Page:Mariah Carey (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Petergriffin9901 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[1]

[2]

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

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period oftwenty-four hours --tariqabjotu21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Mariah Carey (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Diphosphate8 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

See above.

Blocked – for a period oftwenty-four hours --tariqabjotu21:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

While viewing and correcting misleading information on the "complementary color" page, an individual who calls him/her-self "Taroaldo" repeatedly undid or replaced my correct material with his/her incorrect and misleading information. He/she did this three times accusing me of vandalism when I was simply removing all of the incorrect opinions and replacing it with verifiable facts. Honestly I had no idea that there was a 3 undo rule (or whatever you call it) so I continued to replace his erroneous and misleading information with factual scientifically tested and proven information. At this point he enlists help of someone who calls themselves an administrator referred to as Bart133. I learned about your "3RR" rule because Bart133 stated (as you will see on the revision history page) that he himself "...broke 3RR with that." Now I don't know what the heck a talk page is but they kept saying "take it to the talk page", But if that is some sort of rule then shouldn't they have followed the same rule without continuously deleting my correct information and replacing it with their misleading unfactual garbage?

So why is it that these vandals are allowed to repeatedly replace scientifically-fact-based information with their opinions? This is a VERY important issue because I have had students bring in "research information" that is completely incorrect that they have gleaned here on Wikipedia from these information bandits.

• This will probably be removed due to not reporting anyone, but why did you never respond to any communication directed to you?Bart133^tc@20:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Hmm. What is this? The common denominator here is the one editorArchitecture and Interior Design who has rebuffed ALL attempts at communication made by several other editors. While his adding of controversial content is not vandalism, his repeated section blanking and repeated removal of properly sourced material certainly are vandalism-related issues and so I do not believe the3RR rule would even apply.Taroaldo (talk)21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Taroaldo did not exceed 3RR and was not warned. Architecture and Interior Design, you have reverted at least 7 times but I accept that you were unaware of 3RR. You have not discussed your concerns on the talk page. You really must do that and not edit war. I've only protected the page for a day, if the edit war begins again after that, anyone breaking 3RR is likely to be blocked.Dougweller (talk)21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The real common denominator here is that 4 individuals have ganged up on one person in an attempt to spread their incorrect information to the rest of the world. That is the ONLY common denominator here. According to Wikipedia guidlines there is no difference in Taroaldo using his user name 3 times and then calling in his buddies to finish his work. In essence he has used you to complete his 7 or 8 RR blah blah whateve5r you call it. You can keep saying whatever you want but there is nothing right and nothing fair about what you people have done here today.—Precedingunsigned comment added byArchitecture and Interior Design (talk •contribs)22:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Page:Complementary color (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
• User being reported:Bart133 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

1. (cur | prev) 19:49, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (3,364 bytes) (I broke 3RR with that, even though the edits are clearly unhelpful (HG)) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 19:46, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Take it to the talk page, and see WP:3RR. (HG)) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 19:44, 18 July 2010 Architecture and Interior Design (talk | contribs) (3,364 bytes) (Flawed sources and flawed information perpetuated by individuals bent on misleading the public) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 19:43, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (talk page (HG)) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 19:40, 18 July 2010 Architecture and Interior Design (talk | contribs) (3,358 bytes) (Undid revision 374180473 by Bart133 (talk)) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 19:37, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Reverted edits by Architecture and Interior Design (talk) to last revision by Bart133 (HG)) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 19:37, 18 July 2010 Architecture and Interior Design (talk | contribs) (3,358 bytes) (Undid revision 374180222 by Bart133 (talk)) (undo)
8. (cur | prev) 19:35, 18 July 2010 Bart133 (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (use talk page for that (HG)) (undo)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] What is an "article talk page?"

Comments:

While viewing and correcting misleading information on the "complementary color" page, an individual who calls him/her-self "Bart133" joined "Taroaldo" in an editing war as I repeatedly attempted to correct incorrect information that they insist on using to mislead the general community. Honestly I had no idea that there was a 3 undo rule (or whatever you call it) so I continued to replace their erroneous and misleading information with factual scientifically tested and proven information. I learned about your "3RR" rule only because Bart133 stated (as you will see on the revision history page) that he himself "...broke 3RR with that." Now I don't know what the heck a talk page is but they kept saying "take it to the talk page", But if that is some sort of rule then shouldn't they have followed the same rule without continuously deleting my correct information and replacing it with their misleading unfactual garbage?

