Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive118

User:Tony Sidaway reported by User:Dimawik (Result: Page protected)

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All diffs are explicit Undo reverts

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

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

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

Comments:

• Page protected by Tcncv (talk · contribs). NW (Talk) 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SkagitRiverQueen reported by User:LaVidaLoca (Result: No action, but will monitor)

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

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

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] and entire Bundy talk page.

Comments:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• I would recommend waiting on this, as I have a feeling the fourth revert was the last one. Also, another party was engaged in an edit war also and nearly crossed 3RR. I've stepped in and am engaging the warriors in discussion. If warring continues I'll report here. Equazcion (talk) 04:19, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

That is extrapolating from the facts. You warned SkagitRiverQueen on the talk page yourself [13] and noted her 3RR violation there. I'd also comment the other editor, in fact, did not violate 3RR nor was that editor required to be warned. Edit warring doesn't occur in a vacuum. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. I don't think there's any immediate concern. Also, four reverts don't necessarily need to be made in order to count as a violation. I'll defer to an administrator's judgment on this though. Equazcion (talk) 04:29, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

PS. I would not be against someone uninvolved leaving a stern non-template warning on Skag's page to ensure her understanding of 3RR for the future. Equazcion (talk) 04:33, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen seems to contribute to this article mostly by reverting. She has done so four times (at least) on December 11, after many reverts on the previous two days. I have proposed that she agree not to edit the Ted Bundy article for one week, to avoid a block for violating WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll play the game. When looking at my history on the Bundy article, however, you might want to also notice that while the majority of my edits on this article are reverts, probably 99.9% of those reverts over the last year or so have been vandalism reverts. Oh, and BTW - what about the other editor (Wildhartlivie) who also violated 3RR? Is there going to be anything said to that editor about his/her 3RR violation as well? Seems to me it would only be fair, after all... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Warned Everyone relax please, and note that if another editor has violated rules then you may report them as appropriate. You're not a new editor, so please use some common sense and discuss changes first, and use WP:DR or request protection should things deteriorate. NJA (t/c) 07:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the above comment by SkagitRiverQueen, she has agreed to a voluntary restriction from this article that will end at 07:10 UTC on 18 December 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR, Skag, as you did, nor did I edit war against multiple editors. Please don't make accusations against me that you cannot support. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that because the situation has been resolved and that Wilhartlivie's comments above are not only uncalled for (especially since another editor, Equazcion, has already made it clear that Wildhartlivie did, indeed, break 3RR) but they are completely out of order and against Wikipedia's standards of civility...? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion did not state that I broke 3RR, he stated that I should have been warned. Huge difference there, Skag. I have every right to respond when an editor is trying to drag me into her mire. If you want to bring up a civility issue on me, please, feel free. Otherwise, leave me out of it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure he did - I guess you missed it. <shrug> If you want to be left out of this, maybe you should stop inserting yourself in the discussion...? (just a suggestion) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he did not. Please provide a diff where he says I violated 3RR and should be taken to task for it. He took LaVidaLoca to task for not warning me. No one approached me to ask me to take a break from the page in order to stop your edit warring behavior. As for your suggestion, you are the one who tried to drag me into this. Read up to your post above. Please do not demean yourself further by trying to spread blame where it does not go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• You must stop this ridiculous and childish bickering. Continuing this behaviour won't be tolerated on Wikipedia. You are warned to not use Wikipedia as a battleground, and to respect each other and remain civil. NJA (t/c) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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

User:150.203.87.47 and User:121.127.207.75 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Stale)

Page: Carbon tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 150.203.87.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 121.127.207.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users are obviously the same; they edit the same articles at different times. Perhaps one is the home IP and one the work IP in Australia. However, this may require a checkuser to confirm, and determine whether some of the new editors also adding the Hansen material to various articles are the same.

All the edits (except some of the last, which are clear reverts) add the opinions of James Hansen without much attempt to correct the errors indicated by myself and others:

• 21:10, December 7, 2009 (as 121)

• 1st revert: 13:17, 10 December 2009 (as 121) adding James Hansen section
• 2nd revert: 21:06, 10 December 2009 (as 121) adding James Hansen section
• 3rd revert: 03:59, 11 December 2009 (as 150) restoring the "100% dividend" and deleting {{dead link}}, although possibly making some attempt to follow some Wikipedia policy
• 4th revert: 04:08, 11 December, 2009 (as 150) still deleting {{dead link}}, and restoring all but 2 words of the previous edit.
• 5th revert: 05:39, 11 December 2009 (as 150) still deleting {{dead link}}, removing my tags without dealing with the issues; restoring all but one word of the previous edit.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:21, 11 December 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:45, 9 December 2009 (followed by another editor deleting the section at 19:53.

Comments:

The link is still dead, even through an anonimizer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Weird. That anonimizer works. I think timesonline is rejecting my ISP (Time Warner Cable), rather than by geographic activity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Behavioral evidence strongly suggests that they are the same user editing from two relatively stable IPs, as well as using 150.203.87.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last month. I issued a {{uw-3RR}} to the 121 account just in case, though. I cannot brain today, so somebody else please resolve this. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Castlevania series (Result = protected)

It's not there yet, but almost. Just wanted to give a heads up. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Abecedare (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WLU on Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (Result: No vio)

Whether edit warring or 3RR, I don't know what to call it, but it is certainly not a productive way to edit this article. I have been trying to discuss issues with WLU on his Talk page,[14] and on the article Talk page[15] as has Hillinpa, he is adamant that his view is right, and he exhibits a lot of WP:OWN toward the article.

I was surprised to see another editor involved until I saw that WLU had drafted Verbal to make a revert, probably to avoid triggering 3RR. So I don't really think that Verbal is involved.

