Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive272

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Zoomjet3 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Bob Simon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zoomjet3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */Prior to my addition to the page, there was a complete absence of any reference to decades of controversy and criticism

of Bob Simon as an exemplar of media bias against The State of Israel.

This longstanding outrage against Simon is easil..."

  1. 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

  1. 10:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

  1. 21:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

  1. Consecutive edits made from 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC) to 21:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

    1. 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

    1. 21:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

  1. 23:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

  1. 23:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob Simon."
Diffs after warnings
  1. 02:53, February 14, 2015‎ (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career. --Light show (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:121.242.73.226 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Nellore district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
121.242.73.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
  2. 14:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
  3. 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
  4. 13:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Nellore district. (TW)"
  2. 07:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Nellore district. (TW)"

User:NidhiRazdan77 reported by User:Jonathanarpith (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Nidhi Razdan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
NidhiRazdan77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647088928 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
  2. 11:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647088776 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
  3. 11:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647088639 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
  4. 11:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647087898 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
  5. 11:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647087612 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 09:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC) to 09:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 09:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647075864 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
    2. 09:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647075877 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
    3. 09:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647075888 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
    4. 09:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647076097 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
    5. 09:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647076182 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 08:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC) to 08:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 08:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647058182 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
    2. 08:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647058327 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
    3. 08:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647058555 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
We have a strange situation in that we have two editors, User:NidhiRazdan77 and User:Nidhi ndtv, both appear to imply that they are the subject of the article. One of them claims that the other one is impersonating her. One of them probably is impersonating the other one, and there is a conflict of interest problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Nidhi ndtv and an IP were both blocked for 24 hours by JodyB. I'm assuming the IP belongs to NidhiRazdan77 who stopped logging in but continued reverting, so I blocked the account for the same 24 hours. The article has also been locked by yet another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones reported by User:88.105.146.18 (Result: )[edit]

Seems to have page ownership problems and is repeatedly undoing good edits citing Removing non-encyclopaedic [Removing non-encyclopaedic drivel and Non-encyclopaedic and non-grammatical drivel. and then just removing for the sake of removing.1 2 3. And also on 1 2 3 I could go on but whats the point. 88.105.146.18 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Note Not done anything wrong but removed informative tag from user page with this response. Blatantly doesn't accept responsibility and knows what he is upto.}} 88.105.146.18 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
GGJ's edits seem sound to me and I agree with the "Non-encyclopaedic and non-grammatical drivel" comment. WP:CIR and WP:BOOMERANG might apply. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Andcarr reported by User:Squinge (Result: Indeffed)[edit]

Page
David Ross (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Andcarr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645714256 by Sitush (talk) removing accuracy of figures, go away sitush"
  2. 13:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647100187 by Sitush (talk) my figures are precise"
  3. 13:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647100761 by Sitush (talk) the source is inaccurate, PwC figures are definitive"
  4. 13:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647101081 by Sitush (talk) vandalism"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndcarr&diff=647101121&oldid=647100414
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndcarr&diff=647101350&oldid=647101121
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndcarr&diff=643946194&oldid=643946074


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeated edit-warring against BLP policy - see the article history and the editor's record of warnings and blocks for the same behaviour. Squinge (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Stonecoldbeach reported by User:VeryCrocker (Result: Both reported accounts indeffed)[edit]

Page
Sioux City, Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Stonecoldbeach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646907524 by VeryCrocker (talk)"
  2. 16:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647110473 by Squinge (talk)"
  3. 17:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647123092 by VeryCrocker (talk)"
  4. 18:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647123928 by VeryCrocker (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Sioux City, Iowa. (TW)"
  2. 17:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sioux City, Iowa. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The second of two new accounts (the other being Younghopper15 (talk · contribs)) to turn up in an apparent attempt to use Wikpedia to promote an Iowan event called "Dragonmouth", for which I can find no independent coverage. VeryCrocker (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked indefinitely Stonecoldbeach and Younghopper15.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Dmcq reported by User:Scolaire (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dmcq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: new edit ( by agreement following protracted discussion)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. 00:21, 14 February 2015
  3. 11:22, 14 February 2015
  4. 15:45, 14 February 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:12, 14 February 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first post; thread