• Page protected Bart not warned, and reporting editor is at 7RR. I'm hardly going to block anyone else without blocking Architecture and Interior Design. See aboveDougweller (talk)21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia system didn't "warn" this Bart person that has nothing to do with me. Must be a failure in Wikipedia's software or something. I saw notes that said something about "talk pages" but what the heck is that and how do you access it? All I know is jerks were intent about passing off erroneous information as fact and that is never good. If they know how to use the system against a novice users well good for them, but there needs to be a system in place to protect the novice from these computer geeks that somehow learned and understand this "Wiki" language. I guess it's obtained through osmosis or something. Maybe if I start living and breathing Wiki I'll get it someday. Please, for God's sake tell me what the heck "3RR" and "7RR" is. Can't you people just speak clear and plain English?

• Wikipedia doesn't warn users; users warn users.3RR is a policy againstreverting a user's changes to an article (in most cases). When Dougweller said you were at 7RR, he meant that you had reverted the article seven times.Bart133^tc@22:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So basically what you are saying is that it is completely fine for you all to do that to me but it isn't OK for me to defend what I know to be correct. You people are not honest and you are not fair. I didn't get any warnings either but you seem to be just fine with that. I guess it's just because I'm not on your level as haul monitors - Wikipedia Bully or whatever you want to call it.—Precedingunsigned comment added byArchitecture and Interior Design (talk •contribs)22:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not an administrator.Bart133^tc@22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• User being reported:Katanalder (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and94.192.142.230 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

[3] warning

Reverts (removing sourced content):[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours They're almost certainly the same person, but I only blocked the account (since the autoblock will hit the IP as well). --slakr^\ talk /06:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Rain (entertainer) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:Jenaveev18 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

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

1. 17:08, 18 July 2010(edit summary: "headers are set to standard for articles")
2. 03:49, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "seemed fine nothing was drastically changed, just minor move arounds")
3. 04:08, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "see your talk page")
4. 04:22, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "please see your talk page; their was nothing wrong with the changes made by the IP")
5. 04:38, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "headers are the exact same")

• Diff of warning:here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On theirtalkpage, mytalkpage, and a previous discussion on the article'stalkpage about the organization of headers.

Comments: Account is single-purpose only, as well...
—oncamera^(t)05:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User seems to be well intentioned, and says he/she won't revert again. Try to introduce them to the way things work.Prodego^talk05:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I also spoke to this user (IRC live help) and believe their intentions to be good; we had a chat about the need to discuss and reach consensus, and how to do so. I do not think any further action is required. Chzz  ► 06:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If they have an understanding now, then I'll change the headers back and see what comes out of that.oncamera^(t)15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[11]

• 1st revert:[12]
• 2nd revert:[13]
• 3rd revert:[14]
• 4th revert:[15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[17]

Comments:

• Result - Blocked 12 hours. Editor broke 3RR, and would not respond when asked to promise here to stop edit warring. He has never participated on the article talk page, where an RfC is running about some of the material he is changing.EdJohnston (talk)22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[18]

• 1st revert:[19]
• 2nd revert:[20]
• 3rd revert:[21]
• 4th revert:[22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[24]

Comments:

Apologies. I try to wait out 24 hours until reverting the third time. With half a dozen reverts byUser:JohnAlabamaNestroy, I must have fogotten that it's been less than a full day.Mhym (talk)16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Promise to be careful in the future and never make 3RR.Mhym (talk)16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot nothing. You willfully pushed the limit as yourpost on the article's talk page clearly reveals. And you were caught out. How about a little more honesty? __meco (talk)17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks is a good policy. I will not be responding to such insults.Mhym (talk)00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action. Editor has agreed not to violate 3RR in the future. He has also been a participant on the article talk page. He should try not toinvite others to revert for him, however.EdJohnston (talk)22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[25]

• 1st revert:[26]
• 2nd revert:[27]
• 3rd revert:[28]
• 4th revert:[29]

Arguments for inclusion of the Romanian name:[30] (79.117.148.221 (talk)16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

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

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

Comments:

Sorry, but the annon is being quite disruptive here. He's involved in two distinct edit-wars (the other being atFC Timişoara (seethe history) and even started wikistalking me onTalk:Southern Dobruja. Further, he's doing the reverts from different IPs, clearly trying to game the system. I'll not perform any reverts and I did justify my edits when this started to look like an edit war (with a proxy IP involved). --Laveol^T21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Laveol warned not to violate 3RR again.Tutrakan andFC Timişoara are semiprotected due to disruption by a language-warring IP. All parties should readWP:Naming conventions, and should beware of discretionary sanctions underWP:DIGWUREN. Removing alternate versions of place names for nationalist reasons can lead to further admin action. Pay attention tothe advice from Anonimu about this dispute.EdJohnston (talk)22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Memory hole (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:Asher196 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 03:23, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 374166732 byJayjg (talk)")
2. 23:52, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "This is a nice little edit war we have here. This sure looks well sourced to me...")

Comments:
WhileUser:Asher196 has only reverted twice, this is classic edit-warring. After beingrecruited to revert by the other editor in the dispute, he has shown up on the page and reverted without ever participating in the lengthy discussions on the article Talk: page.Jayjg^(talk)00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined Issue appears to have been diffused onTalk:7&6=thirteen. --tariqabjotu05:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• 1 revert:[31]
• 2 revert:[32]
• 3 revert:[33]
• 4 revert:[34]
• 5 revert:[35]
• 6 revert:[36]

Four of the most recent reversions of the article were in a window of ten hours.Comments:
Editor refuses to gain consensus - and has been reverted by multiple editors. They are also edit warring onJesus. --Ari (talk)02:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Um...those are 3 different content disputes spread out over a couple of days. You are, in essence, simply refusing to allow me to edit the article. I can't add info about the sources for the readers. I can't object to your addition of sources. I can't add balancing material from skeptics. I'm not allowed to edit without your approval. Only the last content dispute is ongoing, not a violation of 3RR, and it is based on people mass-deleting referenced material without even starting a discussion on the Talk page. At least I had the courtesy to start a thread and explain myself in Talk when I made my initial edit that you opposed.Noloop (talk)04:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are in violation of the 3RR, trying to mislead about this (especially where you reverted and falsely claimed that you were reverting vandalism) is pretty convincing evidence that you are aware of 3RR and actively tried to conceal it.

On the claim that they are "over a couple of days" your lastfour reversions (04:03, 20 July 2010 , 02:04, 20 July 2010, 22:06, 19 July 2010, 18:50, 19 July 2010) were in a ten hour window. That is a lot less than a couple of days. --Ari (talk)04:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass deleting referenced material seems like vandalism to me, especially when done by an IP with no discussion in Talk. The four reverts you mention are not the same edit, or even in the same paragraph, or about the same ideas. And, the point was that you listed six edits, not four. It would generally be helpful if you addressed the concerns instead of attacking me on every issue, across multiple pages.Noloop (talk)05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Even after being reverted and warned by another editor, there seems to be no stopping them. (+ 6th revert) --Ari (talk)04:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period oftwenty-four hours --tariqabjotu05:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Renault Alliance (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:67.164.224.243 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 22:33, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Legacy */")
2. 22:47, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Legacy */ It's in other articles and it deserves mention. I suggest you go to the Wikipedai article at Encyclopedia Dramatica and learn to stop being a pedantic cunt.")
3. 23:01, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Legacy */ I'll refrain from trolling this time but I'd like to see better justification than whiny pedantry. I have as much justification putting it in as you do taking it out and I'm not budging")
4. 00:05, 20 July 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 374390755 byCZmarlin (talk) - revert revision by CZmarlin; please offer a better reason than trolling.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:22:31, July 19, 2010(edit summary: "add template")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:19:06, July 19, 2010(edit summary: "an unscientific opinion made 26 years after the fact is not an appropriate reference for the car's history")

Comments:

This user also made personal attacks on my user page as follows:

1. 22:48, 19 July 2010(edit: "This user needs to read up on moarEncyclopedia Dramatica. It'll help, trust me.")
2. 22:50, 19 July 2010(edit: "Trust me,Encyclopedia Dramatica is way more constructive than this place. Unglue your lips from Jimmy Wales' dick, plz thx")
3. 22:51, 19 July 2010(edit: "Whoever reverts this is aCunt. ED ruelz!")

Reported by:CZmarlin (talk)02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you.

