate is considered vandalism, reverting that surpasses 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.209.127 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree that it was resolved, even if you think it was, that doesn't give you an excuse to continually edit war. As for not being able to change your IP, that's not what you implied at WP:RFPP.[103] It's very strange how IP editors with dynamic addresses (that usually change each time you disconnect from and then reconnect to the ISP) keep popping up at the same pages claiming they can't change at will.[104] That these "different" IPs all have similar traits such as a reasonable knowledge of how Wikipedia works, all continually forget to sign their posts, all make the same edits to articles, and all claim when challenged that they have a dynamic IP that changes but then just as easily claim that they can't change their IP is rather curious. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

These same editors also make the same arguments and use the same argumentation style (which curiously mirrors that of a registered editor) and all claim superior knowledge of Wikipedia despite having little editing experience substantively limited to this one article. Drmargi (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Not considering any changes by other IPs, the reported IP reverted enough times that it was a clear three-revert rule infringement. After looking at the talk page, there is no clear consensus on that talk page to support the IP's preferred version of the page. I've blocked the IP in question for 24 hours; I've also added the page to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor has now moved back over to 64.111.25.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and reverted again, using the same rationale as the blocked IP above. Drmargi (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Leverage episodes has been semiprotected by User:PeterSymonds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:187.21.128.77 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 48h)

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

User being reported: 187.21.128.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:04, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 18:15, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
3. 19:50, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:14, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "see tal k page: they are mentioned on the article --a goddess worship from neolithic to all ancient civlizations")
5. 10:32, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "use talk page before rv")
6. 10:53, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "a bit ironic --iam did use talk page --the stuff i brought to this article comes from many outside sources and from wikipedia itself")
7. 11:18, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "what is the scope of the article? vanish away matriarchy by two men like you?")
8. 11:38, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "")
9. 11:51, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Etymology */")

• Diff of warning: here

First I'll say I'm sorry I did my last revert as I've hit 3RR, something I try to never to do - I miscounted somehow, and it's too late to revert myself as the IP simply went on to 4RR and reverted me after the warning, also warning me (touche!). I've been trying to work with this editor who has been placing badly sourced material into various articles. Badly sourced (eg see another editor's comment [375757973=1&oldid=375742018] and badly cited -I've given the a link on how to reference, which has been ignored. She's added links to pdfs with no author or title, she doesn't give page numbers when asked etc (I suspect she has used Google Books a lot and in some cases hasn't been able to get a page number, perhaps not even seeing the pages). She's added cites to the wrong sentence which she knows but continues to do. She's also upset that 2 men are disagreeing with her, which is a bit of a PA. I don't particularly want to see her blocked, but she's consciously broken 3RR now (maybe if she'd started to cite/reference correctly I'd be more patient). If anyone has a better idea how to get the IP at least to not do that and to use references correctly (and cite them in the same form used in the articles, with page numbers for verification), that would be great. Perhaps someone uninvolved will get further than I have managed to do, but I think there is probably a gender and pov issue here from the edit summary about 'two men' trying to "vanish away matriarchy." She's clearly enthusiastic, which is good.

—Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've informed the IP about this report and explained that if she reverts her recent edits I'll plead here that she not be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote to her and offered help. If she replies, I will help in any way I can. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I give up, she's now reverted someone else and continues to edit. She just doesn't get it. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for her to reply on her talk. Are you concerned about the condition of the article, or is that secondary to helping her get on the right track? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any malice. Just "unbridled enthusiasm", as Kramer once said. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Both. She has reverted yet again, what is she at now? Dab and I can hardly edit it at all today without being blocked. Her actual misuse of sources and refusal to discuss the scope of the article is disturbing. I don't want to see the article protected simply because of one IP who won't listen, any content dispute could be worked out but not if one editor is going to ignore all requests to stop edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I cleared a huge space on her talk with a final plea. If she doesn't listen this time and continues, I feel I should revert her handy work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's that. She edited since my last post at her talk, so saw the orange message bar. She also commented after I first asked her to stop. So, I rolled the two articles back. Sorry to do it. I hope it was an okay call. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:Anna_Frodesiak/Violet_sandbox

• Result - Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. Editor will not listen to reasonable advice. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Guinea pig warrior reported by Bilby (talk) (Result: 72h)