Comments:

Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Diff 1 is Scolaire's own edit. So there are three diffs not 4. And I just got a thank you from Qexigator for that fourth edit in which I edited what they put in, not Scolaire, and talk page diif is what they said about the state after that. Dmcq (talk)
Apologies, I linked to the original edit a second time, instead of Dmcq's first revert. I've fixed it now. It was four reverts. Scolaire (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies then but you don't have a consensus for your preferred form as Qexigator and I both prefer the current form. Do you wish to revert to before any of the changes and we can continue the discussion as per BRD like I had considered earlier? Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay have read 3RR and reverted my latest edit. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view this reference is approaching intimidatory vexation and should be closed immediately. The worst that can be said is that Dmcq incautiously used some mildly vulgar word when he could have used a more decorous one in opposing Scolaire. Anyone editing the article should disregard intemperate remarks prompted by irritation, and move on with the work collaboratively or leave it alone. I see no reason to regard Dmcq as one of those who need this kind of treatment.Anyone who looks at the talk page can see that. Qexigator (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And that has what to do with 3RR? Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:ElCommandanteVzl reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElCommandanteVzl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

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

Comments: This page is under WP:1RR general sanctions, and this editor has been repeatedly warned about WP:EDITWAR and WP:POV behavior on controversial subjects related to the Syrian Civil War: [5] [6] [7] -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


I'm very relieved to see that issues regarding this editor have been raised here. I am having extreme issues with ElCommandanteVzl on both Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War and Bashar al-Assad. On the latter article he is even blanking entire sections without explanation. I understand this user is editing Wikipedia with a specific point of view (which can be deduced from their username), but that doesn't mean they can routinely delete reliable high quality references that they apparently don't like and ignore neutrality policies. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing this same behavior - reverting multiple edits without explanation - by this editor on other articles, as well, also in a topic area subject to 1RR restrictions: [8] I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page
2015 Six Nations Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. 18:56, 14 februari 2015 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:39, 15 februari 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647232482 by Joseph2302 (talk) rv per WP:NOTSTATS"
  2. 09:07, 15 februari 2015 (UTC) "says WP:NOTSTATS"
  3. 00:15, 15 februari 2015 (UTC) "/* Statistics */ top 10 is quite sufficient, thank you"
  4. 20:18, 14 februari 2015 (UTC) "/* Statistics */ top 10 is sufficient"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:02 15 Februari 2015 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 12:59, 15 februari 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
  • User:Tvx1 is being a bit of a jobsworth here. If you notice, the attempt to resolve the dispute was given well after my last so-called revert. I don't think you can even call the first one a revert either, since I was making a WP:BOLD edit rather than reverting anyone. – PeeJay 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • From WP:3RR: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Since your first edit did undo part of the action of another editor, yes that can be interpreted as a revert. But ultimately that decision is up to the administrators and not me. I'm going to state the reason why I made the report and thus what it would like the outcome of this would be. I would love you to realize that repeatedly reverting an edit is not the way to get an article in your preferred version when having a disagreement. You made four reverts within 24 hours, which is a violation of WP:3RR, and you only went to the talk page after making those reverts. That's the exact opposite of what you should have done. Ideally, you should have gone to the talk page to discuss with the other editor(s) and progress towards a consensus after your first revert was undone and worst case you should have done so after the your second revert was undone as well. You certainly shouldn't have made another two reverts. That the content you disagree with would remain in the article while you're conducting the discussion at all is no problem whatsoever. After all it was no disturbing content that was being discussed. Seeing your block log you seem to have quite an issue with refraining from edit warring. Just don't do it. It only gets yourself into troubles. Tvx1 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a current RfC about the issue at Talk:2015_Six_Nations_Championship. Both sides have agreed to talk this over. I'm in favor of letting consensus build itself rather than sanctions as both sides have backed away from edit warring. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed this, there's an ongoing discussion about 2015 Six Nations Championship, following an agreement not to continue the edit war. I don't think he should be punished, because I think both him and myself were at fault. We both should have gone to the talkpages earlier, but my continued reversion of his edits meant that he broke 3RR before a proper discussion began. I did also warn him after the 4th edit, and in my opinion that should be enough of a punishment. If he's punished, I feel that I should receive the same punishment, as although I didn't break 3RR, I was also responsible for the offending edit war. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. The first of the four edits may not be a revert, and there is an active discussion. But User:PeeJay2K3 is advised to be more careful in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Cirflow reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  5. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Advice on users talk page:[17] and here [18]