Blocked – for a period ofseventy-two hours --tariqabjotu05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Latma (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:12.204.194.66 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[37]

• 1st revert:[38]
• 2nd revert:[39]
• 3rd revert:[40]
• 4th revert:[41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[42]

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

Comments:

Although there are different IP addresses, it appears clear from the comments that this is a single editor. -Lisa (talk -contribs)03:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Race and intelligence (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

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

Time reported: 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 12:43, 17 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Brain size */ This has been reproduced. No counter data exists.")
2. 12:58, 17 July 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 373969281 byVerbal (talk) This controversial fact has been discussed ad nauseam. Why don't *you* discuss it?")
3. 17:26, 17 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Brain size */")
4. 09:26, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Brain size */ per WP:NOTCENSORED")
5. 09:13, 20 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Brain size */ Consensus is not about strength of numbers. Sources contending these figures have not been produced.")
6. 12:52, 20 July 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 374485687 byMustihussain (talk) You don't remedy "undue weight" by unsourced rewriting of facts towards your POV.")

—Wapondaponda (talk)10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev is involved in a low grade edit war on race and intelligence. Mikemikev's edits have been reverted by multiple editors, yet he appears unwilling to compromise. The article is currently on a 1RR restriction, which Mikemikev has violated at least twice. Links to 1rr restriction[43]

Mikemikev is knowledgeable about edit warring restrictions as he recently filed an edit warring complainthere

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[44]

Comments:

Wapondaponda (talk)10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the 1RR has yet been approved, but this is ongoing editwarring and needs to stop.Verbalchat10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It takes more than one to editwar. Which editors have been fighting with Mikemikev about this? (I have not checked the diffs.)David.Kane (talk)12:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

David, you reallyshould check the diffs: you're right about it taking more than one to edit war, however. It seems that several (more than two) editors have indeed[45][46][47] reverted Mikemikev on this issue (his intended insertion seems in gross violation of NPOV and significantly alters an otherwise reliable source). This article is definitely a "hotbed" for edit-warring, BTW - how could it not be? "Race and intelligence". Small wonder...Doc9871 (talk)12:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if you glance at the article history you will see multiple editors have reverted him with valid rationales. I see no one fighting with him, just one editor trying to force an edit into the article.Verbalchat12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Which specific "valid rationales" are you referring to? As best I can tell, Mikemikev wants to include average brain size data by race. Brain size data is discussed extensively by secondary sources, see Mackintosh pages 234-236. Mackintosh even cites (approvingly!) Rushton. As best I can tell, Mikemikev has addressed the arguments raised. It is not clear to me that the editors who argued about this last week remain unconvinced by the subsequent discussion. So, to make progress, we need a list of the editors that, you claim, still object to this edit and the reason(s) that have for objecting.David.Kane (talk)12:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't you take that to the article talk page? The matter being discussed here is his editwarring against multiple other good faith editors.Verbalchat12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(Cough) A "list" of editors who object, and their reason(s) why? Really?Consensus doesn't work like that, I'm afraid (thank God)...Doc9871 (talk)12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing: Another revert with uncivil edit summarydiff. There can be no argument that he hasn't gone beyond the point where he should have attempted to engage in discussion now rather than continued reverting.Verbalchat13:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have unaddressed arguments on the talk page. It's odd that those who are telling me to discuss are not discussing.mikemikev (talk)13:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't discussand editwar, and discussion doesn't involve calling other editors POV warriors. The protection should be lifted and to prevent further disruption Mikemikev should be blocked.Verbalchat13:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sincethis remains unaddressed, I assumed the discussion was over.mikemikev (talk)13:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You mean, "You are, however, an afro-centric POV pusher."? I guess thatis unresolved. This needs to go to another board...Doc9871 (talk)13:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protected --tariqabjotu13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not a valid solution, you are punishing all editors and, naturally, protecting the "wrong version" of an uncivil edit warrior. Please unprotect the page and address the actual issue.Verbalchat14:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a valid exercise of admin discretion. I do think, though, that regardless of whether or not 1RR exists, this user is asking for a block. --B (talk)14:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Deluge myth (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:Arlen22 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 13:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. July 19
2. July 19
3. July 19
4. July 20

• Diff of warning:here

CommentsRepeated page moves against consensus and edit warring over the word "myth". Further edit warring and EW warnings (other than diffs above) occurred.