Hillinpa has posted this on the Mediation Cabal [16]

I hope that I have reflected all the relevant edits below without bias, though I have not listed them all. Link to warning [17]

Here is a more stable version of the article that had been around for a couple of days with few edits. [18]

Hillinpa adds content 12/10 15:17 [19]

1. Here WLU reverts the 15:17 edit made my Hillinpa at 15:24 12/10 [20]

Hillinpa edits at 16:49 [21]

2. WLU reverts it at 16:59 [22]

I add qualifier "rare" to text since I don't believe the cite belongs there at all, it is an anecdote, as discussed on Talk 18:09 [23]

Here Hillinpa re-adds his text, deletes nothing 12/11 11:52 [24]

3. Here Verbal (not an active editor on this article) reverts Hillinpa's text, per WLU, at 12:95 commenting: (Undid revision 331076545 by Hillinpa (talk) rvt per WLU, cerry picking) [25]

Here I change a sentence back to a mediated NPOV version that was implemented last week, and move a paragraph that WLU wrote to a more prominent location. 13:26 [26]

Here WLU changes a NPOV mediated sentence, adding what to me seems unsuitable detail to the lede, not referring to the subjects as physicians, and removes a qualifier at 14:07 [27]

Here I remove conflated text, clarify remaining text to better reflect cite. 14:11 [28]

4. WLU sets the article to Inuse and changed my paragraph move of 13:26 14:30 [29]

4. WLU reverts my revision of 14:11 and adds changes 14:48 [30]

Here I revise WLU's addition to 14:07, adding titles, removing bio info from lede 15:56 [31]

5. Here WLU edit, removes "Dr"s, effectively reverting my change of 15:56 at 6:27 [32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverpa (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation When an article is being actively edited in good faith, we do not simply count "technical" reverts and block editors on that basis. I'd recommend you continue the discussion on the article talk page and wait for a mediator to respond to the MEDCAB request. Abecedare (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User:115.252.47.209 reported by User:Abecedare (Result: 24h)

Page: Avatar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 115.252.47.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously at 115.252.34.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 09:34, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "its an article related to hinduism")
2. 16:17, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "Its an article related to hinduism")
3. 20:30, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "its related to hinduism")
4. 20:46, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "avatar is primarily related to hinduism, and the dasavatar picture has been shifted to the place were it really belongs, Onus is on the person to explain who wants to remove it.")
5. 21:00, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "i think u didnt get wat i just wrote u r putting the pic of dasavatar on top of the article wheras their is a special section for it plus it is a hindu related article that rule also applies on you")
6. 09:21, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "what u didnt get that!!!!!!!!")
7. 09:31, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "See the talk page")
8. 09:35, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "Dont u get it see the talk page ur disturbing the whole uniformity of WP articles.")
9. 09:38, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "See the talk page, ur adding wrong templates and wrong pics")

• Diff of warning: here and [here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Avatar#Hinduism_template

Comments:
The editor has made 9 reverts over roughly 1 day using 2 IPs despite consensus being clearly against them. The page may also need to be semi-protected since the editor is anyways IP hopping. Abecedare (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both IP's blocked. NJA (t/c) 12:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Feline1 and User:Azure1234 reported by User:Ottava Rima (Result: 48h to both)

Page: Personal lubricant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Feline1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Azure1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Block for edit warring on article on December 8th: [33], [34]

Feline1's reverts:

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

Azure1234's reverts:

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See their previous blocks. This occurred just after their 31 hour blocks expired.

Comments:
I believe User:Azure1234 and have resolved the issue ourselves - as a result of our edit exchange, Azure found some ideal references (FDA notices) and I was able to take some text from these to put into the article to make it read less like a commerical advert. Furthermore reading User:Ottava Rima's recent exchanges on Talk:Crisco and his recent ArbComm involvement I am struggling to find an interpretation of his behaviour that is consistent with WP:AGF.--feline1 (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No talk page discussion. No discussion on his or your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, for AGF to apply and govern here, some sort of communication line needs to be open. And that would imply discussion threads. Neither of you have started any discussion, whether at each other's talk page or the article talk page. As such, I must unfortunately block both of you. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User:71.200.39.145 reported by User:CIreland (Result: 1 week)

Page: Janelle Pierzina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.200.39.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [42]

• Not a 3RR violation but persistent long-term edit-warring to include poorly sourced (to Twitter, no less) potentially controversial information into a BLP. Previously blocked twice for same problem. Most recent revert is: [43]

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week — Obviously the same user; dude's been blocked repeatedly. --slakr^\ talk / 17:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Flatterworld reported by User:Arthur Rubin(Result: 24 hour block)

Page: United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Flatterworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All claimed to be reverts, and I have no reason to believe he's lying

1. 22:02, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 331321218 by William M. Connolley (talk) please see Talk page")
2. 01:28, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 331327532 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk) same")
3. 20:07, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 331450983 by William M. Connolley (talk)reverting continued vandalism")
4. 22:55, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 331485763 by Nigelj (talk)revert vandalism")
5. 2009-12-13T23:36:37 (added by WMC) (Undid revision 331511134 by Arthur Rubin (talk) reverting repeated vandalism by same people)

• He warned others about 3RR here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:19, 13 December 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 6 December 2009, etc. I've done very little of the editing warring since I brought that up.

Comments:
Not techincally a 3RR violation yet, but the 4 reverts were in 25 hours, which strongly suggests he's going to continue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Now clearly over 4R. Note false assertions of reverting vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Vsmith (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:99.151.166.95 reported by User:ChrisO (Result: 24 hr.)

Page: Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Previous version reverted to: [46]

• Repeated edit warring to restore an archived discussion/rant, remove discussion closure tags etc; seven reversions in less than 2 hours (16:24 to 18:05). This is causing unneeded disruption to the article's talk page and the IP editor has been completely unresponsive to requests from at least three different editors (and one admin) to desist. Diffs:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52]
7. [53]

Another reversion since I reported this:

1. [54]

• Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: [55]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Vsmith (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Infinitesimus reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [60]
• 5th revert (partial): [61]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

Infinitesimus has been edit warring at several articles while attempting to insert information on an herbal product from the Ukraine, ImmunoXel. Because Infinitesimus is a new editor, I have attempted to explain several relevant policies on the user's talk page ([64] and [65]) and on my talk page. The user has responded with hostility. User:Jfdwolff had previously explained sourcing guidelines. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 07:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:98.197.181.195 reported by User:gerardw (Result: 24h)

Page: League City, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.197.181.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Referred from WP:WQA. User:98.197.181.195 making repeated unsourced edits [[66]] despite being asked[[67]] to discuss on user talk page by user User:postoak. Gerardw (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 07:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

79.154.121.215 reported by User:84.162.220.114 (Result: 24h)

