Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive133

User:71.219.172.174 reported by User:Vsmith (Result: )

Page: Raft River Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.219.172.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

• 3rr warning

• Comments:

User has been slow edit warring on several pages and refuses to discuss their concerns on talk pages although asked repeatedly. On this article some of the above edits were only partial reverts with other changes made. The ip is in the same range and exhibits the same behavior as those discussed here. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:99.243.108.148 reported by User:Ophois (Result:3 months)

Page: Lee Jun Ki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 99.243.108.148 (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: This is the banned user User:InkHeart, who has continuously evaded her block through proxies such as this. Ωphois 04:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

ophois keeps adding unsourced information to a BLP 99.243.108.148 (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note The reporter is in fact a block evading IP sockpuppet of User:InkHeart -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Steinberger reported by User:Literaturegeek (Result: blocked 24 hrs)

Prolonged disruption has been going on on harm reduction related articles, edit warring being one of the primary problems. I also believe that there are ownership issues of articles and POV pushing which is driving the edit warring by one editor in particular who I am reporting.

Here are examples of edit warring by User:Steinberger.

Edit warring on harm reduction

Previous version

• 1st revert [6]
• 2nd revert [7]
• 3rd revert [8]

Previous version

• 1st revert [9]
• 2nd revert [10]
• 3rd revert [11]
• 4th revert [12]
• 5th revert [13]
• 6th revert [14]
• 7th partial revert [15]
• 8th revert [16]
• 9th revert [17]
• 10th revert [18]
• 11th revert [19]
• 12th revert [20]
• 13th revert [21]
• 14th partial revert [22]

• wrongly labels edits as self published Several other examples of this but beyond the scope of this noticeboard.

Edit warring on safe injection site

previous version

• 1st revert [23]
• 2nd revert [24]
• 3rd revert [25]
• 4th revert [26]
• 5th revert [27]
• 6th revert [28]
• 7th revert [29]
• 8th revert [30]
• 9th revert [31]

I issued an edit war warning template, for edit warring on harm reduction.

Then I learn that he is continuing to edit war on another article despite me warning him about edit warring on other articles less than 24 hours earlier.

Edit warring on Blood libel

previous version

• 1st revert [32]
• 2nd revert [33]
• 3rd revert [34] Revert after 3rr warning
• 4th revert [35] Revert after 3rr warning
• 5th revert [36] Revert after 3rr warning

The motives, or at least the justification for the edit warring on blood libel appears to be the advancement of a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the israeli military being involved in organ harvesting. See, Talk:Blood_libel#Defined_as_untruthful.3F.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have concerns that this editor is using edit warring, filing an RfC against his oponent and wikilawyering tactics on talk pages to overwhelm editors with a differing POV and effectively take control of both the content as well as the POV of the articles on harm reduction. He often cites an array of wiki policy violations to justify the edit warring but while at times he is right about WP:UNDUE or WP:NOR I feel that he often is wrong or justifies a violation in one sentence to delete multiple cited paragraphs. I did issue an edit warring warning template to Minphie and he seems to have heeded my warning and stopped edit warring.

One editor has already been blocked for sockpuppeteering.[37] As you can see it is a very abusive editing environment which is why I am escalating this to admin attention. For what it is worth, I am WP:UNINVOLVED. I have never edited any harm reduction articles. I became aware of problems on these articles via the content dispute being brought to the attention of Wiki Medicine Project.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He's made a lot of alterations to the article, but could you please add in the previous versions where the accused editor is removing or restoring content. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous versions, as in content added by one editor and then reverted by him? I can do that. If you mean like a single version that he kept reverting back to, there are several examples of that. The Blood libel is pretty clear reverting back to one version. The other harm reduction reverts are reverting any content that doesn't suit his POV. Often these are repeated reverts of the same content.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I realised you couldn't put it in one diff because it's different content. I was just having problems following what was going on. Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Literaturegeek recognizes that Minphie (the other editor that I was warring with) is soapboxing and is a problematic editor. But instead of reverting, he encouraged me to rewrite his edit and add to balance. He warned me. Since then, the only edit that can be viewed as problematic, was not so problematic if one look closely. I did not blanket revert, I took the most prominent source and summarized it. Most of the other was either misrepresented from the sources or already stated in the summurisation of EMCDDA's review. Steinberger (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I recognised your claims and concerns of soapboxing, I did not endorse nor accuse the other editor of soap boxing. Be careful twisting my good faithed words of dispute resolution against me. Yes he was problematic because he was edit warring. You and your banned sockpuppeteer friend had successfully conquered the article by tag team warring him. He should have walked away and reported you but as he engaged you in WP:BATTLE he was problematic as well. I wanted you all to work out a compromise. I did not know I was dealing with sockpuppets of another editor who was joining you in a tag team edit war against user Minphie.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither did I know that there was a sockpuppet involved. I though that Minphie genuinely tired out rakkar and that FMP was a new chap, although I became curious when Minphie launched his request of investigation and rakkar answered so soon. And Minphie did infact try to get rakkar blocked as a vandal before FMP appeared, the request was declined as it was an content dispute and Minphie was urged to try and seek consensus. Did he try to seek consensus, try to understand our worries of policy breeches or was he insisting on being right? Steinberger (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) That edit you link to Steinberger while not a revert of previously edit warred content at first glance, is still worrying as you are making large scale controversial changes to edits done by the other editor you warred with, a matter of hours after being warned for edit warring. Not exactly the calm dispute resolution type environment and behaviour that I would have hoped for. Anyhow you went into an unrelated topic and edit warred on a different article a matter of hours after I warned you about edit warring and as stated another editor who tag teamed with you has been discovered as a sockpuppeteer, which changes things in that the harm reduction articles have been GAMED and this is more than just edit warring.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aroused right now and have a hard time grasping my feeling with this. I don't feel LG is totally unfounded but that he is overreacting and have put the blame at the wrong place (where is the case against the other combatants?). I hope administrators review the evidence carefully and don't take LG's assertions of me being worthy of a block at face value. Steinberger (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The other editor was warned and did not edit war on any articles after the warning, otherwise he to would have been reported. Warn first, if warning does not work, then the user is reported. I am sorry you see this as over-reacting but the facts are the facts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Then, could you explain what this is: [38]? Steinberger (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is an edit after I submitted the diffs here. I was not aware of it. I would suggest compiling evidence against him here on the noticeboard for fairness. You both are not responsive to warnings. I will compile a report on him later if you don't do it but now I have to go offline to eat and do a few things. Thank you for providing that diff.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked Blocked 24 hours. Too much edit warring, on multiple articles.   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Monkeyevil reported by User:ZacharyLassiter (Result: No violation )

Page: Kalamazoo, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: user:Monkeyevil

Previous version reverted to: [39]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been no communication however I recieved a facebook messaged from this user: Daryl Hutson Daryl Hutson June 11, 2010 at 5:25pm Subject: Stop deleting KWL on wikipedia. Thanks.

Comments: It seems pretty obvious this user has no intention of following 3RR or Notability Requirements. Perhaps some outside input is necessary.

ZacharyLassiter (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR is over three reverts in a 24 hour period, however this user has made three reverts, two today (June 11) and the other May 21. This is not a 3RR violation. I will see what the other contributions are and whether another option is viable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE The 3 reverts were well within a 24 hour period. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

this, the first one you linked to, is May 21. The other two are June 11. I have given the user some strong words of advice on the issue. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MagdalenaPudzianowski reported by User:Favonian (Result: blocked indef)

Page: Gavin Menzies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MagdalenaPudzianowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]
• 5th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

The user is very likely a sock of 68.156.95.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and VictorFlaushenstein (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for edit warring and socking so as to give the appearance of more support than they actually have.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX reported by User:ThinkEnemies (Result: Content dispute taken to appropriate venue)

Page: Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: BigK HeX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]
• 4th revert: [56] This was a revert by removing The survey noted that "as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful." In particular, "support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party." even after tagging it after his/her 3rd revert. †TE†Talk 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57], notification of noticeboard: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]. Linked to section instead of countless diffs. It is the section I started prior to BigK's 1st revert. †TE†Talk 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

This started after BigK inserted a version that was contested and being discussed [60]. It comes after an exhausting discussion on the talk page with BigK showing little inclination to find consensus. After seeing BigK attempting to circumvent the process, I summarized all the proposals into a fundamentally sound addition based on every proposal (on talk page). I then made a plea on the talk page[61] before BigK made his/her first revert. †TE†Talk 20:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the second or third 3RR report I have seen for this article, it is getting regular editors in trouble. I'm tempted to request a 1RR sanction, or put in a persuasive edit notice. Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty obviously, the link marked as the "4th revert" is NOT a revert. It is a new version of the text containing largely elaborations meant to clear up the misleading WP:SYN continually inserted by ThinkEnemies without consensus. Even further, the first reverts were to a version that had consensus to be used provisionally until a new version was achieved. I was enforcing that provisional version of the text, and NOT a version that I personally support. BigK HeX (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to before your 4th revert but after you tagged the content disputes. Now you should discuss the tags and seek consensus on contentious edits. You will see that I've addressed your concerns on the talk page and revised my proposal according. You have made numerous edits over many hours without addressing it on it's merits. †TE†Talk 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the appropriate venue, but I feel compelled to point out some of the issues with ThinEnemies's statement: "After seeing BigK attempting to circumvent the process, I summarized all the proposals into a fundamentally sound addition based on every proposal (on talk page)". Pretty obviously, just creating a compilation of talk page proposals without regard to verifiability and no original research is rather useless. BigK HeX (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Verifiability" and "no original research" was discussed and established on the article's talk page. †TE†Talk 23:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

@ User:SGGH. If you ask me, the problem at the article isn't edit warring of the normal sort, but rather a disruption problem. Personally, I've never seen so many occasions where WP:OR is used justify destruction of edits which are even acknowledged to be faithful representations of an WP:RS. One or two of these edits have persisted even after noticeboard consensus has sided against an editor's disruptive edits. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the prevalence of WP:OR coupled with WP:IDHT is certainly a large part of the problem. (Please note that I'm not accusing ThinkEnemies of being one of the prominent participants in the aforementioned problems. He has been pretty patient and accommodating ... even if mistaken on the small point which brings us here.) BigK HeX (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, hope you don't mind but I collapsed these comments into a smaller space. I don't think an outright 3RR block is viable here, for we may have to block the reporter as well as the subject. I'll close it as such. The articles does need eyes, I'll post on the appropriate noticeboard. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) If I may ask, what are we to do with the undiscussed material BigK added during his/her 4th revert [62], and after [63]. Which I might add, utilizes the same source that BigK mistakenly deemed to be WP:OR when it didn't comply with his/her own original research and/or POV. There is definitely pushing to be seen in his/her diffs. Should I file that? †TE†Talk 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have gone back to BigK's reversion before his/her 4th revert. This is after they tagged the content. I assume it will be a tag-->talk situation. †TE†Talk 23:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't say the source was WP:OR ... I said that particular use of it was OR (specifically a synthesis implying a conclusion not reached by the source). BigK HeX (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You have indicated WP:POINT behind your 4th revert in the edit summary and on separate page. You have actually violated WP:SYNTH, where I have not. †TE†Talk 22:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the collapsed text.

Thank you for any attention you can bring into the various disputed issues! BigK HeX (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lion and Sun reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (talk) (Result: page protected )

Page: Lion and Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: nobody pending review

There's an edit war going on at Lion and Sun, it's not my fight, however I am concerned about repeated removal of large amounts of sourced text, and have reverted to the sourced version.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please warn this user. He tries to add an unreliable source to a Good Article. He keeps adding materials that are WP:SYNT, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I explained enough the reasons to remove the awful edits added from an ultra-nationalist and unreliable source here. But, he fails to get involved in dissections and keep adding OR, WP:SYNT and poorly sourced materialsUser:Pasitigris1|Pasitigris1]] (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• talk:Lion and Sun#The seal does not represent the Lion and Sun motif

Comments:

Note: I've protected the article for a week following a request from Kintensubuffalo (Chris) on RfPP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:ThinkEnemies reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ThinkEnemies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

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

• [65]
  
• [66]
  
• [67]
  
• [68]
  

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

As one can see, ThinkEnemies reported a different user directly above. An admin reviewed that request and closed it with "Content dispute taken to appropriate venue". Subsequent to TE's own complaint being closed that way, TE continued to perform reversions on the article, and they have both continued arguing in the "closed" case. The diffs above show a clear violation of 3RR. I personally think it's time to put a 1RR on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

First, the warning you are using is how old, and wasn't it a dispute only you were involved in? The discussion following that templating from 6 days ago, can be found here. †TE†Talk 23:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Second, aren't you currently reported for something at ANI. [69]? Didn't you template me in an inappropriate manner? Are you somehow attacking me by doing this?