—

13:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 48 hours.EdJohnston (talk)14:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Template:Pixar Animation Studios (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:68.248.237.151 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[48]

• 1st revert:[49]
• 2nd revert:[50]
• 3rd revert:[51]
• 4th revert:[52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[53]

Comments:
Anon IP is possibly another user known for pushing this issue editing without logging in. Cannot confirm yet.TheRealFennShysa (talk)20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. The IP has broken 3RR. Two different IPs from Milwaukee have been fighting (during July) to keep various things out of the template. Most likely these are the same editor. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached on the Talk page about the disputed items.EdJohnston (talk)22:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:TEK (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[54]

• 1st revert:[55]
• 2nd revert:[56]
• 3rd revert:[57]
• 4th revert:[58]

Comments:

• At first, I reverted his edit because I believed it was vandalism. When he reverted it and explained on my talk, I told him that I would place a comment on the articles talk page, and to await the decision of the community before furthur reverting. Having not heeded my message, he went on to revert the pagethree more times, each of which I was forced to revert.TEK (talk •e-mail)22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Ihgyqxfs is a brand new account that instigated this edit war (and has also violated 3RR already) by removing sourced information, and no discussion other than a request to read a different page and "restore my edit and apologize", when TEK had nothing to apologize for. Just a third party view, FWIW.TheRealFennShysa (talk)22:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I did not violate 3RR.Ihgyqxfs (talk)22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:TEKa vandalism template against me and continued his editwar even afterexplanations.Ihgyqxfs (talk)22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry. I apologise for this edit-warring. As I explained above, at the first glance, Ihgyqxfs's edits looked like vandalism – he removed sourced information, and the edit summary was tagged "removal of sources". However, he told me to readAir Comet, which has indeed ceased operations, but according to the article the company ordered A380s before it shut down. He left me a message demanding that I "restore my [Ihgyqxfs's] edit and apologize on my talk page", when in fact I had little to apologise for. I told him that I would comment on the talk page of the article and for him to stop reverting and await the decision of the community. He refused and continued to revert anyway, adding "Read what you reverted - they never ordered" on his talk for me to see. However,he did not cite any sources. Again, I apologise for the edit-warring, which I think was caused by a misjudgment on my part. I promise to stop my unacceptable behaviour. Please understand and consider my side of this conflict. Thanks.TEK (talk •e-mail)23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• TEK now claims my fault was to not cite any sources. Fact is he never asked for sources, only reverted.Ihgyqxfs (talk)00:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24h to Ihgyqxfs. A brand-new account (20 July) that may have been created just to edit-war on this article. He only has three reverts, but good faith must be questioned, since he files a report at AN3 less than an hour after creating a 'new' account. Both parties were invited to promise to stop warring but only TEK did so.EdJohnston (talk)00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

User being reported:Goodone121 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 01:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 03:42, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "")
2. 02:04, 20 July 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 374248861 byMann jess (talk) There is, indeed, a POV Dispute,under the heading "'typically considered'" pseudoscience".")
3. 23:33, 20 July 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 374417784 byMann jess (talk)Mann jess, I am warning you. Do this again, and I will be forced to request a block be placed on your account.")

• Diff of warning:here

Comments User wasjust unblocked this week after edit warring on the same article. His 3rd contribution since the auto unblock was edit warring again. It may be early for this request, as he hasn't yet violated 3RR, but since he went from a block straight into the same behavior, I feel this report is warranted. Thanks.

—

01:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. Next time will likely be much longer.Protonk (talk)02:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Muzicalb (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[59]

• 1st revert:[60] - re-adds "if not necessarily unbiased", re-replaces "influenced" with "intimidated", re-adds "several thousand missiles were fired into Israel during this time"
• 2nd revert:[61] - re-adds "if not necessarily unbiased"
• 3rd revert:[62] - re-adds "not necessarily unbiased", re-replaces "influenced" with "intimidated", removes again "The report further notes that there were also a number of anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers and e-mail addresses by some of those who provided information to Mission or assisted in its work in the Gaza Strip."
• 4th revert:[63] - re-adds "not necessarily unbiased", re-replaces "influenced" with "intimidated", removes again "The report further notes that there were also a number of anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers and e-mail addresses by some of those who provided information to Mission or assisted in its work in the Gaza Strip."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[65], not on the article talk, but an explanation of one example of the problem with the edits has been given to the editor

nableezy -06:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped now and thetotal effect of the edits following fixes and sans editorializing/advocacy looks okay-ish. The 'influenced' to 'intimidated' change is a matter of which source you pick i.e. Times says "ability ...to freely describe", BusinessDay cited later says "reports that ....may have intimidated ...are baseless". He picked the latter. The worst case, misrepresentation of a source, is describedhere. The bottomline is, he was edit warring (amongst other things), he ignored a request to go to the talk page (amongst other things), he seems to have stopped for now but whatever happens he needs to receive a notification of the

discretionary sanctions.Sean.hoyland -talk07:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Notified of the possibility of discretionary sanctions underWP:ARBPIA.EdJohnston (talk)20:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Syria (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) andGolan Heights (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Pantherskin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