Page: Hans Henning Atrott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 79.154.121.215 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• Already blocked NJA (t/c) 13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SkyWalker reported by User:magnius (Result:no vio)

Page: Tron Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SkyWalker (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: [76]

Comments:

Disputed this edit and attempted to discuss on talk page, but alas this user insists on edit warring rather than adult dicussion. magnius (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see two users here who are equally edit warring, and very limited discussion. Is that not the case? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the press release which was released by Disney 1 and 2. It states Tron: Evolution not Tron Evolution and they were other gaming such has EuroGamer but there are sites which says Tron Evolution for example IGN. Not knowing what the correct title so i trusted the press release and moved it to Tron: Evolution. Then this user Magnius came and started waging revert and my talk page wars. He even sent me a note for congratulating for waging 3RR (which he started). --SkyWalker (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I started it? I challenged the sources and asked you to discuss it further..YOU insisted upon violating the 3RR and continue edit warring...you know the rules, you broke the rules. The trailer for the game itself does not use the : symbol, that in itself is enough to question its validity. Consensus my friend, that is what I seek. magnius (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And neither of you is doing anything to achieve that. As for 3RR, there's no technical violation: the first oldid given is not a revert, but the initial edit. So, no block, but there could be in the future (for either or both parties) if edit warring continues. Please pursue dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Xandar, User:Pmanderson, User:Yorkshirian reported by User:Karanacs (Result:48h for Xandar and Pmanderson, nothing for Yorkshirian )

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 12 Dec Pmanderson tags the article [77]
• 12 Dec Xandar reverts tags [78]
• 13 Dec Pmanderson reverts Xandar [79]
• 13 Dec Xandar reverts tags, calling them "improper" [80]
• 13 Dec Pmanderson undoes Xandar revert [81]
• 13 Dec Xandar reverts tags [82]
• 13 Dec Pmanderson undoes Xandar revert [83]
• 14 Dec Yorkshirian reverts tags [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Multiple warnings have been left on the article talk page about edit-warring. The page was protected two weeks ago due to edit-warring by Xandar. previous 3rr report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: after reverting several times, Xandar opened a discussion at Talk:Catholic Church#Misuse of General Tags where he seems to be misinterpreting the tagging rules.

Comments:
I'm not sure whether to protect the page or issue blocks, and since I'm involved on the article talk page it would be best to get a neutral opinion. Please see above that Xandar has edit-warred on this page repeatedly. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See also [85] from late October 2009, where others have also edit-warred to keep tags off of the Catholic Church page. Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Xandar for 48 hours as revert warring after the page was protected and warned countless times. Ditto for Pmanderson, while I only saw one revert from Yorkshirian, so no block for him (unless he's violating ArbCom sanctions, which I need to further research). Secret ^account 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Taivo reported by The Scythian (Result: Not a violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Western_Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Taivo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 15:26, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territory and region data */")
2. 21:57, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "Removing inappropriate POV content. Iraq is not "occupied" because the US does not control Iraqi politics. Compare France in WWII--it was occupied by Nazis, Iraq is not")
3. 04:32, 14 December 2009 (edit summary: "Removing POV edit. Does UN consider Iraq occupied? Iraq completely governs its own affairs, that is not the definition of "occupied"")
4. 14:04, 14 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territory and region data */ Occupation is irrelevant to type of government--it's still a parliamentary democracy. Occupation placed in footnote. See Talk Page")

• I was waiting for a third parties requested opinion before further edits, to avoid edit warring. I thought that was agreed on. The Scythian 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It does not technically breach WP:3RR over a 24 hours period. However, there is edit warring going on, so I would advise that any editing of the page stop and that you all consult a third party. NW (Talk) 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Thwonk121 reported by User:63.170.64.2 (Result: Indef)

Page: Kansas evolution hearings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Thwonk121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [86]
• 2nd revert: [87]
• 3rd revert: [88]
• 4th revert: [89]
• 5th revert: [90]
• 6th revert: [91]

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

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

Comments:

• Comment There's enough admins editing that page to handle any disruption being caused by the user. NJA (t/c) 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment No, none of us can do a darn thing, because we are all, as you put it, "editing that page", which =involved. I was going to file here but then saw the anon had gotten here and done it before I had, saving me, as I thought, the trouble. Its very disappointing that no Admin watching this page has bothered to do a thing about this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

24 hours NJA (t/c) 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked indef as a clear single-purpose account Secret ^account 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest 24-31 hours too. Everybody was new and a SP editor once.--Slp1 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Secret beat me to the actual punch of doing the block as I inadvertently blocked the IP! Things happen I suppose. I do wonder if an indef was a bit harsh, considering it's the first block on the account. I suppose we can wait and see if the user appeals and discuss it there, or of course it may go to a noticeboard, however I won't be bothering with any of that personally. Let's try not to discuss it here though, as post block discussions belong at AN, ANI, or the user's talk page. NJA (t/c) 12:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:68.116.53.246 reported by User:Sssoul (Result: 24h)

Page: Jumpin' Jack Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 68.116.53.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version: [94] is the last version before User:68.116.53.246 introduced nonconsensus additions, which s/he has repeatedly re-imposed, as shown in the diffs below:

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]
• 4th revert: [98]
• reinserting the same material into the lede: [99], then shifting it back to prior position: [100]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [102], deleted by user here: [103] and here: [104] Diff of attempted discussion on the article's talk page: [105]
Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 07:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:60.230.199.104 reported by User:Levana Taylor (Result: No vio)

Page: 99 Luftballons#Film and TV appearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 60.230.199.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 58.169.236.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:14, 13 December 2009

On December 13, 58.169.236.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added irrelevant, vandal material at the end of 99 Luftballons#Film and TV appearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I removed it. Shortly thereafter, 60.230.199.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (presumably the same person, both are located in Perth, Australia) re-added the same material without explanation. Rather than revert again, I'm reporting the situation. Levana Taylor (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2009 (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. If they continue and do revert 4 or more times then re-report, otherwise consider requesting page protection. Ultimately the best way to go about it is to intiate discussion with them on their talk page. Do hold off on requesting protection or re-reporting here unless they resume, because as of now there's not enough disruption to warrant page protection or a block. NJA (t/c) 12:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Beis Din reported by User:Shmaltz (Result: welcomed and cautioned)

Page: Bobov (Hasidic dynasty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Beis Din (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [106]
• 1st edit: [107]

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

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

Comments:The names and positions that this article discusses is currently in dispute. People belonging to either side come on to WP every so often to change the content so that it shows a view more towards one side than the other. The dispute is currently in a rabinical court called Beis Din. This user created an account with the purpose of changing this article as is evident in his contribs and name he chose. While he hasn't done that edit in more than 3 times in 24h, this IS going to lead to a war edit once people belonging to the other side will notice it.

