• Page: Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 08:32, 25 August 2010 (edit summary: "revert: 79 explained this change very well, 208 revert remained unexplained.")

• Diff of warnings: here, here and here

—un☯mi 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Comments:
As is clear from the talk page, this reinstatement of a contested edit from an editor who is currently blocked for editwarring took place in the midst of an ongoing discussion which AgadaUrbanit largely refrained from engaging in. The article is under 1RR, it is a hotly contested topic and editors are trying their best to avoid editwarring and incivility. AgadaUrbanit is currently topic banned from Gaza War, seemingly for acting in much the same manner as he has done here. The talk page bears the following notice: "This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details. All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page.". After I explained to him that his edit was against consensus he linked me to The Soup Nazi, and commenced to use the edit summary "festival" in what I can only assume was an intentional form of further incitement. Such behaviour in the face of strenuous efforts at calm discussion completely undermines any efforts at resolving the underlying content dispute. un☯mi 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've did single revert on the relevant page. I was convinced by 79's argumentation and saw 208 revert as unexplained. I've contributed considerably also on the article talk page, looking for ways for dispute resolution. It was sugested to approach NPOV noticeboard, un☯mi agreed, still we found ourselves here. I've also expanded on Syrian POV in Current Status section, the changes was ce reviewed already, so I hope it is up to Wikipedia standards now. I'm just calling to assume 79's good faith till completion of noticeboard procedures. I'll try to post relevant diffs later, I'm kinda busy right now. in case the reviewing administrator finds it is useful. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking, you consistently ignored my pleas for you to self-revert and respect consensus. You acted unilaterally in the face of continued discussion and at least 4 editors who made source and policy based arguments against the proposed edit, instead you link to The Soup Nazi which is such a blatant sideways smear that I lack civil words for a proper description. Your actions constituted an attempt at disruption rendered no less obvious by your 'festival' edit summaries. I welcomed the suggestion to take it to npovn but I also asked that you self-revert to maintain the status-quo indicated by the parties to the discussion. un☯mi 12:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you find Seinfeld reference for demand of an exaggeration of the excessively strict regimentation offensive, relating to infobox/WP:LEAD sourcing requirements. There was not my intention to hurt you in any way, just to improve the Wikipedia content. 79's said the change was improving neutrality, I think we both agreed to seek NPOV noticeboard help. There was also sock theory put forward, though without any evidence. I'm still waiting. Meanwhile I'm just calling to assume 79's good faith till completion of noticeboard procedures. If the reviewing administrator recommends self-revert, I'd gladly comply, the change is not that important anyways. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected by User:Wgfinley. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abonazzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

• Not blocked The editor has made no related edits since receiving a 3RR warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altivia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 72.89.241.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's fairly obvious to me that Altivia and 72.89.241.5 are the same person (the latter made quite a few edits before I warned him/her for edit-warring; following this warning, the account "Altivia" was created, and it began making edits that are uncannily similar to the ones 72.89.241.5 were making, with no sign that he/she has been heeding the warning. Diffs of the offending edits are:

Removal of mention of Geller's husband: [8] and [9] [10] [11] [12]

Removal of mention of controversial Atlas Shrugs claims: [13]

Insertion of puffery; in one of these edits he/she absurdly accuses Geller's critics of being racist: [14] [15] [16]

Insertion of "crying need" paragraph: [17] [18]

Proof that Altivia is 72.89.241.5: [19] (made by the IP; note the "honor killing" stuff) versus [20] (made by Altivia; nearly identical wording, indicating the same person wrote both). Also see [21] (made by Altivia; dovetails with 72.89.241.5's obsession with removing Michael Oshry-related material, as described above).

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

Comments: This user/IP won't stop edit-warring, and has already been warned. I think something needs to be done. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I left an edit-warring warning for Altivia and put an IPsock template on the IP's talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from NickCT - After a brief review; I concur with Stonemason89. Very naughty behavior. This user/IP ought to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. NickCT (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Warned I would certainly have blocked both of these but for the fact that no editing has taken place for thirty nine hours, so the edit warring is not current. However, even one more edit from either IP or registered account will, I think, justify a block. In the meanwhile I have given final warnings to both. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, neither have edited since I placed the earlier warning. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:
Comment from NickCT - Briefly reviewed; seems like a fairly blatant example of new account created solely to push POV. 3RR clearly exceeded. Suggest short block and a longer topic ban. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad. 3RR was not technically exceeded. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• No 3RR violation (look at the dates, Nick) but nonetheless very blatant and persistent warring. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Chris (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: John G. Roberts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:32, 25 August 2010 (edit summary: "added /* Animal cruelty */")
2. 21:07, 25 August 2010 (edit summary: "rv - no difference to my original entry")
3. 04:49, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "reverted - double link")
4. 06:05, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "reverted 1th double link 2nd go to talk page")
5. 07:00, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "without me that info would not be here")
6. 07:55, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "you change it again, you can´t obviously decide which one")
7. 09:10, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "reverted vandalism - no consensus on talk page")

• Diff of warning: here

—McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of thirty-six hours -- tariqabjotu 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cmadler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29]
• 3rd revert: [30]
• 4th revert: [31]
• 5th revert: [32]

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

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

Comments: This editor wants to include minor party candidates with less than 5% support going against consensus and Wikipedia editing conventions for election articles like this one.

Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The first revert was considerably prior to the others: no clear 3RR violation. Slow edit war? Possibli. Possibl"y"... Doc9871 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now there is, a 5th revert was added above. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected The edit warring going on is hardly one-sided, and Cmadler has requested an RFC on the talk page. Let's see what comes of that. --Chris (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Komotini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avionics1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

The user likes to delete foreign names of cities. Some of the articles that this user delete these information are from the region of Thrace where mixed population exists. Ie. in the above article half of the population is speaking turkish (minority) and this user deletes the turkish name of the city.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

There is also an old discussion about the same issue in the article talk page: Talk:Komotini#Gümülcine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggia (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

This users removes information (names of cities in other languages than the official greek) from other articles of cities as well: Echinos, Thermes, Sidirokastro, Aigeiros, Neo Sidirochori‎, Sostis, Kechros‎, Amaxades, Xanthi‎, Alexandroupoli‎, Kos, Naousa, Imathia

Ggia (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours When the block expires, you both had better settle this out on a talk page before going on a revert-spree of each other again. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [41] [42]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments: If this revert [49] is included, that makes 5 reverts in 26 hours. The 4th revert is to a different version, but it is nonetheless a revert, thus 3RR has been breached. It is also particularly problematic because it is a clear cut instance of source falsification by this user, which I have documented here [50]. The source in question, Reed, clearly says the village is mixed Greek-Albanian [51] in plain English. In this edit, Beserks switches the sources around [52] falsifying Reed. He has falsified the source in the past [53] (falsifying Reed to imply that village is bilingual, which the author doesn't claim), for which I have warned him repeatedly, both on the article talkpage [54] and on his own talkpage [55]. Attempts at engaging in discussion are futile, as Talk:Qeparo shows, this user just uses the talkpage to troll and bait other users [56] [57]. Athenean (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ReaverFlash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 02:22 Aug 1

• 1st revert: 18:59 Aug 25, removes from the lead "Alvar Ellegård argues that theologians have failed to question Jesus's existence because of a lack of communication between them and other scholars, causing some of the basic assumptions of Christianity to remain insulated from general scholarly debate."
• 2nd revert: 11:48 Aug 26, ditto
• 3rd revert: 18:31 Aug 26, ditto
• 4th revert: 20:21 Aug 26 ditto

Attempt to resolve issue on talk page: Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Alvar_Ellegard_in_the_lead.

ReaverFlash is reverting up to the 3RR limit, then waiting a couple of hours and reverting again. He has so far reverted against four editors, and has engaged in similar reverting at Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We are currently discussing the issue at the talk page. I probably did revert more than I should have, but I did not receive any warning prior to my final revert. SlimVirgin, an administrator, did not warn me or advise to me to stop reverting. I don't know why SlimVirgin would want to block me from editing and discussing on the talk page when we are currently discussing this issue. Flash 21:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been editing since June 2009. You've been blocked once for edit warring. You were asked to stop reverting. Four editors undid your reverts. You don't in addition need a special warning to tell you that you're about to violate 3RR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not receive any notice to stop reverting prior to my final revert. Why do you want me blocked from discussion when I'm clearly not going to revert anytime soon after I was told to stop edit warring? Should you not, as an administrator, encourage discussion instead of asking that I be blocked, or at the very least tell me to stop edit warring before reporting me? Flash 21:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no requirement to tell someone that they ought not to revert again; you can't expect people to baby you. And you were doing the same thing at Historicity of Jesus during the same period, repeatedly removing a sentence from the lead: [58] [59] [60] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were required to tell me. I'm just asking why you want me blocked when we are discussing the very controversial issue at the talk page, and why you did not, at any time, advise me to stop reverting, and then suddenly reported me. Flash 21:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar pattern on related article:

• [61]
• [62]
• [63]

Maybe a topic ban is in order. Noloop (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: K2 (drug) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.152.219.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

• 1st revert: [65]
• 2nd revert: [66]
• 3rd revert: [67]
• 4th revert: [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see User Talk:204.152.219.51, where issue was discussed, and editor was requested to join the prior merge discussion on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The editor was given multiple warnings at various points in the reversion chain. The other IP who took over the reverting has been blocked as well. Mkativerata (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Caledonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.65.240.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: please see article history. This isn't the first time that these disruptions occur, and this is the perhaps first time that the IP has the courtesy of providing an edit summary.

Comments:

• IP is a probably User:Blondonien, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blondonien/Archive; details on editing style and problems were outlined by User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish.

• IP user has a history of disruptive editing. Previous attempts to get him and his socks to discuss his unreferenced POV editing has come to nothing... user refuses to enter into dialogue. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Quagmire's Dad (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 05:29, 28 August 2010
2. 05:44, 28 August 2010
3. 05:50, 28 August 2010
4. 05:53, 28 August 2010

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

Comments:

• User continues to assert that I have somehow removed content from the page. Viewing the diffs, the only thing I seem to have changed was the addition of content, while still maintaining the current content. User has been an issue in the past, and seems to have ownership issues. Additionally, the user was warned from reverting further, and immediately removed the template from their talk page, with no attempt to resolve the situation. Gage (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And assuming the user seems to monitor my contributions, I expect a biased and uninformed attempt to discredit my report will shortly follow. Gage (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Zabrze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jonny84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

• 1st revert: [78]
• 2nd revert: [79]
• 3rd revert: [80]
• 4th revert: [81]
• 5th revert: [82]
• 6th revert: [83]
• 7th revert: [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:The 3RR warning was given to the user after the violation of 3RR rule that took place on August 26th. At the end of that day the user removed the warning from their talk page with an edit summary Don't bother me. On August 27th the user resumed edit warring on the same article and apparently has no intention of stopping.