Comments:
There is a false impression being given here that all interventions by the complaining editor were attempts to to resolve this edit war . They were not. Some of them were defenses or the other half of this edit war by the complainer, The editor complained about is fairly new and may not in fact be aware of their talk page as they have not replied to any of the messages on it. He/She has chosen a tough page in Circumcision to edit. I recommend a gentle approach in this case. He/she has indicated in this diff edit label an awareness of edit warring and a resolve to stop doing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=647231382 --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. It is risky to charge into a highly contentious article in the belief you can fix it. User:Cirflow did engage in discussion but did not stop editing the article while doing so. It is better to wait for discussion to finish before making controversial changes. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Ali.M.A.Saadi reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ali.M.A.Saadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24] [25] [26]

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

Comments: User:ClueBot NG is all over this disruptive editor, so it may be a moot point, but User:Ali.M.A.Saadi has been edit-warring on Yemen for the past couple of days and I'd appreciate if an administrator could step in. Thanks in advance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. Not a 3RR but this is edit warring. Repeatedly changing the name of the leader of Yemen. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Hokiechicklet reported by User:C.Fred (Result:Blocked )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: 11 Feb version before reverts started or this edit today which added a second source

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [27]
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]
  5. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has refused to discuss matter at article talk page, instead escalating directly to AN/I: [33]

Comments:

User has been invited to discuss the matter on the talk page. User has alternately branded the edits as slanderous or said they've resulted in death threats to the article's subject. User has also expressed intent to continue to edit the article even after passing 3RR. I regret that a block appears to be the next step needed for this user; as I'm involved, I can't place the block myself. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours -- GB fan 01:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Yaksar and User:Srnec reported by User:Niceguyedc (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Poll tax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Yaksar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

(I apologize for the length, but this is a long term issue and not a 3RR issue)

Previous version reverted to: Revision of page before the involvement of Yaksar or Srnec

First change of content by the parties:

  1. 14:57, 29 October 2014 Srnec turns the page into a redirect to Tax per head

Diffs of the user's reverts (all times PST, as that's my time zone):

  1. 15:23, 29 October 2014 Yaksar reverts Srnec's initial change - back to a disambiguation (dab) page
  2. 18:59, 1 November After some cleanup edits, Srnec reverts to a redirect
  3. 19:04, 1 November Yaksar reverts to a dab page
  4. 12:15, 2 November Srnec reverts to a redirect to Poll tax (United States), then changes that redirect to Tax per head
  5. 20:29, 2 November Yaksar reverts one revision, then realizes there were two edits by Srnec, and reverts back to the dab page
  6. 14:46, 3 November Srnec removes most of the entries from the dab page
  7. 23:33, 6 November After an intervening edit by another user (cleaning up the page per WP:MOSDAB, Yaksar reverts to the full dab page
  8. 07:30, 17 December Srnec reverts to a redirect to Tax per head
  9. 14:17, 12 January 2015 Yaksar reverts to a dab page
  10. 16:35, 12 January Srnec reverts to a redirect
  11. 17:29, 12 January Yaksar reverts to a dab page
  12. 17:24, 13 January Srnec reverts to a redirect
  13. 20:36, 13 January Yaksar reverts to a dab page
  14. 04:34, 14 January Srnec removes moce of the entries from the dab page
  15. 10:40, 14 January Yaksar reverts Srnec's removals
  16. 11:00, 14 January Srnec adds a {{POV}} tag to the page
  17. 11:18, 14 January Yaksar reverts the addition of the {{POV}} tag
  18. 08:05, 17 January Srnec reverts to a redirect
  19. 12:05, 17 January Yaksar reverts to a dab page
  20. 18:11, 5 February Srnec reverts to a redirct
  21. 12:17, 13 February Yaksar reverts to a dab page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Yaksar Srnec