• Warned New user welcomed and warned. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:69.106.6.25 reported by   Will Beback  talk  (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.106.6.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 23:34, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 23:43, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 23:49, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 00:00, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 00:10, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 00:18, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
7. 00:22, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
8. 00:30, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
9. 00:52, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 331916474 by RMHED (talk)")
10. 01:55, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 331916474 by RMHED (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—  Will Beback  talk  00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NW (Talk) 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:NickCT reported by User:Shuki (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]

Diff of 3rr edit warring : [113] Diff of 3rr4 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:
I warned NickCT on his talk page of the edit war, he blanked that. I warned him of violating 3rr, he also blanked that. NickCT is trying to give UNDUE weight to one instance of occupied territories when clearly the article is about the general term and many other notable occurrences exist or have existed. Inserting a POV dab into the article and justifying that by adding personal opinion on the talk page without any evidence to back his claim up except merely finding 10 URLs on the internet which refer to the Israel/Palestinian issue. I am not trying to remove information and added a neutral suggestion which NickCT reverted. Only after he violated 3RR did he attempt to 'compromise'. Consequently, I have backed off at this point since the user does not seem sincere. --Shuki (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Closing ... - 2/0 (cont.) 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Warned No activity for over a day, user warned as blocks are preventative, not punitive. Recommend a short block if disruption resumes. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke reported by User:Afkatk (Result:24 hours )

Page: List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been blocked before, understands the 3RR. No warning had been given by any user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Comments:
TJ has a history of not obeying a consensus or agreeing to new formats and incivility [122]. One instance where he refused to follow a new format can be read about here Archive on the WP PW ANI archive. After viewing his block history, he continues to edit war over even the simplest of problems. Edit wars like this have happened numerous times with numerous people in the past, he seems to be trying to own the articles rather than improve them. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, 24 hours, would have gave a longer time period but it was 12 hours ago the violation. Secret ^account 17:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:TrueColour reported by User:JHunterJ (Result: blocked 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [123]

• 1st revert: [124] ([125])
• 2nd revert: [126] ([127])

Previous version reverted to: [128]

• 3rd revert: [129] ([130])

Previous version reverted to: [131]

• 4th revert: [132] ([133])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:Muzakaj (Result: 72h block and 1RR editing restriction for Tadija, 24h for Muzakaj)

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

Previous version reverted to: [[136]]

• 1st revert: [137]
• 2nd revert: [138]
• 3rd revert: [139]
• 4th revert: [140]

Comments:User reverting to the "right" version ignroing the 2 names of the town. Such things happen all the time in the Albanian wiki. Our admins deal with them immediately.

This is not Albanian wiki. For more, see also (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Muzakaj) Tadija (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not Albanian wiki. For more, see also (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Muzakaj) Tadija (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In which you admited you were wrong. You broke the rules, time to pay.--Muzakaj (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE I just found out that this user has had a sockpuppet in the past, and has been blocked in other times for edit warring. In Albanian wikipedia sockpuppet=indefinite block.--Muzakaj (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not Albanian wiki. And no, i didn't. I was reverting sock user Sarandioti. Blocking admin can explain very well. That was just little mistake that you are telling me. Main problem is still here. You cannot edit whatever you think is ok by your standards. And at the end, this is actually wrong, as those edits occur in more then 24 hours... Tadija (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Same goes to you, although I just used the standards. And now you're admiting you waited to do that, so you can't be blocked?Hmm...in Albanian wiki we call that loje me sistemin, meaning gaming the system. hmm...--Muzakaj (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Muzakaj is blocked indef as a sock of User:Sarandioti, a highly disruptive user. - Tadija (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Rachelbirnbaum reported by User:EvilweaselSA (Result:Both accounts blocked indef, page semi-protected)

Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rachelbirnbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law&oldid=332090507

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law&action=history <- all visible here, unfortunately I don't get how to do diff links, but there are more than three
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law

Comments:

There has been considerable discussion on the talk page, and no comments from Rachelbirnbaum. I've attempted to discuss it, and after other input pared down the previous changes rather than removing them and starting again, but there has been no response, just reverting the page. I apologize if I messed something up here, I'm new at this. EvilweaselSA (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I just see a bunch of edit warring between new users including both of you. I blocked both along with another account indef and semi-protected the page. Secret ^account 13:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • With respect, I think it might be a bit more complex than that - but agree that the indefs and protection will settle the dispute for now. To their credit, the reporting editor (EvilweaselSA) appears to have made a good faith attempt to discuss issues, whereas the Rachelbirnbaum account did not. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Danieldis47 reported by Shlomke (talk) (Result:48 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Danieldis47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 04:23, 17 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332191892 by 99.155.206.57 (talk)criticism not relevant; the cartoon exists as described")
2. 04:53, 17 December 2009 (edit summary: "see disc. page; Lieberman is one of most visible/powerful Jews in the US & the 1st Jew on a presidential ticket; cartoon fits within the long history of Jews falsely accused of murdering Christians")
3. 05:48, 17 December 2009 (edit summary: "An active discussion is now underway on Discussion Page; this editor gives no specific reasons for his deletion; please show common Wikipedia courtesy")

• Diff of warning: here and here

—Shlomke (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked 48 hours by User:BozMo Secret ^account 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:MariAna Mimi reported by [[User:80.47.73.66 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)]] (Result:No block, for now )

Page: Reality Killed the Video Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MariAna Mimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

• 1st revert: [142]
• 2nd revert: [143]
• 3rd revert: [144]

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

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

Comments:

User: MariAna Mimi has a history of edit-warring, and was blocked for edit-warring on this very article only 2 weeks ago as seen here. The article page in question was also fully protected by an admin for 2 weeks. Now that the two weeks are up, MariAna Mimi is back up to her old tricks and is deleting and reverting the same content from a reliable, reputable source in favour of her own choices that are more flattering towards the article subject. She was also told by the admin who blocked her 2 weeks ago that she has to start using the talk page to discuss changes and seek consensus before she reverts. However, all she has actually done is revert the material then placed her reason for doing so on the article talk page, which is not engaging in discussion or gaining consensus at all. She has reverted the page 3 times in the past 16 hours, despite attempts to discuss the matter on the article talk page and another warning about edit-warring placed on her own talk page. Though this isn't technically surpassing the 3RR (yet) there is a clear pattern of edit-warring behaviour present with this user (she was also blocked for edit-warring in June 09 as well as 2 weeks ago, and received a final warning from another admin on 26 November 09 for edit-warring on other articles). It's obvious she has learned nothing from being blocked so I feel a longer block should be issued for this persistent and disruptive behaviour. 80.47.73.66 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a clear 3rr here, only three reverts, no block Secret ^account 13:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The user has continued edit-warring after this report was filed and has now broken the 3RR rule. A new report has been filed below as this one is now marked as "dealt with". 80.47.93.242 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember that this noticeboard isn't just for reports of 3RR, but also edit warring generally. The user was blocked just weeks ago for edit warring on the article, and has resumed aggressive editing tactics immediately once the two week full protection expired. Try to evaluate the entire situation or defer. NJA (t/c) 13:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User:94.192.246.167 reported by User:segrov (Result:3 reverts, no block, other party warned )

Page: Digital Audio Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 94.192.246.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This might be the same user as this: [user:Digitalradiotech]

Previous version reverted to: [147]

• 1st revert: [148]
• 2nd revert: [149]
• 3rd revert: [150]
• 4th revert: [151]
• 5th revert: [152]
• 6th revert: [153]

I believe this is the same person as i have been reported earlier, under a different name. The Digital Audio Broadcast page is tormented with strong battles centered around maybe one person who have a strong opinion about sound quality. This has been going on for a few years.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155] [link]

I accept that i might be blocked to. I just wish for a balanced edit.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [156] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments:
I have for some time done edits under the ip-range around 84.48.121.36, in case you wonder.

Segrov (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No block as only three reverts, both of you stop edit warring, either of you touch the page again in the next few days, you will get a block. Secret ^account 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That’s fine, I will not edit the DAB page for a while. Does this means that User:94.192.246.167 is going to receive a block since he did his 6th revert a few hours ago: [158] ? Segrov (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:WVBluefield reported by User:Atmoz (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [159]

• 1st revert: [160] one statement was unsourced and critical, the other was sourced to a blog, BLP exemption
• 2nd revert: [161] same as above, one statement was unsourced and critical, the other was sourced to a blog, BLP exemption
• 3rd revert: [162]
• 4th revert: [163] material that was reverted did not match the source and was WP:NOR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A. Editors knows about 3RR. Been blocked previously for it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A.

Comments:
The material that was removed in the first two edits was sourced to a blog, and that a BLP no no. The individuals who inserted it should have know better, and I suspect they did as they changed the reference to a WP:RS. At any rate, it is now being discussed on the talkpage at my initiative. WVBluefield (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Having issue establishing clear edit warring, which is likely why the report was skipped over by other admins. I'd look over dispute resolution policy to try to engage them fully in the process of editing constructively. There are other noticeboards for BLP and reliable sources as well that may be of assistance. NJA (t/c) 13:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Manticore126 reported by User:Mr. No Funny Nickname (Result: Both parties warned)

Page: Rick Dykstra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Manticore126 (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:
Article had been going through a constructive revision and dispute resolution by myself and User:Stc573. User:Manticore126 has contributed nothing but to completly delete a section that offends him. Also, upon review, I have found that this is not the first time the user has resorted to this. [171]

Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both warned. Since Bearcat has opened an RfC about the disputed paragraph, the parties are warned not to add or remove the paragraph until consensus is reached in the RfC. Blocks are possible otherwise. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the RFC is about the photograph only, not any text, so it's of only indirect relevance here. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:MariAna Mimi, reported by User:80.47.53.183 05:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) (Result: Final warn, 1RR restriction)

Page: Reality Killed the Video Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MariAna Mimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [172]

• 1st revert: [173]
• 2nd revert: [174]
• 3rd revert: [175]
• 4th revert: [176]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Comments:

3RR violation and on-going edit-warring. I reported this yesterday - first as an edit-warring issue before 3RR occured (which was ignored) and then reported it again later the same day after 3RR had occured but the second report was inappropriately removed by another editor. User: MariAna Mimi has a history of edit-warring, and was blocked for 3RR and edit-warring on this very article only 2 weeks ago as seen here. The article page in question was also fully protected by an admin for 2 weeks. Now that the two weeks are up, MariAna Mimi is back up to her old tricks and is deleting and reverting the same content from a reliable, reputable source in favour of her own choices that are more flattering towards the article subject. She was also told by the admin who blocked her 2 weeks ago that she has to start using the talk page to discuss changes and seek consensus before she reverts information. However, all she has actually done is revert the material then placed her reason for doing so on the article talk page, which is not engaging in discussion or gaining consensus at all. She has reverted the same detail on the page 4 times in the past 24 hours, despite attempts to discuss the matter on the article talk page and another warning about edit-warring placed on her own talk page. Attempts to discuss with her are met with an immature, territorial and confrontational attitude. There is a clear pattern of edit-warring behaviour present with this user (she was also blocked for edit-warring in June 09 as well as 2 weeks ago, and received a final warning from another admin on 26 November 09 for edit-warring on other articles). It's obvious she has learned nothing from being blocked so I feel a longer block should be issued for this persistent and disruptive behaviour. 80.47.53.183 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Warned NJA (t/c) 13:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User:81.155.106.6 reported by Ian Dalziel (talk) (Result:48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Homophone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.155.106.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 11:06, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 11:12, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332473405 by Christopher Pritchard (talk)")
3. 14:54, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 14:59, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332498192 by Ian Dalziel (talk)")
5. 15:04, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Result -- IP blocked 48h for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dan56 reported by User:GerardW (Result: 72h)

Page: Rated R (Rihanna album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [179]
• 2nd revert: [180]
• 3rd revert: [181]
• 4th revert: [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

Comments: See page history for additional edits and uncivil behavior (profanity) in edit summaries: [184]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Vitorvicentevalente reported by User:Gerardw (Result:2 wks)