This is an instance of slow-motion edit-warring on multiple pages, explained further below

OnGolan Heights:

1. 14:21, 17 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Between World War I and the Six-Day War */ excessive quoting and dubious given that the same article makes it clear that historians are very sceptical")
2. 07:29, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Between World War I and the Six-Day War */ removed excessive quote, assessment by independent historians")
3. 06:57, 21 July 2010(edit summary: "rv attempt to bias article")

OnSyria:

1. 09:54, 13 July 2010(edit summary: "fringe view, not acknowledged by serious historians")
2. 08:00, 15 July 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 373273504 byNableezy (talk)")
3. 13:40, 17 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Six Day War and Aftermath */ dubious statement, violates basic WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE")
4. 14:19, 17 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Six Day War and Aftermath */ dubvious statement, in conflict with what can be found in most history books")
5. 07:19, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Six Day War and Aftermath */ removed content that violates NPOV, a non-negotiable policy")
6. 06:51, 21 July 2010(edit summary: "NPOV and UNDUE violation")
7. 07:05, 21 July 2010(edit summary: "explained on the talk page, no consensus for this version")

Every single edit that Pantherskin has made in article space since 09:54, 13 July 2010 has been to remove a quote from Moshe Dayan about the nature of the border skirmishes between Israel and Syria. Pantherskin has been reverted by three separate users but continually comes back to re-revert. The material has been in each article for as long as I can remember. Pantherskin has claimed that it is "POV" or "fringe" to include the comments of the then Israeli Defense Minister. This has been discussed at length on the talk pages of both articles. Pantherskin isaware of the restrictions on edit-warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Syria#Invalid_Source_on_Dayan_Admitting_to_Israel_Provoking_Clashes andTalk:Golan_Heights#Dayan_quote

Comments:

nableezy -07:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Syria shows clearly no consensus to remove the Dayan text. Pantherskin is continuing to remove information he personally doesn't like. Both me and admin Zero gave him reply's at the 19th at the talkpage, and instead of answering us he started a section below with the same pov pushing he posted earlier, once again without bringing any sources. It is now clear Pantherskin wants to forcibly remove sourced information from the article he personally doesn't like, and he doesn't care about what any other person says. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk)08:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I care what other editors have to say, but I do not care what the usual partisan pro/anti-Israel editors have to say. As so far only the usual partisan editors have shown up (i.e. you, Zero and Nableezy) I have set up an RFC at the appropriate noticeboard to get the input of non-partisan editors, those are actually interested in this old-fashioned concept of NPOV.Pantherskin (talk)09:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period ofthirty hours Okay, but you're still edit-warring. --tariqabjotu14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a near-edit war going on there, with which I am involved. Two editors and an IP are violated WP:CRYSTAL and adding speculative content, which I am trying to remove.ToaNidhiki0522:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Steve Jobs (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:95.24.183.137 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:33, 21 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Early years */")
2. 23:40, 21 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Early years */")
3. 23:43, 21 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Early years */")
4. 23:48, 21 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Early years */")

• Diff of warning:User talk:95.24.183.137#Warnings
• Discussion for revert (which was being ignored by the IP user) is here:Talk:Steve_Jobs#Please Take Out the LSD Sentence

Comments:
I am a third party to this edit war. I caught the 4th attempt by this IP user to make changes to the article and, seeing the discussion on the article's talk page, reverted the changes by the user.

—ialsoagree (talk)00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment:X! has blocked this IP for 24 hours for edit warring.ialsoagree (talk)04:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert:[66]
• 2nd revert:[67]
• 3rd revert:[68]
• 4th revert:[69]
• 5th revert:[70]
• 6th revert:[71]

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

Comments:

I am reporting myself as I forgot the 3RR rule and engaged in an edit war with another user. I am sorry, and I have just posted on the article talk page moments ago to try to resolve this dispute without further reversion at this time. My most recent reversion has been reverted by another user.OCNative (talk)00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not blocked Since you have clearly understood that you've violated the rule and stopped reverting, I don;t feel that further action is necessary.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?08:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Classical liberalism (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:Seven days seven nights (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 07:44, 21 July 2010 (compare)(edit summary: "")
2. 20:46, 21 July 2010 (compare)(edit summary: "no difficulty")
3. 01:30, 22 July 2010 (compare)(edit summary: "This is personal lack of ability to tell the difference. It is not truly difficult to tell.")
4. 02:10, 22 July 2010 (compare)(edit summary: ""difficult to tell" is personal lack of mental power of the editor")

• Diff of warning:here
• Discussion for revert ishere

TFD (talk)02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Not blocked There is a technical breach of the 3RR, but this is a very new editor and "reverted good faith edits" does not explainwhy you;re reverting them, so I can sympathise with their frustration.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?08:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Afghans in Pakistan (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Saki (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[73]

• 1st revert:[74]
• 2nd revert:[75]
• 3rd revert:[76]
• 4th revert:[77]
• 5th revert:[78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[80]

Comments: User:Saki is very disruptive, he refuses to explain why he is reverting my fixing of the article. I also suspect that he may be another sockpuppet of bannedUser:Teckgeek, the creator of theAfghans in Pakistan article who used a numbe of other blocked IDs to edit the same page, andUser:CaliforniaAliBaba is probably another of his ID because that one also began distrupting my edits at the same time and both of them have very similar bios on their user pages. Example, both speak same languages and been to same countries, etc. I further suspect that he is aPunjabi ethnocentric POV pusher with anti-Afghan agenda.--119.73.6.164 (talk)09:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that your edits to the page were correct and appropriate and should not have been reverted.—Stephen (talk)09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--119.73.6.164 (talk)09:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's all "well and good" - but edits likethis show a potential lack of understanding of what "edit-warring" truly is. One editor does not "continue" edit-warring when the other decides to "stop": it takes two (or more) parties to edit-war. Capiche?Doc9871 (talk)10:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Mike Leach (American football coach) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:Pontificate823 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 13:32, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Firing */")
2. 15:44, 19 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Firing */")
3. 03:23, 20 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Firing */")
4. 18:51, 21 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Firing */")
5. 02:33, 22 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Firing */")
6. 03:35, 22 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Firing */")
7. 13:31, 22 July 2010(edit summary: "/* Firing */")

• Diff of warnings:[81] and[82]

No support on talk page for this editor's actions.

Supplemental:

the editor has now reverted to xis own versionagain[83]--this makeseight essentially identical reversions against consensus, including four of them in the last twenty hours. These are the only edits made by this editor.

—Arxiloxos (talk)14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (supplemented at 22:06, 22 July 2010)

Page:Historical Jesus (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Ari89 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert:[84] - 18 July
• 2nd revert:[85] - 18 July
• 3rd revert:[86] - 19 July
• 4th revert:[87] - 20 July
• 5th revert:[88] - not a revert 20th
• 6th revert:[89] - not a revert, 20th
• 7th revert:[90] - 21 July
• 8th revert:[91] - 22 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Many, in many different places.Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[92]Comments:

• Note hostile tone in discussions.
• Canvassing like-mined editors from different article to come oppose edits:[93]— Precedingunsigned comment added byNoloop (talk •contribs)

Um...those are reverts and general edits (that were not reverts) over a five day period and are in no way close to a violation of 3RR. Trying to use WP noticeboards repeatedly as revenge for me reporting your edit warring (which you were subsequently blocked for) is clear abuse of the system. Furthermore, as you seem to be the lone voice arguing in favour of your particular pov version (on the various talk pages and noticeboards) there will be no more reason for your contentious edits to be reverted by anyone. Peace in the world of Wikipedia. --Ari (talk)15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also note, the reason for most of these reverts were in response to Noloop's refusal to gain consensus on his controversial edits. A number of editors and administrators reverted Noloop's non-consensus edits in this period, and he was blocked in this period for edit warring.--Ari (talk)15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Rather, Noloop blocked. Yes, this does appear to look like retribution. On the other hand, Noloop came off his last block doing the same things that got him blocked initially. There is some edit-warring between other users on the article, but I'll give that some time to simmer down before considering protection. --tariqabjotu16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Esoglou (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert:[94] Added yet the same sources and passages into the article again (one source and sentence of that source (Augustine Casiday) is in some form or another in this article 4X now).
• 2nd revert:[95] Adding sourcing requests to not section or even sentences but words in the article as a means to edit war and frustrate with no discussion on talkpage. The section Esoglou is asking to source words from is copied word for word from Orthodoxwiki. One source citation request would seem reasonable.
• 3rd revert:[96] Reverted out citation request even after issue was resolved by other editors on article talkpage to remove the text completely.
• 4th revert:[97] This entire section is sourced by a valid online source editor Esoglou has peppered the section with citation requests even though it is sourced by to get the section deleted.
• 5th revert:[98] reverted/added back duplicate content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[100]

Comments:Esoglou refuses to use talkpage to arrive at consensus. I (LoveMonkey), and ex admin hereUser:Richardshusr andUser:Cody7777777 have agreed to start and rewrite sections of the article that Esoglou has clobbered with citation requests and deletions, blank edits and edit warring tactics of the like. We had arrive at consensus for just one section of the article under Esoglou's contention on it's talkpage[101] Esoglou has now moved his edit war from the articlefilioque first[102] second[103] andEast-West schism (DGG became involved) to now this articleCatholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Esoglou refuses to compromise again refuses to listen and or co-operate in the collaboration process as I (user:LoveMonkey) Richard S and Cody7777777 have tried to do. Esoglou has insisted that even with valid sources and sources that are of higher value and an overwhelming amount of them that Esoglou's opinion is correct and that Esoglou will continue to edit war until the articles say what Esoglou has been asked to source (by Richard S for example on the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences talkpage) but Esoglou refuses to source.

Response. Far from trying to limit the article to one point of view only, in line with LoveMonkey's accusation, I have on the contrary consistently tried to ensure balance. If the view that he insists on is the common view, my edits state this expressly, but point out that it is not the only one, and that serious reliable sources hold the opposite view. To avoid any impression that the opposite view is held only by some crank, I think it best to provide two academic sources for it. I also think that, if in the article the view that LoveMonkey supports is given repeatedly, the sourced opposing view should be given the same number of times.

Let us examine LoveMonkey's complaints, one by one, using the links that he has given.

1. This edit was in response to hisreverting an edit that I had made in order in order to give an objective account of what an author had written in place of an original-research interpretation of it (cf.this edit summary). Since the source given by LoveMonkey was the primary one, my edit was composed mainly of quotations from the text. LoveMonkey restored his original-research edit, saying in his edit summary: "There was nothing wrong with this passage". I thought it best to reply, not by reverting his revert but by pointing out by citation-needed and failed-verification tags, accompanied by explanations, the original-research character of various statements in it and the evident inaccuracies of some parts. What did I do wrong?

2. The second edit of which LoveMonkey complains had the same purpose: to point out the many original-research statements that he had included in that part of the article: unsourced attribution to Augustine of a teaching that the context suggested was also the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church; unsourced claim that that teaching was confirmed by unspecified "multiple" councils; unsourced claim that the Council of Orange of 529 confirmed the teaching; unsourced claim that there is a difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church on this matter, when the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church says the opposite of what the editor was attributing to it; unsourced claim about a doctrinal reason for the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

3. LoveMonkey's third complaint is about the moving to the end of a sentence of a citation-needed tag. He had himself reverted this edit and I gave him no less than 16 days to explain his revert before finally undoing it today, he made no attempt whatever to explain why he had reverted it (seediscussion page on his revert).

4. Similar to his first and second complaints.

5. This is an example of how LoveMonkey wants to allow only one view to be presented, with no mention whatever of a well-sourced different view. I have already replied to this complaint in the opening paraqraph of this response of mine.

With regard to failure to discuss on the Talk page, seehow LoveMonkey ignored requests to indicate some reason, other than his refusal to grant what he called his "consensus", for reverting another editor's edits.

LoveMonkey's previous reportings of me on this noticeboard have all been dismissed. In at least one case – I don't remember if there were more – I felt that there was no need whatever to respond. Is it too much to ask that he be told to stop harassing me? And perhaps that he be told to avoid original-research insertions into articles and not to resort so easily to reverting the edits of others (not only mine but others also, most recently the one discussedhere)?Esoglou (talk)17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution.SarekOfVulcan (talk)18:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:Confirmation bias (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:188.80.59.174 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)