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yaksar and Srnec's one statement to each other relating to this issue on User talk:Srnec, and Yaksar and Srnec's one statement to each other on Talk:Poll tax

Comments:

Poll tax has gone back and forth from a redirect to Tax per head to a disambiguation page since the end of October 2014. Neither Yaksar or Srnec have hit 3RR in any 24 hour period, but the history I've shown above clearly shows edit warring. At this point, protection to the WP:WRONGVERSION is probably required. However, the extent of the edit warring has convinced me to bring the request here instead of WP:RFPP. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The article was stable as a redirect for three years (October 2011 to October 2014), until it was changed because of a misconstrual of a requested move. Srnec (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
What should be done about a very long-running edit war? Full protection might seem unfair to other editors, since only two people are responsible. They should be sanctioned if they won't negotiate. I invite both parties to comment here and promise to wait for consensus before making further changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
What specifically to you want me to comment on? Srnec (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You should agree to make no further edits at Poll tax that don't have prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Both User:Srnec and User:Yaksar are warned. If you make any further changes at Poll tax that don't have a prior talk page consensus you may be blocked. Feel free to open any discussion that offers hope of resolving the matter permanently. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies EdJohnston, Niceguyedc -- didn't have a chance to weigh in and point out some issues that were not brought up here. But as long as changes moving forward first find talk page consensus everything should be smooth sailing and there's really no need to delve into past issues further.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:124.180.167.228 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
2015 Chapel Hill shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
124.180.167.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* International reactions */ "Palestine" does not exist. Removed."
  2. 05:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647353627 by WWGB (talk)"
  3. 05:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647353272 by Aumnamahashiva (talk)"
  4. 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647353177 by WWGB (talk)"
  5. 05:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647352723 by Classicfilms (talk)"
  6. 05:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* International reactions */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 Chapel Hill shooting. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Unrepentant and flagrant 3RR violation, removing well-sourced material with no attempt at discussion beyond making the (false) claim that "Palestine does not exist" in edit summaries. Regardless of one's opinion on the Israeli/Palestine question, it's not a matter of debate that there is a place and government called Palestine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support block, disruptive editing. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no such place as "Palestine". 124.180.167.228 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:121.242.73.226 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Nellore district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
121.242.73.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
  2. 13:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
  2. 14:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Nellore district. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:121.242.73.226_reported_by_User:Vin09_.28Result:_Blocked.29. IP has done it again. Vin09 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. Please DO NOT EVER call it "vandalism" if all someone is doing is 'adding himself to the list of notable residents'. That's inappropriate, but it's not vandalism. "Vandalism" implies "I think that you are deliberately adding garbage to the article", and this individual does not think that he is doing anything wrong. DS (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:76.174.65.156 reported by User:Amortias (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Loma Linda University Medical Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
76.174.65.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647195799 by Kikichugirl (talk)"
  2. 18:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Similar institutions (e.g., Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins) Wikipedia pages are not smeared with like information. Let's be fair here. It's not common practice to list relatively insignificant information like this on huge institutions' pages."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 18:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC) to 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 18:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "minor edits"
    2. 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647428277 by 331dot (talk), Not a large removal."
  5. 18:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647429060 by 331dot (talk). See Talk item from 2008 giving reasons why section should be removed. This edit is 7 years overdue."
  6. 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647429649 by 331dot (talk). Am I to take it that you represent the consensus?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Loma Linda University Medical Center. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 13:42, February 16, 2015 (UTC) Posted on talk page but still reverted the section


Comments:

I'm not sure if User:331dot was also under violation here, here, here, here, here, and here, or if they are exempt because IP was being particularly disruptive by edit-warring. — kikichugirl speak up! 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting blankings are exempt from 3RR enforcement, see WP:NOT3RR. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed didnt report other user as they were undoing what was in my opinion vandalism. Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The IP user has reverted the page twice even while the issue is being discussed; second time here. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I agree with Amortias here; the IP was fairly set on getting rid of the material despite being sourced and probably relevant and kept going despite being reverted by three other users. 331dot didn't do anything wrong in this case, although it would be better to stop after the third revert to be on the safe side. Bjelleklang - talk 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bjelleklang: I will do my best to keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for the advice. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Danylo7 reported by User:War wizard90 (Result: Account blocked, page deleted)[edit]

Page
The Fallout of 1956 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Danylo7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 03:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  5. 03:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  6. 03:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  7. 03:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  8. 03:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  9. 03:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  10. Consecutive edits made from 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC) to 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User continuously removes deletion tags from page. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: since being reported user has vandalized both the related AfD and this page (deleted report about himself). -War wizard90 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Now blocked and article deleted. Meters (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Inocencio.alves reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: East Timor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Inocencio.alves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]
  4. [38]
  5. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

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

Comments: Repeated vandalism and edit-warring, introducing nonsense text at the top of the article. Pretty cut-and-dried.

And now continuing to vandalize the page even after being notified of the 3RR discussion: [41] -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


The user is a WP:SPA spamming a foreign language name for East Timor onto many articles, breaking things in the process (ie [42]). They have been warned on their talk page that the edits are not appropriate, but is not responding and continues the disruption. TDL (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • User has been disruptively editing many other pages too, check his contributions. I've reverted many of them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s reported by User:Sladen (Result: Declined )[edit]

Page: Amy Pascal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zigzig20s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 2014-02-17 01:22 [43] (reverting [44])
  2. 2014-02-17 00:26 [45] (reverting [46])
  3. 2014-02-17 00:08 [47] (reverting [48])
  4. 2014-02-16 21:17 [49] (reverting [50] × 3—note whitespace)
  5. 2014-02-15 19:35 [51] (rollback [52] × 7‒note non-vandalism deployment rollback)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
[53]
Diffs of attempts to resolve on article talk page
Talk:Amy Pascal#WP:BRD February 2015, Talk:Amy Pascal/Archives/2015#Notability establishment (permadiffs [54] [55])
Comments
3RR observed on Amy Pascal concurrent with editor's self-initiated ANI escalation at ANI. See also: WP:ANI#Legal threat and harassment on Amy Pascal's talkpage (permadiff [56]) and User talk:Gilliam#Rollback use (permadiff [57]). —Sladen (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not "edit-warring". My lack of understanding of "rollback" only happened once and has been fixed. This is simply another case of harassment on Sladen's part because of the ANI and his attempt to edit Amy Pascal's page in a way that flouts the third-party references. When Sladen censored/removed Lisa Kudrow's referenced quote, I added it back and added two more references for example. Please discuss on my talkpage if in doubt.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I arrived at this article as the result of an RfC and find this user very difficult to work with. Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but you introduced yourself by leaving a hysterical personal attack on the talkpage earlier today; this is ridiculous...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That seems really unnecessary, Zigzig, what you just said seems like a personal attack, i'm not looking at the Talkpage. Do you want help or not? --doncram 03:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Comment from non-involved non-admin editor:

  • I reviewed the 5 diffs and they all look different. They are 5 separate reversions by Zigzig20s, with no repetition of removal of the same material. So this is not a 3RR violation, at all. One was a reversion of an edit by Sladen that Sladen themself had labeled in edit summary as being very wp:BOLD. It seems fine for Z to revert that; next step in wp:BRD process is to DISCUSS at Talk page. The last listed one included numerous copyedit small changes which I think overall improved the article (except for an accidental garbling of "Hollywood Reporter" in one place), yet Z reverted. I think there's no Edit Warring violation, this should be dismissed.
  • There was complaint about Z's use of rollback on one of those, but that seems to be understood as not correct, expect no future problems.
  • I do think that Z's repeated use of reverting could be seen as unpleasant and controlling, perhaps too wp:OWN, and Z's use of dismissive edit summaries would be irritating, so I can understand some frustration by other editors. Z, for what it's worth, I suggest you be nicer, and reimplement the last edit for example, and not fight over tiny copyedit word changes, and generally pick your battles not dispute everything, which it kinda looks like you are doing. But again, no EW violation at all, so this should be dismissed. --doncram 03:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: It's noted by Bjelleklang below, that in fact wp:3RR does not require the reversions to be of the same material, so I was wrong about that, and 3RR violation did occur. I did view the multiple reversions as too controlling and causing difficulty for collaboration; good that 3RR policy actually rules that it is wrong. --doncram 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I reverted the last edit on second thoughts, even though it seems a bit off topic...It's not especially relevant to Pascal. But one sentence is fine I suppose.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That's about the last-implemented reversion, which might be the first one listed above? Which had edit summary merely "irrelevant". About that, I think it would have been better for you to have just copied it to the talk page forn discussion, or perhaps removed it to the Talk page rather than outright deleting it, fine that's back. Thanks.
But actually I was referring to the last-listed one above, this reversion of a number of small edits by User:Elinruby, which to me looks like all-okay wording edits except for accidental intro of a spelling error into "Holywood Reporter" at one point. Oh, now I see Z's reversion was reverted next by Sladen so maybe all those changes by Elinruby stayed in the article after all. That was the rollback edit, i gather that was discussed elsewhere, with no edit summary, no explanation, because using rollback, which won't happen further. --doncram 06:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Operating on a 0RR/1RR basis would be ideal, it does though get hard work for all when minor WP:MOS copyedits also find themselves reverted ([58] reverting [59] × 5; follow-up [60]). Yes, an observation with WP:OWN would appear to be consistent with the whole of Talk:Amy Pascal and the article history; collaborative editing is smoother when precise concerns are known, and when known can then be discussed.
WP:DDE provides recommended steps in this sort of case: engagement, RfC consultation and consensus implementation, followed by escalation of any and all WP:3RR instances—which is this step here per An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period−then ANI if still prevalent.
Zigzig20s: thank you for the self-revert[61], please don't feel the need to revert—the ideal would be to suggest, to tweak, to try alternative wordings where-ever possible. Please consider WP:REVERT as a last-resort in cases of clear vandalism in which wording (after trying) is too hard to improve—and in all cases where a revert is used please try to be the one initiating discussion afterwards. —Sladen (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Although there was a violation (3RR applies to any material not several reverts of the same material), I'm going to decline this one based on the discussion here and on the article talkpage and also per the points listed by Doncram above. Bjelleklang - talk 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:192.43.227.18 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page
Visa requirements for British Overseas Territories Citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
192.43.227.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647152815 by Twofortnights (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC) to 02:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647152815 by Twofortnights (talk)"
    2. 02:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Visa requirements */"
  3. 16:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Did you even care to read the reference/sources before you removed the edit? Please learn to check, or I will report you."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP editor has been blocked twice already this year for same behaviour and is currently involved in edit warring over three articles. Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I was about to report this user myself.

Diff of my 3RR Warning: [62]

Further reverts: [63],[64] (I think that makes 4 in 24 hrs)

Additional follow up in talk: [65]

Various replies to warnings and attempts to discuss with the guy: [66], [67]

Lack of good faith: [68]

Basic problem with the edit, is he relies on interpreting one primary piece of legislation, the 2002 Act, whilst ignoring the multiple other acts that preceded it, which had impacts on some territories not others and so there is some variance in citizenship right by territory. WCMemail 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • IP blocked for 1 month. MastCell Talk 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Trymeonce reported by User:Denniss (Result:Blocked for 36 hours)[edit]

Page
Airbus A320neo family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Trymeonce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "The A320neo is not a new aircraft. There are no errors in this edit."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 16:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC) to 16:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 16:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Once again someone is removing facts from a Wikipedia article. My information is correct. It is a re-engine program. "It doesn't seem right" is not a valid excuse for removing my addition to the article."
    2. 16:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC) to 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647570993 by Denniss (talk)"
    2. 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 16:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647571539 by Denniss (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Airbus A320neo family. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Removal of relevant text and edits. */"
Comments:

User keeps on reverting, no attempt to engage in a discussion about this. Multiple user undid his changes (also made as IP before). Denniss (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 and User:Trymeonce are possibly the same. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Other edits of Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 were reverted by other users. IP seems to be static. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm waiting for one of the several users that continue to delete my addition to prove that the plane is a new-build aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talkcontribs) 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No one needs to prove anything to you. What you do need to do stop edit warring and discuss any changes you are making, you are well and truly past 3RR which is a bright line rule with few exceptions, none of which are likely to apply here. Also, you should be properly sourcing any additions you are making to the article. The source you are providing doesn't support the claims you are making. If anything in the article isn't sourced and you wish to dispute it, you can probably tag it appropriately. But remember things in the WP:Lead may just be a summary of later in the article so may not need inline WP:RS as the statements are already sourced later. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, beyond the comments above, the editor has actually engaged in some discussion at Talk:Airbus A320neo family#Removal of relevant text and edits., but their comments there don't seem to provide sufficient support for their changes and they are also simulataneously reverting and have now reached 7R I think without anyone else breaking the 3, and that's not counting the IP. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh and I just noticed is also including some pure vandalism in their most recent edits, calling editors facist pigs in the article [69]. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Blocked at WP:AIV for 36 hours by User:MilborneOne. Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bloom6132 reported by User:70.196.131.82 (Result: Semi, warnings)[edit]

Page: Khanjar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bloom6132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [71]
  2. [72]
  3. [73]
  4. [74]
  5. [75]

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

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

Comments:I tried to discuss this problem with User:Bloom6132 here [78] and here [79] and here [80] but User:Bloom6132 reverted my talk page comments. I asked that the discussion be taken to the articles talk page but User:Bloom6132 did not do that. After User:Bloom6132 reverted my initial edits I added valid references but my edits were still reverted. User:Bloom6132 has frequently edited this article and I feel that there may be some ownership issue here. I just want the information that I added to the article using valid references to be included in the article so that people reading it will get accutate information, something that is not happening with the current article.70.196.131.82 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a complete pack of lies by this stuck–up IP. He reverted my edits here without even adding an edit summary explaining why, then reverts me again claiming that I "have a problem". When I try to compromise and incorporate his edits while removing the incorrect formatting of the lead and an unsourced section in the main article which he took from the original lead, he reverts me yet again, this time resorting to personal attacks, claiming that I "do not know what [I am] talking about". Furthermore, he reverted me on my own talk page, assumes bad faith by lecturing me about article ownership (I claim no such right and never have), and again attacks me personally with a confrontational "What is your problem exactly". Clear case of WP:BOOMERANG here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Bloom6132, editors do not claim ownership, they show it through their actions, I added references which you said were lacking, and you reverted again, the article is completely one sided, it totaly fails to mention the Indo-Persian forms of the dagger known as a khanjar, this is not what wikipedia is about, I added completely relevant information and when you mentioned that my information was not referenced I added two references, I could add more but you showed by your actions that you do not intend to allow ANY additional information to be added to this article. I tried to reach you through your talk page but you reverted that instead of engaging in some sort of conversation, I mentioned going to the articles talk page but you did not respond, I added a comment on the talk page and you still have not responded. You reverted the warring warning I put on your talk page along with the link to this discussion and you left a very uncivil comment (Reverting hypocritical bullshit warnings by 70.196.131.82.).[81]. I did not removed referenced information from the article, I moved it further down the article to a more appropriate section. Your comments when reverting other editors edits are not appropriate>(Removing problematic additions. All info added is unsourced, and using the phrase "is a word used" is completely redundant – just state what it is.) (No reason given for unexplained and unjustified reversion. Stop edit warring.) (Fixing badly butchered lead. This article is a GA; writing style should reflect that.) (Removed unsourced section. There's only one main type of khanjar – the one from Oman. Any other supposed versions of it are minor and should be placed elsewhere in the GA.) (I'm bringing up legitimate points, while you lie and claim I'm WP:OWNing this article. I even compromised and allowed your edits to stand, but it looks like YOU have ownership issues by insisting that YOUR version is final. Grow up.) these are not the comments of someone who is open minded and capable of compromise.70.196.134.123 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Article semiprotected, both editors warned. Conducting a revert war with a fluctuating IP violates WP:SOCK. User:Bloom6132 broke 3RR and was risking a block. Neither party has so far used the talk page to discuss these issues. Consider opening a discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo reported by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (Result: Article protected)[edit]

Page: Danish pastry (edit | talk |