Page: Rated R (Rihanna album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Vitorvicentevalente (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [185]
• 2nd revert: [186]
• 3rd revert: [187]
• 4th revert: [188]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189]

Comments:Engaged in long running edit war, please see history [190]

• Blocked – for a period of Two Weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:FactStraight reported by User:66.162.39.129 (Result: Submitter blocked)

• Page: Leonida Georgievna, Grand Duchess of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Reporting user 66.162.39.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User being reported: FactStraight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [02:20, 12 December 2009]

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

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

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

Comments:

Continues to remove cited work and requests for citations from articles66.162.39.129 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Submitter IP is recently blocked two weeks as a sock of User:Tfoxworth, per WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Japheth the Warlock reported by Vidkun (talk) (Result:Stale )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Warlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Japheth the Warlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 17:08, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 18:54, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "still exists or I wouldn't link to it")
3. 18:59, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "So? It's better than no link, and it provides useful information.")
4. 19:42, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")

Discussed on article talk page, no resolution Link to User Talk page and another, user is refusing to engage in discussion.--Vidkun (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Stale case, warned, will block if he reverts the page again. Secret ^account 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, not stale: he did it again. Drmies (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, user continued a couple of times, received another final warning, now blocked for a week. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Echidna2007 reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: 24h both)

Page: Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Echidna2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

• 1st revert: [192]
• 2nd revert: [193]
• 3rd revert: [194]
• 4th revert: [195]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [The problem is with one user]

Comments:

User is also trying to insert secondary and arguable information into header ("Transparency International" is a think tank, and therefore only purveys opinions), when the point is already given lengthy treatment in Economy section. Membership in G-20, though, is matter of record, and can be found in the intros of almost all other G-20 country articles.

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Pantherskin reported by User:Martintg (Result: Being discussed)

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

Previous version reverted to: [197]

• 1st revert: 11:02, 18 December 2009
• 2nd revert: 13:27, 18 December 2009
• 3rd revert: 05:22, 19 December 2009
• 4th revert: 05:36, 19 December 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [198]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [199]

Comments:
User:Pantherskin has previously edit warred this page and now is blindly reverting a synthesis tag, the issue has not been adequately resolved on talk. --Martin (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see that you did not even notify me - the 3RR bogus link you provided above is not a warning, and is from December 2. What could shed light on the situation is this ongoing Arbcom case, see [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Disruption_7] where Martin has been found to have participated in tag team edit-warring organized on a secret mailing list. The other editor who reverted one of my edits, Miacek was also part of this mailing list. See also this proposed decision (which almost surely will pass) [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Editors_under_revert_restriction] which would include Miacek and Martin.

I removed the synthesis tag three times, the first revert in this report is an edit that restored content removed by an account registered on December 2, with exactly one edit under the belt at the time of the edit (see [200]). Only amazed at how quickly this new account found exactly this sentence in this obscure article. Note that there was a discussion at the reliable source noticeboard that brought one involved editor, User:The Four Deuces, to the article. He agreed with the inclusion of the material, as did implicitly the uninvolved admin User:Alex Bakharev, who originally added the information about her work at the radio station [[201]]. Since the article and the talk page is filibustered by Martin, with repeated removal, taggings and claims of synthesis. Pantherskin (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but other editors also have issues with synthesis, removal of the tag or personally attacking myself does not make that issue go away, nor does it entitle you to edit war either.. --Martin (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2009 (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. Further, you both need to just sort this spat out and be done with it. If you're having trouble, see WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 19:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston states that 3RR has been breached here. The first is a revert with the edit summary: "Undid revision 332472269 by Bobwikwiki (talk)". The 3 others are reverts too. --Martin (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I strike my previous comment, sorry, yes there was a 3RR. However it does appear the issue is being discussed. Thus the disruption issue isn't currently a threat, however if edit warring were to continue please re-report for a block. NJA (t/c) 20:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As I wasnt aware of three-revert-rule before I was reported here, I should have at least received a warning by Martintg. There was none. It seems that this report is not about preventing a revert war but about getting me blocked and about winning a content dispute. Note that Martintg fully participated in this revert war, and he only stayed below three reverts because Miacek also participated, what strongly reminds me of the revert wars coordinated by the Eastern European mailing list. I know by now that I need to be more careful with reverts, but my point stays that this is a bad faith report. I will refrain from editing at this article for some time, as the stonewalling of the EEML members makes normal editing and article improvement discussions almost impossible. Pantherskin (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[[202]] so much for Martintg being concerned about preventing an edit war.... Pantherskin (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that whilst a warning that you violated 3RR and you've been reported here is preferred, not doing so doesn't excuse someone from breaking the rule, nor does it preclude a block for breach. NJA (t/c) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:60.48.191.73 reported by User:jasepl (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Hong Kong International Airport‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 60.48.191.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203]

• 1st revert: [204]
• 2nd revert: [205]
• 3rd revert: [206]
• 4th revert: [207]
• 5th revert: [208]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [209]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [210]

Comments:
The IP insists on reverting to their own version of things, despite several explanations from three experienced editors. In addition, IP's comments on my talk page are re-added, every time I remove them. 3RR violated on my talk page as well.

• Attempts to explain, or to warn the IP resulted in IP blanking their talk page.
• A courtesy that this report had been filed also resulted in the talk page being blanked.
• An explantion on the article talk page was also reverted by the IP.

Jasepl (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• This editor Jasepl (talk), The IP editor is asking the editor to provide the actual link to support his word, but the editor Jasepl (talk) didn't. The editor is ignore the message instead of keep on revert the Talk Page and others. The editor Jasepl (talk) also breaking the 3RR rule.