Page: Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 11:52, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376036281 by 139.230.245.20 (talk)")
2. 12:23, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Their can't be "two" Port Adelaide clubs established in 1870. The Magpies weren't even Port's mascot until 1902.")
3. 12:29, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Stop undoing this page. Just discuss this.")
4. 12:36, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "I have done nothing but provided proof. The "users" you speak of are IP vandals and the "few disagreeing" are experienced editors.")
5. 12:48, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Please do not start an edit war. Please discuss this.")
6. 12:59, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "No, this was originally how it was before you started editing on this page. Get you facts right and stop be biased towards yourself with information you make up.")
7. 13:08, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "My first edit was 26 February, 2009. Now well both be stopped from editing this page if you don't stop.")
8. 13:14, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Stop being biased towards yourself. I explained what that was and I have told you over 10 times.")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Ongoing edit war between Guinea pig warrior and Sequal1. The page was protected on 14 July 2010 for two weeks, edit warring returned when protection expired. The user has had multiple warnings on previous occasions ([105] [106] [107]) in regard to this and related pages. — Bilby (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about 'Guinea pig' but Bilby, the accuser, seems to get into wars fairly often. Glass houses/stones/pots/kettles? Richmondian (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 72 hours. The two participants may lack common sense but they are very sincere. Eventually they will wake up and agree on a compromise. Since GPW and Sequal1 have been fighting for a long time, and their actions have required full protection in the past, regrettably this must be a long block. Any hint of reasonableness might be enough for a random admin to lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They are both very sincere, and genuinely seem to mean well. I'd hoped in the past that they would seek dispute resolution, but the third opinion they sought didn't seem to fix things. - Bilby (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sequal1 reported by Bilby (talk) (Result: 72h)

Page: Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sequal1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 12:01, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376073567 by Guinea pig warrior (talk) Here we go again. Everyone vs GPW")
2. 12:26, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376077159 by Guinea pig warrior (talk)You're right, power was established in 1995, Magpies in 1870.")
3. 12:32, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "I've tried, I've provided proof, you havent. I've had a very open discussion with you. 2 other people agree with me. A impartial 3rd party agreed more with me than you, yet you keep on changing it.")
4. 12:39, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "No you haven't! The only thing you have provided is a link saying they split! That means nothing! I've provided you the founding date of the AFL Port Adelaide team, which is 1995!")
5. 12:56, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Stop reverting against the consensus and without WP:RS and I wont. Lets keep this version,the original from before you decided to change it, which nobody but you had a problem with, and discuss it")
6. 13:06, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Your first edit changing history: May 9th, my first correction of history: June 29th")
7. 13:10, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "You stop! You just proved yourself wrong in that link! See the discussion page!!!")
8. 13:20, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "See the discussion. I'm not being biased, I have WP:RS to back up my claims.")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

As per above: edit warring with Guinea pig warrior after protection expired. —Bilby (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 72 hours. Please see my closing comment about the other party in this war. The same advice applies. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:The rev av reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

Page: The Rev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The rev av (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: 17:20, 28 July 2010
• 2nd revert: 18:08, 28 July 2010
• 3rd revert: 19:24, 28 July 2010
• 4th revert: 19:44, 28 July 2010
• 5th revert: 11:09, 29 July 2010
• 6th revert: 12:24, 29 July 2010
• 7th revert: 17:02, 29 July 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Comments:
User is edit warring to keep out an unsourced section template and to keep in a statement of ownership telling other editors not to touch the section. User just came off a block for edit warring to keep in copyvios on another article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:StephenBortz reported by WuhWuzDat (Result: )

Page: Cincinnati Country Day School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 15:07, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
2. 15:10, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
3. 15:15, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
4. 15:15, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
5. 15:16, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
6. 15:31, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
7. 15:37, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
8. 15:39, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")

• Diff of warning: here

User:Lebronfan6 reported by User:Kuyabribri (Result: )

Page: Ron Klein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: {{userlinks|Lebronfan6}

Previous version reverted to: [110]

• 1st revert: [111]
• 2nd revert: [112]
• 3rd revert: [113]
• 4th revert: [114]
• 5th revert: [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None Comments: User insists on adding the same politically biased text that is not backed up by the source given. Has been informed multiple times that these edits violate WP:SYNTH. User has also been reported as a sock of User:Tarpon1.

User:92.32.33.49 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: )

Page: List of Serbian monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.32.33.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [117]

• 1st revert: [118]
• 2nd revert: [119]
• 3rd revert: [120]
• 4th revert: [121]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123]

Comments:
I find it funny that the IP actually suggested that we discuss the issue in one of the summaries of his/her reversions. However, he/she never turned up on the talk page where four users (including me) agreed that a large part of the list needed to be removed. From then on, he/she never said anything in the summaries, not even after I warned him/her. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:OX in the BOX reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

Page: Gabriel Cousens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OX in the BOX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [124]

• 1st revert: 18:49, 29 July 2010
• 2nd revert: 18:08, 28 July 2010
• 3rd revert: 19:00, 29 July 2010
• 4th revert: 19:09, 29 July 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

Comments:
Whitewashing and Deleting well sourced content about homeopathic doctor. (malpractice case, pulled medical license). - MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:76.246.156.86 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: )

Page: Jason Leopold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.246.156.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

Comments:
Apparent single purpose account, making changes to Jason Leopold against consensus. User is not willing to discuss the matter civilly, and has claimed to be Leopold's lawyer. Issue goes back this far. Some sort of admin assistance would be appreciated. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)