Also, I asked the administrator for advise of what to do with BigK's 4th and current revert(at the time). All I did after sufficient time was bring it back to before BigK's 4th revert and after BigK tagged the content, which was after I formally warned them. I am not edit warring, my revert comes after BigK indicated WP:POINT for their last version[70], removing my text they disapproved of and adding text they approved us from same source they disapproved of. It's clear POINT and was indicated in their edit summary and separate page posting. †TE†Talk 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would you [ThinkEnemies] perform a 4th revert back to your inaccurate version, when you already were warned above that you, yourself, were in danger of being blocked from the edit warring report above? And surely you're not here complaining about the age of your 3RR warning template, when it's certainly no surprise that you were in danger.... Hmmm. BigK HeX (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression you were warned 3 times by 3 different editors about the WP:3RR in the last 3 days. You were saying... †TE†Talk 06:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh .. I merely said that you knew that you were at the hard 3RR limit and then you were even given a warning by an admin about how you were in danger of being blocked .... and then you still persisted in reverting text. BigK HeX (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And I warned you of your 3rd revert before you made your 4th revert. Mind you, there are diffs of you tagging the content you dislike after my warning to you. That shows you acknowledged the warning, and took the next step to have you POV/OR heard. I would hope so, as you've been warned for 3RR by 3 editors in 3 days. I will also point out that I took it back to your 3rd revert, but clearly after your inaccurate tagging of the paragraph. It's like the 4th didn't even happen... which must be why you weren't blocked already. †TE†Talk 07:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 24h by User:tariqabjotu. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Not blocked / stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [71]

• 1st revert: [72]
• 2nd revert: [73]
• 3rd revert: [74]
• 4th revert: [75]

Entry- Photius responded to the practice of certain Frankish monks in Jerusalem who attempted to impose the practice of the Filioque on their Eastern brothers.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:Editor Esoglou is adding outrageous and simply unjustifiable amounts of citation requests after I have sourced my contributions and given citations. Under the justification that the sourcing failed verification, Esoglou does not see the information in sources I have added. Esoglou is engaging in this and other policy abuse behavior. This is making it so my contributions to the article will be removed later on. Removed as justified under the reason of the contribution being "unsourced or improperly sourced" content. Esoglou is refusing the sources I have posted (retagging them as failed verification because Esoglou does not see the exact words in the source that I have added to the article) and I have started to copy and paste content from sources in order to try and appease Esoglou.

This has started to fail to appease Esoglou as well. This example and difs I provided is just that. If an administrator were to open the link to the google books page and actually read the entry. They will notice that I have copied it word for word. Even so Esoglou keeps adding back into the article (really to almost all my contributions in general) the citation tag stating failed verification and requesting that I copy the text word for word. When I have already done that. Since I have reported Esoglou before and nothing was done [78] Esoglou has become even more uncompromising and unruly. Esoglou's appears embolden in their conduct. Which is not hidden nor is it hard to miss what they are doing (go look at the mess they have made of the article, every entry of mine is attacked, reword, deleted etc). Esoglou's refusing sourcing to the filioque article for no other reason than to frustrate and discourage editor contributions to articles Esoglou believe Esoglou owns. Contributions of opinions that Esoglou opposes and does not want to hear.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveMonkey (talk • contribs)

• Stale I don't see four reverts, but he hasn't edited in over 2 days anyway, so even if he had been blocked, it would have expired by now anyway. --B (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Taztouzi reported by User:JamesBWatson (Result: Indef)

Page: Mister World 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Taztouzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also some evident sockpuppets: Taztouz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tazouz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the IPs 86.69.10.62, 82.124.180.207, 79.92.69.15, 82.124.142.48, 79.89.112.223, 86.205.103.243, 212.12.173.208, 82.167.35.133, 90.35.44.217, 80.125.175.197, 92.154.73.143 - there may be more.

Persistent removing of well sourced information and replacing with unverifiable claims. The earliest case I have found of the version reverted to is from 16 April 2010, in this edit.

This has been repeated dozens of time since then. A few recent examples are:

• [79]
• [80]
• [81]
• [82]
• [83].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

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

Comments:
Messages have been posted to the talk pages of the named accounts and all of the IPs which have been involved recently, but there has been no response. Nor has there been a response to the messages on the article's talk page. The page has been semi-protected, which has stopped the IPs, but Taztouzi is continuing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the page for three days in the first instance. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Taztouzi has once again replaced the sourced information with the unsourced information, an hour after you protected the page. Susfele (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Susfele

As I stated on my talk page, the protection was only a quick measure to stop the socks and the IPs - I was expecting someone else to pick up on this report. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

He continues to post the unsourced information, even after receiving a last warning. I guess I will ask for him to be blocked. I don't know what else to do. Susfele (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked Indefblocked by PMDrive1061 --B (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:87.210.232.221 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Pages protected)

User being reported: 87.210.232.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Kiev This user is repeatedly making the same edits - i.e edit warring.

• 7th revert on 12 June
• 6th revert on 12 June
• 12 June 2010
• 17:38, 12 June 2010
• 17:24, 12 June 2010
• 17:13, 12 June 2010
• 16:56, 12 June 2010
• 14:42, 10 June 2010
• 16:22, 9 June 2010
• 11:26, 9 June 2010
• 17:50, 8 June 2010

Page: Lviv This user is repeatedly making the same edits - i.e edit warring.

• 7th revert on 12 June
• 6th revert on 12 June
• 12 June 2010
• 17:36, 12 June 2010
• 17:25, 12 June 2010
• 17:14, 12 June 2010
• 16:54, 12 June 2010
• 14:44, 10 June 2010
• 9 June 2010
• 17:51, 8 June 2010

My belief is that this user has a user-name, but chooses to edit war not logged in. I asked the user "Is there a reason why you are not logged in when you make these edits?" The user says "Yes, there is, but it doesn't have anything to do with this topic, though". See User talk:87.210.232.221 --Toddy1 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This user has also been uncivil in several of his/her edit summaries and refuses to engage in discussion on the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This user continues to ignore Talk pages and uses his/her own unreferenced opinion as the basis for reverting. I have left quite sufficient reliable references on his/her Talk Page, but he/she ignores the issue and simply pushes his/her own POV. It's hard to discuss on a Talk Page when the warring party refuses to carry on a discussion. --Taivo (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

His incivility continues as well. I suspect that he is a topic-banned user editing anonymously. --Taivo (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This guy is completely ignoring discussion and the conclusive evidence presented. --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please do something about this anon IP. --Taivo (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Also edits to languages such as Scottish (English), French (removal of Anvers as an alternative name for Antwerp ??), Belgian, Dutch and American (English) have produced contention. I doubt very much that this editor knows how to correctly pronounce all of these languages. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Pages protected by SlimVirgin. --B (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:EnochBethany reported by CTJF83 pride (Result: 24hr)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Homophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EnochBethany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 05:20, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "Correction and establishment of neutral POV.")
2. 05:45, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "Correction & Neutrality. No concensus will be reached with homosexuals who wish to call the opposition by this slur word.")
3. 05:58, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "addition: Neutrality establishment; Nothing deleted from original. Changing my contribution requires consensus; Vandalism at work on my contribution.")
4. 06:25, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "Restoration of Neutrality. Do not insist on your soap box. Stop vandalizing my contribution.")

• Diff of warning: here CTJF83 pride 06:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Blocked 24 hours by Shirik --B (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Breein1007 reported by -- Supreme Deliciousness (talk) (Result: Protected)

• Edit warring by Breein1007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Article: Vipera palaestinae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Diffs:

Removes "Palestine" while claiming he has consensus for the change while edit warring with at least six different people. He is edit warring with:Tiamut, NickCT, ChrisO, Nomoskedasticity, Roland and me Supreme Deliciousness.

• 1[86]
• 2[87]
• 3[88]
• 4[89]
• 5[90]
• 6[91]
• 7[92]
• 8[93]

• Diff of warning: I have previously warned him when he was involved in an edit war and I was threatened: [94] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Page protected Please work it out on the talk page. --B (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xnacional reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

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

Blocked twice from previous 3RR complaint; editor immediately returned to edit warring after recent week-long block lapsed, altering content against consensus. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked I have blocked him for two weeks. He has gone from 24 hours to 48 hours to 1 week to 2 weeks in record time. Perhaps this will be sufficient for him to discern a pattern? --B (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmedalla reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Indefblocked)

Page: Wayne State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Ahmedalla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

• 1st revert: [96]
• 2nd revert: [97]
• 3rd revert: [98]
• 4th revert: [99]
• 5th revert: [100]
• 6th revert: [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:

• Blocked Indeffed --B (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Kushsinghmd reported by User:Cuchullain (Result:Blocked 24 hours )

Page: Muhammad's wives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Forced conversion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kushsinghmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For Muhammad's wives: Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]
• 4th revert: [108]
• 5th revert: [109]
• 6th revert: [110]

For Forced conversion: Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: [112]
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115] and [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117] and [118]

Comments:

This is a clear case of a user letting his point of view of a particular religion get the better of him. A good part of his edits so far have been inserting material critical of Muhammad and Islam into various articles. Unfortunately in these cases the edits are problematic and he has resorted to edit warring to get his way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Courcelles (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:83.38.89.212 reported by User:Beagel (Result:Blocked 31 hours )

Page: Deepwater Horizon oil spill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 83.38.89.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill&oldid=367934893]

• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]
• 4th revert: [122]
• 5th revert: [123]
• 6th revert: [124]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125], [126], [127]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128] This is the lates one, before that the topic was discussed a number of times (all talks are archived).

Comments:
This is a dynamic IP blocked at least four times for the same disruptive editing on this article (also as User:80.31.248.45, User talk:83.59.244.54, User talk:88.26.26.159, User talk:79.146.111.65.

• Blocked 83.38.89.212 blocked 31 hours for blatant disregard of 3RR- if this continues I'll semi-protect the article. Courcelles (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Minphie reported by User:Literaturegeek (Result: Not blocked / stale)

• Article in dispute: Safe injection site (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Minphie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

previous version

• first revert [129]
• second revert [130]
• third revert [131]
• fourth revert [132]
• fifth revert [133]
• sixth revert [134]
• sevent revert [135]
• eighth revert [136]
• nineth revert [137]
• tenth revert [138]
• eleventh revert [139]
• twelth revert [140]
• thirteenth revert [141]
• fourteenth revert [142]

Edit warring on harm reduction

previous version

• first revert [143]
• second revert [144]
• third revert [145]
• fourth revert [146]
• fifth revert [147]
• sixth revert [148]
• seventh revert [149]
• eighth revert [150]
• eighth revert [151]
• nineth revert [152]
• tenth revert [153]
• eleventh revert [154]
• twelth revert [155]
• thirteenth revert [156]
• fourteenth revert [157]

previous version

• first revert [158]
• second revert [159]
• third revert [160]
• fourth revert [161]

I issue an edit warring warning template as well as to the other editor who was involved.

The other editor Steinberger edit warred on another article after receiving the warning which led me to report him to this noticeboard. He was given a 24 hour block. I would encourage admins to read over this section, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive133#User:Steinberger_reported_by_User:Literaturegeek_.28Result:_blocked_24_hrs.29 to gain some background understanding of this dispute. It is complex.

I then learnt that Minphie did another revert of the same disputed content approximately 34 hours after I issued an edit warring warning.

I am unsure if this reaches the threshold of a violation as he did wait more than 24 hours after the edit war warning before doing the revert but WP:3rr does say that even if this is the case an individual may still be seen as edit warring in such a case, so shall leave it to admins to decide.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Minphie, he has been battling abusive editors one of whom used sockpuppets to tag team edit war and is now indefinitely blocked to WP:GAME the system as well as using sockpuppet account to file an RfC against Minphie. So on the one hand I see Minphie as taking on an article controlled by sockpuppet accounts and POV pushing edit warriors but he himself failed to heed my edit warring warning and did another revert so I am reporting for fairness. So on the one hand he is the victim but on the other hand he is a participent in the disruption. I would like some other uninvolved eyes to look into this and decide what action is required if any against Minphie or if page protection is the way forward. Thank you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have the expertise to know if he was attempting to add a fringe POV to the article or attempting to save it from it, but if, based on your statement, it was the latter and his sparring partners were sock puppet POV-pushers, I don't see what purpose a block would serve. We block to prevent disruption, not to punish good faith users for getting involved in attempting to rectify a messy situation or "to be fair". (Other admins looking at this, please don't consider this to be a decision not to block - just my initial opinion based on the above - this one is sufficiently complicated that it needs more eyes on it.) --B (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Being pointed out as an abusive editor and meatpuppet to the alleged sockpuppeteer (he who received a soft block, as his accounts where used in sequence rather then parallel) I feel I have to defend myself. But, I figure It would not do any good with some verbose answer to the allegations and instead put my faith in the independent thinking of the ones who will decide. However, I am sorry to see that Literaturegeek have become so judgemental, having thrown good faith overboard when identifying villains and victims in this. I genuinely have a very hard time getting around the fact that no one else seem to recognize what an obvious POV-pusher Minphie is. Steinberger (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are the four most recent edits by Minphie at Safe injection site that are listed by the 3RR helper tool:

1. 00:24, 4 June 2010 (edit summary: "Added section on SIS Evaluation - see Discussion")
2. 12:03, 6 June 2010 (edit summary: "Removal of inaccurate statements as per Discussion")
3. 11:30, 7 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverting unsubstantiated changes to text - see Discussion")
4. 01:48, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "Small addition re rigor of evaluations to match the citation")

It seems to me that if an admin decides to close this, they will most likely evaluate it as a long-term edit-warring case. The outcome may rest on whether Minphie is making a good-faith effort to find consensus, or is just reimposing his personal opinion over a long period of time. If he was reverting sock edits, can anyone say which ones they were? Minphie (talk · contribs) was notified of the discussion at this noticeboard at 00:35 UTC on 12 June, but has not edited Wikipedia since then. There is not quite enough information here yet to evaluate this for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my view that Minphie was unable to find consensus because his additions were repeatedly reverted (which he reverted back the revert see above) and engagement on the talk page led to wikilawyering which basically said none of Minphie's edits were allowed on the page due to ,,, insert wiki lawyer reason here. Figs might ply was the sock account, so any reverts of figs might ply were reverting sock edits. Rakkar, was the main account before the sock account was created. The reverts of steinberger were not sock reverts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Steinberger, the facts are, rakkar edit warred repeatedly with Minphie, then retired his account, created a sockpuppet account to continue the edit war and file an RfC ironically accusing Minphie of "gaming" the system, which is hypocritical for a sockpuppet account. Also he never declared that he was an alternate account. I am judging the situation by the facts. The abusiveness that I saw on your part was participating in an edit war to keep out any content on those pages which did not match your POV, participating in an RfC against Minphie despite your own behaviour being at least as bad; your defense or playing down of abusive sockpuppeteering by another editor does not help either. The claim that rakkar and socks were only soft blocked makes little difference, the blocking admin was unaware of the full picture and how the accounts were abused. I accept that you were not aware of the sockpuppeteering and apologise for jumping to conclusions without any evidence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking Harm reduction as an example to illustrate the so-called consensus-seeking behaviour of Minphie. To the first revert of rakkar/Figs Might Ply (henceforth R/FMP) on January 18 there was a corresponding talkpost detailing some of his concerns while he said to happily want to "include the perspective Minphie wants to write" if only those concerns where addressed (mainly WP:NOR and WP:V). Minphie then reverted back his posts on February 6 without some rational or edit summery. R/FMP reverted away Minphies edits again on 21 of February, calling attention to the talk page. Minphie then wrote a talkpost on Mars 1 calling rakkar a "vandal", that there was "no substance to his rationales for removing text" going on to defend his edits, while not really addressing the policy issues raised and reverted back his edits again.

Next R/FMP adds templates to Minphies edits an does some rewrites on Mars 3 and writes a short message where he said that he did so as not to start a edit war. On Mars 7 he removes a unsourced claim. Minphie reedits some of R/FMP's changes, while not adressing the templates on Mars 24 and writes a talkpost explaining and justifying. (Some anonymous editor removes Minphies bit in the lead.) R/FMP is back again on Mars 25 and makes a series of good faith edits to Minphies and his own texts [162] (the preceding diff is notable) [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] and does edits to and adds rationale on the talk page. On Mars 26 Minphie complains at the talkpage and copies from what he had written at Needle-exchange program (it is worth a look).

The day after Minphie writes at the talkpage saying that he will revert R/FMP's good faithed removals although that does not happened until Mars 29 when he also adds to the lead. The day after R/FMP moves the lead edit as it was specific and not general to another place within the article. Minphie reverts the same day, and R/FMP complains at the talkpage urging Minphie to assume good faith. The same day Minphie justifies his revert at the talkpage. Early on Mars 31 R/FMP reverts after saying why on the talkpage. Later that day R/FMP shortens and move text to appropriate mainpage after giving a rationale on the talkpage. Minphie reverts (also while not being inlogged) after writing on the talkpage. R/FMP defends his changes at the talkpage and tries to come up with some compromise. On April 1 Minphie reverts and goes to AIV and tries to get sanctions at rakkar...

Is that enough? It mainly continuous in the same style. Rakkar retires on April 31 and FMP appears about the same time (both are indefinitely blocked, together with a third unused account). I join in on May 17 (Literaturegeek opened a case against me above and I got a 24 h block for participating in this). Steinberger (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In defense of myself I need to clarify a few things:

1. I had thought that only an Administrator could issue a warning re edit warring, and was not aware of Literaturegeek's status regarding the issue. I communicated with Literaturegeek in good faith after the warning was posted. I then went on to revert text, but with changes to my text to reflect anything that was valid in Steinberger's discussion text.
2. Steinberger has alleged above that I have reverted without discussion at times in the past, however I believe that this would be best judged by looking at my contribs page. For instance, Steinberger alleges no communication for revert on Feb 6, however my communication for the revert is on Rakkar's Talk page rather than the article's discussion page. So my reverts are indeed discussed, but sometimes on a Request for Comment/Wikiquette page or a User Talk page.
3. When defending myself on the Request for Comment page instituted by Steinberger and Figs Might Ply, I listed various categories of reasons [169] for reverting their text, which of course are backed by my text on the relevant article discussion page (or User Talk page etc) and in each case these were invalid rationales that had been offered by these users. Where there was a valid rationale I have in every case made IMMEDIATE changes, and there is also a list of these changes, not comprehensive, but solid enough to demonstrate the truth of what I am saying here on that same Request for Comment page.
4. Re the sockpuppet relationship there had appeared to me some previous relationship between Rakkar and Steinberger because Rakkar directly asks Steinberger to take over the edits against my text here but in all fairness I do not know of any relationship between Steinberger and Figs Might Ply.
5. In regards to the long list of reverted edits I have given solid reasons for each revert, which in many cases were accepted by the other party/parties by them moving on from that issue. In others I made changes to my text if there was a valid reason given by the other party/parties. I had thought that this would have removed the label of edit-warring if there indeed was demonstrable progress being made with the article.Minphie (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be true that Minphie communicated with rakkar on February 6. He accuses him of being a vandal and threatens to "take things further". This is the first communication Minphie has with R/FMP and that it would heed WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF is a not on the chart. Steinberger (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All that I would like is for you all to work out some sort of a compromise and come up with a balanced article and the edit warring to stop. Maybe you both could work out a peaceful compromise on the article talk page? The fighting will just lead eventually to topic bans if things continue the way they are going.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protection would have been a great first step, but is should have been taken before I got blocked. I worry that one sided action such as only blocking R/FMP and then me and then protecting the pages, guided by the unfounded notion that "Minphie was unable to find consensus" won't make the articles greater. Minphie will invariably see that as if his edits where perfectly fine and within the word of the policies. To me it is quite clear that Minphie not is interested in discussions, rather he uses the talk pages to announce his justifications and "warn" others not to "vandalize" his "evidenced and well cited" changes. Or how should we interpret that he haven't engaged criticism to his changes at Talk:Needle-exchange programme#Misrepresentation or not engaged in what I have written lately at Talk:Harm reduction#Point for point? Steinberger (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps so, but I wouldn't say Minphie has gotten off scot free. He has had an RfC filed against him, which is generally viewed as worse than a single 24 hour block by the community. With regards to the example of the problematic edit by Minphie, I did acknowledge problematic edits such as this in my submission to the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Not blocked / stale. The user has only edited this page in the last four days so even if he/she had been blocked, the block would have expired by now. --B (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz reported by R.Schuster (talk) (Result: Blocked 1 week)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:South Slavic languages sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Doncsecz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 15:09, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367388319 by R.Schuster (talk) the Resian and Prekmurians languages was the separate dialect of the Slovene, another 30 not")
2. 17:57, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Schuster!!!!! Here ist the Torlakian, Banat Bulgarian and others south slavic dialects!!!!")

Mura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doncsecz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 15:12, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 09:26, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367577582 by R.Schuster (talk) however the Mura is the river of Prekmurje and not the Rovtarsko")
3. 09:48, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "")

Prekmurian dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doncsecz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:48, 8 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Slédnjo večérjo (The Last Supper) */")
2. 08:51, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367380650 by R.Schuster (talk)")
3. 14:59, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367396170 by R.Schuster (talk) The Last Supper and Lord's prayer not words, but coherent text, or else this is comprasion")
4. 09:23, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367577218 by R.Schuster (talk)")
5. 10:03, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367583023 by R.Schuster (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—R.Schuster (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This really isn't an edit warring issue. The issue is that he speaks English about as well as I speak Spanish. (At times, it looks like he is using Google translate or something similar.) Blocking him 24 hours for edit warring isn't going to do anything. What he really needs is for someone who speaks his language to explain to him that his behavior is unacceptable and that, even though he probably doesn't mean it, a lot of what he says comes out as personal attacks. --B (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked Blocked for 1 week by Sandstein for disruption. --B (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rokarudi reported by Adrian (Result: Not blocked)

• Rokarudi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Edit warring by gaming the system while reverting without any explanation or attempt to solve the problem.
• Explained why this edits are the problem due to WP:PLACE and by the naming policy on Commons [170]
• Warned the user of his actions Warning

Diffs for edit warring:

• 1 - Lăzarea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2 - Lăzarea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 3 - Lăzarea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 4 - Gheorgheni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 5 - Gheorgheni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 6 - Gheorgheni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 7 - Odorheiu_Secuiesc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 8 - Odorheiu_Secuiesc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 9 - Miercurea-Ciuc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diffs of edit warring with other users:

• 1 - Odorheiu_Secuiesc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2 - Lunca_de_Sus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 3 - Lunca_de_Sus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 4 - Černová tragedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 5 - Lunca de Sus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While completely ignoring the discussion on related matters.[171], [172]. Adrian (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be nice and add user/article history links when you file these things (as I have now done) --B (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look ... both parties are equally guilty of edit warring, strictly speaking. I can block both of you or you can try to work it out. --B (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not including article history links (I am not experienced in these things, I will be more careful in the future). About edit warring, I do not think that both parties are guilty since my edits are conform Wiki and Commons naming policy and the other party edits "As he thinks is the best". As it can be easily seen I always try to talk and to solve problem(while other party blindly reverts) and never acting against a policy when informed about it therefore the sole problem here is the other user. I have tried to explain this but since he is a difficult editor he wouldn`t listen to anybody but Administrator. Also as seen this user is not edit warring only with me while avoiding any relevant discussion. Adrian (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As another indicator that this user enjoys edit warring and gaming the system (1;2;3 Odorheiu_Secuiesc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - all at this article ) while avoiding relevant discussion [173] again... Adrian (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation I don't advise forum shopping, but the naming dispute is not going to be resolved with a 3RR report - there really is not a violation here. I suggest asking a relevant WikiProject to intervene and clarify the rule as it pertains to these articles. Another option is that there is an arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren that provides for discretionary sanctions for conduct relating to Eastern Europe. (These places are in Eastern Europe, right?) You could open a request at arbcom enforcement that they review the issue. There really isn't anything that can be resolved here other than blocks all around, as I said above. --B (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:207.81.154.64, also using IPs User:207.194.164.93 and User:96.22.215.70 reported by User:ari89 (Result: Protected)

Page: Gospel of the Hebrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 207.81.154.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 207.194.164.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 96.22.215.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [174]
• 2nd revert: [175]
• 3rd revert: [176]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Final warning by an administrator
• Talk:Gospel_of_the_Hebrews#Radical_POV_Changes
• Talk:Gospel_of_the_Hebrews#Fringe_Views.3F

Comments: The editor has received a "This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits" from the administrator User:Fastily viewable here. Multiple editors including myself, User:SpigotMap and User:Eusebeus have objected to the POV edits, and this is evidenced in the edit summaries, and more importantly, the extensive discussions. The anonymous editor has been warned numerous times and has been invited to discuss their edits but they refuse. Instead they have continued to forcefully include their non-NPOV and factually incorrect edits.

Although this is not a violation of 3RR proper, it is leading to edit warring. That is, editors maintaining the integrity of the consensus version vs this rogue anonymous editor.

• Page protected Please work out the dispute on the talk page or seek dispute resolution. --B (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record the what Ari said was not true. In fact he has just been blocked for edit warring with another editor. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The diffs are there lol. --Ari (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:213.185.16.155, now User:Rastakheez, reported by User:Taivo (Result: s-protected)

Page: Azerbaijani language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 213.185.16.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177]

• 1st revert: [178] Removed alternate name for language
• 2nd revert: [179] Started adding inappropriate content
• 3rd revert: [180]
• 4th revert: [181]
• 5th revert: [182]
• 6th revert: [183] (removed hat note as well)
• 7th revert: [184] (IP continues to ignore Talk Page and inserts POV rant that is inappropriate to this article)
• 8th revert: [185]
• 9th revert: [186] (anon IP now has a user name. there's no real question that User:Rastakheez is the same as User:213.185.16.155)
• 10th revert: [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188], further warning of User:Rastakheez at [189]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [190], anon IP refuses to engage in discussion.

Comments:

Anon IP is refusing to discuss on Talk Page, but continues to delete content and adding irrelevant material into article. A hatnote was added to direct the IP to the appropriate place for his edits, but he refuses to discuss issue and simply reverts constructive edits. --Taivo (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP has now registered as User:Rastakheez. This has not stopped IPs vandalism of Azerbaijani language with irrelevant diatribe. --Taivo (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected SlimVirgin has s-protected the article and is attempting to engage the user. If he picks up once his account is seasoned and does not respond, that bridge can be crossed upon its arrival. --B (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Glkanter reported by User:Rick Block (Result: No violation)

Page: Monty Hall problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Glkanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

• 1st revert: [192]
• 2nd revert: [193]
• 3rd revert: [194]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196]

Comments:

The article is in formal mediation that is currently on hold (pending assignment of a different mediator). Rick Block (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation I only count three reverts. Please feel free to open up another request if the user resumes reverting. --B (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

West Germany reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Not a 3RR violation)

Page: West Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: nobody

Edit war, not my fight, please have a look. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Again, don't know how to work this, go and check it out. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

• No violation It doesn't look like anyone violated 3RR. Matthead could possibly be brought to arbcom enforcement per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren sanction #12 "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." --B (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sweetpoet reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: Not a 3RR violation)

Page: Separated brethren‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Sweetpoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]

• 1st revert: [198]
• 2nd revert: [199]
• 3rd revert: [200]
• 4th revert: (added by Novaseminary after the initial posting) [201]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202] I have warned this eprson in the past and this editor has been blocked for edit warring before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203] and [204] and [205]

Comments:
This editor has not yet broken 3RR, but has threatened to and admitted to edit warring and been generally uncivil with this edit to my talk page and several subsequent rapid fire edits to my talk page and the article talk page. The dispute, this time, stems from my removal of one previously tagged sentence as discussed on the article talk page links above. It seems pretty clear that this is the type of assertion that needs a good source. It does not have one. But Sweetpoet continues to reinsert it. And with his third edit listed aboe, he even removed the tags. There seems to be a WP:OWN problem here. Here is Sweetpoet's last block on this article.

Novaseminary (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And another two rounds of incivility with this post to my talk page followed by this entirely inappropriate addition to my talk page in the wake of my posting here. Novaseminary (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to be polite and civil with this person for a while now, but to no avail. I had enough. I normally do NOT go off that bluntly with anyone, but this person has been INSUFFERABLE with me from the get-go, and there's been a build-up, and I simply got tired of it. He deems it as "uncivil" when I was simply telling him how I disagreed with his wholesale removals of factual and established points, and that I'm tired of him and his uptightness. And how his wholesale removal was not warranted. Nobody's perfect every second, and neither is he. He has WHINED about just about everything. Like when I simply tried to communicate with him (in a normal civil way) on his Talk page some days ago. He has problems with that. Even though it was simply to inform him about a certain matter, and maybe if he did not see what was posted on the Article talk page. He questions every sentence, every source (even long-established and recognized ones). I've never had THIS much head-ache and aggravation with other editors (and I've disagreements with others no doubt) as I've had with Novaseminary. I told him that his wholesale removals of things he doesn't personally like due to his pro-Catholic bias is something I would not tolerate.

He complains about just about everything. This guy is a whiner. Big time. (Whether that sounds "uncivil" or not, it is what it is....my apologies.) Yes, I was blunt and candid in my post to him, in what I told him, but within bounds (unless the "eye of the beholder" and "opinion" is what will be gone by...) but so what? Really. There was no cursing, but simply telling him what was up.

I told him why I disagreed with his removing of a whole paragraph, and why I was tired of his uptight edits and ways since the beginning. Second-guessing EVERYTHING I do, making it hard to put anything on this article.

His ONLY goal is to get me kicked off of Wikipedia, for whatever "infraction", real or imagined, or exaggerated. It does not matter. He's had issues with this particular article from the beginning. Even wanting to delete it (until I proved weeks ago, that WP policy supported its continuance.)

This guy only sees faults in others, NEVER IN HIMSELF. He simply does not see how insufferable, rude, uptight, and difficult he is. It's a crime, as one of a number of examples, in his mind to simply write anything on his talk page (even civil and polite things). He's very dis-heartenting, discouraging, and demoralizing after a while. I'm only human, and it's two to tango.

He conveniently leaves out details. Facts about how in the great majority of my posts to him, there's been CIVILITY... (Of course he fails to mention that.) He leaves out his own rude disrespectful neurotic uptightness with so many issues, that I've NEVER (I'm being honest) ever seen with any other editor, to this extent. (And I've contributed to literally HUNDREDS of articles for a while now.)

I never actually "threatened an edit war." I said that HIS actions would cause an edit war. (Remember? Two to tango? He always reverts reverts reverts like crazy himself.) I did NOT say that I would "edit war." I said that an "edit war" would result from his constant uptight actions that I have a right not to agree with. There IS a distinction. Trust me....I WANT NO EDIT WAR... And I do NOT violate the 3RR at all.

I will say that I will NOT write anything deemed "uncivil" to this editor again. As I see too that it's impossible to effectively communicate with him (in WHATEVER manner). I do not wish to engage him in any sense anymore. So there's no worries. thank you...Sweetpoet (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweetpoet, your exact words (which I am copy/pasting verbatim) were: "I'm serious. Another edit war will happen if you do this again.". If that isn't a threat to edit war then I'm not sure what is. After briefly reviewing the pages in question what I see is Novaseminary politely and quite properly requesting reliable sources for certain points in the article, followed by Sweetpoet going ballistic and making very inappropriate personal comments including namecalling ("uptight" and "anti-catholic" both jumped out at me). I'm not an admin, but Novaseminary seems to have done the right thing by bringing these issues to wider attention. Doc Tropics 15:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, sir. And I appreciate your attention to this. But PLEASE do not be too hasty about things....I KNOW what I wrote. Do you know what I actually totally meant? What is the CONTEXT? Nova himself reverts like crazy. And if (within WP's 3RR) I disagree and revert back, then what? An "edit war" will NATURALLY result. BY NOVA TOO, NOT JUST ME. Hence why I say the cliche of "two to tango". (Maybe I should have worded to him as "why start an edit war?", cuz that's really what was meant....THAT BOTH of us would then be in this nonsense, caused and initiated by Nova.) I will NOT start an edit war, or even really engage in one per se. But his own actions (of removing whole sections he doesn't like even though those statements have been factually established and are NOT just "original research", or instead of helping the article by maybe finding better sources, but just deleting things all the time), would also result in "edit warring." It takes AT LEAST TWO on Wikipedia to engage in an edit dispute. And why do that?

I mean, is he gonna dispute the FACT that there are "Anti-Catholics" who do NOT recognize the label of "separated brethren"? Also, I can tell you were hasty in your reading, because you said that I called Nova "anti-Catholic"? Well I did NOT call him that at all. In fact, it seems that Nova is probably very PRO-Catholic. I was referring to "anti-Catholics" in general who reject the term "separated brethren", NOT Nova at all. Hence why I worry that certain editors and admins give too hasty an examination to disputes like this. You said it "jumped out" at you, meanwhile I never even called Nova "Anti-Catholic". But just the opposite. "Uptight" yes. But are we gonna be hyper-sensitive to EVERY blunt and frank word and point? I've seen worse editors than me (trust me I have) who NEVER seem to get in trouble, but are always around. I know this one blunt editor who uses insulting terms like "your windbaggery" to editors quite freely. As an example. Anyway, please like I said, do not be hasty about matters. This guy is NOT perfect either. And that's all I'm saying. thank you. Sweetpoet (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

by the way, I just modified a little bit what I wrote on Nova's talk page... I wrote "I'm serious. Why start an edit war? Because another edit war will happen if you do this again. Caused mainly by you." Again, it takes at least two. And Nova DOES revert edits he doesn't like or finds problems with in a row, a LOT. He knows how to hide his rudeness though, because he won't be as blunt verbally, and he knows how to play the game. He likes to get people he doesn't like in trouble, over real or imagined infractions. There've been people who were very rude and blunt with me months ago on my own talk page, AND I NEVER REPORTED THEM. Cuz overall it's minor petty stuff. Nova, on the other hand, runs to Admins and special pages and brings up their history of "blocks" etc etc, simply to get the person kicked off. The guy is very dis-heartening...Sweetpoet (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And now Sweetpoet seems to be reverting other editors' good faith (and entirely correct) edits to the page in question. Here is the diff. Novaseminary (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

actually, no, I did not revert that other editor's edits (not sure why Nova felt the need to report this too, and second-guess everything I do here). I simply put the word "professed" in ONE of the many edits that the other editor did (where he removed the word "professed" in every single case in the article, before that). I simply put one back in one one of the instances. I know that the other editor made "good-faith edits". And I have ZERO problem with that actually. I simply wrote the word "professed" in one of the paragraphs.

I did NOT "revert" that other guy's stuff actually. Not even manually really. Basically all his edits I left alone. All I did was simply put the word "professed" in ONE of the paragraphs, where he removed every single instance of. And in that one paragraph (the first one), I didn't even touch his other edits in that either...

It was not really a big deal. And bringing that matter up to the report page like this seems more a matter of spite than anything. I did not really "revert" that other editor's stuff. Also, why is every other editor's edits "good faith", and mine not? That's biased. But anything (real or imagined) to stoke the fires against me, in Admins' minds, is what Nova is obviously trying to do.

Why "report" what I did with the other editor if it was NOT a violation at all what I did? See my point?Sweetpoet (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Sweetpoet, when I initially removed the improperly sourced, controversial sentence that set-off this most recent wave, I noted on the talk page that your original research was "good-intentioned." Here is that diff. And to "put one back," meaning to reinsert a phrase that another editor removed, is a reversion. A proper edit war notice board posting should list all recent reversions made by the editor of which the poster is complaining. Novaseminary (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless... The point is that you should not be "reporting" something that is NOT a violation at all. My putting back one instance of the word "professed" (meanwhile all the tons of edits that that other editor did, in that paragraph as well as in the whole article itself, I LEFT ALONE COMPLETELY) was definitely NOT "edit warring" and HARDLY "reverting"...yet you exaggerated the matter as if it was some massive revert war I did...and you reporting this is NOT warranted.

Did you know that the word "professed" was a word used in that very source itself that was cited in that paragraph? So why is it that you say that the other editor's removal of it was "entirely correct"? And everything I do or add is somehow not? Do you even KNOW what you're talking about half the time? (You already admitted on your talk page a few minutes ago that you "don't know much about this topic" etc.) But the problem is that Admins who may be hasty and quick about matters, will make cursory judgments and surface judgments based on the nonsense you bring up, and think it's "open and shut" against me, when honest and careful digging will show that it's simply not.

It's just your opinion that the other editor's edits (though I agree they were basically "good faith") were "entirely correct." You say that mine are all wrong all the time, huh? Well guess what. Like I said, that very citation used the word "professed", not just me. Yet according to you (hence why I say you're demoralizing to me) everything I add, edit, or write, is always wrong. And somehow a "violation" even. Yet because you may not say things as bluntly as I did, you somehow think that you're not disrespectful, rude, biased, clumsy, disrespectful, and unprofessional. You just hide it better cuz you don't use strong words. But the nonsense you do is UNBELIEVABLY wrong and rude. Whether Admins agree or not.

You had no real business "reporting" and spinning the minor edit I did with someone else as if it was some edit war (which it definitely was not) or some big revert war or even a violation. And thinking (wrongly by the way) that the other editor's edits were "entirely correct" and that mine somehow are always wrong. That's how your biased mind is about me, and it's too obvious. Can you see how discouraging and even exasperating that can be after a while?

Why "report" it (the matter with the other editor) as if I did something wrong, and spinning it that way? That's neurotic and spiteful. And BIASED.

And I never denied that it was "good faith" what he did. But why is what he only did "good faith", and anything I do not?

You gave the impression (again leaving things out conveniently and exaggerating things up conveniently) that I carried on some kind of edit war with that other guy, WHICH I CLEARLY DID NOT. Yet that's the IMPRESSION you give. I don't care what your rationale was, IT HAS REALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISPUTE BETWEEN YOU AND ME. I simply was editing an article. With NO violation. Yet you brought it here as if it was. Not cool and not warranted. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as a quick note to both sides, this isn't really the place to continue an argument or discussion. The report has been filed, an admin will be along to take a look at it. If there are other matters that need to be addressed, they can be taken up on the article talk page, or on a relevant noticeboard. This section is already too long to be useful. Dayewalker (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation Nothing resembling a 3RR violation. I count two reverts. Definitely needs to dial back the rhetoric a notch or two or ten ... looking at diffs now. --B (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Warned User warned regarding incivil conduct and personal attacks. --B (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: No violation)

Page: Little Boxes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [206]

• 1st revert: [207]
• 2nd revert: [208]
• 3rd revert: [209]
• 4th revert: [210]

Previous warning by another editor: [211]
User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? blanks talk page, showing awareness of the warning: [212]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

Comments:

Note User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?'s edit summaries, which border on uncivil.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that editors are permitted to revert edits by sock accounts, and Beyond My Ken has had editing privileges suspended in the past for using a sock. It may be worth running a checkuser on him before any action is taken against the other editor. Betty Logan (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Betty, long time no see. Unlike you, my past is an open book. In any case, your note is factually incorrect as to policy, and also irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation - I only count three reverts, not four, unless the "previous version reverted to" that you gave is wrong. Edit one does not appear to be a revert. Edits 2 and 3 were reverts (although #2 was reverting a recent changes patroller who incorrectly believed he was vandalizing the article - that's not edit warring). Edit #4 was a partial revert and an attempt at a compromise - removing only the unsourced trivia. If he continues to revert, he can be blocked, I suppose. My strong suggestion, though, would be to try to work the dispute out - invite the user to the talk page to discuss applying WP:TRIVIA to the article. Trivia sections should be incorporated into the prose of the article if they are meaningful and sourced. If they are trivial or unreferenced, they should be removed. Neither wholesale removal, nor leaving unsourced items in perpetually are preferred. --B (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the first edit, which removed the material, isn't considered a revert, but the other three are? OK, thanks, I guess I misunderstood the standard. Sorry for the trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Usually the first edit is not taken as a revert unless it is, in fact, a reversal of all or part of a recent edit. Technically, any time you remove something it's a revert since, at some point in time, the content had to be put in the article to begin with. But normally, unless he was removing a recently added section or some such thing, we wouldn't treat it as a revert for 3RR. If he had blindly reverted three more times, yes, I probably would have gone ahead and blocked him, but there did not appear to be an intention to revert war here. --B (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rudiwiki1234 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Collatz conjecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Rudiwiki1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [214]

• 1st revert: [215]
• 2nd revert: [216]
• 3rd revert: [217]
• 4th revert: [218]
• 5th/6th revert: [219] [220]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221]

Comments: Appears to be introducing a new solution. I asked the question at the Mathematics reference desk. No answer at this time, but this editor has never attempted to explain themselves, and they have exceeded 3RR. I'd say a short-term block and revert, and see what the Math desk has to say. Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours --B (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Justa_Punk reported by User:Screwball23 (Result: No violation)

Page: World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Justa_Punk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [222]
• 2nd revert: [223]
• 3rd revert: [224]
• 4th revert: [225]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Screwball23#WWE edit warringTalk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment#Entertainment/Post-Attitude Era

Comments: I'm sure you've heard this all before. To me, this is clearly an ownership issue I'm fighting against. I see myself as an editor dedicated to adding valuable information, with references, and I see again and again JustaPunk reverts it for no rational reason. Even the titles and subsections have been reverted without reason. The smallest edits seem to create major upsets. And the responses I get are just not logical: his defense is that I should prove that the information is notable enough to put there. Seriously, I have never heard that before. it really is outrageous. This is deletionism at its nastiest.

I personally don't see how the current list of WWE champions is more notable than this; this is a serious change in the WWE's programming and audience, and people are talking about this all the time at the arenas and wrestling meetups. I have references, and I know the material is notable. I want some help, because I am dealing with some very stubborn and abusive editors.

Screwball23 talk 05:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• No violation Three of the four diffs you gave are from a month ago. This edit summary of your's is highly incivil. I suggest that you discuss the issue on the talk page rather than reverting to your preferred version and labeling those who disagree as vandals. --B (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(The below was posted to my talk page --B (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

This is a continuing issue on World Wrestling Entertainment. It's happening again today. I see this as vandalism, and I know my information is notable. I need some arbitration on this issue because these editors I'm working with aren't even listening. I've had my edits reverted in a matter of minutes without reason. That's gotta be called vandalism.

Please give World Wrestling Entertainment another look. I appreciate your help :-)

Screwball23 talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are the only one who has violated 3RR. Removing something that you wrote is not vandalism. Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than simply reverting to your preferred version. --B (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:84.23.140.26 reported by User:Miacek (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Iran–Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 84.23.140.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff /link [226]

• 1st revert: [227]
• 2nd revert: [228]
• 3rd revert: [229]
• 4th revert: [230]

Note that 4 reverts apply to the name Ronald Reagan he added to the infobox each time, there were some other differences in the infobox, since I changed it in the meantime. The user kept reverting all of this, without engaging in discussion at the article talk page (though he posted something - rather unconstructive - at my talk page).
Please note that while not technically breaking the 3 RR as his first revert was on June 14 at 21:57, and the 4th (the last one so far) was on June 16 at 13:49, this IP is pushing his personal point of view that the US participated in warfare alongside Iraqis. Being aware of the 3RR, he most probably just waited some time to avoid technically breaking it. This is synthesis of available books, as explained at talk. As one can conclude from the discussion thread I started at the article talk page, there definitely is no consensus for inserting the IP's text into the infobox.
Please keep in mind that the IP has a long history of edit warring and disruption, for which he has already served a one month block in Oct.-Nov. 2009. His personal battle to insert the US as Iraq's cobelligerent against Iran has lasted for months already ([231], [232] similar reverts in April 2010).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Discussion at talk page of the article [234]

Comments:

I suggest blocking that troublesome static IP and/or semi-protecting the article. Please do not fully protect the article: by doing so we would feed the anonymous trolls who may end up getting their version saved for some time, regardless of the real consensus. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Fastily. -Atmoz (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Glkanter reported by User:Rick Block (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Monty Hall problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Glkanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [235]

• 1st revert: [236]
• 2nd revert: [237]
• 3rd revert: [238]
• 4th revert: [239]
• 5th revert: [240]
• 6th revert: [241]
• 7th revert: [242]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [244]

Comments:

The first 3 reverts were previously reported. The additional 4 have occurred in the past 12 hours (the last claiming "vandalism"). Following the behavior previously the subject of a user RFC (see [245]), this user has been made at least borderline uncivil comments on the article talk page directed at numerous editors, e.g [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], and proudly declares being found "innocent" following yesterday's 3rr report [252]. I have opened a section on the article talk page for a straw poll about whether a community topic ban should be considered, see [253]. This user has certainly exhausted my patience. Rick Block (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours --B (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: No action, self-revert)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Peter Schiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BigK HeX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 05:29, 16 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "replace cited, verifiable info. No sensible reason listed for deletion")
2. 19:14, 16 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Economic views */ replaced cited, neutral, relevant text")
3. 23:07, 16 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 368464071 by Screwball23 (talk) no reason listed for deletion of cited/relevant text")
4. 23:19, 16 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 368488509 by User:Yworo it is a detail of SCHIFF. The reason given was "IDONTLIKEIT' ... which does NOT trump cited/relevant/neutral text")

• Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Might help to note that 1 reversion followed a deletion with no talk page comment, and no edit summary comment or any other indication of why/how the deleted text might have been unsatisfactory (especially given the preceding edit summary by that same editor). BigK HeX (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I've self-reverted, but I think it is noteworthy that this report disregards an intervening rewrite of the text which seems to have been regarded as significant (at 06:11, 16 June 2010). The reversions listed above are not made in support of the same text, though -- without knowledge of the dispute -- there would appear to be a very large superficial similarity. BigK HeX (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You may want to note that the edit warring policy does not require the reverts to be to the same text. It is the total number of reverts to the article which counts. You could do four reverts to completely different sections of the article and it would be counted as violating the rule. Yworo (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Does seem the 3RR page supports your contention. BigK HeX (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

BigK was reported by me just days ago. This was after his 4th revert in a content dispute and after being warned of edit warring by 3 different editors in 3 days. I can produce diffs upon request. †TE†Talk 01:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Does seem you're a bit fixated on me...

In any case, I did have that one 3RR report and then inadvertantly perform excessive reverts, which is now a situation I have endeavored to correct. BigK HeX (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

One warning [254]. Two [255]. Three [256], reported [257]. You can claim some kind of fixation all you want. The fact is that I wouldn't be here without my watchlist, which is the result of me reporting you for violating 3RR. This was your resulting block [258]. To be fair, here is your unblock [259], and another admin voicing displeasure for it [260]. Like I said, there is a pattern here. One would expect you to be on your best behavior after the last week. Maybe this is a cry for help. †TE†Talk 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There is no admin "voicing displeasure" for an unblock.

In any case, my "best behavior" has been to discuss and, when appropriate to be bold in rewriting content to reduce contention within the bounds of verifiability, and if that fails, to then follow the prescriptions in WP:DISRUPT when verifiable/notable material is deleted. After YOUR block for persisting in an incident despite warning, it is quite obvious that you're seeking some petty satisfaction here. However, unlike you, I make efforts not to persist in the same matter when I feel that a state of edit warring is being reached. BigK HeX (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Something that I appreciate. Thanks for the self-revert. Yworo (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob. My apologies for the trouble. BigK HeX (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action; editor reverted his last change. I suggest that BigK Hex consider limiting himself to one revert per article per day for the next 30 days and make a bigger effort to use discussion to persuade others. His comment above "follow the prescriptions in WP:DISRUPT when verifiable/notable material is deleted" suggests a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Well-sourced verifiable material is *often* removed from articles when there is editor consensus to do so, if it leads to a more balanced article or one that is easier to read. Try opening an WP:RFC when there is a dispute as to whether certain material is important enough to include. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result: 24 hours )

Page: World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 20:41, June 15, 2010

• 1st revert: [261]
• 2nd revert: [262]
• 3rd revert: [263]
• 4th revert: [264]
• 5th revert: [265]
• 6th revert: [266]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [268]

Comments:

24 hour block for subject of report. I have trawled history and can't find any 3RR for the other users involved yet. User appears to have forgotten to discuss before reverting. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is from 04:53, 17 June 2010 and 06:16, 16 June 2010 that the actual 3RR lies. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also worth noting regarding this user is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive133#User:Justa_Punk_reported_by_User:Screwball23_.28Result:_No_violation.29 above. --B (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Truthkeeper88 reported by User:tstrobaugh (Result: no violation)

Page: Ernest Hemingway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [269]
• 2nd revert: [270]
• 3rd revert: [271]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [272]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [273]

Comments:

The article is FA and has been through review. I am in the process of verifying the information the user wishes to add, however, biographers with access to Hemingway's medical records do not verify. Am not opposed to adding well verified information from the best reliable sources, but that takes more than a few moments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 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. I'm not inclined to block anyone here for edit-warring short of 3RR or to protect the page at present: discussion is underway on the talk page, I see, so carry on your chat there like sensible people. Bencherlite^Talk 20:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xyz231 reported by User:SpigotMap (Result: Not blocked for the moment)

Page: PlaneShift_(video_game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xyz231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [274]

• 1st revert: [275]
• 2nd revert: [276]
• 3rd revert: [277]
• 4th revert: [278]
• 5th revert: [279]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [280]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [281]

Comments:
Editor is using socks to evade WP:3RR SpigotMap 22:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This user was previously blocked as Planeshift_rpg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous block assuming this editor and Planeshift_rpg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same person, as suspected in [282]. Tuxide (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Bah, beaten

• Declined Not blocked for the moment. He seems to have stopped reverting and is talking it out on the talk page. If he resumes reverting, please open another request or blank the "result" above and make a note here that it needs to be reexamined. It should also be noted that Planeshift rpg is not banned, but was blocked for his username. --B (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  Comment Planeshift_rpg was blocked for 3RR for 31 hours and then his block was changed to indef due to his username. What is relevant here is that this isn't the first time he's engaged in it. Tuxide (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Studiodan reported by User:Jayjg (Result: Not blocked)

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

Basic reverting (some of these are somewhat complex, but basically restore whatever previous version he liked).

• 1st revert: [283]
• 2nd revert: [284]
• 3rd revert: [285]
• 4th revert: [286]
• 5th revert: [287]
• 6th revert: [288]
• 7th revert: [289]
• 8th revert: [290]

Adding spurious "advert" tag:

• 1st time: [291]
• 2nd time: [292]
• 3rd time: [293]

Adding lengthy circuitous wording to image descriptions under the guise of being "neutral"

• 1st time: [294]
• 2nd time: [295]
• 3rd time: [296]
• 4th time: [297]
• 5th time: [298]

Some of these edits overlap with others, as he will sometimes exhibit multiples of these behaviors in one edit.

Comments:

On May 10 Studiodan (talk · contribs) was blocked for violating 3RR at Circumcision. Since then he has done little but revert wording to versions he preferred, add spurious "advert" tags, or change simple image captions to needlessly wordy ones (e.g. "Circumcised penis" to "A penis that has been circumcised"), using the pretext of "NPOV".[299] He has made little use of the Talk: page; for over a month, from 12:53, 15 May 2010 to 18:07, 16 June 2010 he made multiple reverts of the article, without commenting once on the Talk: page. On 23:49, 6 June 2010, for example, he reverted yet again, with the edit summary Reverting NPOV problems, as explained in talk, despite not having made a comment on the Talk: page in almost 3 weeks. While the other editors on the Talk: page seem to be able to discuss issues, make progress, resolve differences, Studiodan's contributions are essentially all edit-warring or tendentious. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined There is nothing resembling 3RR here. Nobody has attempted to engage the user on his talk page regarding his conduct of late. If his edits to this article are disruptive and biased, then you should seek some form of dispute resolution or even suggest a community ban. Quite honestly, if the above constitutes edit warring, we would have to block almost everyone who edits a contentious subject. Edit warring blocks are to provide immediate relief from disruption, not for dealing with long term issues. --B (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana reported by User:Taric25 (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Rain (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Active Banana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:17, 17 June 2010

1. 03:03, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367530447 by Taka12345 (talk) we would need a source for claims of "first"")
2. 03:06, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "rem unsourced non-leadworthy claims")
3. 03:09, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal Issues */")
4. 06:34, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Comeback */ the "explosion" was a gag obviously")
5. 06:41, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "in need of better sources")
6. 15:22, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367778884 by 193.71.106.79 (talk) goes to a redirect page")
7. 17:41, 15 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368211537 by 24.35.120.59 (talk)")
8. 01:22, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Awards */ unsourced claims")
9. 01:53, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368511791 by 99.243.117.17 (talk) source?")
10. 02:04, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368513259 by 99.243.117.17 (talk) unsourced contentious claims about living person WP:BLP")
11. 11:57, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368572514 by 210.70.69.8 (talk) unsourced controversial promotional material about living person WP:BLP")
12. 16:10, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368605304 by 200.63.165.19 (talk) unsourced contentious blp promotinal claims")
13. 16:17, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368607163 by 200.63.165.19 (talk) WP:V WP:BLP yes we can remove unsourced content")
14. 16:32, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Awards */ thanks for the source")
15. 20:02, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Awards */ as you provide citations THEN you can return the claims WP:V")
16. 20:02, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Awards */ WP:MOSBOLD")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 05:38, 18 June 2010

Comments:

Lengthy discussion hidden

I am a Reviewer (verify), and as I was checking Special:OldReviewedPages and Special:RecentChanges as I was reverting vandalism today, I noticed an IP 200.63.165.19 (talk · contribs) requested assistance at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User: Active Banana. I took a glance and saw Active Banana was not helping the editor and working in the opposite direction to remove content. I offered my assistance and left messages on both their talk pages directing them to a section I created on the article’s talk page in order to discuss it and stop the edit war. Long story short, I took a few minutes to do a simple Google search to find newspapers that published much of the information that Active Banana removed. I urged Active Banana to keep a cool head for the display of sarcasm and to use edit summaries instead of reverting with no explanation. I urged the IP not to focus on Active Banana’s behavior, and I urged both editors to specify the content in dispute. Although Active Banana agreed to be “willing to have the unsourced claims removed from the main page and placed here until each claim is verified and removed back to the main page with its source”,[300], I realized I was dealing with an editor totally uninterested in improving the page (to eventually one day getting it to featured status) and more concerned in playing Wikipedia wack-a-mole and removing good-faith edits in the process.

“ As far as the use of edit summaries, please do not use the automatic summary “Undid revision [NUMBER] by [USER] (talk))”, without writing anything else in the edit summary, which I have seen you do a couple times, or no summary at all other than the section in which you're editing, such as Legal Issues, and speaking of that edit, do you see how this is infinitely more desirable than removing that content? It really took me only a few minutes to find the information on Google in order to add the source. Please do the same, unless you can't find the information in under five minutes, then move it to the talk page. Taric25 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[301] ”

Active Banana’s response disturbed me.

“ Feel free to follow me as I hack trails through jungles of unsourced content; and you can build lovely sourced roads in the wake. Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search" to attempt to find sources for claims ranging from seemingly benign to bizzare. If you do, well good for you!
But, bringing articles into closer compliance with WP:V is something that takes mere seconds and if I do get interrupted, my previous work is not lost and providing zero improvement to Wikipedia.
Thank you for improving Wikipedia in your way, and I will improve it in mine. Active Banana (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[302] ”

Back at Editor Assistance: Requests, I saw, “I have started a topic on Talk:Melissa_Joan_Hart#WP:UNDUE_and_WP:RS regarding this user's edits to the Melissa Joan Hart article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)”[303] with an identical problem with the same user. I also found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#Not sure how to approach this. I also looked into the current open investigation of Active Banana’s sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerald Gonzalez. I ran X!'s Edit Counter[304] and edit summary[305] for Active Banana the same two[306] reports[307] for Gerald Gonzalez and then looked at their contributions, and I ran wikichecker for both[308] users[309]. I found that when one was logged on, then other was logged off, and they were both doing the same type of editing removing content in the same fashion.

I request a block of at least 48 hours and further investigation into this user’s edit wars. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

48 hour ban isn't going to do a thing. 48 day ban isn't going to help either. I've been monitoring this from the outside, and I have to side with Active Banana on this issue. Most of you may not realize this, but many articles related to Korean popular culture has a way of being filled with a lot of unsourced information - most of it by IP anons. Take a look at the Korean wave article for example. These articles are filled with Korean nationalism! It's simple to post uncited information on these articles, and then leave them sitting for MONTHS without any citations. And yet, the thousands of readers coming across these articles will take these uncited information as the truth. It sounds like Taric25 is one of these editors who like filling articles with lots and lots of information, and then wait for someone to cite the information. I for one, as well as many other editors are against this form of editing, as I refer to myself as a Deletionist as well as an Exclusionist. These editing philosophies believe that information should be added to the article ONLY when the information has been cited at the time of the addition to the article. Taric25 does not understand that it is not the deleting editor's job to find the source. As Active Banana has pointed out several times in the Rain talk page, it is the responsibility of the adding editor to cite the information as it is entered. I repeat - the longer the uncited information stays on-line within Wikipedia, the better chance in the information becoming a falsified fact. Groink (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I would like you to withdraw your statement, “It sounds like Taric25 is one of these editors who like filling articles with lots and lots of information, and then wait for someone to cite the information.” I spent my time on the article un-deleting all the unsourced information that Active Banana removed from the article and replaced all of it with sourced information. I have never once advocated for adding unsourced information to the encyclopedia, so again, I would like you to withdraw that statement, because I explained to Active Banana in this article that it is better replace unsourced good-faith edits with sourced information like I did here, instead of removing good-faith edits like Active Banana did here. I myself have created or worked on Biographies of Living People for a while, like the article I created for Miss Foozie, and as you can see, I am no stranger to making sure all the information I add is sourced.

Also, your concept that it’s the adding editor’s job to cite follows the rule, but doesn’t follow the spirit of the encyclopedia. Remember, we’re here to write an encyclopedia, not to play remove content wack-a-mole. Yes, experienced editors should always source contributions when adding to the main space. I completely agree. On the other hand, inexperienced editors with good intentions are not too familiar with all our rules, so rather than deleting good-faith unsourced content, I feel individual edits are much more valuable to the encyclopedia when an editor simply takes 30 seconds to do a Google search to see if a reliable source exists in order to source it. When Active Banana writes, “Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"”, this seriously disturbs me. Wikipedia is not a race, and the fact that Active Banana says “I do not have any reasonable expectation … for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"” makes me seriously question how this editor spends time on Wikipedia. We should focus on the quality of our edits, not the quantity!

In addition, Active Banana is not appropriately using edit summaries. Actually, neither are you. You did not write an edit summary for your last three edits to this page, so I ran http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?lang=en&user=Groink and saw you only write edit summaries for 30% of your edits? Taric25 (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, constructing an entire sentence describing the process of removing one character - yeah, that's productive alright. Yup. Look at the history page for this VERY talk page - you're in the minority, I'm in the majority. I stand behind what I've said before - as long as those uncited awards stay where they are, you didn't fix anything! I recommend adding <!-- --> around all the uncited awards, and let the other editors find the sources - while at the same time avoid them being seen by readers. My overall beef is about readers who believe everything they read from a major web site. Groink (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

08:01, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* User:Active Banana reported by User:Taric25 (Result: ) */ This edit summary intentionally describes absolutely nothing about the edit I just made.") I do not appreciate your sarcasm. Please apologize. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel I'm uninvolved, but I would like to point out that all the reverts mentioned in the past 24 hours were removal of unsourced information, which do not count, per WP:BLP. The last few do have a bit snarky edit summaries, but I sympathize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule also states, “What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.” Remember, no policy or guideline may ever prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I agree that experienced editors should always source additions to the main space. I completely and wholeheartedly agree that any bad faith vandalism should be removed on sight. This is no question, however, we must be welcoming and not discard good-faith edits from new comers familiar with the subject and unfamiliar with our rules. We can do this by helping them become familiar with our ways in a friendly manner for those willing to create a username and adding sources, within reason, for users who do not. If you made what you thought was a great edit with wonderful information to an article only, to see it removed minutes later, would you feel welcomed? Taric25 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, if these IPs are not believed to be part of a general problem in regard Korean articles, then the IPs should be welcomed and warned. I don't know if that's a real problem here, as I've tried to avoid Korean and Japanese articles, (especially Sea of Japan, where vandalism is common.) Twinkle and Friendly allow you to revert an edit and template the user in one or two clicks. Although, as multiple IPs were adding the same information, it's not clear that warning would help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Let me give you an example. In case you don’t know about Wikipedia:Pending changes trial, South Africa is one of the articles in the trial, so because I'm a Reviewer, it shows up on Special:OldReviewedPages when a new user or IP edits the page, and I can review it, because an admin has granted additional user group rights to me for being a trusted editor.

Today, I saw User:Jandotirado, a new user, edited South Africa. I see the editor added the following information.

“ As of baseball, South Africa also participated in the 2006 World Baseball Classic competing in Pool B with Mexico, Canada and United States losing all 3 games, but leaving a good impression with its offensive power display. In first game played against Canada, South Africa even took the lead finally losing in the top 9th inning.
For 2009 World Baseball Classic, South Africa was invited again to participate, joining Australia, Cuba and Mexico in Pool B, played at Foro Sol stadium in Mexico City losing both games, again Cuba first and then against host Mexico, facing elimination and eventually returning home too early. It is expected South Africa to attend 2013 World Baseball Classic, considering 9 South African players (or South African descendants) were in MLB teams rosters as of March 2009. ”

Now, obviously, there's a problem, because the user didn’t add any sources. How do we know if this information is any good? How do we know this isn’t one-sided POV? Well, I know nothing about South Africa in the World Baseball Classic … but Google does. In about five minutes I see that everything this user wrote was totally verifiable. I rewrite it and add the sources.

“ The 2006 World Baseball Classic selected the South Africa national baseball team because they were one of the “best baseball-playing nations in the world and provide global representation for the event”. The Wall Street Journal wrote “South Africa has a long sports history and is emerging as a power to be reckoned with”, although they lost all 3 games. Pitcher Barry Armitage thought the South Africa team rather unexpectedly made a mark in the tournament, "There was definitely the motivation. We turned so many heads. We just fell short of beating Canada, which would have been huge. It was definitely a phenomenal experience and I hope in this next one we can show that it wasn't a flash in the pan." In the 2009 World Baseball Classic, South Africa returned to played at Foro Sol stadium in Mexico City losing both games and returned home early. Major League Baseball expects South Africa to attend 2013 World Baseball Classic, considering 9 South African players (or South African descendants) were in MLB teams rosters as of March 2009.[310] ”

I then leave the following message on the user’s talk page.

“ Hi, I am a Reviewer, and I saw you made a great addition to South Africa#Sports about the World Baseball Classic. Unfortunately, you didn't add any sources, and we require them, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I reviewed your addition, and I added the sources myself. If you need any help, please reach out to me on my talk page. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[311] ”

Do you see how this is infinitely better than me simply removing the unsourced content? Taric25 (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

From Edit warring "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule:... Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. " From BLP "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emph added) From Rain (entertainer) (non-tablized version) Awards Goodwill Ambassador by the Korean Ministry of Agriculture

• Global Publicity Ambassador: City of Seoul
• Berlin Red Carpet Festival- Best Dressed Artist in the Red Carpet
• KBS Hit Chart - Top Albums (Top 1) Rainism Recollection
• HITO Music Awards Tokyo - Best Asian Pop Song "Rainism"
• Asian Television Awards: Hip Korea Discovery Channel (Best Music Program, Best Infotainment Program, Best Cross-Platform Content)

2008

• Bonsang Golden Disk Award
• SBS Mutizen Award (Top Song: Rainism)
• Korea Image Stepping Stone Award 2008 given by the Korea Image Communication Institute

2007

• MTV Asia's 'Artist of the Month' [January]
• 43rd Baeksang Arts Awards: Best New Actor for "I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK"
• The 59th Berlin Film Festival: Alfred Bauer Prize (I’m a Cyborg, But That’s OK)
• Berlin Red Carpet Festival - Best Dressed Artist in the Red Carpet
• 4th Netizen Entertainment Award - Best Male Singer Award
• Hallyu Grand Award
• 44th DaeJong Film Awards: Overseas Popularity Award
• 'Best Asian Male Artist' in Macau, China
• People's Most Beautiful People list "First-Time Beauties 2007"
• Korean Entertainment Business Association - Star (Music) Award
• 2007 Mobile Entertainment Awards - Best Male Singer
• 1st Korean Film Awards - Best Actor Award

2006

• Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People Who Shape the World Award
• M.NET Male Artist Award
• Asia TV Awards: Best Movie Style [A Love to Kill]
• MKMF Mnet: Best Male Artist Award
• SBS Gayo Daejun 2006: Bonsang
• RTHK International Pop Poll Award - Top New Actor & Most Sold Asian Albums
• IFPI Hong Kong Music Sale Awards- Korea and Japan Music Award
• HITO Pop Music Awards- HITO Asian Music Awards

2005

• MTV Asia Awards: Favorite Artist Korea
• MTV Korea - Best Single Award
• MTV China - CCTV Mandarin Music Honors Award
• MTV Video Music Awards Japan: Best buzz Asia from Korea
• Channel [V] Best Single Award
• Channel [V] Music Video Awards - Popular Asian Artist
• Andre Kim Awards: Best Star
• KBS Drama "Love To Kill" or "이 죽일놈의 사랑"
• KBS Netizen Award
• Korea Cultural Content Grand Prize - Music Section
• Virgin Radio Hits 40 Awards - Best Asian Artist Award
• Hong Kong Universal Records - Golden Record Award
• LA City Hall - Cultural Exchange between Korea and US Awards

2004

• KBS Best Actor Award
• KBS Excellence Award for “Full House”
• KBS Drama Awards - Popularity Award
• MBC Top 10 Artist Award
• KBS Artist of the Year
• SBS Male Performer of the Year Award
• SBS Music Awards - Bonsang & Netizen's Best Popularity Award
• SBS Seoul Gayo Award - Bonsang
• The Korean Music Awards 2004 - Best Artist of the Year Award
• Popularity Award of TV Part (The Baek Sang Arts Grand Award)
• KBS Best Couple Award (with Song Hye Kyo)
• MNET Music Video Festival - Artist of the Year Award
• MNET Music Video Festival - Song of The Year Award (It's Raining)
• Golden Disc Award - Bonsang
• Andre Kim Star Awards - Actor Section
• The 40th Baek Sang Arts Grand Awards - Popularity Award (Drama)

2002

• MBC Top 10 Artist Award
• KBS Music Award - New Artist, Most popular Singer Award by producers
• SBS Music Award - New Artist
• SBS Seoul Gayo Award - New Artist
• M.NET Music Video Festival - New Artist
• KMTV Korea Music Award - New Artist
• Golden Disc Award - New Artist

From what is NOT vandalism "Failing to use the edit summary ... Even a brief summary is better than none" From WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." From WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. " I stand by my repeated removal of unsourced overly promotional content about a living person.Active Banana (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined This is a very questionable claim of a BLP removal. It's on the very, very, very edge of what could be argued with a straight face to be a BLP removal. However, what isn't questionable is that AN3 blocks are used to prevent disruption and there is no further disruption to prevent. The user has stopped reverting and the claims are being sourced. Not blocked for now, but if the user resumes reverting, please re-open this issue or open a new one. --B (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User: 68.41.55.171 reported by Stonemason89 (Result: 31 hours)

This user has repeatedly attempted to add his own politically charged commentary to the Alvin Greene article, and has done so four times within the past 24 hours. However he refuses to take responsibility for his own edit warring, instead blaming other users ([312]) and making uncivil personal attacks ([313], [314], and [315]). This anon's tendency to insert disruptive POV commentary also attends to other articles and talk pages: see [316] and [317]. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for 3RR and POV pushing on a BLP. --B (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Darrenhusted reported by User:Wetcloth20 (Result: reporter blocked, other admins may review for possibly blocking reportee as well)

Page: Seven Pounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Darrenhusted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [318]

• 1st revert: [319]
• 2nd revert: [320]
• 3rd revert: [321]
• 4th revert: [322]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [323]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [324]

Comments:
The WP:Plot doesn't state that all articles have to have "Plot" for Plot summaries. Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I will accept the consequences of my actions. Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked Wetcloth20, obviously not someone's first account, has en masse been changing "plot" to "synopsis". While I know of no guideline that prefers one over the other (I don't edit film articles, so I have no idea) and from googling, both "plot" and "synopsis" are used pretty evenly on Wikipedia, repeatedly making this change from a sock or throwaway and being unwilling to discuss it, while reporting those blocking you for 3RR seems to be the definition of gaming the system. It is therefore that I am blocking only the reporter. If someone else wishes to block Darrenhusted as well, you may, but I will not and do not believe it would be appropriate. (Don't feel bound by my opinion - if you feel it is appropriate to block him, then by all means do so.) --B (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Emperorubby reported by User:Dashren2001 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Koman Coulibaly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Emperorubby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koman_Coulibaly&oldid=368836745

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koman_Coulibaly&oldid=368841005
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koman_Coulibaly&oldid=368838227
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koman_Coulibaly&oldid=368846597
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koman_Coulibaly&oldid=368844181

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emperorubby#Koman_Coulibaly_-_FIFA_2010_Section

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKoman_Coulibaly&action=historysubmit&diff=368848121&oldid=368847656

Comments:"Wikipedia would have to stop me..." I think says it all here.

• Already blocked Already blocked by Vegaswikian --B (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Glkanter reported by User:Rick Block (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Monty Hall problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Glkanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [325]

• 1st revert: [326]
• 2nd revert: [327]
• 3rd revert: [328]
• 4th revert: [329]
• 5th revert: [330]
• 6th revert: [331]
• 7th revert: [332]
• 8th revert: [333]
• 9th revert: [334]
• 10th revert: [335]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [336] [337]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk:Monty Hall problem#The differences between the tables

Comments:
User was just blocked for the same issue. Reverts starting with #8 are after the block expired.

Rick Block (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked For seventy-two hours due to repeat offense. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Eugeneacurry reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: moot/indef)

Page: John Polkinghorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st edit 22:17, May 6, 2010, removed part of the criticism section, including: "Grayling argues that the 'superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago' must not be given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."

• 1st revert: 20:01, June 16, 2010, removed the entire criticism section, including: "Grayling argues that the 'superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago' must not be given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."

• 2nd revert: 20:22, June 16, 2010, removed the entire criticism section, including "Grayling argues that the 'superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago' must not be given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."

• 3rd revert: 21:06, June 16, 2010, removed the entire criticism section, including "Grayling argues that the 'superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago' must not be given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."

• 4th revert, or 1st edit of new material (depending on how you want to count it): 20:18, June 17, 2010, reverted copy edit; restored, for example: "However, the Times Higher Education has noted that Polkinghorne has been a source of 'puzzled irritation' for atheists seeking to build a scientific case against religion."

• 4th or 5th revert: 20:24, June 17, 2010, reverted the same copy edit as above; restored, for example: "However, the Times Higher Education has noted that Polkinghorne has been a source of 'puzzled irritation' for atheists seeking to build a scientific case against religion."

Comments

The diffs show four or five reverts in 24 hours and 23 minutes. Eugeneacurry is elsewhere a serial reverter who has been asked many times to stop reverting so much, and who regularly games the 3RR policy, several times resulting in pages having to be protected. Two examples of his being approached about reverting by Black Kite: [338] [339] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that SlimVirgin is being a bit uncharitable here. Both her #1s shouldn't count as "reverts" and, as she herself concedes, her first #4 could easily be understood as an "edit of new material". So, on a more charitable/reasonable interpretation of the above, I've only reverted three times in slightly more than 24 hours and thus there's no violation.

That's a great example of wikilawyering, Eugene. Using the letter of WP:3RR to evade its purpose. T3h 1337 b0y 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been working to balance out what was initially a cricism section so wildly weighted against the subject that it bordered on a BLP violation.[340] I've also been posting to relevant notice boards for advice on how to proceed with this matter (along with posting to the talk page) so it's not like I'm just mindlessly reverting.[341][342]

With all that said though, I grant that I've been a bit over-eager here and, if it would help matters, I'll voluntarily take a break from editing Polkinghorne's page for a week or something. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You reverted either four or five times, not three. This is what always happens with Eugene. He reverts habitually, probably more than any editor I'm aware of. And yet the page is invariably protected, or he offers to take a break from the article, and thus is never blocked, which is why it continues. And despite this report, and despite being the last editor to edit the article, he still hasn't reverted himself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, SlimVirgin. I said that I was over-eager and that I'll take a break from the article in question. I should also point out that insisting on a strict interpretation of the 3RR rule may not be in your own best interests here: You yourself reverted (in the sense that you undid) my changes to that page five times in a little over just six hours.[343][344][345][346][347] So maybe a slightly more charitable take on this situation would be best for both of us. If some uninvolved admin thinks I should revert my last change then I guess that I'll do that. Eugene (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not revert your changes five times in six hours, and I wish you'd stop the games. Every article you edit ends up with this pointless back and forth over your reverting, and your claims that others are reverting too, and therefore everyone ought to just calm down (rather than block you). But you're the common denominator and it needs to stop. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You certainly did revert my changes 5 times in about 6 hours, the links I provided substantiate my claim.

(1) I deleted a sentence on quarks which I replaced with one about the S-matrix; you reinserted that sentence.[348]

(2) I deleted a very specific date for which no citation was given and replaced it with simply the year, supported by a source; you restored the unsourced date and deleted my new source.[349]

(3) I added a statement connected to the T.H.E. related to the ideological slant of Polkinghorne's critics; you removed it.[350]

(4) I shortened some of the criticism and replaced the editorializing with quotes; you undid both changes.[351]

(5) And I once again tried to get the T.H.E statement into the article; you yet again removed it.[352]

That's five by my count: the first was at UTC 14:12, the last was at UTC 20:21 on the same day; that makes 5 reverts in just over 6 hours.

But seriously, why don't we just drop this. I've promised ease up and to play nice and I imagine the prospect of being blocked yourself has likely spooked you a bit too. We've both learned our lesson; let's move on. Eugene (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTTHEM. If you are blocked, it will be because of your conduct, not because of SlimVirgin's conduct. There is also a certain disingenuousness to saying "here's my argument, but ok now that I've had the last word, let's drop it". There is a very simple way to not 3RR - and that's to be willing to let the other person have their way for the moment while you talk it out on the talk page. If you cannot come to an agreement, you can request assistance from a neutral party by means of third opinion or a request for comment. Also, (and this is directed to both), 3RR is not a license to revert exactly three times. Persistent edit warriors, editors who revert three times while the other party reverts four, or editors who revert four times just outside of 24 hours can and are blocked. (I am recusing myself from handling this request. ) --B (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now reverted my last change to the article to show that I'm willing to play nice. Eugene (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to note here for any admin looking at this situation in future that, shortly after this report, Eugene created an attack page on me in the form of a Wikipedia article in his userspace (now oversighted) that he said he intended to transfer to mainspace. Discussion here. And still no block. He is becoming the Teflon man. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The article was clearly not an "attack page", I encourage any admin curious about the matter to read it using your admin privileges (or however that works) and decide for yourself. In any event, that matter is unrelated to SV's claim that I broke the 3RR at the Polkinghorne article; she's merely piling on here in hopes of getting me out of the way so she can "win" in a content dispute on yet a different article where we have clashed. Eugene (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding it here because it was your response to this report, and it typifies what editing with you is like. It was clearly an attack page, and was oversighted, not deleted, yet you said you intended to add it to mainspace. I'm not sure I can think of anyone who has done that in response to a content dispute who has not been blocked indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with what "oversighting" means, but if admins are able to read it, and if someone is inclined to take SVs interpretation of that page on faith, I'm merely asking that they actually check for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Eugene (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OVERSIGHT for an explanation. Admins cannot read it. --B (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. How very Kafka-esque: the "evidence" that no longer exists and which no one is allowed to check for themselves is being used against me in pursuit of a block. I suppose that I'll have to appeal to the Audit Subcommittee for help on this point. Eugene (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Moot. User has been indeffed for harassment on a somewhat related issue. T. Canens (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Gregbard (Result: Not an edit warring violation)

Page: {{Logic}}
User being reported: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

• 1st revert: [353]
• 2nd revert: [354]
• 3rd revert: [355]

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

This editor has had numerous warnings by myself at WP:ANI. This incident was accompanied by discussion at WT:MATH as well as Template talk:Logic.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template talk:Logic

Comments:

Arthur is a tendentious editor. He is committed to his disposition, and very often acts with extreme overconfidence in it. I have tried numerous times to engage with him in a civil manner. Greg Bard 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Greg is a tendentious editor, insisting that, as a philosopher, he has a better understanding of mathematical logic than actual practitioners. He has been known to follow consensus after being blocked. I suggest that he's also violating WP:BRD. (Also, I don't see an attempt to discuss the issue. I brought it up at both WT:MATH and at Template talk:Logic.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait until a consensus can be determined as to whether the redirects should be deleted. I think there may be a consensus that redirects should be followed in templates, although I'm not absolutely certain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this incident shall have risen to a 3rr is 100% a testament to Arthur's arrogance. He demands that things go his way immediately. He is heavy handed about it. I was perfectly amicable to his concerns, but he demanded to go about it in a way that would waste my time and efforts. He is the reason there are problems, not me. I don't have a disposition about Arthur, in fact I've been forgiving on several occasions. I am also certainly willing to wait and see what the consensus will be (and I am not the least bit worried about it). However, I would appreciate seeing the system work, and that sanctions apply to people like Arthur. If he somehow manages to worm his way out of a policy violation, I will lose faith in the system, quite frankly. This guy has been a jerk for too long. Greg Bard 03:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I probably should have posted on Greg's talk page; but my comments still stand — he's shown that he doesn't understand mathematical logic, or WP:BRD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I just want Arthur's last comments to stand as representative of Arthur's mind set. He is very enamored with my intelligence level, level of confusion, competency, etcetera. This is his constant focus, the credibility issues. I have a B.A., Arthur has a PhD. and he is beating up on me?! Wikipedia doesn't need prima donna jerks like Arthur. I am over here making good faith cleanup, in an innocent and decent manner, and this guy comes along and calls my credibility into question? This person doesn't belong on WP. The community should edify each other, not become a shark tank. Shame on you Arthur. Greg Bard 03:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not attacking your intelligence. I'm attacking your competence. I don't think I'm competent to argue with you about philosophical concepts; I don't think you should be ashamed to admit that you don't understand mathematical mathematical concepts.

As I said in both of the discussion fora, if you just followed redirects, then I would have little objection; but you also deleted redirects. Let's discuss content in the appropriate forum at Template talk:Logic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Though Arthur Rubin's conduct is unacceptable, there is no 3RR violation nor edit warring and there are really only two reverts since he mostly self-reverted the final revert. This noticeboard is not the proper location to deal with issues other than edit warring. AN3 is not a step in the dispute resolution process. Arthur should take care to be more careful when using rollback. --B (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • B, I wish you would strike your obiter dictum about removing rollback as that sort of comment usually serves to intensify disputes. We need to get a better understanding of whether there is a bona fide content dispute, as opposed to tendentious editing, before drawing such a conclusion. This board is not the place for such a discussion, but perhaps the disputants would like to place evidence of what's going on at my talk page or some other neutral location and we'll see if things can be sorted. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Done --B (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:99.1.177.44 reported by PageantUpdater talk • contribs (Result: Blocked for vandalism/BLP)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Caitlin Upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 99.1.177.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 12:50, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 20:01, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 02:18, 19 June 2010 (edit summary: "")

Anonymous user has a history of vandalising this page - all their edits are in relation to this person. —PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked Blocked one week for vandalism and BLP violations. If the user continues vandalizing or adding poorly sourced claims that violate BLP, please use the warning templates and make a request at AIV. --B (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiikwajio reported by User:Orangemike (Result: Has not yet edited since spam warning Indeffed)

Page: Independent American Party of Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Wiikwajio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This s.p.a.'s only reverts are to add a section to the article proclaiming that the party's former chair has started a "news service" (i.e., a blog calling itself a news service); and adding the URL for said blog to the article's userbox. 3RR and spamlink warnings have been given. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Declined This isn't really an edit warring - it's a spam one. They haven't edited since you posted the spam warning and we don't usually block users until they vandalize after being warned. --B (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Subsequent to this, he did resume adding the spam link and was Blocked --B (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:71.126.137.27 reported by User: Dayewalker (Result: Blocked)

Page: William Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.126.137.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [356]

• 1st revert: [357]
• 2nd revert: [358]
• 3rd revert: [359]
• 4th revert: [360]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User admits to being [361] an IP that previously has edit warred [362] on the William Green page, which led the page to be semi-protected for six months.

Comments: IP admits [363] to being a returning IP that has edit warred before to insert fringe material onto the BLP about the Kennedy assassination. The talk page is full of previous discussions [364], all showing the material as fringe. He returned today, and although at my urging went to the talk page, he's insisting on inserting the material and not waiting for any talk page consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, Greer has been dead for 25 years. --B (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's three reverts, and it's not a BLP article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: I stand corrected on the BLP, I treat all biographies as such, even though that's not the policy. Thanks for the clarification. Here's another revert from the IP [365] following Sarek's edit. Dayewalker (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

IP was not warned before the 4th revert -- now he has been. Next revert, if any, is definitely blockable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's moot. The user is an obvious sock of a user who is topic banned from this article. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive202#Proposed_topic_ban. Note how both this IP and previous incarnations refer to admins as "gatekeepers". --B (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Striving4 reported by User:Fyunck (Result: Indef )

This brand new user simply will not listen in his systematic cleansing of the word Major from tennis articles. Under Margaret Court he has reverted me 4x in less than 24 hours. I asked him to self-revert and would not report him thinking a new person may not know wikipedia etiquette but he simply deleted it and said harassment. For that reason I did not place the fact about this report on his talk page for fear of his being more upset with me. If someone else could do it I would appreciate it. Now I'm starting to have the same problem with the Grand_Slam_(tennis) article. I hope this guy isn't the return of some previously banned user like User:ShondaLear/Tennis Expert.

Page: Margaret Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Striving4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [366]

• 1st revert: [367]
• 2nd revert: [368]
• 3rd revert: [369]
• 4th revert: [370]

• Probable sock - Most likely a sock of User:Tennis expert, who is indefinitely blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. In these edit summaries: [371] and [372] Striving4 uses the phrase "blind reversion" when complaining about another's edits. This was a favorite phrase of Tennis expert, as you can verify by searching for those words on this this Arbcom case page; that phrase is seldom used by anyone else. The last time a sock of Tennis expert was blocked it was with the help of a checkuser finding, in August 2009. Since SPI is slow these days and Striving4 will be up to 700 edits soon, it may be time for an admin to issue an immediate block based on behavior. The 'my way or the highway' attitude is reminiscent of Tennis expert, and the high volume of edits to tennis articles fits the pattern. (Tennis expert had the #1 edit count of anyone at Grand Slam (tennis), which is one of the articles where Striving4 has been edit warring). The immediate knowledge of pipe syntax by a brand new editor (account created June 6) suggests that he's been here before. If Tennis expert wants to resume editing Wikipedia, he should apply for an unblock under his main account. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked indef as a sock of User:Tennis expert. Striving4 reverted my offer of a compromise from his talk page. Other admins are welcome to review my decision. The actual proposal that they turned down was: "Any evidence that you are willing to patiently negotiate with others might be enough to avoid sanctions. For example, you could promise to stop edit-warring on tennis articles and offer to seek consensus before doing a large number of article moves." EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Logan reported by User:75.47.152.100 (Result: withdrawn)

Page: User:Unknownman123

Reverts in reverse chronological order:

• 1: [373]
• 2: [374]
• 3: [375]
• 4: [376]
• 5: [377]
• 6: [378]

Edit warring and also incivility. --75.47.152.100 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I have not harassed this user. I have only put vandalism warnings on his or her user talk page. Furthermore, the IP was putting speedy deletion notices on this user's user page saying that it was a personal attack and should be deleted, even though the user in question wrote the content him or herself. Thus, this seemed like vandalism to me (putting the speedy deletion notices on the user page), and I reverted the edits and warned the IP. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because you either did not look at it or ignored the speedy deletion instructions that I am already following it. --75.47.152.100 (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This was in the userspace, and it wasn't an article. Furthermore, I did not see any "disparaging" content in this BLP, although it was unsourced and very unencyclopedic. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Either this userpage was created by block evading user Unknownman1 or was created with unsourced BLP. --75.47.152.100 (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Userpage is tagged with {{Db-band}}. --75.47.152.100 (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to revert this, so that it does not look like I am edit warring, but you have a clear misunderstanding of user pages. They should not be deleted in most cases, especially if someone is just testing out some content for a possible article. Read up on the policies before putting speedy deletion templates on pages; for example, read WP:USER. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that the IP has withdrawn this notice. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:68.7.241.68 reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Federal_Reserve_System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 68.7.241.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [379]

• 1st revert: [380]
• 2nd revert: [381]
• 3rd revert: [382]
• 4th revert: [383]
• 5th revert: [384]
• 6th revert: [385]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [386]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:68.7.241.68 Most talk has been on user's talk page

Comments:
This person may be a new editor, but that seems unlikely. Seems like some disruptive editor's new sockpuppet or something.

I'd ask for consideration that a semi-Page protection would be useful here. BigK HeX (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The edits were never genuine, and the IP editor has been blocked for disruptive editing. -Rrius (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours, but no reason to assume it's a sock; there's no shortage of people who hate the US government and like to rant about it. In any event, I've watchlisted the page, and will consider semiprotection if necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's a sock puppet, not because of the content of his contributions, but rather because of the familiarity with various aspects of Wikipedia. His familiarity seems to far exceed what someone with a couple dozen edits would have. BigK HeX (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a dangerous assumption - I was the subject of a (failed) sockpuppet investigation because some users decided that I knew too much about policy when I only had a few edits. The problem is that most sensible people actually read the rules of something they wish to participate in before doing so. This means that unless a new user acts like an idiot they will get accused of sockpuppetry. However we should actually value editors who take the time to read the rules, if their editing complies with them. Editing difficulties can and should be resolved without questioning the motivations of the editor. Weakopedia (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Being familiar with the rules and only sticking to (somewhat justified) invocations of Wikipedia policies is one thing .... being familiar with the snarky ways of trying to game the system is not really something the guidelines pages prepares one for. I don't toss the sockpuppet label around carelessly. This guy passes my WP:DUCK test quite easily though. BigK HeX (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sugar Bear reported by RG (Result: 31h )

Page: Tons (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Sugar Bear (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

Tons then known as Snot and their relationship with nu metal was discussed on the talk page for the list of nu metal bands.

Comments:
Sugar Bear has been with wikipedia for several years and has now violated 3RR on multiple occassions. First relating to the group Mudvayne and then to the List of nu metal bands (the later of which he was only a few days ago and he was given a block which lasted a week.) Today he reverted info on the article for Tons on four occassions and the sources, the genre, etc. were all discussed in the edit summaries. He knew better than to have broken this rule and addition he violated WP:RS and WP:NPOV. RG (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the block be longer then 31 hours? His last block was 7 days and he still kept reverting. RG (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/RS aside, that is a 3RR violation and 31 hours have been added to their time-card. A disappointment, I see that Sugar Bear had after past blocks by Gwen Gale acknowledged 3RR and made statement(s) about not doing it again. Hopefully a repenting unblock request is forthcoming for consideration. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:75.18.127.82 reported by User:Cyberia23 (Result: Stale)

Page: List of Ghost Hunters episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 75.18.127.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Anon user 75.18.127.82 (talk) keeps changing a line of text indicating that season 6 of the television show is currently in mid-season break. They reword it to state the season is finished which is wrong. Reverted anon who is now edit warring over what the line states and gives a bizarre reason as to why they made the change which makes no sense. User has not acknowledged questions as to why they made the change. Cyberia23 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

4th revision made by with changed IP address: 75.18.50.210 (talk)

• 4th revert: [1]

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

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

Comments:

• Stale The last revert was on June 16. --B (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• 5th revert: The anon did it again here as 75.18.50.210 (talk) (they wait a day or two). Cyberia23 (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• 6th revert: Once again as 75.18.50.210 (talk): here. Request a page protect at least please. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by TFD (talk) (Result: Blocked 12 hours)

Page: Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

1. 14:35, 20 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "removed un-sourced material in the lead, please discuss in talk 1st")
2. 17:07, 20 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "if you remove the source material you consider pov, them the previous sentence should be removed as well.")
3. 20:14, 20 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 369226309 by Soxwon (talk)irrational was rothburg's word, check the source cited. please discus before you delete sourced text")
4. 00:03, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 369262227 by Cubfanpgh (talk)Please discuss before removing sourced material. the author is mentioned in the primary soucres")
5. 00:44, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert, please make your point about what murray meant in the discussion page. the material is sourced and by a primary source author.")
6. 04:01, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert. making your point in discussion does not mean explaining yourself, rather forming consensus for why you are deleting a primary source.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [387]

Comments:

the first edit of your complaint was a deletion of material not sourced? do you consider that to be a revert? the second edit you cite was me adding more material from a primary source, is that really a revert? the last time you reported me for sockpuppet, it was found in my favor. i am concerned this is a personal conflict, i say we bury the our differences and work together. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." This happened in all four edits. TFD (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added a fifth revert made after this report was filed. TFD (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

adding material from a primary source is reversing action of editors? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-adding material that another editor has deleted is edit-warring. I have now added another revert that was made after this report was filed. TFD (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

deleting unsourced material is reverting? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Yworo (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period". You're at six. It's pretty clear... Doc9871 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

i suggest you review the "reverts" yourself. this same editor has made a false sockpuppet case against me before which was dismissed. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you were edit warring. Two are clearly marked as reverts in your own edit comments; two use "undo". There's four reverts right there. Plus any removal of text is always a revert to the state before the material was added. But those first two edits aren't needed to establish that you broke 3RR. I suggest you read that page and understand the details of the policy. Yworo (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, your recent (troubling) edit history speaks for itself [388]. You are "overly focused" on this article. You are edit-warring. You should stop this type of thing: you risk being blocked for it... Doc9871 (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, the links to the last two reverts link to the wrong edits, but looking at the article history shows that the reverts were made and are essentially restoring the same text as edits 3 and 4. Yworo (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now corrected these two links. TFD (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC

@Yworo, here is the unsourced material i removed which tfd claimed started the "war". what is so strange is this sentence actually supports the "pov" tfd claims i am pushing. it is possible i am warring with myself? "That having been said, the latter quote represents an antiquated, extremist perspective on libertarian; the author who dictated the latter description was a self-labeled anarchist. Other libertarians, like Ron Paul, do not share such extremist perspectives." Darkstar1st (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality of material has no bearing on the three-revert rule. There is no hurry on Wikipedia and there are other editors watching the article. If you revert the same article more than 3 times in a 24-hour period, you are considered to be edit warring, regardless of the reasons, with very few exceptions. This is not one of them. You are only showing that you have not understood the rules as they are written. Yworo (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@Doc, i disagree, quality of material is always the most important focus of WP. i suggest we have interpreted the rules differently. "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." tfd has a history of him complaining about me, and my edits standing after review. i have been "overly focused" on wp since 2005, often making several edits per article in a day, as have many on the article in question. tfd posted this seconds after i made my post, and this is one of many "warnings" he his posted on my page. i suggest he follows me from page to not-connected page looking for a reason to have me banned, see "darkstar1st sockpuppet". the last time i was accused of war on this page, i had deleted the self published rant of a self-described 16 year-old student, hardly wr:rs "http://www.zcommunications.org/prospects-for-libertarian-socialism-by-david-baake" Darkstar1st (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What you were reverting was not vandalism. You were engaged in a content dispute. If you have a problem with another editor, follow our dispute resolution processes or file a user conduct RfC. Such complaints do not give you the right to edit war. Yworo (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

perhaps another misunderstanding. these edits were not one editor, rather a series of "normal" edits that go about on a daily basis for an article of this amount of traffic. many who edit the page are anon and never seen again. i do not have an issue with tfd, nor do i watch pages he edits outside of mine. one of the reverts had a fresh dubious/discuss tag placed there by a 3rd editor. when an editor deleted without discussing, i simply reverted until discussion could be addressed as is the custom on this page among the normal editors. the material deleted was an author mentioned in the previous source. deleting previously accepted sourced material without discussion is most likely vandalism Darkstar1st (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The vandalism exception only applies to what we call obvious vandalism such as defacement. Yworo (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 12 hours. Here's what I see:
• 10:35, 20 June 2010 - removed an unsourced sentence that called someone's view "extremist". That is presumably a valid BLP removal (no evidence the author is dead).
• 13:07, 20 June 2010 - Revert #1 - readded "Anarchist have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines ..."
• 16:14, 20 June 2010 - Revert #2 - readded "Anarchist have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines ..."
• 20:03, 20 June 2010 - Revert #3 - readded "Anarchist have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines ..."
• 20:44, 20 June 2010 - Revert #4 - readded "Anarchist have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines ..."
• 00:01, 21 June 2010 - Revert #5 - readded "Anarchist have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines ..."

So I count five reverts, not six, but the effect is the same. The user hasn't edited the article in nearly 12 hours, so subtracting that from the normal 24 hour block, blocking for 12 hours. --B (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)