Hope admin can investigate it. Thanks! 60.48.191.73 (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment Reverting (more then three times) Jasepl's removal and calling them a vandal is rather disruptive, as the user (infact any user) has the right to remove comments and warnings from their user talk page whether it was in good faith or not. Bidgee (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Result Blocked for 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Blanchardb reported by User:Qikr (Result: 24h)

Page: Queer Fist
User being reported: Blanchardb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&oldid=332668948

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=332697613&oldid=332697581
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=next&oldid=332697813
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=next&oldid=332698166
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=next&oldid=332699626

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlanchardb&action=historysubmit&diff=332701425&oldid=332698271

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queer_Fist

Didn't see that. Anyway, as stated on my talk page, I've already moved on to other issues. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And you also didn't see the messages Nancy Meyer left on your talk page? Sure. You called me a vandal which is not constructive. Saying you've moved on doesn't change what you've already done, it just means you refuse to apologize or take responsibility. If you get away with it this time then you'll know you can do it again to someone else. Qikr (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am taking responsibility for the fact my anti-vandal software went directly to a Level 2 warning without asking me, because of a past mistake of another editor gave you a level 1 warning which mentions nothing about vandalism. And I do apologize for that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's ok to toss out warnings when people make edits you disagree with? Since when? Qikr (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
He tossed out fake warnings to intimidate me and I think he succeeded in intimidating Nancy Meier! Qikr (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for 3RR violation, not accidental warnings on talk pages. NJA (t/c) 19:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

83.242.88.168 reported by Lucek (Result: 31h)

Page: Katowice
User being reported: LUCPOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&oldid=332491767

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332699031&oldid=332491984
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332700653&oldid=332700050
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332713577&oldid=332708343
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332717905&oldid=332714382

All registrations are with only 19 December 2009 (UTC+1). LUCPOL (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of hours Not a clear 3RR today, but close enough and the page edit history shows a lot of similar reversions by same user. Thus clearly some behavioural and disruption issues. NJA (t/c) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mrandsl reported by User:Dodo19 (Result: No violation)

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

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

• 1st revert: [211]
• 2nd revert: [212]
• 3rd revert: [213]
• 4th revert: [214]
• 5th revert: [215]
• 6th revert: [216]

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

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

Comments:

Looking at the history, User:Mrandsl has only reverted twice in the last 24 hours. I will also note that he has been removing very serious allegations, including about living persons, which may or may not be properly sourced or unsourced altogether. In view of this, the material should remain deleted from the article until consensus is reached for its inclusion. The request for comment is a good start. --Slp1 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Vryadly reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: 31 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vryadly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 00:15, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jones email of 2 Feb 2005 */")
2. 00:16, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003 */")
3. 00:26, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332765058 by Tony Sidaway (talk)")
4. 00:33, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332766325 by ChrisO (talk) partisan deletion undone. claim that wall street journal is "bad sourcing" is ridiculous")
5. 00:44, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332767002 by Scjessey (talk) A partisan deletion with unsupported vandalism claim undone again")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

The same material was first introduced by IP 89.176.112.74 (see diff). After it was reverted, the IP added it again (see diff). Then the page was semi-protected to prevent further additions. The subsequent edits by User:Vryadly sought to restore the same material. A brief analysis of the contribs for Vryadly and the IP seem to indicate that they are almost certainly the same individual. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think that the evidence shows that 89.176.112.74 (talk · contribs) and Vryadly (talk · contribs) are the same accounts. Both accounts were previously warned about edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear violation when reverts from both accounts are shown together:

1. 23:27, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "→Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003")
2. 23:49, 19 December 2009(edit summary: "→Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003")
3. 00:15, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jones email of 2 Feb 2005 */")
4. 00:16, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003 */")
5. 00:26, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332765058 by Tony Sidaway (talk)")
6. 00:33, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332766325 by ChrisO (talk) partisan deletion undone. claim that wall street journal is "bad sourcing" is ridiculous")
7. 00:44, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332767002 by Scjessey (talk) A partisan deletion with unsupported vandalism claim undone again")

'Comment': Yes, it was me. I had to log in after the article had been protected from unregistered users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vryadly (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are basically admitting that because semi-protection prevented you from edit warring as an IP, you were forced to log in so that you could continue the edit war? That's unbelievable, quite frankly. And then you have the audacity to file a (malformed) 3RR complaint against me? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, there's enough evidence for a clear block. No need to continue this. Both accounts were warned, yet continued to edit war. We simply need an administrator to review this. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite a strong language. I was editing the page adding new emails relevant to the article. Right after I corrected the reference that had been pointed wrong to me, I found that the page was closed for unregistered users. So, yes, I had to recall my password and log in in order to continue editing the article. Then I found that a group of people is deleting my edits without bothering to give any reasonable explanations, and notwithstanding my wiliness to correct the issues I had been informed of. Right after I corrected the reasons you cited for deleting the emails, you deleted them again. So, yes, I have the "audacity" to report you on editing war.

Besides, if you took your time to look into first four edits, you would find that they were exactly edits, not reverts Vryadly (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Scjessey, User:Tony Sidaway reported by Vryadly (talk) (Result: No violation )

• Three-revert rule violation on

1. 23:39, 19 December 2009(edit summary: rv to 23:21, 19 December 2009 89.176.112.74 . Can't find any ref to WIgley in reference given.)
2. 23:56, 19 December 2009 "Reverted 2 edits by 89.176.112.74; Remove synthesis. using TW")
3. 00:22, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "rv. Poor sourcing. BLP problems.")
4. 00:30, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "rv per WP:BLP - bad sourcing, cherry-picked, no context")
5. 00:34, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Vryadly identified as vandalism to last revision by ChrisO. using TW")
6. 00:44, 20 December 2009(edit summary: (Reverted edits by [User:Vryadly] to last revision by [User:Scjessey] (HG)))

Comments:

Taking into account the timing and the similarity of action (no attempts to edit the article, no attempt for meaningful discussion, just deletion of information relevant to the article), the actions of users User:Scjessey,User:Tony Sidaway,User:ChrisO and User:P Carn have been probably coordinated.

Moreover, due to the fact that the first time the reason cited for the deletion was wrong reference, but even after the reference (WSJ) was corrected, the deletion continued, the deletions were caused apparently not by Wikipedia rules but by a partisan agenda.

