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:Cyperuspapyrus reported by User:Oleola (Result: Warned both)

Page: Helder Ferreira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cyperuspapyrus (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] He uncivil insulted me so I refuse the conversation with him.

Comments:

I removed rubbish and unreferenced info, and the way this guy is acting is below any decency. Oleola (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, but this edit suggests that Cyperuspapyrus has given up the fight. Since Oleola is continuing to revert well past 3RR, attention now switches to him. I've asking him to promise to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: Warned. Per a comment on my talk page, Oleola has agreed to take a break from editing this article for seven days. We are trusting that Cyperuspapyrus has also got the message about edit warring. If not, further action may follow. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mattyjacky/User:18.252.5.59 reported by User:Medeis (Result: Protected)

Page: Chinaman (term) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mattyjacky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18.252.5.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

these are a continuation of the same edits by the IP user:

• 1 [12]
• 2 [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• IP: [14]
• Registered User:[15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See comments here and here.

Note that the registered user carries on the IP user's arguments on the talk page, indicating their identity.

Please note that these edits are apparently part of a web campaign to pursue a POV at wikipedia ("the battlefield has shifted to wikipedia. Need help") described in this ANI report. (Since these pages have been deleted, I cannot provide diffs.) Assuming the IP user is involved I suggest that should be taken into account for any sanctions.

Comments:

Please also note the user's blatant willful vandalism of this very AN3 page [16]. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• If this article is, as you indicated, part of the web campaign, semi-protection may be called for here in addition to or instead of sanctions to the reported editors. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been other edits to that page adding material from the deleted pages addressed at the ANI report above [17]. I do not oppose semi protection of Chinaman (term) in addition to strong sanctions, which are clearly warranted given the user's multiple edits with two different single purpose accounts to avoid 3RR and his carefully premeditated vandalism of this very AN3 report. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Medeis's report was faulty. I planed to use his/her report as a template and add a new one. As a new user, I am in the process of being more familiar with wikipedia policies. I will take responsibilities of having revised his/her report by fault. The user Medeis has conducted many personal attacks and made above-mentioned false accusations. I have indicated on the discussion page that I agree that it is counterproductive to argue with you indefinitely. I'd like to raise this to a third party evaluation. Mattyjacky (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC). From the 3rd reverting rule, both Medeis and I were involved in an editing war. I call for a complete review and a third party opinion on the debate in the talk page. His statement of carefully premeditated vandalism is a personal attack. On his imaginary false statement about the association of my ID and the IP address. This can be easily disproved by administrative board by checking the log. Thanks. Mattyjacky (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

For a "new user" (who has indeed had two single use accounts in less than two days, the second being formed immediately after the first had garnered several warnings) Mattyjacky is very familiar with the use of templates, language such as "NPOV" and "personal attacks", etc.

Regardless, Mattyjacky was warned, and understood the warning given he placed the same on my talk page [18], yet has four reverts under his registered name in less than 24 hours. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Medeis made 4 revert within 24 hours

1rd [19]

2nd [20]

3rd [21]

4th [22]

Thanks for your compliment about me not being a new user and thanks for praising my familiarity with "NPOV" and "personal attacks", etc. Mattyjacky (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the talk page and see that the lengthy debate was between the two of Medeis and me.

BTW, the link provided by Medeis above [23] seems to contain a new controversy with reliable sources from a famous university website. He/she has suggested that there was a campaign about trying to include this incident. However, I will step away from that discussion since this controversial incident has never been relevant to any of my edits. My statement here is that in the lead of the article Medeis used biased judgmental language from one side of some controversies that are listed in the controversies session. This seems to result from his/her personal taste of mitigating the derisive meaning of a racial slur. I was just trying to convince him that in describing controversies in the lead, causing controversies is a better wording than without intention, which is the precise statement of the offender (not the people being offended) in these controversies. Mattyjacky (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note, since MattyJacky/18.252.5.59 implies that it is untrue, that the editor is likely one and the same is shown by the highly unlikely coincidence of his same day one after the other appearance on the same page, his seamlessly continued arguments on the article's talk page, and his use of the same idiosyncratic address, "To Medeis:" "To Stradivarius:", to begin many of his comments. μηδείς (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr/Mrs Medeis: I should not let me fall into another editing war with you again. I'll leave the point to the administrative board. You have associated me with a lot of (and ever-increasing) names already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjacky (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected seven days. There is a related discussion at ANI. If the off-wiki campaign resumes after protection expires, we can make a new plan then. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Mattyjacky (Result: Already protected)

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

I call for a complete review and a third party opinion on the debate in the talk page. Medeis's reports can lead to relevant links.

Medeis has made 4 revert within 24 hours

1rd [24] 2nd [25] 3rd [26] 4th [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjacky (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments:

There seems to be something wrong with MattyJacky's diffs. In any case, this edit of mine [28] was the removal of material about a living person which had been removed from at least four deleted articles mentioned in this ANI. Also be aware that while no editor beside this user has reverted my edits, which are based on a concern for balance, among other things, the accusing editor's edits have been reverted by three separate editors [29] [30] [31] beside myself, along with the accusation that my motivation is racism. μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr./Mrs Medeis often makes personal attacks exemplified as above. Please also review this talk page to check his interactions with other users.

Also, Mr./Mrs Medeis is clearly involving in a online campaign, but with an opposite opinion. As indicated by C.Fred, Mr./Mrs Medeis with his awareness should have made this page protected, instead of participating the (counter)campaign and falsely assume that anyone who has a different opinion is from the "enemy". In the talk page, he has indicated that he is Chinese and not familiar with California, this explains his ability to find the campaign link in the Chinese language. However, his racism accusation above is simply absurd and is a blatant personal attack. I don't believe he has a neutral standpoint in editing the article.

He/she had already provided a source of the online campaign.Mattyjacky (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected. See WP:AN3#User:Mattyjacky/User:18.252.5.59 reported by User:Medeis (Result: Protected) for the closure. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Danceking5 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: one week)

Page: Trance music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danceking5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]
• 5th revert: [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38] and [39]: Note that the 4th revert probably came before the user received the first warning, thus the pass and clarifying of the warning in the second diff.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this issue directly (saw it come up on ANI). I do see that Roux has attempted significant discussion at both Talk:Trance music and User Talk:Danceking5

Comments:
Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just adding, WP:ANI#User:Danceking5 is the link to the thread on ANI discussing the multiple problems with this user. I'm trying my best here but my AGF is gone. → ROUX ₪ 06:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week Originally added a 48 hour block thinking it was lenient but I missed his last revert. He's clearly reading edit summaries and his talk page. A week might given him time to think more deeply about both the warnings and the good advice accompanied with offers of help that he's been given. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: 24 h both)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&oldid=430175733

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=430738051&oldid=430719772
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=430787083&oldid=430785043
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=430796162&oldid=430791147
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=430919178&oldid=430805555

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

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morinda_citrifolia#Categories> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

The author, Mark Marathon, persists in trying to establish that a rare tropical fruit is consumed in Australia, without using source material. I am simply requesting his evidence for such a claim, and had removed his material until he provides it. Nothing has been provided to date.--Zefr (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

1)You did not request material. Initially you stated that the categories added no value. Then you stated that the article did not mention that the species exists in Australia or that it was consumed by Aborigines. Finally you actually deleted the sections which stated that the food was consumed by Aborigines, while retaining the information that the species is native to NE Australia. You deleted that section in order to be able to delete the "Bush Food" category tag, yet you also deleted the "Flora of Queensland tag for some reason. Clearly you wanted to delete the category tags for reasons known only to yourself, and you keep inventing reasons to do so

2 The evidence has been provided. As I have noted, there are at least 3 references in the list that support those assertions.

3 It isn't my evidence you are requesting. I did not make the edits that state that the species is native to NE Australia nor that it was consumed by Aborigines. All I added was the categories, which for some reason you are hell bent on deleting.

4) If you do wish to "request evidence" on a topic, you should add tags. You should never delete material simply because you are ignorant of the subject.

Even the use of tags should be sparing. Wikipedia is meant to be readable, not intensely footnoted. The plant is edible, it is eaten throughout its native range. There is really little to be gained by your requests that we list every single group that eats it and provide references to the same.Mark Marathon (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both editors have been edit-warring. Once your blocks expire, please seek third opinions instead of continuing to revert each other.  Sandstein  15:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:rpeh reported by User:Tom soldier (Result: 24 h)

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

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

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:
Keeps reverting infobox to the version without Albert of Saxony, on the talkpage sticks to his belief that "corps commanders do no belong to the infobox", does not respond to questions "Why?". Tom soldier (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tom soldier continues to exhibit ignorance of basic WP policies. In this case, #4 is clearly not a revert - I inserted accurate, cited content as I had already indicated I was going to do on the talk page. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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." In case #4 do not dispute your improving of the Prussian side, I dispute your continuous removal of Albert from the Austrian side, while simultaneously ignoring my requests on the article talk page why a corps commander should not be included in the infobox.Tom soldier (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've answered your questions several times: the fact you never bother to read my replies fully is neither here nor there. You're actually welcoming my addition while at the same time reporting me for edit warring? Please realise how stupid that is then go away and stop bothering me. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you did not answer my question at all. Tom soldier (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I give up. This user has no WP:COMPETENCE, which makes any dealings with him impossible. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The repeated removal of Albert of Saxony violates WP:3RR.  Sandstein  15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

N/A reported by User:Mhym (Result: N/A)

Comments:

There is quite a bit of edit warring happening on that page, with participants violating 3RR rather than discussing things on the talk page. While I am uninvolved, at the very least anons should be blocked and others warned. Mhym (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Hey, would you mind re-adding the report using the template provided? It makes it easier for dealing with the reports and allows the automated report bot to notify users about reports against them! -=- Adam Walker -=- 06:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:BelloWello (Result: 1 week)

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

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]
• 5th revert: [50]
• 6th revert: [51]
• 7th revert: [52]

Comment: there are many more, on my talk page, these are just the simplest ones since he actually hit revert, if I included the others, I would assume the number comes close to twenty. bW 18:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't I have the right to remove my signature?Fountainviewkid 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Page: Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

• 1st revert: [54]
• 2nd revert: [55] - not really a revert, but was done to mitigate previous edit.
• 3rd revert: [56]

Has previously been blocked for 3RR, is well aware of 1RR sanctions on the page. I also gave him an opportunity to self revert which he removed from his page and then left a demand to stay off his page on my page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: all over talk page.

Comments:

Extended content

If someone could please notify him, that would be great. He told me to stay of his page, and I don't want to be accused of WP:HARASSing him. bW 16:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Hey Bello, you're the one who started this edit war and you began Reverting as soon as the procedure went to effect. Anyone who has any questions just take a look at the page history. Bello had made several controversial reverts within the last 24 hours. Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Fountainviewkid 17:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC Then create a report, because I only see one revert. bW 17:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Note Notifications for created reports on WP:AN/EW are fully automated by User:NekoBot, so you don't need to worry about being accused of anything, see here ^^ -=- Adam Walker -=- 16:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC) I just saw that, when did that bot start working? Or have always I been wasting my time by posting notifications manually?bW 16:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC) The bot was first approved for a trial 5 days ago, and is since running on an extended trial until 1 June, after that I believe a decision will be made on whether to approve it or not. There's a notice on the talk page about it. -=- Adam Walker -=- 16:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Note, this editor was previously blocked twice for edit warring, the first for 24 hours, the second for 48 hours. Furthermore, note that yesterday, this editor gamed the system by canvassing[57] others make edits he wanted after he used his 1RR. bW 16:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC) The reporting editor is currently engaged in an edit war where he is refusing to allow the deletion of a post from his Talk page. I posted a sentence I do not want on his talk page, and he keep re-adding it using my signature. I just want to get off his Talk page, but he keeps reverting it and edit warring. If I were to be blocked then he should be as well for even more edit warring. Fountainviewkid 17:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Please note that WP:3RR specifically exempts pages within your own userspace. My talk page is in MY userspace, hence, I am exempt from 3RR on my talk page. You, on the other hand, are not. So now that you bring it up, to the reporting admin, please block the disruption on my userspace. Thanks! bW 17:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Please tell BW to stop using my signature on his talk page. I removed a comment that I posted and I would like to keep it that way. Fountainviewkid 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC) The appropriate noticeboard for that would be the wikiquette alerts. I'm simply trying to maintain the integrity of my talk page and prevent an editor from removing a post which I want archived along with everything else. bW 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC) I redacted the post and would like to keep it that way. I also don't want my signature stolen. Fountainviewkid 18:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Comment The user is permitted to manage their talk page and any comments left on there under WP:TPG, please do refrain from WP:HARASSing the user by persistantly reverting on their talk page. -=- Adam Walker -=- 18:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Wait, so he can keep my signature? I deleted my comment. I don't want it on there with my signature. He doesn't have the right to use my signature right? Fountainviewkid 18:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:TPG#Editing_comments and the Own Comments section. -=- Adam Walker -=- 18:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Okay so basically I can delete, I just need to do it in the proper format and put something like "stupid comment"? Because that's the impression I'm getting. Fountainviewkid 18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC) No. I want it to stay on my talk page to be archived, I can do that. bW 18:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Comment Quoting the page: "Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.", the first level 1 bullet point under the Own Comments section. -=- Adam Walker -=- 18:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC) The answer is no, obviously. bW 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Comment - This sounds like a major case of Wikilawyering where both parties need to be dealt with. Technically Fountainviewkid is deleting their comment, but it first deleted within a minute of placing it on the page. Self reverts are one of the main principles of WP, to say you can't have second thoughts within a minute of placing something on someone's page sounds due to the Talk page guidelines goes against that ideal. The Talk page guidelines specifically talk about not deleting things once they have been quoted and things like that. Nobody within a minute was quoting that item. It sounds like both parties are in the wrong here. Both parties continued the edit war, but Fountainviewkid should have the right to remove a post within a minute of posting it.Marauder40 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC) It's my talk page. Aren't I allowed to revert whatever I want on my talk page? bW 18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC) You mean I can't self-revert Bello? Fountainviewkid 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Sure, but not on my talk page. I'd like to see a source for "Self reverts are one of the main principles of WP." Finally, I am not subject to 3RR on my own talk page. bW 18:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Where does it say I can't self-revert. This seems to be more of a gray area. I've read the links provided but they don't really discuss a situation like this where an immediately self-revert occurs. Fountainviewkid 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC) either way, you shouldn't be edit warring on my talk page. That's the point of this report. bW 18:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Comment If it's all the same to the reporter and the reported users, why not wait until an administrator comments and take it from there, or as stated on the WP:AIV take it to dispute resolution -=- Adam Walker -=- 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Comment It looks to me like there's ongoing animosity between both of you. I have to ask whether allowing him to remove comments he himself placed on your Talk page is going to escalate or defuse that animosity. Based on what I'm seeing here and elsewhere, the best course of action might in fact be for both of you to step back, or more accurately, step away from each other. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Sure, I'll be happy to step away. To be honest the comment in question was "stay off my page". I was asking Bello not to comment on mine as he had asked me to do on his. I then realized this was stupid so I self-reverted. After that he reverted that revert and then we ended up with this. How do we get to DR though? I'm willing to get this over with by a fair admin. Fountainviewkid 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd be happy to go through dispute resolution, but first, I believe there is the matter of edit warring my talk page and violating 3RR on it, as well as violating 1RR on SAU. bW 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

3rr guidelines say "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). As for SAU, you've violated the 1RR. That's pretty clear. Fountainviewkid 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then file a report buddy, get your difs together. I did NOT violate 1RR. bW 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Really Bello? Then how do you explain all those edits adding "fundamentalist" and other changes and then re-adding them? Are you seriously denying you did not violate 1 RR at SAU article? If so the facts beg to differ. Fountainviewkid 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then POST THEM! I did NOT violate 1RR on the article. I added an additional sources. bW 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. You were allowed 1 RR. Here's the first one [58]. Then you made this revert against the wording that had been agreed to [59], There was also this revert (addition) of a controversial description [60]. That was before I did my 1 RR. After I did mine you did then did [61], and [62]. Fountainviewkid 19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

1st one was not within 24 hours. 2nd one was not a revert, it was new wording and there was no discussion on the wording. 3rd one was novel content, that source was brand new as was that paragraph. 4th was definitely a revert (that was my 1RR). 5th was not a revert, it was just saving a reference which you (accidentally, I assume) deleted while deleting something in the infobox during your second revert of the day. Unfortunately, that citation was used in a later paragraph, so I went and reattached it to that section. bW 19:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The new wording was a revert. You changed it to make it sound more positive towards Cottrell and Gladson. As for "novel content", additions of controversial descriptions, especially while being discussed is not exactly following the policies of WP. You reverted for more than once in the 24 hour period. Your addition of "historic Adventist" as a description is also controversial [63]. This was also a revert [64]. I think that makes something like 7 RR in 24 hours. Fountainviewkid 19:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversial does not make a 1RR violation. The new wording was NOT a revert as it was novel content. The addition of "conservative" to the infobox was novel, and had never been done before. It is also supported by numerous sources in the article. The final one was consecutive with the previous revert. As you know, consecutive reverts count as one. bW 19:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a 1 RR violation. You had previously tried to add "historic Adventist" at an earlier time. It was removed. You then just recently "reverted" by re-adding it in. Additionally you've been engaging in quite a bit of wikilawyering. Fountainviewkid 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a dif to where I previously added "historic" in parenthesis to the infobox. I certainly do NOT remember that. bW 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The edits at 15:53 and 16:19 on Southern Adventist University are clear reverts, no grey at all. The display on BW's talk page is simply appalling behavior for both parties. I have blocked FVW for a week. I think it is time to stop playing games. Kuru (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome reported by User:129.33.19.254 (Result: )

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

User being reported: Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 01:51, 27 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 429440836 by 129.33.19.254 (talk)")
2. 12:24, 27 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431131357 by 108.69.80.43 (talk)")
3. 16:34, 27 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431188255 by 129.33.19.254 (talk)")

This user is a habitual edit warrior, and I have had numerous problems with him before, reverting without discussing. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

—129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Omar2788 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24h)

Page: Berber people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omar2788 (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]
• 5th revert: [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] [73]

Comments:

Editor has been edit warring against multiple editors for over a week. O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Editor continues to revert against consensus, and with uncitable images of statues and unidentified people. Has finally engaged in discussion[74], which will hopefully end the reverts. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Erikeltic reported by User:Jake Fuersturm (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [75] and [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80] (slight difference from the first three, as I had edited the formatting in-between in an attempt to reach a compromise, otherwise the content is identical)
• 5th revert: [81]

1. Note: reversion nos. 1 and 2 were posted by a different editor, however the content of reversions nos. 3 and 4 posted by Erikeltic are the same as nos. 1 and 2, and therefore is a continuation of the same edit war, pushing it into a 4th reversion overall
2. Note: reversion no. 5 is an unrelated reversion to the same article as per "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82] and [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84] and [85]

Here's the links to the full discussions diff'd above: [86] and [87]

Comments:

Erikeltic insists that it's not an edit war just because multiple editors "oppose the inclusion of these edits" [88].

-- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)