• Page protected Plenty of edit warring to go around. --Chris (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• For reference, there is an ongoing discussion on this matter. Once consensus emerges from that discussion the protection can be lifted if it has not yet expired. --Chris (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protected? Whatever for? The user who repeatedly and defiantly broke the guidelines and ignored the warnings should be blocked. The discussion can continue but there is no need for the page being protected. It's an appalling example you are setting there: a disruptive user who breaks the rules doesn't even get a as much as a warning. The 3RR thing exists for a reason, if users can break it at will then what's the point of having the rule? Not to mention he is uncivil as well [87].  Dr. Loosmark  18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For multiple reasons. The content in dispute was only recently added and was subsequently reverted by Johnny. According to the BRD process, this is where the reversions should have stopped. What then ensued was an edit war between him and two other editors over the course of two days. Did Johnny break 3RR? Perhaps, the diffs are a bit muddy and I'm not entirely certain that he has (correction: the diffs from August 26th do indicate one too many reverts, but this does not change the rest of my argument --Chris (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)). Other editors have come right up to 3RR but have not violated it. The only thing I can conclude with any certainty is that there is an edit war going on, where Johnny finds himself on one side of the argument and two other editors find themselves on the other side (based on the reverts).

Anyway, 3RR is not a grant to revert three times, and neither must someone be blocked for violating it (though that is usually the case). If I were to block Johnny then the discussion on this issue would be hampered as one of the major participants would be blocked. If I were to block everyone who reverted for edit warring then they could not discuss.

Further, as most of the recent activity on this article (pretty close to all of it) has been reversions of this content in some form or another, it does not seem to me that protection will be too much of an inconvenience since the article was being edited only sporadically anyway. One week is a pretty short time considering that there have been a handful of edits over the past few years up until this edit war. Protection to end the war and force discussion is more than justified in my opinion. And, of course, it can always be lifted early. --Chris (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm no, Johnny definitely broke the 3RR limit and he was warned about it. The 3RR is the last limit you should not pass, if you pass it you are definitely in trouble. Period. Otherwise having the 3RR is completely and utterly pointless and everybody can just ignore it. Your argument that the discussion would be hampered is bizarre to say the least, going by that logic nobody should ever be blocked for edit warring because one can always argue that the "discussion is hampered" then.  Dr. Loosmark  18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your statement seems to imply that everyone who has been blocked under 3RR has attempted to engage in discussion. This is demonstrably false, and therefore your argument is not valid. I take these things on a case-by-case basis, and apply whatever controls seem like they will allow discussion while preventing disruption. Protection seems the most reasonable in this case, IMO.

Other administrators are welcome to review this action and give their opinions and overturn my action if they deem it inappropriate. --Chris (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your statement seems to imply that everyone who has been blocked under 3RR has attempted to engage in discussion. Huh?? What do you mean? Protection seems the most reasonable in this case, IMO. I disagree, given that the user removed the warning from his talk page with the comment "don't bother me" and that you didn't even warn him, I bet he will continue with his behavior. But anyway do as you wish.  Dr. Loosmark  19:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I live in the wrong world or what??! It was user Darwinek who changed the article and I just restored it. He changed it again and again. If he hadn't changed it again and again, so there were no need to restored it. --Jonny84 (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [88]

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:

User:Tmhm made a third revert after several warnings.

• 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The page Armenian Genocide is under a 1RR. I had titled this section 1RR vio but then someone removed it[94]. The IP that removed it should be checked as well.--Anothroskon (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Somalia
User being reported: Middayexpress

Previous version reverted to: [95]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100] and later [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

Comments:

Both I and this user were blocked for edit warring. Instead of continuing the edit war, I am reporting this user for continuing it. This editor has engaged in numerous edit wars before (as far back as two years ago). Something more than a standard block may be necessary. There is only one item of contention, and I would have to continue the edit war for this user to have edited after the second warning. Nonetheless, this user was warned, and even blocked, yet is still continuing. Technically, this user is still continuing an edit war, and despite a warning. Nikurasu (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The "item of contention" the user mentions above is an unwarranted POV tag that he added to the top of the Somalia article, which he and I recently had an edit war over. He quite blatantly violated 3RR during that exchange, and I reported him for it. An administrator felt that we were both edit warring, so he briefly blocked us both, although I didn't actually violate 3RR like the user above. Except for the last one, the links (not difs) the user now cites above are from that period (like a week ago), not the present. He has cited them in a pretty transparent attempt to try and make it seem like there is still an edit war going on, when there really isn't. I have not violated 3RR or even come close to it. What I did actually do was once remove the unwarranted POV tag from the article, and I did this only after having received support for my edits on the RS noticeboard (c.f.), and from an ArbCom administrator no less. The user above is quite upset about this turn of events, so he has mounted what is effectively a smear campaign against me, going as far as stalking my contributions for any and every unrelated edit he has absolutely nothing to do with and engaging in blatant ad hominem against me on another administrator's talk page (2) -- comments which were clearly identified as personal attacks by that very administrator. Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

His or her representation of the previous edit war and the situation at large is patently false. Actually, both of us had done 3 reverts, and neither of us had done 4 reverts and violated the rule. Nonetheless, we were engaged in an edit war. I admit my mistake. I will not make it again. Again, he or she simply removes the tag repeatedly without a discussion resulting in consensus. He or she repeatedly decides that the tag is "unwarranted" even though we are still discussing whether it is or not. The way he or she frames this situation is entirely dishonest. He or she has repeated lied during the discussion, and every source I provide that contradicts his point he or she either does not admit as contradicting his point, or ignores, even though they are reliable sources and should be considered. He or she even brings up new sources that he or she at least believes confirms his point (many of them do not, and when I point that out, he or she simply ignores that, or dumps the source). Most sources actually state Somalia is in poverty. This user attempts to make it appear otherwise though by not mentioning all the sources that do. Deletion rather than discussion is clear edit warring behavior, and rules against vandalism are not meant for removing good faith tags marking a legitimate dispute over the neutrality of an article. I think it is clear that this user is abusing that policy to remove such a tag. Also, his or her claim that he or she received support in his or her claim is false. An administrator, with no knowledge of the context except what Midday provided, agreed that 3 sources (not the total group of sources) were reliable. Nothing was stated about NPOV. Also, one of those reliable sources contradicted his viewpoint. So, basically, this user went behind my back and manipulated an administrator into appearing to agree with him. My comments were also not personal attacks, but an attempt to deduce an explanation for this user's behavior. The administrator had also misinterpreted, thinking I had said Middayexpress was a narcissist. I think it is more likely that he or she is an employed propagandist, an evaluation useful in deciding a course of action. Simply suspending judgment would be inappropriate, and would lead to the wrong decision. Also, whether or not Middayexpress was a valid contributor became a topic of discussion on a page where I was trying to talk to an administrator about his misbehavior. Looking at his edits was entirely relevant. I also was not joining every talk page he was on confronting his work. As stated in the wiki-hounding section, "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" This is relevant to "administrative purposes," and I used it in the interest of fixing violation of Wikipedia policy. A claim of hounding is blatant attempt to try to mischaracterize the situation and lead other people to misintrepret it in his favor. However, these endless false accusations are a clear form of intimidation. I certainly feel harassed at times, at least (though I always take a break and cool off, per policy). What seems to be most true is that Middayexpress is creating any argument he thinks is necessary to justify his own actions and edits, and creating any attack he possibly can against me. Most are clearly invalid, and truth is completely irrelevant to this user.Nikurasu (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is just a variation of the claims the user above has made in the posts linked to earlier, and which I have addressed there as well. The fact remains that I have not violated 3RR on the page in question. Except for the last one, all of the user's links above are old, stale ones from our previous content dispute from like a week ago on that same page before the blocks were issued; they're not by any means new. As I've already indicated, what I did actually do was once remove the unwarranted POV tag from the article, and I did this only after having received support for my edits on the RS noticeboard (c.f.), and from an ArbCom administrator no less. So this whole report is indeed pointless. Middayexpress (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Middayexpress has changed the article to mention the poverty of Somalia, probably in a more objective way that I would even expect. This dispute is over, and I admit I must have been wrong that he was an employed propagandist. I suppose I will go about this in a better way in the future. Nikurasu (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for at least admitting that. And no hard feelings from this side either. Middayexpress (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, no hard feelings. It would be really great if you informed me of changes like those, by the way, because I did not see that you fixed the article.Nikurasu (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Stale Users appear to have resolved the dispute. No administrator intervention is necessary at this time. --Chris (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Terminology of the British Isles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Triton Rocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]
• 4th revert: [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Comments:
Long-standing "British Isles" related issue. User:Triton Rocker has refused requests to justify his actions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. General abusive behaviour towards other editors seeking to rectify - refusal to discuss or attempt to obtain consensus. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment- This report is malformed and needs correction - all the diffs of reverts are off. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Now attempted to rectify - sorry! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's clearly a 3RR violation, inserting the same material despite multiple editors reverting him, and no interest in the talk page save this "declaration of intent"[110]. Interesting block log for this user: 5 of them, but all of short duration. 72 hours next, maybe? Lobbing accusations of WP:MEAT around (third revert summary esp.) shouldn't be ignored, but another board is better suited for that... Doc9871 (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for a longer block. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• For edit warring, I am blocking TritonRocker for 1 week. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Persistently reverts to unwikified version with a single source. Clear COI judging from the username.

Previous version reverted to: this or a similar version

• 1st revert: [111]
• 2nd revert: [112]
• 3rd revert: [113]
• 4th revert: [114]
• 5th revert: [115]
• 6th revert from an IP, 7th revert: [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[117]]

Attempts at discussion on talk page: [118], [119]

Comments:

• This appears to be stale to me at this point (which may be due to delay in admin action, sorry about that), but if the user resumes edit warring, please do report it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Peter Pan (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.62.237.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [120]

• revert: [121]
• revert: [122]
• revert: [123]
• revert: [124]
• revert with addition: [125]
• revert with addition: [126]
• revert with substitution: [127]
• revert: [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Comments:
This is not specifically now a 3RR report, but also about edit warring to assert a POV. User is removing information about a part of the movie he doesn't like. User occasionally tries to substitute a statement that presents a personal opinion of the material (as what "most people" think of it). User has ignored numerous attempts to educate, communicate, warn about policy/activity problems, etc. on User_talk page.

• Blocked for 24 hours for persistent edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135] (User was warned by User:HaeB, he removed this and other earlier warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Himesh_Reshammiya#Tone (There is no need of discussion as this is a pure case of vandalism / copyvio / violation of NPOV).

Comments:

The user is constantly adding unreferenced, copyrighted material as well as violating WP:NPOV, WP:Tone. See the article's talk page for details. Previously he/she was using random/dynamic IPs to vandalize the article. One of his IP was banned also, see User talk:117.204.128.173. After the article was semi-protected, the user started again using this ID. I have not reverted his latest edit as yet. - M4nag3r(-)rC^[Reply] 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A fifth revert during the last 24 hours was missing in the above list: [136].

I have notified JahaalChakravarti of this report.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: List of Hellcats episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Serienfan2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [137]

• 1st revert: [138]
• 2nd revert: [139]
• 3rd revert: [140]
• 4th revert: [141]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142]

[143]

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

Comments:
User has just returned from a 31 hour block. Many other reverts to other articles seem to be questionable also. ChaosMaster_Chat 20:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by User:JamesBWatson - Shadowjams (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: 2009 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bband11th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [146]

Comments:This has been going on for some time on this article and several others. It stems from the display of the odds in a particular bowl game. One way is using "School by 3" which appears in some newspapers, while another is "School, -3", a standard for sports betting that is used in many other newspapers. A discussion was held at the talk page for the Wikiproject College Football and no consensus was achieved on whether to use "by" or "-" in the infobox. The basic understanding seemed to be "leave as originally was" and for this article, it was originally "Ohio, -3" [147]. Despite this, Bband11th took it upon himself to mass change every bowl article to "by" and has engaged in edit warring on several bowl articles, including this one, that have had editors change it back to "-". He has accused editors of vandalism here, here, and here as an anonymous editor, and has likely used anonymous accounts to revert changes and comment in relevant discussions as the anonymous editors' contributions are only to specific articles and are only to revert changes to the "odds" line. [148] (in particular read the edit summaries), [149], [150]

I personally have no preference as to which is displayed, however, I think it is improper etiquette and behavior for an editor to continue to push their preference simply to exhaust another editor and "win" an edit war because the other editor grows tired of the back and forth. Allowing this kind of behavior encourages future instances of what seems to be a type of Wikipedia edit bullying and drives good editors away from the encyclopedia. To my knowledge, the editors who have advocated using the "-" sign have not gone on a mass editing spurge in related articles, instead abiding by the no-consensus. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — This was ridiculous. On several pages, this edit war went as far back as April and consumed the vast majority of the page edits. Let it not be said that User:Bband11th is the only party at fault here, but it looks like the majority of the "disruptive" aspect of the edit war is from User:Bband11th, who appears to have ignored prior edit war warnings and an RfC. --slakr^\ talk / 01:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, he has simply resorted to again using an anonymous account citing the same reasons for warring ("violation of standard"). If it's not him then this other person uses the same reasons and edits the same articles. All attempts at consensus/compromise now and prior have been fruitless at this point. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears Slakr has blocked the IP and upped Bband11th's block to 1 week. Updating header to reflect. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: List of Hellcats episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ChaosMaster16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC+2

1. 18:43, 29 August 2010
2. 19:56, 29 August 2010
3. 20:01, 29 August 2010
4. 20:02, 29 August 2010
5. 20:12, 29 August 2010
6. 20:15, 29 August 2010
7. 21:45, 29 August 2010
8. 21:55, 29 August 2010
9. 21:59, 29 August 2010
10. 22:03, 29 August 2010
11. 22:05, 29 August 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23/08/10, 29/08/10

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: same person, different article, previous discussion about the same issue.

Comments: Two of the reverts falsely identified as vandalism. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User has already been blocked twice (24h & 48h) for edit warring/3RR. And continues to revert as I type, and is now in a full scale edit war with User:Serienfan2010. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Serienfan2010 has been blocked for those changes. Shadowjams (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also started a discussion here, as I do not think it is appropriate to ban either user (me or him) as I have already been banned twice for the same action. I think something other than that has to be done, as this isn't an edit warring only issue (its not exactly like we don't know what were doing), its an issue about different opinions and deserves Admin intervention. ChaosMaster_Chat 18:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at List of V (2009 TV series) episodes you both look involved. I don't know who started this protracted edit warring, I'm not even sure what it's about. I see a short discussion on each other's talk page about the edit waring, but no discussion of the substantive changes. The analysis on List of Hellcats episodes is harder because there's a user that's been making unexplained factual changes and has been blocked. But there are similar warring going on at that page as well.

You both need to discuss this and come to some sort of agreement. At the very least, can you two identify what it is you disagree on? (Cross posting this message to other discussion). Shadowjams (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the meat of it (for me at least) is the series overview. I would like to come to an agreement about its usage. Even if its merely a compromise for the time being. ChaosMaster_Chat 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Exceedingly clear case of edit warring, and the reported user's already been blocked for it in the past, albeit a while ago. Therefore, instead of escalating, I'll just keep it at 48 hours, the same length as the last block. Next time, let's get to discussing before making nearly a dozen reverts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I would like to state that Serienfan2010 made no factual changes to the page, just opposed ChaosMaster16's changes, which were falsely identified as vandalism by ChaosMaster16. I find that Serienfan2010 was wrongfully banned for vandalism, although a ban for edit warring is correct. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Serienfan2010 isn't banned, he is blocked, a block that's almost over. There are other problems, edit warring, and a lack of explanation when making these changes, an issue that was brought up before. Shadowjams (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Martin Luther King, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therock40756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [151]

• 1st revert: [152]
• 2nd revert: [153]
• 3rd revert: [154]
• 4th revert: [155]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#M.L. King a Progressive or Conservative or should it be mentioned at all?, Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Progressive National Baptist Convention

Comments:

While Therock40756 has not broken 3RR, he has been engaged in edit-warring for the past day and a half. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 09:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [157]

• 1st revert: [158]
• 2nd revert: [159]
• 3rd revert: [160]
• 4th revert: [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162] Also, user's edit comment shows that he is aware of the rule.[163]

Attempted to explain on my talk page why RfC partipant's comments should be in subsections, and if not, then all other's comments should also be moved back.

Comments:
Note that although in his revert edit comments, Darkstar1st claims he is reverting my moving his comments, all I was doing was moving back comments by two other editors that I had previously re-factored. I had been moving comments by participants from the RfC question area to the section directly below marked 'Comments by current participants'. When Darkstar1st moved his comment to directly below the RfC question, it seemed unfair to me to have only his comment moved back, and so I undid my re-factoring of the other two comments. It was these edits that Darkstar1st was reverting. LK (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Declined — Realistically, the edit summary on the refactor basically invites Darkstar to revert if he objects (which is in-line with refactoring guidelines. It looks like Darkstar had a problem and reverted. Thus, in this particular situation, I'd be more tempted to block the reporter, Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs), for edit warring, rather than the one reported.

Talk pages can be chaos, and that one's in the middle of an RfC, so it's worse. When it comes to refactoring, though, unless it's absolutely essential, I would strongly suggest that you heed the bullet points on the refactoring guideline, as they directly apply to this situation. In particular, be "sure that the other editor will thank you for the effort, rather than get mad at you." Keep in mind that talk pages are frequently the only way for a person to have a voice in a heated debate, so talk page comments have their own sanctity associated with them, because some might feel as if their voice is being silenced when their comments are moved around or otherwise altered.

Regardless, I have a strange feeling that if you guys just agree to leave each other's comments alone unless 100% absolutely, critically, unquestionably required, then I have a feeling this will all have been a silly misunderstanding of everyone trying to do what they feel is right. Barring that, if the edit war continues, blocks will follow, so my very strong suggestion is to leave each other's comments alone. ;)

--slakr^\ talk / 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

i ask lk to move the comment back 3 days ago on his talk page. the problem was my comment was being misconstrued as "neither" in ref to broad/narrow, when actually in the oginal position, it was directed at left/right. i actually even thanked lk for adding the section. i agree this was a misunderstanding, no hard feelings lk! Darkstar1st (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [164]

• 1st revert: [165]
• 2nd revert: [166]
• 3rd revert: [167]
• 4th revert: [168]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [169]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [170]

Comments:

PRONIZ continually confounds difficulty in acquiring results with end results to try and play down a boycott against Beck that is sourced as much as Wikipedia requires. He has brought in another source which he misinterprets as contradicting the Washington Post's report that 200 companies have boycotted Beck's show. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 89.77.93.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:35, 27 August 2010 (edit summary: "Council of Europe hardly represents any "scientific community" - this obvious manipulation was removed")
2. 12:55, 28 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid latest revision. Council of Europe is a political not scientific institution. It cannot be cited as a voice of scientific community. Latest revision was against NPOV not pro-NPOV.")
3. 13:24, 28 August 2010 (edit summary: "Removed. I don't see any contrarguments as well. Council of Europe IS NOT a scientific organization. Find a better source. Until then questionable statement should be removed.")
4. 20:08, 28 August 2010 (edit summary: "Again: removed non-adequate reference to Council of Europe statements (political NOT scientific institution). Replaced by another reference - to make the article more NPOV-compatible.")
5. 20:00, 30 August 2010 (edit summary: "Sorry, Mann Jess - you're obviously wrong. The source was given and pushing POV is exactly what you're doing - forcing again prejudiced statement of non-scientific institution like Council of Europe.")

• Two warnings: here and here.

Comments: It appears this user is also User:89.78.68.173, both originating from the same area in Poland. Additional revert from him is here where he apparently refers to himself in the 3rd person. The article may need protection if the user continues to sock, but first a short block might solve the problem.

—Jess_talk|_edits 20:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. If the same user reappears with a different IP while the block is still in force, ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, citing this report. CIreland (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Third Way (centrism) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ValenShephard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [171]

• 1st revert: [172]
• 2nd revert: [173]
• 3rd revert: [174]
• 4th revert: [175]
• 5th revert: [176]
• 6th revert: [177]
• 7th revert: [178]
• 8th revert: [179]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in this war, silly. See my warnings as an attempt to solve edit warring with this user.

Comments:

Note: some of these are borderline reverts (e.g., poor attempts at a consensus solution); but there are unquestionably at least 4 reverts within 24 hours. Only reporting this user because other user was never warned for 3RR.

Please also note: I've made clear my dislike of this user's editing style before. I nearly reported him/her for simple edit warring and trying to game the system the other day. IMHO, this is a WP:SPA and I plan to sign a RFC/U shortly.

Reported and commented on by Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked Both as in Rapidosity (talk · contribs) and ValenShephard (talk · contribs). -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Martin Luther King, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therock40756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

• 1st revert: [186] before his block
• 2nd revert: [187] before his block
• 3rd revert: [188] before his block
• 4th revert: [189] before his block

• 5th revert: [190] after his block
• 6th revert: [191] after his block

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#M.L. King a Progressive or Conservative or should it be mentioned at all?, Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Progressive National Baptist Convention

Comments:

Please see #User:Therock40756 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h) above.

Upon returning from his 24-hour block, Therock40756 has resumed his edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Leaving a final warning on his talk page. I will block if he persists in warring. --Chris (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Page: Jesuit conspiracy theories, Alberto Rivera, Seventh-day Adventist eschatology, New World Order (conspiracy theory)
User being reported: Amish 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amish 01 has been behaving disruptively, breaking Wikipedia rules, inserting POV material into articles and ignoring requests and warnings to stop edit warring.

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In particular, please provide diffs demonstrating the alleged misconduct. Admins are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in contribs. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

my apologies, I have not done this before. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Hun (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.69.145.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [193]

• 1st revert: [194]
• 2nd revert: [195]
• 3rd revert: [196]
• 4th revert: [197]
• 5th revert: [198]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [200]

Comments:
Numerous confirmed editors have reverted this type of edit and it has been identified as vandalism. A repetition of what has been discussed in the past on the talk page was left on both the talk page of the article and the users talk page. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: 79.69.145.219 has not edited since being warned. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• And they now have, though the last edit was still 10 hours ago. Probably worth keeping an eye on. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• And again. [201] --ShelfSkewed Talk 13:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They just did it again. The previous time they also used a blatantly dishonest edit summary. I have put them on final warning for vandalism. Can we please do something about this IP? I could ask for the page to be semi-protected but why punish all IP users when only one is causing trouble? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And again! I am continuing to revert them. I realise that this technically puts me in violation of the 3RR but I think this is a valid application of BOLD and IAR. If anybody wants me to stop just say so. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP user has vandalised the page Twice after a final warning, without attempt at discussion or dispute res.Monkeymanman (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel, you technically did exceed three reverts, but as this is quite possibly vandalism, and since the consensus is clear on the wording, I don't think your behavior was out of line at all. --Chris (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1111tomica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [202]

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

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

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

Comments:
One of the dumbest 3RRs I've ever seen. User has been blocked for edit warring before. Todor→Bozhinov 10:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Seventh-day Adventist eschatology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amish 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [209]

• 2nd revert: [210]
• 3rd revert: [211]
• 4th revert: [212]
• 5th revert: [213]
• 6th revert: [214]
• 7th revert: [215] (This edit was not performed by the editor being reported. --Chris (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC))
• 8th revert: [216]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [218]

Comments:

Amish 01 is also edit warring and being generally disruptive / pushing a very narrow, WP:FRINGE POV on a number of other articles that are related to religion:

• Jesuit conspiracy theories
• Alberto Rivera
• New World Order (conspiracy theory)
• Voltaire
• History of North America

Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Technically no 3RR violation, but edit warring has been persistent and this user has not engaged in discussion about these edits since the 25th of August. --Chris (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: University Canada West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.225.136.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparent socks

• 99.225.136.139 (talk · contribs) Jul 2009
• 99.225.138.205 (talk · contribs) Aug 2009
• 99.225.160.205 (talk · contribs) Jul-Aug 2009 (blocked 15 August 2009 for edit-warring)

If these apparent socks are him, then this is long term edit-warring.

Portions of the Aug 30 ANI related to edit-warring:

His edits since returning from the block consist of:

• Reintroducing an improper synthesis 18:23, 30 Aug 18:45 (two reverts).
• Continuing to remove sourced information 21:29 21:48 (two reverts), most of which has been discussed previously on the article talk page
• Restored the claim of it being unaccredited 21:49 (one revert), despite this was the focus of him being blocked previously, we have sources to the contrary, and we have multiple lengthy discussions on the matter on the article talk page (almost everything since Talk:University_Canada_West#Accreditation).

All five edits to article space that he's made since returning from being blocked are reverts of information he was edit-warring over before being blocked.

While his language and behavior has improved, he's still relying too much upon reverting to resolve this dispute. Two editors have warned him today about continued edit warring here. I'm a bit reluctant to recommend page protection, but maybe it would be the best choice of action at this point. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --Chris (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [219]

• 1st revert: [220]
• 2nd revert: [221]
• 3rd revert: [222]
• 4th revert: [223]
• 5th revert: [224]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [225]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [226]

Comments: Two users appear to be edit warring here, and the discussion isn't getting very far. I'm a recent arrival at the page and am choosing to stay out of the main dispute for the time being. The other user involved appears to have stopped reverting, but User:Gunmetal Angel is keeping it up. This appears to actually be two different content disputes, and the user has been involved in both; the "previous version reverted to" may therefore not accurately represent the situation.
GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours --Chris (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Criss Angel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.68.251.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [227]

• 1st revert: [228]
• 2nd revert: [229]
• 3rd revert: [230]
• 4th revert: [231]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours See report below. Mkativerata (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Criss Angel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.68.251.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [233]

• 1st revert: [234]
• 2nd revert: [235]
• 3rd revert: [236]
• 4th revert: [237]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [238] (and there was an earlier warning by another editor, [239])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [240]

Comments:
Editor is not exactly responsive to comments by me and another editor, and seems to think that "worldfamous celebrity superstar" (and all of it wikilinked) is appropriately neutral material. Efforts were made, talk page was blanked, an edit war was threatened, and a non-existing compromise was referred to. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mkativerata (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC) The editor was properly warned[241] but continued to edit-war after the warning. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: The Mars Volta tours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eyesbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: August 26, 5:18

• 1st revert: September 1, 22:38
• 2nd revert: September 1, 22:45
• 3rd revert: September 1, 22:58
• 4th revert: September 1, 23:17
• 5th revert: September 2, 10:05

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [242]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [243]

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Football records in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 188.49.1.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1. 12:56, 2 September 2010 (edit summary: "Called deleted tags")
2. 13:44, 2 September 2010 (edit summary: "add Atlético Madrid UEFA Super Cup, restore tage and correct stats")
3. [244]
4. 13:53, 2 September 2010 (edit summary: "add Atlético Madrid UEFA Super Cup, restore tage and correct stats")

—Sandman888 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Cirt. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Football records in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sandman888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 11:11, 28 August 2010

• 1st revert: 08:57, 2 September 2010
• 2nd revert: 13:10, 2 September 2010
• 3rd revert: 13:40, 2 September 201
• 4th revert: 13:52, 2 September 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [245], [246], [247] , [248]

--188.49.1.140 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• No violation -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Rajendra K. Pachauri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 02:55, 2 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 382373112 by Dean Morrison (talk) I don't accept your deletion, make any additions you want.")
2. 12:39, 2 September 2010 (edit summary: "Restored paragraph. In order to stop this edit war, please work with me to come to a consensus on the discussion page.")
3. 13:09, 2 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 382465250 by William M. Connolley (talk) Please contribution to the discussion, don't delete.")
4. 14:50, 2 September 2010 (edit summary: "Re-wrote disputed paragraph and added further citations and links")

• Warning [249].
• Note that 3RR has been broken [250]
• Note that the 4th revert is not word-for-word but the substance is re-added
• See article talk for attempts to resolve this
• Also note that this is the only page that Akumabarai since April.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours I will note I played with the idea of indef blocking as a single-purpose account, but decided that I would go with a shorter block and hope things improve. Additionally, it is  Confirmed that Akumabarai (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) logged out to continue the edit war. Tiptoety ^talk 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Martin Luther King, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therock40756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [251]

• 1st revert: [252] before his block
• 2nd revert: [253] before his block
• 3rd revert: [254] before his block
• 4th revert: [255] before his block

• 5th revert: [256] after his block
• 6th revert: [257] after his block

• 7th revert: [258] after his "final warning"
• 8th revert: [259] after his "final warning"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [260]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#M.L. King a Progressive or Conservative or should it be mentioned at all?, Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Progressive National Baptist Convention

Comments:

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive139#User:Therock40756 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h) and #User:Therock40756 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Given final warning). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Enough is enough, a block, more edit warring, a final warning, and yet more edit warring? All within 72 hours? No, not good at all. Courcelles 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Peter Pan (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.62.237.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [261]

• revert: [262]

previous reverts:

• revert: [263]
• revert: [264]
• revert: [265]
• revert: [266]
• revert with addition: [267]
• revert with addition: [268]
• revert with substitution: [269]
• revert: [270]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [272]

Comments:
User has resumed activity following expiration of 24-hour block.

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Next time something like this happens, make a report at WP:AIV. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: George Christensen (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.144.180.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [273]
• 2nd revert: [274]
• 3rd revert: [275]
• 4th revert: [276]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:George Christensen (politician)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Chris (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: 2010 FIBA World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.2.241.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [278]

• 1st revert: [279]
• 2nd revert: [280]
• 3rd revert: [281]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [282]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:2010 FIBA World Championship#FIBA Broadcasting rights]

Comments: Before this gets worse, the anon has been removing Kosovo or merging it with Serbia but FIBA says otherwise. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Whether edit warring or not, this stuff isn't good either. Blocked for incivility. --Chris (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1111tomica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [283]

• 1st revert: [284]
• 2nd revert: [285]
• 3rd revert: [286]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [287]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [288]

Comments:

This is not a 3RR vio but rather edit warring behaviour. I would like to discuss this in the talk page and reach a consensus and hope an admin can convince the user to do that. There is also tag-team reverting with Local hero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However it is the user being reported alone that used uncivil language in the talk page and made threats of blockiing in the esit summaries instead of trying to resolve this through dialogue.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No violation The linked edits are from different users. Please try to reach a consensus on the talk page before continuing to revert to your version. --Selket ^Talk 22:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: International child abduction in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vapour (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_child_abduction_in_Japan&action=historysubmit&diff=382915202&oldid=382750367

• 1st revert: [289]
• 2nd revert: [290]
• 3rd revert: [291]
• 4th revert: [292]
• 5th revert [293]
• 6th revert [294]
• 7th revert [295]
• 8th revert [296]

...I think there are others.. but you get the idea.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [298],[299]

Comments:

Vapour has been causing problems on a number of articles related to child abduction and has had to be reverted many times now. A section on his bias (also linked above) is here [300] which is also the ICA in Japan article. Of course, the subject here is his edit-warring and violation of WP:3RR not his POV pushing on child abduction articles (which is bad enough without his editwarring.)

Admittedly, I'm no longer even sure if Vapours edits constitute a violation of WP:3RR. Although he reverted a bunch of my edits (with nothing resembling WP:BRD) to many article sections, there were no intermediate edits in between his edits so perhaps they all count as one? After re-reading the policy i'm not so sure.--Cybermud (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No violation Taking 6 edits to revert the article is not 6 reverts it's only 1 as I see it. He has not "reverted" the article 3 times in 24 hours. He may be being disruptive, but WP:ANI is probably a better place for that evaluation. --Selket ^Talk 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Linda McMahon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs)

Article subject is currently in a Senate campaign.

Direct revisions in the last 24 hours, at Linda McMahon, and Linda McMahon, 2010 Senate Campaign:

• [301]
• [302] (five reversions in series)
• [303] (two reversions in series)
• [304] (two reversions in series)

Other reversions in last few days, again at Linda McMahon:

• [305] (Reverted user Discospinster)
• [306] (Reverted user Collect)
• [307] (Reverted user Off2RioRob)
• [308]
• [309]

Several of these reversions were done immediately after Screwball23 was given a 3RR/edit warring warning by Admin Everard Proudfoot. Many of them also reintroduce material with BLP violations, either unsourced, poorly sourced, or distorting what the source actually claims. Note that editor Off2riorob only began editing after I posted this article to the BLP noticeboard in response to these concerns.

As the most recent example of the sourcing problems, the text "" After he filed for unemployment, Linda McMahon repeatedly challenged him at unemployment hearings with a company lawyer", sourcing it to a Politico story at [310]. The claim is not in the story. When I removed it, Screwball reinserted it. When I questioned this on talk, he gave a different source (while leaving the old source in the story). However, the new source is apparently a self-published newsletter, quoting directly from a claim in an interview with this disgruntled employee, when he represented it as a verified fact.

As another example, Screwball reintroduced a lengthy section (The "Ringboy Affair") claiming an ex employee had accused McMahon company employees of sexual molestation. The sources actually said sexual harrassment. Several other claims in this section were similar source distortion or overreaching. See this diff:

• [311]

Many of the edit summaries and the commments made to talk pages contain personal attacks, accusations, and failure to AGF as well. Some examples:

"revert -> future edits were blatant whitewashes for political gain", "FellGleming has ulterior motives; he's destroying this page to whitewash anything", "Stop pushing your agenda", "I would like to see FellGleming grow a pair and try to do those articles the same disservice he is doing here"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [312]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Talk page includes several pages of attempts to resolve the conflict:

• [313]

Comments:

Declined This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_edits_.26_inserting_problematic_material_into_a_BLP_at_Linda_McMahon. --Selket ^Talk 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: A Somewhat Gentle Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Outrage (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Outside the Law (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
La nostra vita (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Norwegian Wood (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Noi credevamo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
My Joy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mammuth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Happy Few (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jew Suss: Rise and Fall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Shahada (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Solitude of Prime Numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User is edit warring on several pages, none reaching 3 reverts, but warring just the same.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [314]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [315] [316] [317]

Comments:
User continaually adds templates with no justification, using edit summaries as "template" "coi" "cof" "nein" etc... After several messages on the talk page, editor continues similar edits without acknowledgment of messages nor further justification. BOVINEBOY2008 19:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• First off, BB needs to get his facts right. He has infact reverted me three times, not the other way around. Lets look at these edits. Somewhat Gentle Man with the summary of "infobox" by BB. Somehow this edit removed the footer template, that's not in the infobox at all (I'd go so far to say vandalism), so I restored it in good faith. (2010 film) had the summary "add templates" but somehow BB thinks add means subtract, as the footer template was removed. Again, I reverted this in good faith. Ditto the Law. Ditto nostra vita. I wont go on. An apology would be nice. I've not had time to respond to his constant pestering, and when I do, he removes comment, which speaks volumes. Lugnuts (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And now he's just deleted everything I've added above [318]! Lugnuts (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You had time enough to revert my edits. And I removed the notice because it was BS. I never accused of reverting three times, look at the report, and I never more than three times, so check yourself. And its called an edit conflict, read up on it here BOVINEBOY2008 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Still doesn't justify your sneak edits in removal of content. You don't say it's 3RR, yet there's a link in the info you've posted citing one. You don't even know what you're complaining about! Lugnuts (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit waring. There were no technical fourth reverts, but both users are clearly being disruptive and reverting each other 3 times on each article. --Selket ^Talk 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Shi'a Islam in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Humaliwalay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [319]

• 1st revert: [320]
• 2nd revert: [321]
• 3rd revert: [322]
• 4th revert: [323]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [324]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [325]

Comments: Humaliwalay is also reverting at Criticism of Sunni Islam. he is very distruptive, claiming everywhere that the Library of Congress is an unreliable source for information. In one article he inserts "The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' (No one can touch it save the pure) but in it is stated in multiple verdicts of Sunni Scholars that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine", which is backed by these fake unverfiable sources: (Fatmaada Aalamgeer Vol.5, Page 134. Fatwa Siraajiya, Page 75. http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_siraajiya_p75.jpg) If anyone tries to remove this he starts reverting. Humaliwalay is engaged in attacking the 1 billion Sunni Muslims by using Wikipedia (encyclopedia), I think he should be banned because we (the people seeking true knowledge) don't need users like that here.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Declined The page in question has already been protected and it appears that Humaliwalay is actively debating the issue on the relevant Talk Page. Given that I would like to see if this can't be worked out. Both the poster and any other admins should see this decline as "without prejudice." If Humaliwalay resumes, a block would probably be in order. --Selket ^Talk 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, and can't fill this report out from a template. But, anywho, somebody should check out the recent history of Musicians Institute. I've semi-protected for 3 days (probably a horrible thing to do), so please revert me if you want. Cheers, Alex Muller 09:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Ludwig Wittgenstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
SlimVirgin: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [326]
• 2nd revert: [327]
• 3rd revert: [328]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See below

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [329]

Comments:SlimVirgin keeps trying to insert an extreme-fringe hypothesis into the article and refuses to discuss her insertions. Instead, she is edit-warring to put it back in every time. In so doing, she violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:BRD. (I am unable to find the diff for her original insertion of the questionable material because there is a veritable blizzard of her edits in the past couple of days and she does not always supply informative edit summaries.)

82.113.106.30 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting here that I requested semi-protection for the article because of this at 10:07 UTC. The background is there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:53, 7 September 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. --Chris (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [330] first revert was to remove content which had been removed and then restored [331]
• 2nd revert: [332] reverts back in content he had added which was reverted out.
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [333]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [334] Tried to discuss it on his talk page, he says to take it here.

Comments:

The article is under a 1r restriction and is highly contentious, as Petri refuses to self revert i would like an admin to request it of him. mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR is clearly marked as under Digwuren, which Petri well ought to be cognizant of, having been specifically mentioned in that decision as I recall. The edit page has a big red warning. The page further states that reverts are to be reported on the talk page which Petri did not do as required. Further that the 1RR is a bright line and not an "entitlement." The violation is exceedingly clear at this point. Collect (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re - My first edits was a partial revert to an earlier version. It also included a new lede and removed some POV-tags. In the second edit I integrated changes made to one section after my edit and restored my new lede (1st revert for lede.) I am fully aware of the 1 revert rule and carefully limited my edits not to break it, although I would not brake 1rr even if it was not mandatory. Unlike Mark I have never edited the article before during its probation, (most likely never – but have not checked full history.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I do feel intimidated by this report, I believe Mark Nutley is fully aware that my edits did not break the rule, as I have explained on my talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. – It seems that the issue is now at WP:AE, please follow me there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Declined The AE report supercedes this one. --Chris (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Asif Ali Zardari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aashah86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 17:56, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383489708 by Dripping Flame (talk)")
2. 18:26, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383494756 by Meco (talk)")
3. 18:29, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383495394 by Dripping Flame (talk)")
4. 18:41, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383497990 by Huon (talk)")
5. 18:53, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383498932 by Meco (talk) i am willing to take !0% out but not the corruption part")
6. 19:13, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383502697 by Meco (talk) for speaking the truth ok, its not over yet!!!!!!!!!")

• Diff of warning: here

Please also take into consideration that this user has previously been given a 48h block, in March 2009, for similar disruptions. —meco (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours -Selket ^Talk 19:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 67.149.236.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:42, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "the article is trashed and needs fixing. half of this article is speculation. biased fangirl-ism. do not remove the templates.")
2. 20:46, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "do not remove the templates or the article will be locked. again.")
3. 20:52, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 20:56, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: [383520535 here]

—oncamera^(t) 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: [335] The editor already believes the article is "trash" from these comments on the talkpage and any edits by me to adjust the templates or ask to honestly discuss the changes to the article is ignored. I even cited a section which was reverted with no reason [336].

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Chris (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [337]
• 2nd revert: [338]
• 3rd revert: [339]
• 4th revert: [340]

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

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

Comments:The article is references with broken links. Other things are not cited at all. The article is written in the form of propaganda. User does not cooperate with changes, instead reverts them back.

• Stale Blocked per the report above this one. --Chris (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [341]

• 1st revert: [342]
• 2nd revert: [343]
• 3rd revert: [344] (Note the incivility in the edit summary)
• 4th revert: [345]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [346]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [347]

Comments:

User:Meeso is engaging in an edit war by removing properly sourced information in the article without adding any referenced material whatsoever. He is relying completely on his own POV and not on any reliable source whatsoever. His comments on the talk page and edit summaries are uncivil as well, for example, this one. He has reverted legitimate, properly sourced material from two different editors without providing one single solitary reference for his POV. --Taivo (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Both editors appear to have violated 3RR even while still discussing things on the talk page. It takes two to edit war, and content disputes (even when valid) shouldn't be addressed by reverting each other. Civility issues belong at other boards (AN/I being the most "serious")... Doc9871 (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice that I have not touched the article since reporting User:Meeso and his unreferenced edit sits there misinforming all who read it at this time. I don't think I violated 3RR, at least I was trying not to, but if I did it was inadvertent in several other edits that I was making at the time. Several of my edits that are listed in the edit history do not involve the population figure (which was the initial place where Meeso started edit warring), but place other cited material in the text. User:Meeso, on the other hand, was just doing the knee-jerk reversion of everything that I posted. I would happily report him elsewhere, but I do not want to be accused of forum shopping. Meeso's knee-jerk edit warring is most appropriately reported here. --Taivo (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that his edit is unreferenced, and that is a definite concern. 3RR is often violated by both parties in reports here, and often both are blocked temporarily to prevent disruption. It's best to avoid violating 3RR (even inadvertently): once the "more reverting" editor (the one who broke 3RR, and not you) is blocked, the "correct" (cited) version can be restored. POV concerns are usually not an exception to 3RR, except in WP:BLPs - carefully read WP:3RR, and you'll see what I mean. And again, it is not possible for one editor alone to edit war without another editor(s) warring against him/her. Who breaks 3RR and who doesn't often makes the difference in a blocking decision. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, Doc9871, that's why I stopped reverting (I thought before I reached 3 on the population figure). Are you going to issue a block? --Taivo (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh - I can't[348]. Just remember that even well-intentioned editors can violate 3RR and be surprised that they get blocked. Don't like seeing it... Doc9871 (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me (on my talk page, this isn't the place) what this dispute is about? I know most of the nationalism fights, but this one baffles me. --Selket ^Talk 07:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted a response on your talk page, Selket. --Taivo (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I only seek to wait for sometime so that other editors who are aware of the subject give their opinion on this. User:Taivo has entered in an article that I have been editing for so long, with some very bold fact-statements that are wholly unfounded, and he/she is threatening with reliability of sources although his source is totally erroneous! I discovered a big mistake and posted about it in the talk-page, and then he came with his/her provoking and condescending statements about my own country and threatening me with reliable sources. I should have the time to come with more serious sources myself, and I want to wait for other editors who are more aware of the condition of language in Egypt to express their opinions. That's all. Thank you, Maysara (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Neither one of these editors has been warned. But before I noticed this report, I was already considering what to do about Meeso's incivility. He's never been blocked for anything, but I have given him a 3RR warning 2 weeks ago [349] and edit summaries such as "go fuck yourself !! deleting bullshit on my talk page" (on his talk page) and " IT IS NOT ANY LESS SIGNIFICANT THAN OTHER INFO! STOP YOUR IGNORANT BALLYRAG! OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS!" [350] are clearly not acceptable. In this case he may not be insulting editors in his use of 'ignorant', but to call Lewis, M. Paul (ed.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International ignorant is putting personal opinion over a very respected and clearly RS source. Saving this just now produced an edit conflict, and seeing Meeso's rationale above it is clear that he does not understand our policy on reliable sources - or civility evidently. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You mean "threatening" with reliable sources doesn't mean WP:BURDEN would apply? Say it ain't so! Doc9871 (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just looked into the history of the article, and discovered that the original number was exactly the same as what I edited now [351] for example. The one who changed that number, by a margin of 20 million (thus making quite a big mistake), is the one who should prove that such a great multitude of people do speak a different language than the rest of the society. This has nothing to do with nationalism, but such a thing does not exist at all. And it's not that i don't understand what reliability is, it's that i disagree with it's application in such a blind and mindless manner, and as you can see, to produce rather than correct mistakes. I can only apologize for my occasional profanity and temper, although they are always given to those who deserve it! I am here for reasons other than observing rules and suppressing others!! Maysara (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Earlier" numbers in the article, if not supported by a reliable source, mean nothing: see WP:CIRCULAR. The most available sources point to the 50 million figure, and the 70 million figure is unsupported. Your last two sentences above, Meeso, are not the most encouraging I've ever seen in terms of assuming good faith here... Doc9871 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You can see Meeso's version of reality does not include reliable sources by this post in response to my answer of Selket's question above. But this noticeboard is for edit warring. If you look at the history of editing over the last 24 hours, you will see that Meeso added nothing to the article to support his knee-jerk reverting of everything I added to the article based on reliable sources, especially the speaker number (which is the particular issue of this complaint). The "old number" had already been corrected by another editor before I got there and Meeso was already reverting it. --Taivo (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So when is someone going to block this edit warrior so that the unsourced information can be removed from the article without him reverting it by a knee jerk? --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the civility issues to WP:ANI (having found a bit more). Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since his civility issues in other articles appear to be more serious than his 3RR here, I will watch there for actions that might be taken to censure him. Of course, if an admin wishes to go ahead and block him based on 3RR, I won't object either. Indeed, a block for knee-jerk edit warring might be an appropriate stop-gap until the AN/I has reached a conclusion about more long-term solutions. While the AN/I proceeds, the unsourced, incorrect data remains sitting at Egyptian Arabic. --Taivo (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Declined The discussion at AN/I now superceeds this one. --Selket ^Talk 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Page being reported: Watts Up With That? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User making report: Ohiostandard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:37 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies in advance if this isn't the right venue; if it's not please just let me know and I'll be glad to move it to a different location. I know there's a lot of "pot boiling" on Wikipedia re climate change, and I know that user FellGleaming is somehow involved in that. But there seemed to be several different venues to choose from, and this seemed the most applicable to me, given that it needs clarification as to what, exactly, constitutes a revert for 3RR purposes. Here are the facts I'm aware of:

Diffs of FellGleaming's actions in edit war over article about climate-change blog Watts Up With That?

• [352] 13:31 7 September 2010 (UTC) Restores previously deleted NYT passage

• [353] 18:03 7 September 2010 (UTC) Removes just-added "undue weight" tag

• [354] 18:51 7 September 2010 (UTC) Removes passage/cite critical of climate-change skeptic's blog, orphans ref.

• [355] 10:59 8 September 2010 (UTC) Removes disclosure of readers' work on blogger's climate-data collection project.

• [356] 15:17 8 September 2010 (UTC) Restores deleted NYT passage a second time.

Please note that this user was blocked for 48 hours in May 2010 for edit warring and, if the diffs I presented here are correct in their understanding of what constitutes a "revert", then he violated 3RR+ on a different article just over a week ago, as well.

Comments:

Each of the above has intervening edits by other users. The relevant deletion in the fouth diff is the removal of the sentence, "The blog's participants and contributors often discuss or participate in Watts' Surface Stations project." Perhaps it was deleted becasue it casts doubt on the blog's reliability to disclose that the blog's readers help collect some of the data it relies on? ( I'm not familiar-enough with the subject area to determine this, however. ) Also, the fifth revert above occurs 25 hours and 14 minutes after the first one, and is thus just outside the 24-hour 3RR window. The article was put under full protection to halt the edit war shortly after the last edit documented above was made.

My brief examination of the article's edit history didn't turn up any other editors who went over 3-reverts in 24 hours. I'd suggest that it would be worth investigating this more carefully, though, and that a quick check-user on the IPs very recently involved in the edit war is probably also called for. I see another editor has raised that issue as well, and that neither the accusation or only the counter-accusation of socking appears to have been denied so far, at least, here. ( updated 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC) )

Full disclosure: I've never edited or even commented on any climate-change article. But to be transparent, I should also disclose that I did comment extensively in a recent ANI discussion that FellGleaming initiated concerning an edit war at Linda McMahon. In that ANI thread, which rolled off to archives with no admin action, FellGleaming repeatedly accused me of telling "lies" and "falsehoods" for claiming, among other things, that FellGleaming was himself over 3RR on that article. I'd never edited that article, either, btw, but I'll admit that those remarks probably knocked FellGleaming off my Christmas card list. Anyway, I came across the edits I've listed above while I was in the process of re-examining FellGleaming's edits on the Linda McMahon article. FellGleaming is very well-aware of the three-revert rule; he warned another user with whom he was in conflict about it quite recently.

Also, I know these kinds of things tend to grow into novels that just bore and annoy everyone, so I'd prefer not to comment further or attempt to rebut any counterstatement here unless an uninvolved user or admin specifically asks that I do so.

Finally, I think either I or FellGleaming have an incorrect understanding of what constitutes a "revert" for 3RR purposes. As I understand it, he thinks one is free to remove any passage that has not been the subject of recent dispute, without it "counting" toward 3RR. That's not the way I read the 3RR documentation: "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. It can involve as little as one word." I don't see any "recent dispute" proviso in the policy at all. I'd greatly welcome clarification on this from uninvolved admins, clarification as to what constitutes a "revert" under 3RR, since – among other reasons – it bears on the list of diffs I provided above, and on those I provided previously at ANI in the earlier matter, as well. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the removal of the "undue weight" tag should be counted since there is sanction against adding/removing tags on climate change articles without first achieving consensus on the talk page.[357] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Warned I'm imposing a 1RR sanction on the article pursuant to WP:GS/CC. -Selket ^Talk 22:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohiostandard has been on a jihad against me recently, reporting me to several different forums. The articles in question he's reporting have all experienced substantially more reverts by other users than myself. However, the real bone of contention is Ohiostandard interprets any change to an article whatsoever as being a revert. My understanding is that changes made to text which has long been part of the article, and not currently under dispute or recently modified by any editor, then this is simply part of the standard Wikpedia BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. By making such changes, you're doing your job as an editor, not "reverting" text which might have been added years earlier. By Ohio's interpretation, I believe the great mass of all edits to articles would violate 3RR. Ohiostandard also has a rather odd interpretation that, if you are making a series of edits and another editor's change winds up interspersed in yours, then your chain counts as two two reverts, even if that interspersed edit in no way conflicts with yours. In other words, if you change paragraphs one and three in an article and, in between your edits, another editor modifies paragraph two, then you've engaged in two separate reverts. As Ohio, I would appreciate a clarification on this policy.

To answer the specific diffs listed above, only three of those edits are actually reversions of changes made recently by other editors and, since those three span more than 24 hours, doesn't even breach 2RR, much less 3RR. In this "revert" for instance:

• [358]

Ohio claims it "removes disclosure of readers' work on blogger's climate-data collection project.". However, if you actually look at the content of the edit, I simply moved one paragraph from one section to another, and removed a sentence "The blog's participants and contributors often discuss or participate in Watts' Surface Stations project.", because an almost identical version of that sentence appeared just a few lines further down: "The Surface Stations project (at www.surfacetations.org), an analysis of terrestrial US weather stations is also discussed on this blog." Now obviously trivial changes like this can still constitute edit warring...but only if I was actually reverting the changes of another editor, not simply touching up content that had been in this form for an extended period of time.

Out of Ohio's list of five edits, two were actually reverts of a paragraph that has actively been reverted by many other editors other than myself. This is a partial list of other editors who have made the same change (either to add or remove the paragraph) just in the past 3 days alone:

• [359]
• [360]
• [361]
• [362]
• [363]
• [364]
• [365]
• [366]
• [367]
• [368]
• [369]
• [370].

Note that Ohiostandard did not consider any of those to be edit warring -- only myself, an editor he has conflicted with in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs)

According to the language of WP:REVERT, "reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." When your edit takes some words out of the article it's a revert, no matter how long ago the words were put in. That is, unless your removal of the material matches one of the eight named exceptions to 3RR listed in the policy. Though I haven't checked to see who was warring in this particular case, Ohiostandard appears to be counting reverts in the normal way. His view about the counting of interspersed edits is correct as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to respond, but really, I'm "on a jihad" because I reported FellGleaming for edit warring? Hey, that's a good plan: let's all label people who find fault with us as jihadists. And I'm a teller of "flat-out lies" because I provided diffs at the ANI complaint that FellGleaming started to show that he'd also been edit warring, just as he was accusing another user of doing? A complaint that he had forum-shopped, btw, to BLPNB and to this board, as well as to ANI? Well, there are a lot of smart people here, and I think they can see what's behind such inflammatory language. I'll not correct FellGleaming's misstatements about my understanding of 3RR, either, or respond further to his negative characterizations except to say that we do have a legitimate difference in how we read the 3RR documentation, and that we still need community consensus on the question. I realize, however, that this isn't the forum to seek that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Becky Quick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KeltieMartinFan

Comments:

Reverting material long debated and determined a year ago.

• No violation Nothing even close to a 3RR violation here, even at the title the IP meant to report. Courcelles 06:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Climate change alarmism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (WMC)

Previous versions reverted to: [371] [372]

• 1st revert: [373]
• 2nd revert: [374]
• 3rd revert: [375]
• 4th revert: [376]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This editor is subject to the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation which includes edit warring.

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

Comments:

After WMC reverted the text in question three times, I added more sources to support it [377]. Another editor changed the wording somewhat, but left the sources intact [378]. I and another editor then tweaked the wording to match the sources a little better, in our opinion, [379] [380] and WMC's last revert removed both of our last edits, so reverted two different people. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a deliberately deceptive report. Cla is attempting to change the meaning of this page from "alarm about warming" to "alarm about warming *and cooling*, and is using invalid sources to do so. Cla says "Another editor changed the wording somewhat, but left the sources intact [381]" - this is the version I've reverted back to. But "changed the wording somewhat" is deceptive: changed the meaning very significantly is more correct. Similarly, "tweaked the wording" [382] means "strongly change the meaning" William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: The Connolley asserting that one of the references in question does not support the statement to which it is appended is verifiably the same Connolley who is one of the authors of the paper. Note also: this general incident is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Discussion 9. I invoke WP:TENFOOTPOLE, and will not be acting here. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So if I go back and put it back in, it would be OK? Or is it because it is WMC that no action will be taken? GregJackP Boomer! 12:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

@GregJackP: I regularly work the 3RR board, so I wanted to make it clear to the next admin to come along that this case is not under review by me. I recommend against edit warring on general principle, but explicitly take no position regarding the appropriateness of anyone's actions in anything related to this matter. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that WMC's 1RR restriction expired in May. Is this correct or was there an extension that I haven't found? -Selket ^Talk 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the so-called "4th revert", moved the article to a compromize edit by me. So, the global cooling stuff is now mentioned, but in a more appropriate context. The compromize here, of course, is not between the preferred versions of WMC and that of Cla68, rather between what I see can be reasonable versions of the article (i.e. not mentioning global cooling or mentioning it). You will always get compromizes of this kind when univolved editors step in. They won't look at what will make the involved editors the most happy (or the least unhappy), as the article is not written for them. Count Iblis (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No violation Without commenting on the actual content dispute, I don't think William M. Connolley's edits alone warrant sanctions. Discussion is ongoing in (multiple) places on the use of sources, and blocking anyone at this point is only going to hinder discussion. I'm watchlisting the page, and won't hesitate to impose a 1RR restriction per WP:GS/CC if y'all can't work it out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a bit embarassing but in the interests of honesty: EdJ's post on my talk page [383] prompted me to re-examine my own edits, and in particular the timestamps, and I fouled up: my 4th revert is within 24h (one can quibble the exact meaning of revert but if I was judging them I'd call them all reverts). Apologies. So I've no objection to being blocked for this (by an uninvolved admin :-). Regardless, I'll leave the article alone for the next 48h in penance William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Progress here is probably best served by discussion. I'd rather not remove participants from the discussion unless under egregious circumstances. Thanks for your candor. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Roger Scruton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• Version reverted to: 17:09 5 Sept, removes "Journalists Kevin Maguire and Julian Borger, in a January 2002 The Guardian article, reported that Scruton, in a leaked e-mail, had asked Japan Tobacco International for an increase of £1,000 over his existing fee of £4,500 per month and discussed ... etc".

• 1st revert: 10:22 8 Sept, removes: "In January 2002 Kevin Maguire and Julian Borger reported in The Guardian that Scruton had asked JTI for £5,500 a month to place pro-smoking articles in several newspapers and magazines."

• 2nd revert: 07:28 9 Sept, removes "In January 2002 Kevin Maguire and Julian Borger reported in The Guardian that Scruton had asked JTI for £5,500 a month to place pro-smoking articles in several newspapers and magazines.

• 3rd revert: 07:33 9 Sept, removes "In January 2002 Kevin Maguire and Julian Borger reported in The Guardian that Scruton had asked JTI for £5,500 a month to place pro-smoking articles in several newspapers and magazines."

• 4th revert: 07:55 9 Sept, removes "In January 2002 Kevin Maguire and Julian Borger reported in The Guardian that Scruton had asked JTI for £5,500 a month to place pro-smoking articles in several newspapers and magazines."

• 5th revert: 08:08 9 Sept, removes "In January 2002 Kevin Maguire and Julian Borger reported in The Guardian that Scruton had asked JTI for £5,500 a month to place pro-smoking articles in several newspapers and magazines."

Comments

User:Jprw has been reverting a lot of material against several editors on this page for some time. The above is just a selection to illustrate the 3RR violation. It's not the only material, and it's not only the 5th time he has reverted it; just the 5th time in this 24-hour period. I left him a 3RR warning at 7:41 9 Sept [384] (I believed he'd already violated it when I wrote that), but he reverted again anyway at 7:55, and again against another editor at 08:08. He has been blocked once before, in February this year, for 3RR/edit warring, and so is familiar with the rules. [385]

There is no BLP issue here, though it is critical material about a living person, but it's extremely well-sourced, including in The Guardian and the British Medical Journal. If anything we're erring on the side of caution in describing it, but Jprw is removing basic details that we are needed to understand what happened. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Courcelles 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ejmarten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today's reverts

• 1st revert: [386]
• 2nd revert: [387]
• 3rd revert: [388]

Last week's reverts

• 4th revert: [389]
• 5th revert:[390]

Comments:
Ejmaren continues to revert this page over and over again. We have discussions on the talk page, but he continues anyway. We reached consensus, and yet he continued and vandalized the page. Note: I have already been blocked after edit warring, he has not.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:50, 9 September 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments of the accused as requested on my talk page

• I have been reverting the changes that have been made by Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The changes that I have been reverting have been his reverting of my additions.
• The additions that I have added to the page in question cite authoritative sources of information.
• According to all of the policy pages that I have seen so far, including the mission statement and five pillars of wikipedia (and the warning that Encyclopedic content must be verifiable at the bottom of this very page as I edit it), the information on the policy pages is subject to consensus, but informational pages should be neutral and encyclopedic. The changes that I am making reflect official decisions that have been made by state a state legislative body. I have cited the sources of my information. The reasons that he his citing for reverting those changes are based on a consensus of people who disagree with the decision of that legislative body, and continually refuses to cite any sources (external or within Wikipedia) for his reverts.
• I will continue to do this for for this page and any others unless I am blocked, but weep for the accuracy of the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia content if that is what is chosen in this case.
• I was asked to apologize for accusing Jerzeykydd of vandalism on my talk page. I am not opposed to apologizing for lying about people, but I have not lied in saying that he is vandalizing the page.
• I do not require an apology for the same accusations that he made about me.

• [391]
• In addition he said that he will continue to revert until he gets his way: "I will continue to do this for for this page and any others unless I am blocked."

Therefore, he has broken the 3RR.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48h by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). T. Canens (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Odokee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [392]

• 1st revert: [393]
• 2nd revert: [394]
• 3rd revert: [395]
• 4th revert: [396]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [397]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [398], [399]

Comments:
Odokee has been for the past two months removing any additions of romaji for content which can be parsed directly into English from Japanese whenever I have discovered that they were omitted due to WP:VG/GL (the aspect of which is under discussion). He has repeatedly peformed these edits despite my requests for him to stop, and he has continually referred to my edits to add the information back as vandalism. I understand that it takes two to tango, and if he is blocked in this situation, I expect to receive a similar punishment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Courcelles 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Climate of Karachi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 115.186.97.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1: Reverted the rainfall data and removed Pakistan meteorological department link
• 2: Again reverted the rainfall data, and removed Pakistan meteorological department link
• 3: Reverted the rainfall data, and removed the Pakistan meteorological department link
• 4: Reverted the rainfall data, and removed the Pakistan meteorological department link

Past discussion:

• Talk:Climate of Karachi, [400]
• User talk:115.186.97.178

The user 115.186.97.178 keep going reverting my edits, which are authentic and according to the reliable source Pakistan Meteorological Department,which i have to revert again in order to keep the article up to date. I had also try to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article Climate of Karachi, but he didn't respond.And keep reverting my edits, his past record also shows that the he had always reverted the correct edits and removed the edits as per his choice.And the user uses more than one IP addresses to revert my edits on this article and other articles as well.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Warned FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

you've got to uncomment the commented stuff otherwise it won't appear!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Selket ^Talk 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Bill Maher (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (Restored discussion from archive -- possibly from this bot edit 1 month ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Maher&diff=378289863&oldid=378281178)

• 1st revert: Restored blanked discussion from last year
• 2nd revert: Now its archived AND accessible... What's the point of suppressing it??
• 3rd revert: The short version that an editor has substituted here misrepresents the original
• 4th revert: Simple (& collapsed!) is best!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [401]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Minimal. User_talk:Valerius_Tygart#Bill Maher archive

Comments:
The thread being warred over was 9 months stale -- it just wasn't archived until August because of the 7-threads-left restriction on the bot. If it hasn't been touched in that long, it doesn't need to slow things down on the live talkpage.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of One Week FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [402]

• 1st revert: [403]
• 2nd revert: [404]
• 3rd revert: [405]
• 4th revert: [406]
• 5th revert: [407]
• 6th revert: [408]
• 7th revert: [409]
• 8th revert: [410] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrkso (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [411]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [412]

Comments: JCAla refuses to follow Wikipedia guidlines and doesn't allow me to edi. Everytime I make a clean precisely sourced edit he reverts he doesn't like to see it [413]. He's POV pushing and messing up clean written work.[414], claming the US provided $40 billion to Afghan freedom fighters in 1980s but this is absolutely false and very exaggerated. He keeps removing disputed tags in almost every edit. JACla praises Ahmad Shah Massoud, regarded as a butcher and warlord by many, by hanging his poster in so many pages. JCAla cites youtube videos and unverfiable sources after I told him of List of band name etymologies. He cites links that don't mention what is written in the section. He also cited books without giving the page numbers, telling me to go see the page numbers at ANI [415]. I noticed problems and tagged the page including warning JCAla not to remove it but he continues to do it. I'm trying to avoid edit-war everyway possible but he's provoking me. He is deliberately after my edits because he thinks I have an angenda. His edits are very unconstructive and he is a very disruptive user.--Jrkso (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked -Selket ^Talk 02:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ben135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User warning: link

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

1. 21:04, 10 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 21:26, 10 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 21:35, 10 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:41, 10 September 2010 (edit summary: "")

There are several additional non-discussed controversial edits that do not qualify as "reverts" within the last 24 hours. See the article history for further.

—Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 22:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Declined. User stopped within three minutes of receiving a warning, it's quite possible s/he didn't receive the warning before the last edit. If edit warring continues, by all means file another report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Greater Sudbury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: User:Michel5806

Time reported: 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

'User warning: Warned that he/she would soon violate the three revert rules a few minutes ago no edits since.

The user keeps removing the pictures from the article because he does not like them. Informed him that you cannot remove content just because you don't like it. Also stated to another user that he/she will continue to remove the pictures. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Declined Editor appears to have stopped after being warned. The report was malformed too, but there was enough to act on. If he/she starts up again please use the "Click here to add a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. -Selket ^Talk 02:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Nvidia PureVideo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.13.114.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nvidia_PureVideo&oldid=384164692

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nvidia_PureVideo&oldid=384163803
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nvidia_PureVideo&oldid=384164249
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nvidia_PureVideo&oldid=384164412
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nvidia_PureVideo&oldid=384164538

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:124.13.114.60

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

Comments: As you can see from the talk page. This is not just me saying this

• Warned User was warned for vandalism and spam, neither of which applied well, as well as reliable sources - user was never informed that edit warring was the problem. I have done so though now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Greater Sudbury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michel5806 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

• 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: link

Comments:
Looks like he could be socking now as an ip has now come in and started to revert the content. The problem is that Michel5806 keeps removing the pictures because he doesn't like them even thopugh many editors have reverted it and explained to him, but he hasn't communicated. I haven't reverted the ip's removal because I don't want to be caught in an edit war. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• IP Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.
• See SSP case for Michel5806. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [416]

• 1st revert: [417]
• 2nd revert: [418]
• 3rd revert: [419]
• 4th revert: [420]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [421] and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [423]

Comments:

To summarize: the editor in question is not interested in improving information on the Leading Opening to Kundalini yoga and has never shown good faith as to its relevant modern history. His ignorance of the subject matter (yoga) and clear bias against Yogi Bhajan is being used as a basis for POV [424] reversions (see: Talk), simply because he does not like or believe the current version. Editor has refused to do research and ignores references and facts. Mediator requests[425] and editorial help[426] have been requested. A current NPOV is outstanding here: [427]

Thanks for your assistance. --RogerThatOne72 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 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. This is a slow moving edit war over several months... please use the dispute resolution process including a request for cdomment if all else fails. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Duke lacrosse case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.178.240.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Duke lacrosse case version reverted to

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 4th revert
5. 5th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning by User:Duke53

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [428]

Comments:

• Anon user 71.178.240.197 reverts the work of other editors of the Duke lacrosse article article over and over again, with little or no discussion. Also, anon editor feels the need to add the n-word to Duke lacrosse case without consensus being reached on how it should be added or even if it should be added at all. Anon editor is biting on editors that have a different viewpoint on the inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InaMaka (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So there's some background info missing here. First if you see the differences in the revisions they're for different content over two days, the latter supporting a compromise edit by a third contributor. The above claim states "with little or no discussion." That's certainly not accurate. There is an ongoing and expansive discussion currently involving multiple editors on the article talk page and on my own talk page. Additional each edit had a complete edit summary. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Warned Assuming good faith, 71.178 did not understand the 3 revert rule meant three reverts of any type. As the editor is now discussing, there is no need to block. To the anonymous editor, as you are watching this page, please consider this a warning: if you edit war anymore, even if you don't technically break 3RR, you will be blocked. Please hash this out on the talk page and use the dispute resolution process if necessary. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Prospect Hill (New Haven) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 22:41, 6 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv to 381105443")
2. 04:42, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "give the other districts the appropriate emphasis")
3. 12:39, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "no, the other districts are of less importance because they are not directly related to the residential neighborhood")
4. 16:31, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "whitney avenue is not in prospect hill as is commonly known")
5. 16:37, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "refocus article")

Previous version reverted to: [429]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] No warning needed.

Past discussion:

• Talk:Prospect Hill (New Haven)#Merge discussion
• User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list#New Haven City HDs (mediated long discussion)

Comments:
Experienced edit warrior Polaron continues to combat to support his quest to merge many or all NRHP historic district articles into town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles that include any portion of them. Here, he is battling to minimize mention of three of the four historic districts in one neighborhood, and to maximize coverage of the fourth, towards arguing for merger of separate article about the fourth HD. Anyhow, he is over 3RR. His edit summaries are just dismissive. I count 4 reversions on his part; the last 2 diffs make up one, with some other small variation. —doncram (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Stale The editor being reported hasn't edited since 1704 UTC. This report was filed at 2053 UTC and the reported editor notified a minute later, over four hours since the last revert and over three since the editor's last edit. To block now would seem purely punitive, but I will leave a warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the point then. The editor is very experienced in this and pushes all limits. Usually he goes up to 3 reverts; now he is actually over 3, and you're suggesting no consequences. Why not just outright reward him, give him a medal.... --doncram (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor was subject to a six month edit restriction on not redirecting NRHP historic district articles to town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles, but the six months is now up. And, the behavior seems to be returning. Here's another diff, Polaron simply moving/renaming, with no discussion, one of the historic district articles he dislikes. I reversed that and opened discussion at its Talk page, where another editor agrees with me, Polaron does not even bother to comment.

At Wauregan Historic District article, the exact behavior resumes: a redirect and a repeat of that redirect. We are talking, sort of, at Wauregan, Connecticut. But, the edit warring first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., and only if other editors beg and cajole will he bother to give a cryptic comment type of behavior is the main thing going on. --doncram (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I have re-opened this thread so another admin can look at it. I've also warned Polaron. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the dispute between these two gentlemen has been going on for more than a year it will probably take more than a few hours for it to be rightly judged as stale. I find the whole topic depressing, and my own past efforts to broker a solution went nowhere. The admin Acroterion has valiantly tried to serve as a mediator, but the reverts continue anyway. It is hard to think of giving escalating blocks to long-term contributors, but something like that could be the only thing that would work. Since the dispute at Prospect Hill (New Haven) is a 2-person war, blocks for both parties are deserved. (There have been even more reverts since the last one listed above). 48 hours to each might be the right thing in the present case. Doncram was blocked 24 hours on 9 August for a similar issue. If admins can't bring themselves to do anything about this, should we be recommending Arbcom? EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 48 hours to both parties. The last revert I observed was by Doncram at 01:26 on 8 September. Though the reverts do not always go back to the same version, each one removes text added by the other person. This is the sixth time a dispute between these two editors has been reported at the 3RR board. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, i did replace the material lost by P's edits again, i believe without violating 3RR myself, after the above mild reaction to my report of P's actually being over 3RR.

EdJohnston, your involvement back then, arranging for a 6 month edit restriction for Polaron, together with Acroterion's continued involvement as a mutually agreed upon, invited mediator, did help for a long time. And, there was further good development now with other editors at WikiProject Connecticut. There was a lot of progress and I was hoping not to involve Acroterion or other good editors again. But, yes, the situation is now going bad upon P resuming the same patterns of editing, ignoring hardwon consensus and/or simply removing merger tags or implementing mergers or moves, and i don't see what to do currently to manage the situation. I suppose i could just walk away too, and let P unravel all the previous agreements, but i don't like that idea. --doncram (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no argument with the blocks, as obviously the change and revert cycle does no good to anyone. But, I would like to know what people would recommend be done by Doncram instead, when Polaron wanders around changing things at his whim and to his preference which is no more and (IMO) often much less valid a view. He doesn't like stubs, but stubs ARE allowable in Wikipedia, so why is it OK for him to change them to redirects whenever he chooses, and how IS one supposed to battle an unrelenting pattern of such edits without edit warring? I seriously would like to know. I have been much less active of late in Wikipedia, in part because of such things as this. If there is a productive way to deal with the stupidity other than to watch things you and others have painstakingly built be torn to shreds by one persons whim and preference, then maybe it could be someplace to enjoy again. OK, so in some cases both viewpoints are equally valid, so isn't the procedure then for Polaron to take it to some venue and get some consensus before changing it? Or to otherwise leave it alone? He KNOWS there's going to be disagreement. And, what about cases like this first one Doncram noted, where Polaron simply moved/renamed, with no discussion, one of the historic district articles he dislikes. This particular article was one where, per the painstakingly, tediously, almost completely non-understandable to outsiders agreement they worked out that recently "expired", Doncram, in order to support separate articles, developed both to DYK eligible length, which rendered all Polaron's complaints about too-short stubs, etc. invalid. The truth seems to me to be that Polaron just doesn't want separate articles about the historic districts, for whatever reasons, while Doncram and I and I think other NRHPers (though I hesitate to speak for others), do see the value of them. I see a world of difference between the historic district (more than the history of the general area, to me, I enjoy the very specific info about EXACTLY what buildings are included, etc.) and the modern hamlet/village/CDP whatever you call them in CT. I dislike the combined articles as much as Polaron likes them. But, I don't go around looking for his work to change/redirect/rename/whatever, often seemingly just to irritate/goad some other editor. So, IS there some other way, other than to let someone like Polaron do as he pleases and shrug it off, to deal with what I see as his destructive edits? They often disrupt networks of lists and disambiguation pages and such, that mean nothing to Polaron, but are things that I and certainly Doncram have spent quite a bit of time working on in order to facilitate the growth of NRHP articles (so there won't be the many bare bones stubs and "underdeveloped" articles that some editors so enjoy criticizing). It's very disheartening to see that structure torn apart, just when you thought it might be time to actually start working on adding some of the backlog of pictures in your laptop and developing some new articles. Instead you spend your time either composing posts like these or being so annoyed and fed up with it all that when you do get some free time for the computer you play spades or solitaire or your niece's Cake Mania instead! How sad is that! Lvklock (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i am back after block expired. Thanks, actually, for the 48 hour break. It's been a relief, as Polaron was also blocked and my watchlist has not been lighting up with random attacks on CT or other NRHP historic district articles to be dealt with. I hear the message that my editing in the Prospect Hill article, in contending with Polaron's editing there, gives the impression that I was edit warring equally. I thought I was dealing reasonably with unreasonable edits pushing a certain POV, but it is not obvious enough in every one of the articles where i have been dealing with Polaron, for others called in to judge. Yes, what Lvklock said. What on earth is an editor supposed to do? I can't really get a ton of other editors interested in considering P's latest moves, in every one of the long-contended articles. Simply reverting seems appropriate in many cases, and often does attract other supporting edits which settle things down. I think i was effectively outfoxed by a master of edit-warring who works in a huge battleground, and seldom/never gets caught out. Me, as a reporter of an outright 3RR violation, and a patient Talk page user (maybe not enough in this one article's case), i get seen as not playing properly and i get blocked myself.

It happens that I have devoted a lot of time, as have other WikiProject NRHP editors, in developing up a great system of NRHP list-articles indexing, currently, 84,998 places, about 1/4 or 1/3 now having articles, the rest being redlinks. In Connecticut i eventually encountered, back in May and June 2009, Polaron having systematically replacing good redlinks by redirects to town/village/hamlet articles (actually he did much of that back in 2008, but resumed when i started bumping into these in 2009, when i was doing disambiguation work that led me to create some stub articles in Connecticut). I tried to undo some of those redirects or to create articles about the NRHP places. I encountered extreme ownership behavior from him, repeatedly redirecting rather than discussing, and generally providing no sources. I properly raised the issue and centralized discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. I opened an RFC. The majority of views, and virtually unanimous views from editors with experience writing historic district articles, is that separate NRHP hd articles are almost always appropriate as separate topics and should not be forced into town-type articles. P repeatedly escalated, doing widespread edit warring to create new redirects or new town/village/hamlet articles using just the NRHP information, throughout CT and then in other states. This was not well enough recognized as edit warring, because he would be opening new battle grounds everywhere and not just battling in old fixed articles. It was certainly gaming and battling, on a grand scale. After more conflict, I asked him to abide by a third party mediation, and he agreed, and we mutually picked Acroterion, who agreed, mostly, to do that. In a huge, long discussion at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list, we went through all of the Connecticut places and determined a treatment. Polaron was warned and given a six month edit restriction to stop redirecting NRHP places some time during that discussion. Things settled down; i worked nicely with WikiProject Connecticut editors and Polaron helped sometimes too, in developing more NRHP articles in Connecticut. Now, Polaron has resumed contentious behavior, generally going against the big long discussion agreement, and seemingly just focussing on places where he can disagree and fight for a different article structure (and never or hardly ever just building articles where his preferred article structure is in place). I believe the contention-seeking, edit-war-type behavior of his is clear to any long watcher. P has been making end-runs, moving/renaming articles, removing merger tags when there is no consensus, implementing one side of mergers, and otherwise been contending sneakily or overtly.

In the recent cases, too, I have engaged in opening Talk page discussions, in involving CT editors, and so on again constructively. Sometimes i am more abbreviated, as in my reverts of his edits at the Prospect Hill page. But, it has all been well-discussed, many times over, and his edits are generally against consensus, and mine are generally returning to consensus positions. So, to a brief observer, you might think he and i are equals, but that is not the case. Instead, he has essentially been acting again as a longterm vandal bent on destruction, and I have been essentially reverting vandalism. I would be happy to get out of this role of watching P's edits and enforcing the previous agreements. But, I don't want to simply yield the field either, for P to ride over the hard-won consensus. What can be done, in terms of more advanced administrative review, or what? I wonder if I should open an RFC/U on Polaron's behavior (in which my own behavior in attempting to control his would also be under review, i understand fully). But, a number of editors already went through thousands of edits of reviewing the behavior and working out a big compromise. I think just administrative action to punish any new provocations, in order to prevent the expansion / continuation of the same old stuff, would be more efficient. What is required for that. Honest advice wanted. --doncram (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked for "honest advice". I realize that you were not looking for advice from me. Regardless, here are a few quick bits of advice:

• Try not to view differences of opinion in terms of personalities. Try to think of differences of opinion on content as nothing more than differences of opinion, and discuss content issues on their merits.
• Try not to think of your disagreements with others as battles. Try not to think of talk-page discussions and other interactions in terms of "winning" and "losing".
• Recognize that you can't gain consensus by drowning people in words (example: the comment above).
• Try to "listen" -- to pay attention to what other people say. --Orlady (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

None of which "advice" answers the question we're asking about how to deal with Polaron. Specifically. When P makes an edit he KNOWS will be contentious and that he KNOWS there will be disagreement about without discussion and without gaining consensus how should one respond other than reverting and beginning an edit war? Lvklock (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There you go again: Assuming a priori that every time Polaron does something that Doncram disagrees with, he's doing it for the purpose of starting an edit war with Doncram. Mightn't things go better if Doncram were to consider the possibility that Polaron believes he has valid reasons for his edits? --Orlady (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)