Comment: I believe this has been discussed extensively on the talk page, and the user is required to discuss their proposed changes on talk and join the discussion, no matter how many accounts they use. See report immediately above this one. Vryadly is using multiple accounts (including 89.176.112.74 (talk · contribs)) to edit war. Recommend that this report is closed with prejudice and that both Vryadly and 89.176.112.74 are blocked for intentional disruption. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - this is obviously a bad faith retaliation, and the diffs provided clearly show that neither the letter, nor the spirit of WP:3RR have been violated by me. The edits were conducted under the auspices of WP:BLP, with proper warnings given. The malformed report above actually combines the edits of four separate editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vryadly. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes, it was me from the IP, though I was not "using multiple accounts for editing wars". Right in the middle of an edit I was doing, the page was closed for unregistered editing, so I had to log in to continue editing it - only to found my previous edits deleted. Vryadly (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting departure. An edit warrior and probable sock puppet files a complaint against the multiple editors who reverted his nonsense, on the grounds that their edits must have been coordinated and therefore must be sanctionable. --TS 02:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Would you please specify what exactly you call "nonsense" and on what grounds? Vryadly (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Declined No violation of 3RR here. Having multiple editors "coordinate" their opposition to one's edits is not a violation, but may be an indication that one is acting against consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Singhboi89 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result:24 h )

Page: Jatt Sikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Singhboi89 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[225]

Comments:

There is a suspicion that this user is the blocked vandal IP: 86.136.213.236, which has caused much disruption to many articles. Note I am not the only one who has reverted his edits. He has made suspected disruptive edits [226]. He has totally vandalised [227] article as well as this article. He is a suspected sockpuppet ofthis blocked user (this will need further investigation. The behaviour on many articles on surnames seems to be like a bot and needs a more advanced user than me to investigate.

User:M i k e y 86 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Brisbane Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M i k e y 86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 14:43, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I rearranged the page to make it more suitable, as the other layout did not flow. this is more aesthetically pleasing")
2. 14:45, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 14:47, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Airlines and destinations */ Removed Destination picture it is not current as per the destinations create a new picture with the correct destinations and update it when new destinations come online")
4. 23:32, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "undo edit, we all know what the point of an airport is but the layout of the page is not flowing and makes for an un pleasant read! Please leave it. consult on talk page if you dont like the change")
5. 03:43, 18 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop changing the layout, discuss on talk page before changing! The layout you have constructed is unpleasing to read it lacks structure!!")
6. 12:45, 18 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 332440016 by Bidgee (talk)Please discuss with me before changing!")

• Diff of warning: here

Comment: This editor refuses to take the problem to the talk page and the latest revert by the editor clearly shows they have an ownership of the article. Bidgee (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

—Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I especially like the last comment from user M i k e y 86: "please discuss with me before changing"! And to add my two bits, I have had to ask this user to get familiar with the aviation project guidelines - which they insist on dismissing, preferring to do what they feel like and say things like "Unfortunately readers will not know about this "project" and standards of "pleasantness" and "prettiness" should be up held. Reader want something that is well structed, if it isnt it makes for an unpleasant reading experience, in which the "Project" should adopt these important standards". And that's just one of many examples. Jasepl (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a formal 3RR, but this editor does seem to have his own special preference for how an airport article should look. I don't notice him waiting to find consensus, and I see that he restores his preference numerous times after it's reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the comment that this is primarily a content dispute. The content guidelines at WP:Airports are very clear on the layout and hierarchy of airport articles. Jasepl (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jasepl on this. Jasepl clearly pointed at the guidelines set by the Airports project however the editor didn't take the advice and continued to push their view and lay-out, hardly a content dispute. Bidgee (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm essentially now gone for a week, but get together your facts and consensus at make a request at Wikipedia:PER. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 16:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kalphiter reported by Sole Soul (talk) (Result: 31h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Blockland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kalphiter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 18:20, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332707805 by Ephialtes42 (talk)")
2. 18:27, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332708457 by Ephialtes42 (talk) Deleting reference for an invalid reason")
3. 18:37, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332710270 by Ephialtes42 (talk) Jealousy is not tolerated")
4. 18:53, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332711552 by Ephialtes42 (talk) I never added my own website")
5. 19:03, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332713222 by Ephialtes42 (talk)")
6. 01:48, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332714875 by 98.27.129.104 (talk)")
7. 03:08, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332787863 by 188.222.0.45 (talk)")
8. 03:30, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332789139 by 188.222.0.45 (talk)")

The user is adding a reference with a link to his site.

—Sole Soul (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:BruceGrubb reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: 08:51, 19 December 2009

• 1st revert: [228]
• 2nd revert: [229] (as IP user 67.42.65.214)
• 3rd revert: [230]
• 4th revert: [231]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Bruce has been blocked for 3rr before: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive61#User:BruceGrubb_reported_by_User:Slakr_.28Result:_8_hours.29. Current warning: [232]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233]

Comments:

--Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2007 edit-warring case seems old, but the behavior of BruceGrubb in the current dispute is worrisome. It is plausible that he may be using 67.42.65.214 to revert in favor of his point of view. (How likely is it that both the IP and BruceGrubb would support including Remsburg's work in the article?) I left a message on BruceGrubb's Talk page and asked him to respond here. BruceGrubb appears to be in a minority on the talk page, since no-one else supports including Remsburg, but he reverts anyway. A conciliatory response from him might be enough to avoid admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please compare Special:Contributions/67.42.65.214 and Special:Contributions/BruceGrubb. Both have edited Christ myth theory, Psystar Corporation, Jack T. Chick, Time Travel, and Rorschach test--it's pretty unlikely that this is coincidence. I linked to the edit warring case from 2007 simply to show that BruceGrubb is aware of the 3RR rule. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Result - 31 hours, edit-warring to force Remsburg's theories into the article with no support from others, and use of a sock in an edit war. Block may be lifted early if the user will commit to an acceptable style of dispute resolution regarding this article and related ones. If Bruce will agree to an RfC about Remsburg I trust the other editors will be ready to join that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Radical-Dreamer reported by User:Atlan (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [234]

• 1st revert: [235]
• 2nd revert: [236]
• 3rd revert: [237]
• 4th revert: [238]

All reverts within the last few hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [239]

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

Comments:

I've had no prior involvement in this dispute before this ANI report.--Atlan (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - relatively new user - but with possible problems relating to POV issues (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Radical-Dreamer) I have explained to this editor the various issues involved (see link), but they are not really taking that much notice. There is a wider POV problem beyond breaking the 3RR which is explained on the incidents page. The last edit shows them ignoring other editors, yet clearly aware of the problem. [241]Shortfatlad (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by J.delanoy--Atlan (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kostja reported by User:Athenean (Result: Protected)

Page: Bulgarisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete |