Page:Sanjay Gupta (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
User being reported:Carlstar3 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[1]

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

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

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

Comments:[6]

Carlstar3 has been in an edit war for years now deleting entries that are uncomplimentary to Dr. Gupta on theSanjay Gupta (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) page. He has not been discussing or working with other editors working on the page. At most he posts a short charge of bias and deletes. I'm more than happy to accommodate any legitmate concerns he has about accuracy and sources of this latest entry to the page, but he doesn't discuss either. Mike Holloway 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at what Carlstar3 is removing and he's completely right according toWP:BLP. I strongly suggest you readWP:BLP and do not attempt to re-add the content without re-writing it with aneutral point of view and proper sourcing. --NeilN^{talk to me}04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Page protected 3 days. I see fault on both sides of this debate. There is nothing wrong with adding well-sourced criticism of Sanjay Gupta's views, provided it is notWP:UNDUE. It fails neutrality if someone says (in Wikipedia's voice) that Gupta is 'contributing to confusion' on the subject of brain death. Please use the talk page to negotiate an appropriate wording of the criticism of Sanjay Gupta, and try to form a consensus as to whether this criticism belongs in the article. Anyone who continues to revert the criticism section without first getting consensus on the Talk page may be blocked.EdJohnston (talk)00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kuldip Singh Chandpuri (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Xero675 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:23, 3 January 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 335617926 by115.252.39.147 (talk) removing vedic trash")
2. 20:06, 3 January 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 335676393 byThisissparta109 (talk)")
3. 20:12, 3 January 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 335681523 by98.248.33.198 (talk) rm vandalism")
4. 20:12, 3 January 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 335682016 by98.248.33.198 (talk)")
5. 20:18, 3 January 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 335682450 byElockid (talk)")
6. 20:26, 3 January 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 335683351 byElockid (talk)")

• Diff of warning:20:25, 3 January 2010

—-Barek(talk •contribs) -20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is blatantly banned userNangparbat. I've already left messages onUser:YellowMonkey andUser:SpacemanSpiff's pages.Elockid^(Talk·_Contribs)20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for72 hours bySpacemanSpiff, who doesn't feel that Xero being a sock of NP isclear-cut enough.JamieS9300:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff has extended the block toIndef, which appears sensible.EdJohnston (talk)02:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

A few months back, the user kept edit warring on this article saying the images do not comply with policy while this was an issue which was discussed on several other featured articles of living persons and on the article's talk page as well. Now the user is back at edit warring against consensus despite several users opposing to the removal of the images. The user started doing the same on theCillian Murphy article, also an FA. The user was warned but keeps at the same.Shahid •^Talk2me17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved administrator I see four reverts by the editor on thePreity Zinta article over the course of three days:[7],[8],[9],[10].WP:3RR stipulates "a few narrowly defined situations" in which edit-warring may be excused, which include "Clearcopyright violations or content that unquestionably violatesthe non-free content policy". However, given that the fair use of the images had already been explicitly reviewed by knowledgable editors at the successfulfeatured article candidacy, and that Seraphimblade was reverted by three experienced editors, it is clear that they cannot be considered clear or unquestionable violations of policy. This was a content dispute, plain and simple. I see no mitigating factors that might justify or excuse the revert-warring. I find it disappointing that an administrator would resort to such tactics, and deplorable that they wouldthreaten to block a constructive editor with the aim of getting their way with the article. Skomorokh 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seraphimblade sees his four reverts as being covered by his admin role, in enforcing theWP:NFCC policy. I've asked him to respond here to explain his thinking. I agree this is not an open-and-shut case, so it may require a discussion. Seraphimblade might solve the problem by opening a thread at one of the image noticeboards.EdJohnston (talk)01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Ed, but looking for and removing from articles non-compliant images is not a role particular to administrators, and even if it were it would not be a get-out-of-jail-free card for revert-warring against consensus. Skomorokh 01:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the controversy, I'm willing to agree to perform no further reverts at this time, but I think the issue is one that needs discussed. Having had a look around, it seems this problem is more widespread than I thought, so I think a wider discussion will be more productive in any case. I hope that will resolve this here.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Given the comments above, it would appear that any disruption to Wikipedia has ceased and therefore action is un-needed at this board. Discussion should most definitely take place if the matter is unresolved. In fact it should have taken place earlier, ie before it turned into an edit war! Experienced editors really shouldn't need reminded that multiple uses of revert on an article in a short span is only excused by clear vandalism, BLP issues, etc. I hope cool heads prevail and simple discussion leads to a consensus. If not, then make use ofWP:DR or the numerousnoticeboards. Cheers,NJA(t/c)10:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

IP user repeatedly changes spelling of the unit of measure meter to "metre" in articles where the former spelling has been accepted, without making corresponding changes to use the spelling throughout the article, without changing the article to UK spelling, and with no effort to discuss the matter outside of dogmatic edit summaries. This contravenesWP:UNIT. Warnings, including final warning, have been issued on the various user talk pages.

Edits with dates:

date: 3 January 2010

date: 8 December 2009

date: 8 December 2009

date: 7 December 2009

date: 6 December 2009

date: 6 December 2009

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.NJA(t/c)10:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Page:Kid Rock (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
User being reported:Rockgenre (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:

This user shows no regard for the overall brevity of sources, refuses to listen to reason and generally behaves in a completely uncivil manner in regards to editing disputes.Ibaranoff24 (talk)21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologized twice for rude behavior which I admit I was very uncivil. I was still very angry and I hope I have not offended you in anyway Ibaranoff. As for the Kid rock topic I believe it still needs to be debated because there are three I clearly mentioned on his talk page that refer to him as nu metal and another is in his infobox.RG (talk)22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator note From the comments above, I gather that they will work together to discuss changes rather than pointlessly continue to misuseundo. If discussion proves difficult, the parties should considerdispute resolution, orpage protection if needed. Regardless, they should not resume an edit war (or the offender will be blocked).NJA(t/c)10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[18] This was his first edit to the article. Please note that this edit was removed by 4 different editors, and as far as I know, none of those editors had worked together before.

• 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: [diff]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of24 hoursNJA(t/c)10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Reverts on article within 24 hours:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:Warned prior to 3RR

Comments:
Note:this user has five prior 3RR/edit warring blocks. I'd indef them myself, though I do edit the article in question from time to time and would prefer someone else to do the blocking.NJA(t/c)16:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This user is also adding original research, incorrect, and duplicate information into thePrime Time Entertainment Network article. Immediately labelled my edits as "vandalism", demanded that his edits not be touched, and came *this* close toposting personal attacks on my user talk page.TheRealFennShysa (talk)16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period ofIndef Theaveng has six previous blocks. His behavior in the war atCompact fluorescent lamp does not suggest a sincere desire to improve the encyclopedia, or to work with others to find a compromise. His earlier misadventures have led to no improvement in his attitude.EdJohnston (talk)17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't really use the format for this case. We have to IP's[24] and[25], most probably the same person and most probably a sock/meat puppet that has recently started edit-warring all over I-P articles. Has received warnings about his behaviour,[26][27] but to no avail. Not sure of the best approach, so I'm bringing this here to see if we can resolve this here. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)17:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• The one IP has not edited since the warning. I've given the other (166.203.198.156) a final warning. Should they resume, report it atWP:AIV.NJA(t/c)18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the "undoer" has moved from the first IP to the second IP since yesterday, but I guess another warning makes sense for now.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Psychopathy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).138.47.108.245 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 19:14, 4 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
2. 19:41, 4 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
3. 23:09, 4 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
4. 23:24, 4 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
5. 23:29, 4 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
6. 23:40, 4 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")

• Diff of warning:here

—NeilN^{talk to me}23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of31 hoursNJA(t/c)07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Page:Stephen Barrett (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
User being reported:70.239.3.74 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert:02:11, 5 January 2010
• 2nd revert:02:19, 5 January 2010
• 3rd revert:02:53, 5 January 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:02:33, 5 January 2010 (Made after second revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:22:45, 4 January 2010 (Made after editor initially introduced the material)

Comments:

This is aWP:BLP violation as well. The sources provided have been determined to be unreliable, libelous sources. This material is added a few times a year, every year. --Ronz (talk)03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I havenominated that website for addition to the blacklist. --Brangifer (talk)04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Another admin blocked 70.239.3.74 for 24 hours ‎for edit warring and recurring violations of WP:BLP depsite warnings.NJA(t/c)07:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Now they have a sock at work. Seereport here. --Brangifer (talk)15:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fan film (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).151.81.135.236 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 04:34, 5 January 2010(edit summary: "/* History */")
2. 04:37, 5 January 2010(edit summary: "/* History */")
3. 05:02, 5 January 2010(edit summary: "/* History */")
4. 05:08, 5 January 2010(edit summary: "/* History */")
5. 05:17, 5 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Authorized fan films */")

• Diff of warning:05:10, 5 January 2010

User edit warring over addition of advert linkspam for a fan film where notability has not yet been established.

—-Barek(talk •contribs) -05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of31 hoursNJA(t/c)07:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• List of languages by number of native speakers (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
• Elockid (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

• 3 reverts onthis--Professional Assassin (talk)20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You deleted information without explanation including cited references. Please also seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mani1.Elockid^(Talk·_Contribs)20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who reverts more than 3 times, says them same things. You didn't use the article's talk page and not even mine and just reverted 3 times. The case is clear enough :))--Professional Assassin (talk)20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: anyone can accuse other users of sockpuppetary. It is very easy. Ain't it?--Professional Assassin (talk)20:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the reverts was reverting vandalism (restoring to data according to source). I made 3 reverts within a 24 hour period otherwise. Furthermore, I explained the reversions and you along with the accused socks have failed to address anything, not even a summary.Elockid^(Talk·_Contribs)20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowed to revert bysupposing others' edits are vandalism. By the way, I leave the rest to the Admins.--Professional Assassin (talk)20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the edits again. One of the revisions summarized as restoring to data from the source. This was done by an IP edit because they kept changing sourced info without any reason and in the process deleting valid references without reasons (removal of content). The 3 other reverts cited nothing about vandalism. If an admin does see this is a violation of 3RR, I'll be happy to self revert.Elockid^(Talk·_Contribs)20:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm not an admin, but 3RR statesa user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period... is in violation of the rule. Also, I think admin intervention of some kind is required here.ceranthor21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that Iself reverted the 4th revert and am currently seeking to talk to Mani1.Elockid^(Talk·_Contribs)22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• A dialog between the parties is occurring atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mani1, and the submitter of that SPI report is asking for it to be withdrawn. This might be enough to justify closing the 3RR report, but I note that one of the participants,User:Mani1, has just done a page move on this article that looks very strange:List of languages by number of native speakers ->List of languages by number of native speakers according to two websites. The move was performed with no discussion at all. I suggest keeping the report open until it is clear that all the changes that are being made have consensus. Full protection is one of the options.EdJohnston (talk)13:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the talk page of the article,User:Ren Sydrick has stated he actually likes the page move and there's no stated opposition right now to the revert it back to the original title. Full protection might not be best at the moment since it seems as either it is going to go through PROD or AfD. I've agreed not to revert Mani's edit and discuss the issue with Mani in the meantime, who also appears to be mediator in the case.Elockid^(Talk·_Contribs)17:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - The parties seem to be discussing. No action at this time. Somebody has openedan AfD, where the article seems likely to be kept provided the name is changed back.EdJohnston (talk)21:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

North American Soccer League (2010) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.93.148.252 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"):

1. 2010-01-05T11:47:31(edit summary: "North American Soccer League (2010)")
2. 2010-01-05T11:08:12(edit summary: "North American Soccer League (2010)")
3. 2010-01-05T10:12:09(edit summary: "North American Soccer League (2010)")
4. 2010-01-03T22:22:51(edit summary: "North American Soccer League (2010)")

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

• Diff of warning:here

There is an article that indicates that the CSA is being asked to sanction the league. The other editor is respectfully disagreeing by stating that since the USSF is sanctioning the league it does not need to be sanctioned by the Canadian body. That does not change the fact that the Canadian body has been asked and must make their own decision. The Canadian teams must abide by the CSA's decision. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20

10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

—Walter Görlitz (talk)20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Result -- Both warned. Both parties are over 3RR, but the IP has not continued to revert since getting a 3RR warning. The IP's edits don't appear justified by the sources provided. It is possible he has some inside knowledge and believes he is correct. Nonetheless, this pattern must not continue or blocks will follow.EdJohnston (talk)06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to be warned since I didn't breakWP:3RR. There is no warning on my page or the article's talk page addressed to me. I warned the IP. The IP has not provided any verifiable source to back claims. The article should be locked to anonymous editing. --Walter Görlitz (talk)14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Fully protected one week. Since you reported a 3RR case here, you obviously know about the 3RR policy, and you don't need a warning. I count at least four reverts by each of you. The protection can be lifted early if you find at least one other person to support you on the article Talk page or atWikipedia:WikiProject Football.EdJohnston (talk)16:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did make four reverts, but not over a twenty-four hour period. I also finally modified the article to attempt to appease the other editor. Ultimately what annoyed me most was that the editor chose to remain anonymous and was only editing this one article. --Walter Görlitz (talk)19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Psychopathy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).66.147.238.166 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:04:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 02:33, 5 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
2. 21:46, 5 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
3. 03:01, 6 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")
4. 04:05, 6 January 2010(edit summary: "/* Society and culture */")

• Diff of warning:here

Comments:
Exact same behaviour as 138.47.108.245 last night. —NeilN^{talk to me}04:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And the reverting continues[28]. Bizarre. --NeilN^{talk to me}04:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Result --- IPs are trying to force the inclusion of aStephenie Meyer fictional character for which no source can be provided that this is an example of a psychopath. Article has previously been protected for the same reason.EdJohnston (talk)07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Insider trading (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.186.76.184 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 15:41, 6 January 2010(edit summary: "")
2. 18:05, 6 January 2010(edit summary: "un did vandalism by miss "I need to shove both fists up my cunt to get off"")
3. 18:29, 6 January 2010(edit summary: "undid vandalism by some stupid old fart")
4. 19:21, 6 January 2010(edit summary: "")
5. 19:37, 6 January 2010
6. 19:40, 6 January 2010
7. 20:19, 6 January 2010

• Diff of warning:here

Comments:

This IP has just come off a 31 hour block for the same edit warring, and has also taken to using vulgar edit summaries andvandalizing user pages. -MrOllie (talk)19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked byFastily. ---Barek(talk •contribs) -06:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:19:57, 3 January 2010
• 2nd revert:20:16, 3 January 2010
• 01:23, 4 January 2010 This is not a revert, but a rewrite, introducing much of the same information, violating WP:BLP
• 3rd revert:18:27, 4 January 2010
• 4th revert:19:57, 4 January 2010
• 5th revert:20:09, 4 January 2010
• 6th revert:05:02, 6 January 2010
• 7th revert:15:56, 6 January 2010

Diff of blp warning:20:06, 4 January 2010Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:20:14, 4 January 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:User_talk:Ronz#Don.3Bt_worry andTalk:Howard_Zinn#New_user_.26_unsourced_stmts

Comments:

BLP violations and edit-warring. --Ronz (talk)19:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours I would hope experienced editors will now make a concerted effort to discuss the issues rationally with the newer user.NJA(t/c)08:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:[29](edit summary: "")
• 2nd revert:[30](edit summary: "")
• 3rd revert:[31](edit summary: "")
• 4th revert:[32](edit summary: "")
• 5th revert:[33](edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[35]

Comments:
This is POV edit warring, but he also tends to completely break ref tags, remove the links to the article in other languages, or otherwise inappropriately edit as to break the functionality of the page. The crux of the matter boils down toWP:RS and was discussed here on RS/N[36]

-Chromatikoma (talk)23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hoursNJA(t/c)08:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Page:The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

• User being reported:StevenMario (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• User being reported:Coffee5binky (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[37]

StevenMario's reversions:

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

Coffee5binky's reversions:

• 1st revert:[42]
• 2nd revert:[43]
• 3rd revert:[44]
• 4th revert:[45]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to StevenMario:[46]
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to Coffee5binky:[47]

Comments:

StevenMario has been blocked twice in the last week for editwarring on cartoon related articles - he apparently has not learned his lesson - the 3rr report diffs are a mess, as both he and Coffe5binky are only reverting tiny portions of each others edits. Coffe5binky has started a series of borderline personal attacks on StevenMario in his edit summaries, and both editors are escalating this much too far over a content dispute.MikeWazowski (talk)02:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator note I have full-protectedThe Super Mario Bros. Super Show! for 24 hours. –MuZemike03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• NoteStevenMario has been blocked for a period of indefinitely.NJA(t/c)09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fibromyalgia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).70.57.228.12 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:06:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 03:59, 7 January 2010(edit summary: "")
2. 04:51, 7 January 2010(edit summary: "")
3. 04:56, 7 January 2010(edit summary: "")
4. 06:06, 7 January 2010(edit summary: "")
5. 06:19, 7 January 2010(edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning:6:11, 7 January 2010

—-Barek(talk •contribs) -06:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of48 hoursNJA(t/c)09:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Page:South Carolina Gamecocks football (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
User being reported:71.75.202.139 (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]
• 5th revert:[53]
• 6th revert:[54]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Informed the user in the above warning to start a discussion on the article Talk page, but user reverted without doing so.

Comments:

This anonymous user continues to add unsourced, non-notable POV material despite being warned that it violates Wikipedia rules and after being asked to discuss the material in question on the article Talk page and seek consensus for its inclusion. User wants to use terms like "loser", "inept" and include alleged fan chants of "limpdick" that cannot be sourced in the section of an encyclopedic article that deals with the history of the subject. Focus on individual player performance and single unremarkable games is not notable for inclusion in this section which summarizes over 100 years of sports history, but the anonymous user refuses to seek consensus for the edits they wish to make and continues to revert without discussion, making minor tweaks in an attempt to skirt policy violation. I'm admittedly new to this whole process, so I hope I've filled out the form correctly and provided the needed info. If any further details are required, please let me know and I'll attempt to provide them. I don't know if this user has violated 3RR blatantly, but I think it's clear that the user is edit-warring without any attempt to discuss contentious changes or seek consensus. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks!GarnetAndBlack (talk)23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple IPs are now making unconstructive edits to this article, I'd like to ask for some sort of temporary protection in addition to a decision about the anonymous user reported here. Thanks again.GarnetAndBlack (talk)02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of31 hours 3RR violation.EdJohnston (talk)04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert:[56]
• 2nd revert:[57]
• 3rd revert:[58]
• 4th revert:[59]
• [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[62]

Comments:
This is aWP:BLP issue. --Heptor_talk14:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I have brought a valid reference to the articlethis one, discussed it in the talk page, andHeptor has been removing it many times without discussion. I assumeHeptor was of good faith however: I think he made the confusion with another previous non-valid reference. The reference is a conference held by activists, and the article just says he (the author, subject of the article) participated in it. NoWP:BLP, and the ref is valid. So no need to edit-warring as Heptor did.TwoHorned (talk)14:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The content was disputed and removed by multiple editors, nothing gives you the right to continually repeatedly reinsert it in an edit warring way.Off2riorob (talk)14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You mix up different things. Explain why the new ref I brought is non-valid. You are referring to older discussions. And nothing is "fixed", as his qualification as an "historian" is very poorly sourced.TwoHorned (talk)15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And, BTW, others have removed without discussion stuff brought bySeverino. I just sourced Severino's edits. And correctly. So, everything is very much about content here, notWP:BLP.TwoHorned (talk)15:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not mixing up anything, you have been edit warring to keep your desired content in the article, its correctness,value, the quality of the citation was disputed by multiple editors requesting you move to discussion but you just kept on stuffing it in anyway. Content disputes as I told you are decided by discussion not edit warring.Off2riorob (talk)15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a lot of "previous discussion" on the talk page, both with and without my involvement. I also posted a warning on an earlier 3RR violation on TwoHorned's talk page.

TwoHorned: if you are serious about doing constructive contributions, please familiarize yourself withWP:BLP. You keep claiming that this article is not a BLP issue. Pardon me if I am wrong, but this strongly suggests that you are not familiar with this policy. Generally, when writing biographies of living persons, extra care must be taken both about sourcing and discussion of the content that is to be inserted. Also, please refrain from violating theWP:3RR in the future. --Heptor_talk16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, this is aWP:3RR violation dispute, not a content dispute. TwoHorned, do you admit that you violated the 3RR, and if so, will you promise to edit less aggressively in the futre? Thanks. --Heptor_talk16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

TwoHorned is over 3RR, but there is some useful discussion happening on the article's talk page. I suggest we wait a few hours to be sure that reverting has stopped. If TwoHorned continues to revert, he should be blocked.EdJohnston (talk)17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. Peace and harmony have broken out, since the contending parties have agreed on an AfD.EdJohnston (talk)01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned is edit warring again adding content that is coatracking and has nothing to do with this living person, I have given him two more warnings to no avail, the last one was, please don't add it again or I will report you, he ignored that and added it back again. this is the tagging on he is inserting..and which featuresVlaams Belang, among others entities, as a "counter jihad" organisation. the detail has nothing to do with the subject at all it is simple coatracking.Here you'll see the two warning I have given him tonight.Off2riorob (talk)23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's completely related to the subject as Vlaams Belang is one of the organization mentionned in the web site and conf in question in the article. The truth is thatOff2riorob is discarding properly sourced information, and discusses poorly and badly in the talk page, with insults directed at me :here.TwoHorned (talk)23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Page:Joseph Smith, Jr. (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
User being reported:John Foxe (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[63]

• 1st revert:11:14, 6 January 2010
• 2nd revert:12:53, 6 January 2010
• 3rd revert:04:20, 7 January 2010
• 4th revert:08:31, 7 January 2010
• 5th revert:11:00, 7 January 2010

The third revert just barely fell outside the 3RR/24hr limit by just five minutes with an earlier revert at04:15, 6 January 2010.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:warned in edit summary when I undid his 4th revert

Comments:
Sorry, I thought the revert rule only applied to the same material being reverted, not different material. I'll be more careful in the future.--John Foxe (talk)19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this incident is not unique, and this editor in particular has a history of repeatedly rapidly reverting any changes made to the this article and those of theLatter Day Saint topic in particular, that he inclines to agree with. Although he denies claims of "owning" the article, he enjoys to make changes to his reflected opinion/style and then aggressively defend the articles from changes, whether they be minor or major. Its quite disruptive, and works to disregard and discredit the opinions of others. He's been doing this for quite a while, and his editing behaviour has indeed drew attention from professional external sources.Routerone (talk)20:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Result -Warned. John Foxe has stopped reverting, and many others have edited the article since. Open a new report if the problem continues.EdJohnston (talk)15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Samuel Sevian (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
• GSP-Rush (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Please comment on changes to the articleSamuel Sevian and its talk page by this user. It hasn't gotten to 3RR yet. Please note his uncivil comments on the article's talk page. I think the user is probably a child.Bubba73^{(Who's attacking me now?)},02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First off stating that someone is child is discrimination witch i strongly doubt that wikipedia support it. Second, if you would of look at wat i did instead just the fact that did something... You would of notice that the change made were your personally recommendation. So basically i did exactly wat you ask me to do then you turn around and report me and call me a child.

It not very hard to understand who is child here.GSP-RuSh|—Precedingundated comment added06:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

Result - Warned.EdJohnston (talk)15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I stated that I believed that the user was a child so that could be taken into account and a warning would not be tooharsh.Bubba73^{(Who's attacking me now?)},15:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Page:Northern Cyprus (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
User being reported:163.1.111.131 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)163.1.111.41 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)129.67.172.146 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[64]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User_talk:163.1.111.131Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User_talk:163.1.111.41Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User_talk:129.67.17.233Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User_talk:129.67.172.146User_talk:129.67.172.146

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Northern_Cyprus

Comments:

I have reverted the reverts to the original editors revert but do not want to fall foul of 3RRThe main problem is the usage of edit comments to accuse me of vandalism and ignoring edit comments i have included to try and deflame the situationI have contaced the editor that made the first revert, but no answer as yet.It seems that the user is using different ip adresses or there are more than one userChaosdruid (talk)13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to resize the text but cant - strange !Chaosdruid (talk)13:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Chaosdruid's report. These IPs are adding unsourced POV material to the article and are not discussing on Talk Page. Page should be semi-protected. (Taivo (talk)14:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Page protected Semi-protected by Moreschi. No other recent problematic edits from any of these addresses, so closing this. -2/0(cont.)16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)