Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive122

User:Hyquest reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 31h to the IP)

Page: General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Tucson Theological Seminary
User being reported: Hyquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also appears to be editing as or in conjunction with 174.18.20.181, and User:Azggardner

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Per the article's history this editor admits to warring. In addition to the warring, the editor seems to admit to making COI edits (claiming they are "his/her" pages). The same editor has also disruptively edited the Tucson Theological Seminary article which is being discussed for deletion as evidenced by that article's history. The IP user also blanked this article's talk page.

I would also note that I think the General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc. should again be reverted (including for copyright), but I hesistate to do so so that I do not run afoul of WP:3RR myself. Another editor has already done this.

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

Novaseminary (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit seems to indicate that 174.18.20.181 and User:Azggardner are the same person, and strongly suggests that all three are the same person. Novaseminary (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the anon IP (now blocked through other process) is the same as User:Azggardner, but not the same person (though editing in conjunction with) Hyquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as discussed on User talk:174.18.20.181. Novaseminary (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - 74.18.20.181 has been blocked 31 hours by Materialscientist. This IP is the same person as Azzgardner. A new user, Hyquest, has joined in discussions. Novaseminary is helping to sort it out, and has explained our policies. Blocks for the new editors will follow if the message is not received. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bmpowell reported by User:SchoolcraftT (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: Mountain Parkway Byway

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Parkway_Byway&oldid=339796788
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Parkway_Byway&oldid=339979852
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Parkway_Byway&oldid=338263913
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Parkway_Byway&oldid=340035106

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bmpowell#3RR_-_Mountain_Parkway_Byway

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

Comments:
He dosen't accept what I tell him is correct and that the information needed to be changed. He used inaccurate informtion and clams that he is right.
Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin. NJA (t/c) 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ferocious osmosis reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 h for both)

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

Previous version reverted to: [6]

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

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

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

• Blocked both editors, 24 hours.  Sandstein  20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Raj2004 reported by User:Goethean (Result: No action)

Page: Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Raj2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

• Comment - As an outside observer who watched this from the beginning, I feel this should immediately be closed with no action. Reporting editor never notified the other editor of the report to this page; a simple content dispute. Editors appear to be working on the article in dispute, with no further reports filed since this one... Doc9871 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. The last revert by Raj2004 was more than 24 hours ago, and the participants are discussing things. Anyone continuing to revert should be aware that if they don't get consensus on Talk, blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:89.168.224.187 reported by Fred the Oyster (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

1996 Manchester bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 89.168.224.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 00:16, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340622818 by Fred the Oyster (talk)Facts are facts")
2. 00:24, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340626237 by Malleus Fatuorum (talk)The source is utter crap")
3. 00:27, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340626744 by Fred the Oyster (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action. The IP was indeed being stubborn, but they only reverted three times, and they have not edited in more than 24 hours. Several others have edited the article since, trying to improve the phrasing of the disputed passage, so the issue appears moot. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Automyte reported by User:LTSally and by User:Willdow (Result: 31h)

Page: The Watchtower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: History of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Automyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert: [23]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

User is targeting two articles, repeatedly adding POV diatribe against The Watchtower magazine at The Watchtower article; repeatedly adding improper WP:EL at History of Jehovah's Witnesses. There have been multiple reverts of user's work from several editors and several pointed comments on user's user page, all without effect. The user has not discussed any edits. LTSally (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Loonymonkey reported by User:Heqwm2 (Result: Heqwm2 blocked indef)

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

I added edits to this article, which other editors repeatedly deleted without discussing on the talk page. What little response there has been, has been nonsense that has been repeated despite my refuting it. Heqwm2 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of pointy disruption that has gotten the reporting editor blocked repeatedly. Heqwm2 has just come off of a one week block for edit-warring and immediately launched into warring over the same edits on the same articles. I would also add that his personal attacks and comments are extremely disruptive and have the effect of chasing other editors away from discussion. These kind of comments [26] [27] [28] (and these are just a few of many, many examples) should be enough to block this editor again, regardless of their edit-warring. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting false information. I was not blocked for edit warring. I was blocked by an admin who first claimed that he was blocking me for vandalism, and then when I challenged him, switched to claiming that he had blocked me for edit warring, a claim he refuses to defend. You are making a personal attack to distract from the issue. Furthermore, I have given you chance after chance to discuss my edits, which you have refused to take, instead wasting my time with wildly disrespectful responses. You are the one not attempting to reach consensus. You are the one edit warring. And it is not the same edit. I have tried, over and over, to modify my edits to address the basis on which you claim to object, and each time I am rudely shot down.

My most recent attempt to edit the article: have you made any effort to discuss it? No, you have not. Yet you insist that you are not edit warring.

When I explain why your argument on the talk page is invalid, and you respond by simply repeating your argument without any acknowledgement that I have a counter argument, that is completely unacceptable. It says to me that you have absolutely no respect for me or the consensus-building process that editors are supposed to participate in. You and other editors are repeatedly insulting me and trying to threaten me into not editing, and then claiming that I am "extremely disruptive and have the effect of chasing other editors away". What hypocrisy.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Fastily has indefinitely blocked Heqwm2 for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BotfieldCatflap reported by Woogee (Result: Warned)

• Tiktaalik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BotfieldCatflap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BotfieldCatflap (talk · contribs) repeatedly edit wars on the Tiktaalik page, reverting to his preferred version. I usse him a 3RR warning, but he did not reply, and continues to edit war. Has yet to use a Talk page. Woogee (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. BotfieldCatflap has not edited for two days. If he starts again with the same pattern, he may be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:AeronPeryton reported by User:JBsupreme (Result: 24H Block )

Page: List of Bemani musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: AeronPeryton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Examples:

1st revert 1 - 06:15, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 14:15, 30 January 2010)
2nd revert 2 - 12:24, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 20:24, 30 January 2010)
3rd revert 3 - 22:16, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 06:16, 31 January 2010)
4th revert 4 - 22:48, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 06:48, 31 January 2010)
5th revert 5 - 23:49, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 07:49, 31 January 2010)

I do not know if I'm doing this right, so I apologize in advance for mistakes here (feel free to correct them). The editor in question, AeronPeryton (talk · contribs) has been constantly reverting edits to the List of Bemani musicians article. The edits in question involve removing back links to deleted/non-existent articles. I have had a run in with this editor recently regarding the removal of backlinks to a different page, but provided leeway given that it was a userfied article. [29] For the record, I still do not believe that deleted backlinks should exist on userfied pages either, but decided to just let it slide. For mainspace articles on the other hand it is common practice to perform these type of cleanup functions. JBsupreme (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been warned now a couple times on his talk page and was fully aware of the 3RR (or 4RR, really) violation. Since then a fifth revert has been made. [30] JBsupreme (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just seconding report. Warned user here [31]. Reminded user they're at 4rr here [32]. User responded insisting they would continue here [33]. User then reverted again here [34] (this revert is I think the fifth revert already mentioned by the orignal complainant JBsupreme.)Bali ultimate (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The guideline WP:REDLINK exhaustively explains the purpose of red links in the Wikipedia project. I do my best to keep my edits focused on advancing the Wikipedia project. After spending almost a week watching a mass deletion of biographies that are not or poorly sourced (instead of making an effort to work on them) mostly fronted by JBSupreme and Bali ultimate, I noticed that in addition to the subversive strategy of deleting little bits of an article at a time then asking for deletion because there's 'nothing but a sentence and it's not sourced!' both of them have taken to removing red links from other articles that lead to their deletions on the ground that it's "common practice".

I have opened communication with both of these editors and have been met with either no response at all or the deletion of my comments of the matter [35][36]. Or in this case, a very self-confident promise of being blocked for keeping with fundamental community beliefs. I don't know what time zone JBSupreme lives in but I corrected the timestamps for the edits he feels are in contest. In fact, only the final three are involved in his dispute, and that must be where Bali's claim of a third editor comes in. There's a lot of mis-information in their reports. As for my excuse for exhibiting 3rr behaviour, again, I do not believe that their edits are in keeping with good faith or even good ideas. It feels as though they simply want to delete and bury everything for good. Not even giving a second's thought to whether or not the person is notable due to disinterest and their focusing on the next AfD. Reading their own user pages is depressing as well, you get a terrible sense of anti-social and anti-cooperative personalities from them. Bali makes a deadpan insult to Jimmy Wales for making an intelligent (and too often factual) statement and JBSupreme forces everyone who views his talk page to load a full high-res image of ducks that can't even be completely seen on most screen resolutions, to list an example for each. Both of these editors act drunk with power and are going not going to work with anyone who is in their way, whether they're right or wrong.  æronphonehome  01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate has just made his own third reversion to the article in question, insisting that I do what I've been doing this whole time.  æronphonehome  01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for citing WP:REDLINK. I was looking for that guideline earlier and didn't think to search for it under the obvious. It clearly states: Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right) or every chapter in a book; nor should they have red links to deleted articles. (emphasis mine) I have been removing red links to precisely those types of articles, have tried to discuss it with you only to be met with hostility, and now here we are with you overstepping the bounds of 3RR. JBsupreme (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Aeron - do you live somewhere where UTC does not apply? If so, in consideration for the rest of us, please accept the timestamps as they are.   pablo_hablo. 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ÷seresin 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kbrose reported by Fnagaton (Result: Both warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

JEDEC memory standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kbrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 06:19, 29 January 2010
2. 16:49, 29 January 2010 Note the unhelpful comment about "rvv".
3. 00:04, 30 January 2010

• Diff of warning: here

• The user also left this untrue insulting message on my talk page [37]. I have a feeling the user will not stop their behaviour.

—Fnagaton 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Both warned. This report only lists three reverts, and it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the rule. Nonetheless, there seems to be an edit war going on. Both parties are urged to seek wider consensus. This article seems to be just one chapter in the Binary prefix war. Anyone trying to figure out how this article fits into that saga will not get much enlightenment from the Talk page. One would expect that both sides would take the trouble to better explain their positions on Talk, so that people new to the dispute could get oriented. If reverting continues with no actual consensus, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoising reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: 07:07, 24 January 2010 UTC

• 1st revert: 13:53, 26 January 2010 UTC
• 2nd revert: 12:10, 29 January 2010 UTC
• 3rd revert: 13:07, 29 January 2010 UTC
• 4th revert: 00:59, 30 January 2010 UTC
• 5th revert: 01:46, 30 January 2010 UTC
• 6th revert: 02:16, 30 January 2010 UTC
• 7th revert: 05:12, 30 January 2010 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:32, 30 January 2010 UTC

• Warning was removed here: 03:54, 30 January 2010 UTC (before the last reversion)

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

I happened across this edit war fairly late. I reverted User:Hoising's changes leaving an appropriate edit summary, indicating he needed to discuss the issue and instructing him not to continue edit warring.[38] The next time I saw the page, Hoising had breached 3RR but hadn't been warned, so I left warnings for both involved editors.[39][40] Hoising read the warning, deleted it and then made his latest revert. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Both of the editors involved in the dispute at David Beckham have now breached 3RR at UEFA Euro 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --AussieLegend (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Warned. Hoising's desire to force the sizes of images looks to be a one-man war against the existing standards of the football project. His stream of reverts on the image sizes has not continued on 31 January, so perhaps he got the message. If he resumes his reverts against the apparent project standards, file a new report and mention this one. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ob4cl reported by User:TheJazzDalek (Result: 48h)

Page: Template:Killah Priest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ob4cl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

• 1st revert: 03:41, 29 January 2010
• 2nd revert: 20:26, 29 January 2010
• 3rd revert: 21:27, 29 January 2010
• 4th revert: 04:42, 30 January 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:43, 29 January 2010

Comments:
I linked to consensus regarding my edit in my edit summaries; Ob4cl wouldn't even enter into a dialog via edit summary. Very carefully made fourth revert 1 hour and 1 minute after his first. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you check his contributions, you'll find he's now going around reverting many of my edits on various articles and templates, apparently out of spite. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - 48 hours. Editor has has made about twenty reverts on 31 January, mostly of changes by TheJazzDalek. Hardly ever uses edit summaries, and never replies to comments left on his user talk. His systematic undoing of changes by TheJazzDalek on a variety of articles looks like WP:Stalking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

62.43.17*.* reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Semi)

Page: Ethnic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 62.43.177.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 62.43.178.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

(after multiple earlier reverts, almost daily since 23 Jan:)

1. 16:52 28 Jan
2. 11:32 29 Jan
3. 17:41 29 Jan
4. 21:43 29 Jan
5. 23:54 29 Jan
6. 16:59 30 Jan (new IP 62.43.178.208 from same range as earlier 62.43.177.92)

• Prior warning (before latest rv): [43]; also edit summary [44]

Comments:

User ignores ongoing talkpage discussion, never uses edit summaries or reacts to them; this was his only ever attempt at communication, apparently in response to [45]. IP might be identical with earlier Indymediacentral (talk · contribs), who was revert-warring in a similarly stubborn fashion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. The problem is not due solely to the IP editors, but the article is subject to constant reverting, and changes are hardly ever discussed on Talk. The lack of criteria for 'what is an ethnic flag' seems to add to the tumult here. Editors might consider an AfD. Full protection may be the next step if editors don't favor an AfD and if semi doesn't reduce the contention. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DuKu reported by User:Finell (Result: 31h)

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

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]
• 5th revert: [50]

DuKu is editing warring over Euclid, a long stable article, against consensus (2 editors other than me have also reverted him) and is mis-characterizing one source to contend that Euclid is of "oriental origin". I added the external link that DuKu wanted to add, but with a correct citation and without the editor's mis-description of the link as being about Euclid's "oriental origin", in the References section,[51] but that did not satisfy DuKu.

Before DuKu's most recent edits and reverts, he added a link to a self-published paper by someone who is not a reliable source on the topic and who promotes a WP:FRINGE POV on mathematics history[52], which was discussed and settled a long time ago on the article's talk page (Talk:Euclid#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry and subsequent sections). Before that, he linked a blurb for a pamphlet on Amazon by the same fringe author.[53]

The issues were discussed with DuKu on the article's talk page (at the end of the Talk:Euclid#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry section and Talk:Euclid#Consensus and Opinion on adding link to Perseus and beyond)—DuKu raised the issue, after he was reverted, but then went ahead with no consensus—and also at User talk:Finell#EUCLID 3.

DuKu accused another experienced editor of vandalism for reverting DuKu's edits,[54][55] and has been uncivil and tendentious in the talk page discussions referenced above.

DuKu is a new user, who became very active very quickly, and is clearly not fluent in English. Therefore, I am not asking for a block. Rather, some firm guidance by an administrator on all of these issues may be sufficient; comments by other experienced editors do not seem to make much impression on DuKu. Thank you.—Finell 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 31 hours for edit warring. A comment such as 'Re-adding for the fifth time..' suggests that he is unlikely to be receptive to advice. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action.—Finell 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:70.29.59.12 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: 24h)

Page: Kick-Ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.29.59.12 (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]
• 5th revert: [60]

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

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

Comments:
User:70.29.59.12 keeps adding highly POV material sourced to apparently their own blog, claiming that Marvel Comics stole their idea. At least three editors have left notes about this at the user talk page, but the reversions continue with abusive language in the edit summaries. The same pattern is visible at Kick-Ass (film). This was originally reported at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Self Promotion on for Kick-Ass comic book and film, which is where I came across the problem. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Has now apparently started up as newly created account User:Rightous. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reversion continues [63], [64] and [65] using new account and old IP address. The material being inserted is as one editor noted "unsourced and potentially legally problematic accusation of infringement by Marvel" [66] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur in the description by Jezhotwells. This appears to be a matter of one editor (though it appears they are now using a newly created account in addition to the IP) with a personal axe to grind reverting several established accounts and anonymous editors. The accusations this editor is making are sourced only to their personal website and essentially accuse Marvel of stealing the editor's idea, which could expose Wikipedia to legal liability. --MikeJ9919 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The most recent reversions are [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (original IP) Kuru (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kavs8 reported by Per aspera ad Astra (Result: Warned)

Page: Dublin Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kavs8 (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: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:Kavs8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77] [78] [79]

Comments:

There is a huge edit war ongoing over the question whether to list Thomson Airways flights out of several Irish airports (especially Dublin), which is fought on a number of European airports. These flights cannot be booked directly and are therefore not notable per WP:NOTTRAVEL Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC) -->

This user (Kavs8) has been hostile in the past as well. This time around, his only justification is that "I flew it so it must exist". And, of course, comments like:

• "i will continue to edit-war if continue's to be distructive in editing"
• "if you continue to STOP edit-waring and re insert all destinations served by Thomson charter i will stop edit-waring but under that condition." Jasepl (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. No recent edits. If Kavs8 resumes in the same style, open a new report since a block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mark Shaw reported by IP 96.244.150.95 (Result: Stale)

Page: Little Green Footballs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mark Shaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A, he made his fourth revert before I got a chance to warn him. (Update: Notified)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Comments: I am well aware that I am at 3 reverts, however, I feel I made adequate attempts at communication and do not deserve to be reprimanded. He simply chose to edit war. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note Stating "you start the discussion, then" is hardly a mature attitude to take, especially when the pattern of WP:BRD is not being followed. You have just as much obligation to use the talk page as the other editor does. In fact, a little more, because you're the one looking to change things. Discussion is ongoing on talk page, it appears. Achieve consensus, it takes two to edit-war. tedder (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Check the timestamps: I am at 3R, not 4. Also, I note that 95 has begun using the article's discussion page, so perhaps this can be resolved without too much difficulty. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Stale. Neither party was justified in making so many reverts, and if they continue in the same vein, blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:93.142.159.24 reported by User:Brandmeister (Result: Protected)

Page: Greco-Persian Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 93.142.159.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

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

The words "Greek defensive victory" were changed to just "Greek victory", but reverts continue against consensus. This is mot likely Xashaiar (talk · contribs), socking unlogged, but could be another Iranian sock.

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

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

Comments:

• Result - Article protected for one week by Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Bovineboy2008 reported by User:Gqwu (Result: 24h to submitter)

Page: List of Wii games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notified

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98] Discussion on user's talk page: [99]

Comments: Bovineboy2008 claims to have consensus to change the format of the table by deleting columns of information (release dates) I find useful. I have been updating the page with these dates for 2 years, and strongly object to removing any useful information. The member claims that to have consensus from a 2 month discussion on the article talk page, but I was unable to participate because I did not edit the page for 3 months. The format has been in place for 4+ years, and I feel there needs to be much more discussion over a longer period of time to warrant such a drastic change. Gqwu (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While I may have reverted 3 times, I don't feel I was edit warring. The user was being bold in reverting a change that was reached through discussion, s/he was reverted but refused to discuss. I wish the editor could have been in the original discussion, and can certainly open the conversation back up. But just posting that they "absolutely reject all attempts" ([100], [101]) to change seems that the editor did not seem to be interested in finding a consensus, but having things their way. I would say that my behavior wasn't the best either, but I am open to discuss and am not going to attempt to revert again. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours to submitter, who is over 3RR. I offered him the chance to self-revert, but he continued to edit without making a response. The other participant, Bovineboy2008, has expressed his willingness to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Steel2009 edit warring reported by User:RasputinAXP (Result: No vio)

Page: Rowan University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Steel2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

• 1st revert: [103]
• 2nd revert: [104]
• 3rd revert: [105]
• 4th revert: [106]

Diff of edit warring warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "Talk" happened in reversion comments. See diffs. User does not appear willing to discuss. Edit: User has now decided after being warned of AN/E to bring it to the Talk page.

Comments: Long time no see, former comrades-in-arms. While I'm no longer an admin, or even editing that frequently, I have taken over some editing duties on pages that need frequent attention, like that of my alma mater. The edit warring over the murder of Donnie Farrell is something I'd like to otherwise avoid, but a previously uninvolved editor has decided to remove all references to the incident. Since this began another previously uninvolved editor has stepped in to revert my previous reversions; since as yet he's not edit warring (and I'm cognizant of avoiding violating WP:3RR) I am not seeking to involve him as of yet.

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. No clear violation of WP:3RR. There is a small edit war, which as of now isn't too serious and therefore editors strongly advised to read over and follow the guidance at WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 11:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:BobStinkyButt reported by User:NJA (Result: Indef)

Page: Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: BobStinkyButt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]
• 5th revert: [113]
• 6th revert: [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Various warns, all removed [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:

Result - Blocked indef by User:Edgar181. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:70.17.125.165 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 31h)

Page: Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.17.125.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [117]

• 1st revert: [118]
• 2nd revert: [119]
• 3rd revert: [120]
• 4th revert: [121]
• 5th revert: [122]
• 6th revert: [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk currently, but there is past consensus for the Arabic coming first and I attempted to get the IP to go to the talk page with his or her concerns ([125])

Comments:
The IP is continually changing the order of the languages despite a long-standing consensus to place the Arabic first. Three different users have reverted the IP, the IP just continues to revert. nableezy - 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Miss-jessie-gal reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 15h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bellbridge, Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miss-jessie-gal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 00:17, 23 January 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 338905757 by Mattinbgn (talk)")
2. 06:23, 30 January 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 339451574 by Mattinbgn (talk)")
3. 11:05, 1 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 340861225 by Bidgee (talk)")
4. 10:19, 2 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341261334 by Bidgee (talk) THIS IS BACKED UP EVIDENCE GATHERED FROM LOCALS")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 15 hours NJA (t/c) 11:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• User is back at edit warring again!

1. 06:17, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341451559 by Bidgee (talk)")

Bidgee (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• And again!

1. 09:56, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341636516 by Mattinbgn (talk)")

Bidgee (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yet again, clearly a disruptive account.

1. 10:07, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341655873 by Mattinbgn (talk)")

Bidgee (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Miss-jessie-gal has been reblocked for another 55 hours by User:NJA due to the continued warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:76.235.200.246 reported by User:SeanNovack (Result: 31h)

• Page: Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: 76.235.200.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [126]

• 1st revert: [127]
• 2nd revert: [128]
• 3rd revert: [129]
• 4th revert: [130]

This user seems to be pushing an agenda. While I admit I am a conservative, the facts I have presented are just that, facts, according to a polling source that is generally favorable to the political Left.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131] Cannot warn on 76.235.200.246 page because he doesn't have one

User has been Warned and has made two reverts since the warning. Arzel (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments:

[132] Rapier1 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Should block and block quickly. 3RR has been breached 3 fold--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jojhutton, I would like you to take the WP:3RR warning off my Talk Page. Thank You. ThinkEnemies (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In order to be fair, you did revert 3 times on the same page, and that is edit warring. Sorry, edit warring is edit warring. The only reason that you weren't reported is because you didn't revert the 4th time.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept any punishment that any administrator sees fit to meet out, but I would like it noted for the record that I was also adding information to the talk page and explaining that the reversions were being done because those edits that were being made were factually incorrect, as is proven upon reading the source material. Rather than revert a 4th time I brought the issue here. Rapier1 (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, we should revert the ip as many times as it takes, since he is clearly removing the section against consensus. But to keep all of our noses clean, lets just wait for the block and then revert one last time.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, upon reflection, looking at the history there one of those edits was simply a cleanup of the previous revert with no other edits in between, so I believe that was only 2 reverts on my part (someone may want to double-check that, I'm getting confused with all the vandalism here). Rapier1 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this IP is a sock or is totally unrelated, but this block got an NPA mention here.  7  07:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Paulnrswain reported by User:Doktorbuk (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported:

• Paulnrswain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beckslou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 149.254.182.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Early flag-up warnings for Paulnrswain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Beckslou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 149.254.182.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who are all having fun and games on Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency). User Galloglass and I have been reverting their suspiciously similar edits based on the fact we have evidence to proove our point...and they don't. Very close to 3RR wars going on here, so thought it best to flag up something before it all kicks off... doktorb _words^deeds 11:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Article semiprotected by User:BrownHairedGirl. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:66.92.46.42 reported by User:Codf1977 (Result: 31h)

Page: American Whig–Cliosophic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 66.92.46.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [133] and [134]
• 2nd revert: [135] and [136]
• 3rd revert: [137] and [138]
• 4th revert: [139] and [140]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:66.92.46.42

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

Comments:
I have tried to engage this IP user in the reasons for the template tags and text he wants in but to no avail. Codf1977 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 19:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I assume that I should avoid reverting this users last edit or I will end up in 3RR jail, so can another user please put them back. Codf1977 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the text, though consistent unexplained removal of maintenance templates can typically be classified as vandalism, therefore excusing your reverts from 3RR. If they resume without discussion, re-report it here and point to this report (or possibly report it WP:AIV with a link to this report). NJA (t/c) 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I was working on the better safe than sorry principle. I have again posted to the talk page re the table of past officers, and will wait till tomorrow before make any more edits to the main page. Codf1977 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Folantin reported by Groupthink (talk) (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folantin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 08:57, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "dubious anachronism")
2. 14:18, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Rv. This is not a term used by scholars specialising in 16th-century French history. The word "terrorist" is generally avoided on Wikipedia")
3. 15:21, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "This is undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. Gilmour was a British politician, not a specialist in French 16th-century history")

• Diff of warning: here —Groupthink (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR and I have replied to Groupthink on my talk page. Instead of replying to me he has filed this report. Groupthink's edits to the page in question are a violation of neutral point of view and undue weight (the word "terrorism" is a real no-no on Wikipedia unless you have rock-solid sourcing for its use). I (as well as other users) have attempted to keep this page neutral and scholarly for well over three years now. --Folantin (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1) As noted above, you have violated 3RR, blatantly. 2) I did reply to you, in the form of my edit summaries and with a 3RR warning, which you scoffed at, leaving me no choice but to serve notice. 3) This guideline states that the word terrorist, not terrorism, is to be avoided. Given that there's a whole well-sourced section on the subject of the page in question in Christian terrorism, your argument is specious. 4) "I (as well as other users) have attempted to keep this page neutral and scholarly for well over three years now" sounds like a claim of ownership to me. Groupthink (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made more than three reverts in 24 hours. The "sourcing" in the Christian terrorism article is to a single obscure article, not readable by non-subscribers, by a dead British Conservative MP. That does not represent the balance of scholarly opinion on the matter and is a violation of undue weight. If you want to use the word "terrorist" on Wikipedia you have to have absolutely rock-solid sourcing. --Folantin (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(NB) Since you've now taken up the conversation on my talk page, I suggest continuing the matter there rather than here. --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties may find said discussion here. Groupthink (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• No action. 3RR prohibits more than three revert actions. I see only three reverts linked to above. There is also not (yet) evidence of edit warring that would warrant a block at this number of reverts, but that can swiftly change of either side continues reverting.  Sandstein  21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mister Mystery reported by Hektor (talk) (Result: 24 h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Page:Doctor Who (2010 series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
User being reported: Mister Mystery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 15:38, 3 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341695164 by Hektor (talk)")
2. 15:40, 3 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341696242 by Hektor (talk)How can you? There not even released until tomorrow.")
3. 15:45, 3 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341696882 by Hektor (talk)Well until their ACTUALLY released everyone will keep deleting")

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [143] [341696759 here]

—Hektor (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours.  Sandstein  21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Orlady reported by doncram (talk) (Result: stale)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this as stale. Orlady and Doncram have engaged in a lame edit war, but it's over now and so no blocks are required at this time. Don't do it again, please. Any broader issues, including any restrictions, should be discussed elsewhere.  Sandstein  21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

• Three-revert rule violation on

Riverview Terrace Historic District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Orlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 16:26, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Reasoning was the same as the last half-dozen identical edits; I just got tired of repeating, so I used rollback: "commented out placeholder sentence (again); when there's nothing to say, don't say anything"")
2. 17:19, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341706295 by Doncram (talk) reverting inclusion of sentence that has no meaning -- when there's nothing to say, don't say anything")
3. 19:13, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341727093 by Doncram (talk) I still stand by the edit, for reasons explained repeatedly in earlier summaries. I apologized for using rollback.")

1. 19:13, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341727093 by Doncram (talk) I still stand by the edit, for reasons explained repeatedly in earlier summaries. I apologized for using rollback.")

Not sure if above, provided by use of 3rr reporting tool, is what is wanted. Here are 4 diffs:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4

• Diff of warning: No diff required. Orlady is an Administrator and knows these rules.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Orlady's Talk page: diff here

• Orlady contends here that the edit she reverts is "tantamount to vandalism" and then again that 3rr does not apply here, in response to other editor's comments about this.

• Disclosure: I am involved, along with Orlady, in a long-running (7 month) contention over NRHP HD vs. neighborhood/hamlet articles in Connecticut. The process has been winding down to resolution with help of an invited mediator, User:Acroterion, and also somewhat by User:EdJohnston (esp. in reviewing another involved, imposing an edit restriction in place for that other editor, who is not Orlady or myself). A milestone was a semi-complicated compromise, which has been providing stability for a while now, between the other editor and myself. Orlady has sometimes professed little interest in the subject area, but persisted in what i have termed "determined participation". This current 3RR violation has nothing specific to do with thatas this involves an entirely unrelated, uninvolved editor and no issue of NRHP HD vs. neighborhood/hamlet articles. Instead, it amounts to, or verges upon, wp:wikihounding, in Orlady following me around and contesting, unproductively. I asked her politely enough at her Talk page to avoid that appearance and back off with respect to this article.

• I expect it is possible Orlady and i are headed towards some more formal arbitration, if she will not back off. Here, I mainly want to point out the 3RR violation by Orlady, and to call attention to what i believe is invalid claim of exemption for 3rr by her. Also, in the process, she used wp:rollback, upon which she has previously instructed me, which appears to be another minor violation of admin-type privileges.

—doncram (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This sort of dispute over meaningless language ("The district has some significance") is the reason why we have crappy NRHP articles. The project spends more time bickering over wording than actually improving the articles. Is it too much to ask that editors write semi-coherent articles that comply with WP:STUB and that give at least a minimum of encyclopedic information? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Doncram apparently believes that it is acceptable to create fill-in-the-blanks stub pages -- and add placeholder text -- in article space. He has added the sentence "The district has some significance" to a number of different articles about National Register of Historic Places historic districts. For background, every property or district listed on the National Register has been judged to possess some sort of "significance" (for example, "architectural significance"), and there are checkboxes on the nomination forms to identify which categories of significance are present. The statement "The district has some significance" is a meaningless placeholder. Doncram, an experienced user, has been advised repeatedly that he should not be putting placeholder content of this nature in article space (this is one relevant conversation), but he persists in doing so for reasons that only he can explain. As I stated on my talk page in an exchange with Doncram and another user, I consider the repetitive inclusion of placeholders (including but not limited to this particular sentence) to be tantamount to vandalism, and I think that Doncram's persistence in this behavior is vandalism.

The cited series of edits to Riverview Terrace Historic District is one of several series of edits that I have initiated to remove these meaningless placeholder sentences. Recently I have been searching for articles containing the inherently meaningless placeholder language "The district has some significance" and 'commenting out' that language. Doncram accuses me of following him around, but he has in turn been reverting my edits. Here's some prehistory for that particular series of edits:

• Doncram inserts the placeholder sentence -- including an ellipsis (....) that emphasizes that this is a placeholder
• Orlady comments out the placeholder sentence with the edit summary "commented out the incomplete placeholder sentence -- replace it with real information later on..."
• Doncram removes the formatting I added with the edit summary "remove comment inserted --somewhat harassingly perhaps-- by another editor. Comment changed meaning, implied something else sourced by a reference. Confused rather than helped." Note: My "commenting out" action had attached the reference to the previous sentence. Since the reference is the nomination form for the National Register listing of the district -- and is a complete description of the historic district at the time of its listing -- it was perfectly valid to cite it in support of a sentence that said: "In 1984, the district included 21 buildings deemed to contribute to the historic character of the area, and one other contributing site."
• I restored the formatting with the edit summary "commented out placeholder sentence (again); when there's nothing to say, don't say anything."
• Doncram reverts my edit

I believe that Doncram's continuing insistence on publishing this and other meaningless placeholder content in article space constitutes vandalism that deserved to be reverted, even repetitively. I have already stated (to Doncram) that I was wrong for using rollback for diff1 in the series that Doncram cites. My excuse is that I had just done several identical "undos" on other articles and it was already very late at night (I wanted to go to bed), so I got lazy and used "rollback" for the very last undo in the series, knowing that Doncram would already have read my repetitive edit summaries, and not thinking that some other user would stumble upon that edit before Doncram saw it. --Orlady (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd that she would apologize and then repeat the edit. --doncram (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I apologized for using rollback for that particular edit, instead of undoing it in a way that would allow me to leave an original hand-crafted edit summary. The result was that this one edit did not have one of the same detailed edit summaries that I had provided for the previous dozen similar edits. I did not, and do not, apologize for the edit itself, which unpublished a useless and irresponsible sentence that you had added to article space. --Orlady (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, that isn't really the issue. The issue is you breaking 3RR and recognizing that you need to be held accountable for your actions like any other user, admin or not, would be if they violated 3RR. CTJF83 chat 01:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady has, indeed, been repeatedly revisiting CT articles where a merger of NRHP HD topic with village/hamlet/neighborhood topic has been implemented, as part of long process. Per the principal agreement within that process, the phrasing "substantially similar" with a citation needed tag was added. Orlady is revisiting these to tear that out, undermining the agreement, fighting against an agreement that has otherwise served to provide stability and nearly resolve a 7 month contention. The suggested alternative for all of these, open to her, repeatedly invited to her, is to compose a footnote to the NRHP document now available for almost all cases in CT, and use that or another source to compose a better, sourced characterization of relationship. I have added NRHP doc references to more than 100 CT NRHP articles by now, and the other editor originally involved in contention has also been contributing sourced characterizations. --doncram (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like another abuse of admin powers. Orlady knows she can't be blocked as an admin (being she can unblock herself). As I pointed out to her, as stated at WP:Van "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." An admin should know this, and not be violating 3RR with false vandalism accusations. Should Doncram have expanded the details as to why it is notable, yes, but that's not the issue, 3RR violation is. CTJF83 chat 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Administrators can be blocked, and they may not unblock themselves. There appears to be no misuse of administrative tools (rollback is not an exclusive preserve of administrator). Please don't conflate administrative status and a content dispute. Acroterion _(talk) 00:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologizes then, I was misinformed on IRC. I was pointing out that admins should know and follow 3RR. CTJF83 chat 00:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady is at 3RR (not yet exceeded) for several articles involved in the longrunning controversy. This is edit warring. The process worked out has been to address topics in a master list of items, managed in a tracking page within User talk:Acroterion. Polaron and I have both, with some misunderstandings from time to time, been working within that framework. For example, i would note "P reports 3 criteria met. Currently merged. I added "substantially similar" type statement and added Talk page statements. Should be okay now. --doncram (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)", and invited mediator Acroterion has been checking those off as Done, indicating some approval that the situation is resolved according to the agreement between Polaron and myself. Orlady's recent edits have not been announced, appear purely to disrupt a process that has been working, is nearly complete in some respects. Orlady has not raised support for any agreement other than the "Poquetanuck agreement" that she opposed and yet which became a consensus of sorts. There would be no value to be added by opening a new agreement process somewhere else, either, but Orlady has not done even that. She is labelling as vandalism my edits which implement the working solution agreed to in a well-discussed process.

But, all this about the CT NRHP's, is an aside to the current subject that Orlady has exceeded 3RR, and has only stated that 3RR does not apply. And that she applied this in a different context entirely, about an NRHP in a different state involving a different local editor where there is no controversy, no suggestion of any issue about merger/split vs. a neighborhood article. It is exceeding 3RR in the further aggravating context of wikihounding -- of following me around in unrelated edits to harass me and quite likely to turn off a newer editor in this area from working productively in developing content. --doncram (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Some misunderstandings??" You demanded that Polaron be blocked yesterday because you didn't like his edits. The ensuing silence was deafening. I disagree with your characterization of this dispute, and I disagree with the notion that the disputed wording has a stamp of approval on my part. Acroterion _(talk) 03:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, some misunderstandings may be an understatement, about the various flareups that go outside and around the central process that has mostly been working. About yesterday's, it appeared possible that a series of edits was in violation of edit restriction in place, and I still think they were in vio of your own directions, though you've clarified you don't yourself quite want to impose your authority on that. I also fully understand that you do not like the disputed wording, and neither do I, relative to the preferred alternative of someone adding the NRHP doc or another reference and forming a proper comparison of two topics that have been merged into one article. Which is the next step, after stabilizing the articles, and which I and others have been addressing constructively. You have conveyed well enough that you are holding your nose with respect to the compromise, temporary wording used in advance of proper development, and about other stuff. As you will have noted, though, a lot of progress has been made in actually settling many articles within the working framework, with development of sources and material going on. I do appreciate your hanging in. --doncram (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Holding my nose" is an apt summary. Any further discussions should take place elsewhere, though. Acroterion _(talk) 03:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, do you honestly believe you're not engaged in an edit war over these issues? I'm curious, do you really believe you're free of blame here? How many times have you reverted changes in the past 24 hours? 30? You may have cleverly dodged violating 3RR, but what you're doing can just as easily be called a case of "gaming the system," as mentioned on the edit warring page. And these aren't "unrelated edits" - they're related to the same issue, i.e., you're insistence we keep the useless phrase "It has some has some significance" in NRHP stubs. The fact that Orlady did a search to find this phrase and the "substantially similar" phrase doesn't mean she's harassing you. It's just sickening to see you of all people accuse someone of breaking a rule meant to prevent edit warring. Bms4880 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is principally about 3RR violation, about a lesser degree about minor abuse of admin-type tool of rollback (which i and other non-admins have as well), and also about a growing degree of wikihounding by Orlady. This is not the forum for a full discussion of that. But to respond to you: about the Indiana article where 3RR violation occurred, I had only been constructively involved there with another editor. I was in fact surprised, alarmed, and then irritated by discovering that Orlady was involving herself there, in a totally different domain and with no constructive purpose. I did repeatedly remove her edits, after asking her nicely enough to avoid the appearance of wikihounding. About the CT NRHP articles, I have been working with others within a big checklist, where the recent priority has been to address User:Polaron's complaints that the Poquetanuck agreement had not been implemented fully, not yet rolled out to all the articles where it applied. I have been implementing that agreement by, among other edits, adding a statement of "substantially similar" to articles where the working agreement is to have merger. I am in fact pretty horrified to learn from Orlady's comments in this discussion and at her talk page, that she is embarked on a campaign to search on that phrase and eradicate it. That is outside of the working framework which has been prevailing and serving to stabilize and allow productive development on NRHP and village/hamlet/neighborhood articles. And to allow Polaron and me and Acroterion and others to back away from a long and toxic process. I am not surprised but I really am horrified. And I do not regard myself as edit warring in an unproductive way, only to re-implement an agreed-upon approach that Orlady appears to be seeking to disrupt at all costs. --doncram (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Need I remind everyone that this is a 3RR report on Orlady NOT Doncram. I'm not taking sides, but if Doncram violated 3RR, there should be a report on him. CTJF83 chat 02:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Administrator instructions" link at the top of the page has the following statement: "It may also prove useful to look at the reporter's history as they, too, may have violated 3RR or edit warred. If so, they may also be blocked." So yes, if Doncram is edit warring, he is equally accountable in this report. Bms4880 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed closure - I think the original dispute is now moot, since the placeholder text to which Orlady so strenuously objected has been replaced with some useful content. Presumably the new text is acceptable to all sides. I would tend to close this case with No Action, but will wait and see if any other admin wants to comment. I've been making some effort at informal mediation of the NRHP Historic District dispute. As you can see, my efforts have not worked. In the future, I can see a need for sweeping restrictions, that will place annoying review requirements on the actions of a number of parties. The so-called Poquetanuck agreement seems not to have any teeth, or these editors wouldn't be coming back here all the time. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're proposing to let an admin get away with violating policy? Admins needs to be held to a higher standard then regular users, that's why they are nominated and discussed by the community when they RfA. She knows better than to edit war and thus needs to be held accountable for her actions, as would any user. Ed, I see you have no problem blocking users for edit warring, what's the difference here? It involves an admin? If this is on going problem between her and Doncram, then it's high time WP:BP is instituted, "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment", and not let an admin slide by because they are an admin. CTJF83 chat 03:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the issue isn't ever going to end. CTJF83 chat 03:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not because she's an admin, it's because of the situation, and the fact that this dispute is a continuation of a greater issue, of which Doncram is an equally-accountable party. Applying sanctions is a particularly ugly affair. It's best to do what's agreeable to all sides and what's helpful to the encyclopedia, rather than following a philosophy of strict constructionism. I am in agreement with Edjohnston's decision. I'll expand the "some significance" sentences in the remaining articles tomorrow so that they contain content meaningful to general readers, and I'll see what I can do to help resolve remaining disputes. Bms4880 (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I want the thoughts on a neutral admin who has no history with either Orlady or Doncram, not 2 people who work with her a lot. Clearly some COI going on here. CTJF83 chat 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

[Reply posted before seeing several of the above comments] The article on the Davenport, Iowa (not Indiana) historic district that instigated this report is now safe from further revert-warring, thanks to Bms4880's edits that replaced the placeholder sentence with some actual content. I will also refrain (at least for the time being) from making any additional edits to the other articles where Doncram has been fiercely defending his "right" to publish unmeaningful statements and placeholders like "the district has some significance" (as noted above, this is a placeholder with no actual meaning), "the village and the district are substantially similar^{[citation needed]}" (yes, I know what this statement is supposed to mean, and I know that two people agreed to this wording, but that does not justify insisting on placing this kind of inherently meaningless statement in multiple locations in article space -- where at best it will mystify readers), "it covers part or all of the neighborhood/village/hamlet" and "it may or may not include ZZZ School..." (those two bad examples have, happily, been replaced with much better content), and "it has a cut stone ring somewhere and rusticated brownstone curbing somewhere else" (that is also no longer in article space, and I hope it doesn't get restored); and to cite as a reference the elusive "____ (, 19). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: __". National Park Service. and Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___".

My constructive purpose in removing content like that is to reduce the amount of garbage content in Wikipedia article space. I continue to contend that removing this content is for all intents and purposes the same as removing vandalism. This kind of stuff is damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia, and Doncram has been fully apprised of the issues with it. Moreover, when experienced users publish that kind of "cruft" in article space, it is in some respects worse than the obvious forms of vandalism that we see so frequently. A new contributor should not need any help to recognize that it is unconstructive to add statements like "Jason is a moonpie" to encyclopedia articles, but a new user can be seriously misled if they see an experienced user adding fill-in-the-blanks sentences to articles (or creating whole article pages from fill-in-the-blanks statements).

I'd like Doncram to agree not to publish rough drafts and outlines for articles in article space (this content is, however, acceptable in user space, project space, or on talk pages, and some placeholder sentences and notes can be appropriate as hidden comments in articles) and not to publish placeholder statements in articles.

Regarding "substantially similar," Doncram is play-acting when he says he is surprised to learn that I consider those "substantially similar" statements to be inappropriate in article space. I've told him that repeatedly, and explained my reasoning at ridiculous length. His consistent defense of these statements is that two Wikipedia contributors agreed (or at least acquiesced) to the use of this wording. Unfortunately, without the context provided by the talk pages where that wording was hatched (where it is clear from the context that "similar" refers to similarity in the size and geographic extent of the "village" and the "historic district") it is utterly unclear what the wording means (if readers search Wikipedia for an explanation, they might conclude from the article "substantial similarity" that there is a copyright dispute between the village and the historic district). Furthermore, in most instances it would be philosophically impossible to prove or disprove these statements (even with sources) due to the lack of precise geographic definitions for the areas discussed. I guess that I need to accept that Doncram owns the articles where these statements are made, and because I am a female (or something) I am unworthy to suggest that they don't make sense.

As for edit warring, most edit wars involve more than one party, and I do believe that Doncram has been engaged in at least as much edit warring as I have. As an example, look at High Street Historic District (Hartford, Connecticut), one of the articles that had much recent activity:

• January 27 (date refs are in US Eastern time) - Article created by Doncram, including the language "the placeholder sentence "The district has some significance".
• January 31 (about 4 days later) - Orlady commented out that sentence.
• Seven hours later - Doncram reverted Orlady's edit.
• February 1, 27 hours after Doncram's edit - Orlady reverted Doncram's edit.
• Feb 2, 11 hours after Orlady's edit - Doncram reverts Orlady's edit.
• Feb 3, 15 hours after Doncram's edit - Orlady reverts it.
• Feb 3, 9 hours later - Doncram reverts Orlady.
• Feb 3, 2 hours later - Orlady reverts Doncram.
• Feb 3, 25 minutes after Orlady's edit - Doncram reverts and adds a couple of words to the sentence. (After that addition, this historic downtown area is stated to have "some significance in architecture and commerce." That probably could be said about virtually any city's downtown...)
• Feb 3, 5 hours after Doncram's edit - Orlady reverts with new reason ("that I judge [the new words] not to accurately reflect the content of the reference cited")
• Feb 3, 4 minutes after Orlady's edit - Doncram reverts.
• Feb 3, 6 minutes after Doncram's edit - Orlady reverts, saying "The district has some significance in architecture and commerce" is not supported by source.
• Feb 3, almost 2 hours after Orlady's last edit (and about 8 hours ago, as of now) - Doncram reverts, saying "It does have that significance--or at least that is what it says in the source. Read the stupid source, Orlady."

In the last 24-hour period in that edit history, I count 4 reverts by Doncram and 4 reverts by Orlady. 'Nuf said. --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) All I see Orlady doing is blaming her actions on Doncram: "a new user can be seriously misled if they see an experienced user adding fill-in-the-blanks sentences to articles". What about the millions of non-admins who see you edit warring, and not having to answer to it by being blocked like they would? It's time to step up and take responsibility for your actions. Clearly it's not going to stop. You're the admin and need to be held to a higher standard then other users. CTJF83 chat 04:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You have both been very naughty, 100 000 edits between you and two clean blocks logs, squabbling over The district has some significance., you are both to have your noses dipped in gravy and licked clean by a big poodle until you realize the silliness of your ways and promise never to do it again. Off2riorob (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see sentences like, "The district has some significance," as vandalism. I do see them as sloppy article writing, though. Here's another example from Art Troutner Houses Historic District: When it was initially created on October 15, 2008, the article had this narrative: "The houses are, indisputably, houses. At least one looks like an A-frame. At least one has a carport." It wasn't until April 11, 2009, that another editor removed this sentence. Again, that isn't vandalism, but it's seven months that Wikipedia had an embarrassing sub-stub description of a historic district. And that's for a historic district that has the NRHP nomination form online!

So, my take on it is: Sloppy writing isn't vandalism. Edit warring over sloppy writing is still edit warring. Orlady, I'd recommend you don't label bad writing as vandalism. These problems could be avoided if Doncram would write articles that comply with WP:STUB when they're created, but I suspect that Doncram has interests at mind other than writing complete articles off the bat. As evidence, there's a continuing dispute between Doncram (talk · contribs) and Polaron (talk · contribs), and between Doncram (talk · contribs) and Orlady (talk · contribs), and I think Doncram has a general sense of ownership over his articles, and indeed over a lot of things that happen at WP:NRHP. I think it's time to submit a WP:RFC/U. Doncram's disputes have been aired in quite a few forums, generating more heat than light.

I hope my comments "have some significance". --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - "Do not continue a dispute on this page." Please note proper examples (as seen in earlier cases on this page) of how WP:3RR reports are to be filed. This very lengthy discussion does not belong here, but on the talk page... Doc9871 (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New proposed closure - I withdraw my above suggestion that the case be closed with no action. The great length of the thread shows that the NRHP dispute is still causing trouble and annoyance, and may be interfering with work on articles. This has continued for seven months. I think the best closure is with editing restrictions for Orlady, Doncram and Polaron. I've made one suggestion over at User talk:Acroterion#Another idea for admin action on NRHP. Other proposals for ending the dispute are welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This 3RR case is about Orlady following my edits around, seemingly to impose interruption and contention, into areas of wikipedia not subject to any dispute about article structure (whether a NRHP article should be merged or not with any place). The review of all CT NRHPs is separate and nearly complete, in a process managed by Acroterion. This 3RR is not the place for a full discussion, but I would like for Orlady to be advised to cease following me around, and for her to avoid contact where possible. I do not follow her around to articles unrelated to my clearly established editing interests. She has previously been advised to refrain from making personal-based comments about me and my motivations. I have usually/often refrained from responding when she has done so, anyhow, but in some cases I have felt it necessary to respond. In a few cases when her claims about me amounted to either outright lying or reckless disregard for the truth, i have called her on that. This current kerfluffle started by her following me to a new domain, and my asking her politely enough to refrain, which she followed up by re-interrupting into over-3RR status. Orlady has followed me and contended with me apparently for 2 years now. She has repeatedly interpreted requests to her to tone it down, to back off, as a "dare" to which she has responded by escalation. Again, this 3RR is not the place to have a full discussion, but please note exactly what happened here: i asked her to back off, and she only accelerated and in fact went into 3RR violation. This incident, posed narrowly, has nothing to do with creating new articles or redirects (what EdJohnston's suggestion at A's Talk page addresses). --doncram (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

User:90.52.58.71 reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: Reported user blocked)

Page: Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 90.52.58.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

• 1st revert: 23:12, February 3, 2010
• 2nd revert: 09:01, February 4, 2010
• 3rd revert: 11:10, February 4, 2010
• 4th revert: 13:19, February 4, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:05, February 4, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145], among others.

Comments:

— HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jstanierm reported by CTJF83 chat (Result: Reported user blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jstanierm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 16:29, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "No opposition on talk page so introduced current legal issues regarding human rights to the LEDE")
2. 17:47, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341914254 by Quietmarc (talk)")
3. 17:56, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341926806 by Quietmarc (talk)3RR. You're pushing your POV by trying to exclude cited material. Please stop.")
4. 18:17, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341930600 by NatGertler (talk) Consensus has been reached. If you have comments please discuss on talk page.")
5. 18:25, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341931745 by Ctjf83 (talk)I invite you to read the talk page discussion (which you have not apparently done)")

• Diff of warning: here

—CTJF83 chat 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Biophys reported by User:YMB29 (Result: Declined)

Page: Human rights in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not a 3RR but...

For almost two years Biophys has been starting edit wars in the Human rights in_the Soviet Union article. He has been avoiding discussions, resorting to sneaky reverts, and sometimes tag teaming.

This time, after laying low for a few months, he returned to editing there and keeps on reverting a section of the article [146][147][148]. This was one of the most disputed sections and no attempt was made to discuss the change.

He made the section exactly the same as it was in his previous version from September [149]. Since his last edit in September, there has been an attempt by me to discuss all the issues of conflict with him again, there were third opinions given [150], and there have been edits and discussion by other users [151]. Biophys, as usual, just disregarded anything that went on in the article and reverted the section (and knowing him, this was just a first step to carefully revert other sections).

This user has a history of misconduct on wiki. He was a member of the Eastern European mailing list[152] and actively participated in the related edit warring, canvassing, attacks, and other disruptive actions.

He did not get banned like many of the list members did, but should not his actions be under watch now?

There is plenty of evidence against him that shows that he has consistently done such reverts and other disruptive actions in the past: [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158]

So is anything finally going to be done about him, especially considering that he had narrowly escaped a ban by arbcom not too long ago? Again, all attempts at resolution or discussion with him failed, so please don't tell me that we should "work together and not edit war". -YMB29 (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Declined This noticeboard is for reporting active edit warriors, or violations of the three-revert rule. Both you and Biophys have been reverting each other over a long period of time. As this is not immediate, but a long-term problem, this isn't the correct venue. If you have a problem with the user's conduct, a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard may be appropriate; or if there is evidence of long-term misconduct, a request for comment on user conduct. No action can be taken here at this time. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well yes it is chronic, but still ongoing. I just thought I let admins know before it turns into an intense edit war again with multiple reverts per day... -YMB29 (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jude12309 reported by User:Plastikspork (Result: 24 h)

Page: Alison Sweeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jude12309 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]
• 5th revert: [163]
• 6th revert: [164]
• 7th revert: [165]
• 8th revert: [166]
• 9th revert: [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [169][170][171]

Comments:

With the timing between the edits it's probably marginally 3RR, but it is certainly edit warring. I watch about 3000 articles, and didn't notice how many times I had reverted this particular user until after the third or fourth revert. The basic crux of the disagreement is (1) the use of the subject's first name which does not conform to MOS for a BIO, (2) the inclusion of the trivial mention of "Alison was pretending to go into labor on Ellen" in the personal life section, (3) the inclusion of complete names and birthdates for non-notable minors (per WP:BLP). I would love to discuss each of these points rationally with the user, but the user is unwilling to discuss anything on the talk page. I don't plan to touch this page again for a bit, since I would rather not violate 3RR myself. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours.  Sandstein  06:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Vertebralcompressionfractures reported by User:CrunchyChewy (Result: Both editors blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [172]

• 1st revert: [173] 02:39, 3 February 2010
• 2nd revert: [174]03:33, 3 February 2010
• 3rd revert: [175]04:44, 3 February 2010
• 4th revert: [176]03:22, 4 February 2010 - Note that user Vertebralcompressionfractures forgets to log on so his IP 76.238.142.2 shows up. This IP is connected to http://www.dfineinc.com/. This company sells medical instruments used for the described procedure!!
• 5th revert: [177]06:25, 4 February 2010
• 6th revert: [178]16:10, 4 February 2010 User Wordstir is an obvious sock puppet of Vertebralcompressionfractures. Check out the lame explanation in the discussion page [179]
• 7th revert: [180]23:17, 4 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Almost every undo I've done has contained a repeated explanation about why he must not change the article.[181]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182],[183]

Comments: User:Vertebralcompressionfractures represents a medical devices company and thus he has an EXTREMELY strong motive to deceive people into thinking these devices work. He is incorrigible and has already used a sock puppet. This article desperately needs to be locked. Even when eventually unlocked constant vigilance will be required.
CrunchyChewy (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:LUUSAP reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Reported user blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Seven News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LUUSAP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 09:47, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History */ Someone there got caught looking at the wrong stuff on the air.")
2. 20:00, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "No, this is legit. Watch the video in the link. Someone was caught surfing racy images on the air of a 7 news broadcast.")
3. 02:41, 4 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Didn't I tell you to watch the video in the link? This event really happened!")
4. 19:48, 4 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Someone was caught looking at skimpy model images while on the air. I put it up for discussion on the talk page to see if anyone would agree or disagree with adding it. Nobody responded, so here it is")
5. 20:57, 4 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History */ tweak")
6. 08:13, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Hugh, why? Why don't we discuss it on the talk page? I opened up the topic for us there.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They are back under an IP (129.130.32.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) but this time readded (and some more) the content to the Macquarie Group article which is a clear breach of the block. Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:119.160.18.209 reported by User:Omirocksthisworld (Result:24h block )

Page: RAGS International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: User:119.160.18.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 21:17, February 4, 2010 Note the fact that IP's edit summary is misleading, as they are actually making the redirects. (edit summary:Please discuss this matter on talk page instead of re-directing again. Thanks)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:00, February 4, 2010
• 3rd revert: 23:12, February 4, 2010 Note again the misleading edit summary.
• 4th revert: 23:19, February 4, 2010 edit summary: Please discuss this matter on talk page instead of re-directing again. Thanks

The user is constantly redirecting this page to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, although this disambiguation already includes a link to said article. Although the User has not commented on Talk:RAGS International, though they have been encouraged, User: Falconkhe has been making the same edits and has commented there. From their comments, it seems like they are constantly reverting because they think the disambiguation page is somehow being used for advertisement.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here, though it seems that the IP could be user Falconkhe, who made the exact same edits previously and who has a history of edit warring

Comments:

The user has also been making disruptive edits and edit warring on the following pages, and there seems to be a trend:

• Messiah Foundation International, which was unprotected yesterday after being fully protected for a week due to similar edit warring
• The disambiguation page Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi
• Younus AlGohar- The edits done by this editor are exactly the same as the edits of User: 116.71.15.61 who was previously blocked from editing.
• The Representative of Gohar Shahi please note the misleading edit summaries once again.

Please also see editor's efforts to reason with the IP here, and here, where the IP has seemingly edited my message on the talk page. The IP seems to be focused on articles relating to Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, and Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (See user contributions). Also, after I stopped reverting their edits on all the above pages, they resorted to vandalizing my own talk page with edit warring templates with strange edit summaries such as "I think you don't know that things can't be deleted on wikipedia". see here. -Omi(☺) 09:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the IP is at 3RR on Messiah Foundation International. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for exceeeding 3RR and edit warring on other articles, personal attacks, tendentious copying of this report as though it was a report against Omirocksthisworld. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. -Omi(☺) 10:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Can I touch it? reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Classical liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can I touch it? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 00:12, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "John Locke is said below to be a major contributors to classical liberalisms "formulation," along with Adam Smith. Therefore he certainly ought to be noted in this sentence.")
2. 03:37, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Putting Adam Smith here. He's even more discussed in this article. His picture is even in it. So naturally his named should be mentioned.")
3. 03:56, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 342033168 by The Four Deuces (talk) What you mean? Adam Smith not being discussed on talk page.")
4. 20:35, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "putting Hobbes in the list. Source said he had a "major impact" on classical liberalism. And he's talked about in the article, so his name should be here.")
5. 21:23, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History */ Locke's private property philosophy is essential")

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

—The Four Deuces (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is even worthy of a response. Obviously there is only one revert there on my part, which was the name "Adam Smith." No sign of edit warring either, as I explained my edits in the edit summaries unlike those who deleted my edits who didn't specify why. Note the addition of sources by me as well. Clearly no original research going on either. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks like they have reverted each others edits at least once and made other edits in pursuit of possibly controversial ends as you can see from their discussion on the article talk page -- it appears that there are more disagreements going on than simply adding the name "Adam Smith" once. It seems that the source of the disagreemnt is whether it was indeed a return to actual classical liberalism or merely a return to classical liberalist ideals and who sparked any particular subset of that and how much influence one particular person may or may not have had in a return to either a given set of ideals or a particular ideal. Banaticus (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you imagine someone deleting Adam Smith's name being mentioned as being a contributor to classical liberalism? His picture is even in the article! These reversions against my edits are really making no sense at all. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This was edit warring, and you did break the three-revert rule by reverting 4 times on the same article within 24 hours. Just because you feel particular edits are right, that does not excuse you from reverting, unless the edits were blatantly bad-faith, vandalism, or violations of BLP. As your reverts fall into none of these categories, you should not be reverting but discussing. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated edits made by one person which are then changed/reverted by another person is sort of the definition of edit warring. One of you (or both of you, or neither of you) should probably take a break from editing the article for a while. Or, if you both really want to continue, then discuss things on the talk page until some sort of consensus is reached. Or, if consensus cannot be reached, then perhaps take it to Wikipedia:Third_opinion and ask for a third opinion to build consensus on either side of these really minor disagreements. Banaticus (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Iaaasi reported by Nmate (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Template:Mureş County (edit | [[Talk:Template:Mureş County|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Iaaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

[185]

• 1st revert: 16:13 February 5 2010
• 2nd revert: 16:45 February 5 2010
• 3rd revert: 20:42 February 5 2010
• 4th revert: 22:37 February 5 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: familiar with 3RR [186] [187] [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk pages: [189][190]

Comments:

The user discussed her/his edit on the talk pages , however, it seems that s/he doesn't want to follow the 3RR rule. There are several edits outside the reported ones but these fall within 24 hours.--Nmate (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours As this user has been blocked before for the same reason, I've extended the standard block time. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Eekerz reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [191]

• 1st revert: [192] – Eekerz adds Cosby death hoax with supposed screenshot of CNN
• 2nd revert: [193] – Eekerz re-inserts same bit
• 3rd revert: [194] – Eekerz re-inserts same bit
• 4th revert: [195] – Eekerz re-inserts same bit but adds a blog link about a different topic altogether

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]

Comments:

User:Eekerz has not yet responded to discussion at Talk:Bill Cosby#Internet hoax of death. Binksternet (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Caden reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 31 hours for disruptive editing)

Page: Multiple articles
User being reported: Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [198] – Caden reverts at Center channel
• 2nd revert: [199] – Caden reverts at Center channel
• 3rd revert: [200] – Caden reverts at Victor Talking Machine Company
• 4th revert: [201] – Caden reverts at Attenuation
• 5th revert: [202] – Caden reverts at Victor Talking Machine Company
• 6th revert: [203] – Caden reverts at Electrical connector
• 7th revert: [204] – Caden reverts at Decibel
• 8th revert: [205] – Caden reverts at Gemini Sound Products

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [207]

Comments:

User:Caden has apparently decided that any image made by User:Daniel Christensen should not be deleted from any article. Yesterday, User:Fastilysock began a large-scale deletion of many of Daniel's images, and has been questioned regarding this action at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 5, but some of the images truly were not helpful to the articles in which they appeared. Caden reverted Fastilysock's editing work with the edit summary of "Revert vandalism" in 11 cases. I studied the situation carefully and found eight of the images not worthy of appearing, and I removed them with ample edit summaries. Each of these was reverted by Caden with no summary, no discussion. An attempt to engage Caden at his talk page was removed by him. With no edit summaries to determine reasoning, and no discussion, I cannot accept the reversions in good faith. Taken as a whole, this behavior constitutes edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Disruptive editing. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

European Research Council (Result: Warned)

Sorry for this wrong format - but I am not familiar with this template that looks rather complicated - there is an ongoing edit war in the article about the ERC - someone tries to establish a long personal version, first as user "technologist9" than as IP. Severarl reverts over the last four weeks Plehn (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Next time take note of the link to a 3RR helper tool if filling out the form is too tedious. NJA (t/c) 21:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Paralympiakos reported by User:Caio Morone (Result: Warned)

Page: UFC 109 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Paralympiakos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: His version My version

• 1st revert: [208]
• 2nd revert: [209]
• 3rd revert: [210]
• 4th revert: [211]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: His talk page My talk page

Comments: He's trying to make a revolution in Mixed Martial Arts Project, we always edit whit same way, and he try to do this different.

--Caio Morone (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• What the heck? You're both well over the 3RR. And, once again, the article's talk page hasn't been edited for months. I should really block both of you, but I'm going to protect the page and let you both work it out. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Vexorg reported by User:Plot Spoiler and User:Sceptre reported by User:Vexorg (Result:Vexorg blocked, Sceptre strongly urged to talk more and revert less)

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

• 1st revert: 02:30, 6 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Censorship */ political NPOV edit undo")
• 2nd revert: 18:04, 6 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Censorship */ ADL isn't just about Israel")
• 3rd revert: 00:37, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Censorship */ restporing properly sourced material - please stop edit warring")
• 4th revert: 00:41, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342392362 by Sceptre (talk) please stop taking an axe to this articel just becuase you want it deleted")

He's continuing to do it, with a bunch of bare-faced lies. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note if anyone's thinking of blocking both parties (i.e., me as well): seeing as Vexorg was reinserting poorly sourced/unsourced material about living people (most notably, the Venezuela corruption charges; the source given is dead), then the reversions to remove the material are exempt from 3RR. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler I'm amazed you are reporting me for edit warring when I am simply restoring sourced material removed by Sceptre becuase he wants to further an argument for deletion of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_YouTube and since getting a response that is pretty much 99% Keep as been taking an axe to the article in a manner which is akin to vandalism and is certainly not editing in good faith. I have requested the article in question for full protection here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Criticism_of_YouTube_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 and simply wanted to restore the article to it's proper state before it was protected. If anything you should be reporting Sceptre for edit warring who has removed much properly sourced material. Vexorg (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The removals are actually an improvement, so that if the unwise act of this article being kept happens, we at least have an article of some quality instead of the tripe we had before. I mean, half the sources were dead, half the content was unsourced, and we were sourcing a couple of far-right blogs as proof of "censorship"! Sceptre ^(talk) 05:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact I report Sceptre for 3RR as well ... User being reported: Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 14:09, 6 February 2010 (edit summary: "undo; these days, "Zionist" is too charged a word to be simply allowed to be used without context for the term - which, in a article about YouTube, would be off-topic")
• 2nd revert: 00:19, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: " rm poorly sourced material, and the ADL tripe. The quality of the sources is not good enough for the ADL thing: it's like saying "Several writers have criticised Barack Obama for being black" and sourcing that to Stormfront")
• 3rd revert: 04:14, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: "remove; seriously, are you even checking the sources? Most of them are dead or non-existent")
• 4th revert: 04:24, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: "I'll stop edit warring when you stop reinserting unsourced material")

How about instead you two both stop reverting, and start discussing instead? Wouldn't that be easier? Prodego ^talk 05:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss about the reversions. Vexorg is reinserting BLP-violating material, and such, I am reverting his violations of BLP. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If its not vandalism, then you have to be willing to discuss your reversions. I don't think anyone is saying that was vandalism, so its a standard content dispute. BLP is a bad justification for doing just about anything, an action should be able to stand on its own merits. Prodego ^talk 05:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre has attacked this article with an axe as a retaliation against the overwhelming consensus of keep against his request for article deletion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_YouTube - I have stopped reverting but my resotring of properly sourced material is niot a violation of 3RR. Vexorg (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And notice I actualy asked for this page to be protected from Sceptre's axings while the deletion debate was going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Criticism_of_YouTube_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Vexorg (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Probably best to discuss the inclusion of the sections where it will matter, at Talk:Criticism of YouTube. Prodego ^talk 05:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire section about the Honduras corruption scandal is entirely unsourced, as the sources given are all dead. As there is no substantiation for government figures being accused of corruption, BLP mandates its removal. I don't care if they have been, it's not my job to source that. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What about all the other properly sourced material you have been rampantly removing for a POV agenda to help your case at the article deletion request? Vexorg (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If anything, it's harming my deletion request. If you count dead links, far-right racist blogs, fact tags, and swathes of unsourced material as "properly sourced", then I weep for the state of Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, FFS, the article has a talk page. Use it. Guettarda (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to talk about. Vexorg's reversions reinserted information about living people that was poorly sourced. No amount of talk paging is going to change that fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, you could have avoided a lot of the problem by using the talk page. Sure, if you say "BLP vio", the onus is on the party re-adding the material. But does s/he know that? If you clearly explained the nature of the problem, you might (a) convince the person to stop re-adding the material, or (b) make the violation much more clear cut. This sort of behaviour muddies the water, badly. Guettarda (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Drork reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [212] reverted to redirect as before this edit

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

There is a discussion on the talk page of the article regarding a merge. So far Drork has argued for it with one other user saying "support per Drork". Two users (myself included) have argued against it, yet Drork claims there is now a consensus to merge the article and has edit-warred to support this supposed consensus.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the talk page, only section there is on the merge.

Comments:

nableezy - 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC) User:Nableezy supported the forking of the article Palestinian territories based on the claim that this term has different meaning than the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". He has been explained that the difference does not exist, and there was no reason for forking. He argued, but eventually accepted the explanation. He kept arguing that the name "Occupied Palestinian Territory" was better, and therefore the "Palestinian territories" article should be merged into it. He was explained why this was a bad idea, and this claim was received with objections. The "Occupied" article did not include any significant new information about the subject of the Palestinian territories, so I simply turned it into a redirection once the discussion came to an end. User:Nableezy reverted the change over and over again, leaving me no other option but to re-revert him. DrorK (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This is obviously a controversial subject, but neither of you should be reverting changes "over and over again" or "re-reverting" each other, because you both can be blocked for that kind of stuff. You should keep working on the talk page on this... Doc9871 (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Not going to close this one myself, but calling the first action a revert is a bit of a stretch. You're claiming he reverted back to a version from May. That's too long back to be considered a genuine revert. Obviously, there's edit-warring going on, but it takes two to tango, and I can understand why Drork might have thought consensus was reached for merging on the talk page (it's clearly more than two editors in support of merging the articles). This notice seems poorly-evidenced. -- tariqabjotu 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The version from May is not mine, but it proves that there used to be a consensus about the matter, until someone decided to turn the redirection into an article. To my best judgment, the talk page showed that such consensus was rebuilt upon merger request. I don't know how long such a discussion should last. Obviously not all editors on WP want to express their opinion about the issue, and those who were willing to comment used every conceivable argument pro and against. Since those opposing the merger admitted themselves that there was no difference between the terms-in-question, and resorted to the claim that there should be a merger but to the other direction, I saw no point in continuing the discussion. DrorK (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected In general, people who initiate or comment on controversial merger requests may not be sufficiently impartial to determine consensus. I've protected the page for three days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have a real problem with Malik Shabazz's move. First of all, he's just given a prize to the person who initiated the war edit, just because he was first to complain, and because he has friends who were able to revert my legitimate edit, without causing him to break the 3rev rule. Secondly Malik Shabazz was one of the contributor to this article. Even though his contributions were fair and productive, his involvement in the article's editing may cause his reluctance to merge it, even unaware. Third, how long should a merger discussion go on, and who is supposed to close it? POV forking is explicitly forbidden for very good reasons. The editors who initiated the article gave only one reasoning to this forking, which was refuted on the article's talk page. People are afraid to take the next step, because they know it might lead to an edit-war, and they will be scolded. The issue of articles dealing with the Palestine Question is very delicate, and therefore attempts to POvize articles or POV forking should not be accredited, otherwise en-wp's credibility would be compromised. DrorK (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never edited Occupied Palestinian Territory or its Talk page. Of course I protected The Wrong Version. I recommended at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory that you and the other editors involved in the dispute ask an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. This isn't the appropriate forum to discuss content. Finally, the alternative to protecting the article would be to block you for edit-warring; would you have preferred that outcome? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your remark on the article's talk page. I don't like the patronizing tone of your last remark. This is not a game of power, this is about how en-wp is going to be more credible. With all due respect, your last move didn't make it more credible, whether it is accompanied by a block or a "pardon". DrorK (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about making Wikipedia more credible, it's about stopping an editor from from further disrupting the project. I had two choices, protect the article or block the editor. I'd like to think I made the right choice, but you're starting to make me wonder. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DrorK, you should know that it's not them that got you on this page. And viewing this as a humble independent observer, there's clearly no conflict of interest that I can see regarding Malik's "move" (nor of his giving out of any prizes; I know I didn't get one ;<). Why are you still arguing on this page after being advised not to? Doc9871 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will criticize a decision made by an admin if I thing it is very wrong. Suggesting that I am disrupting a project is a very poor judgment on behalf of an admin, and the fact that I chose to criticize his decision does not make him entitled to question my motives. His decision not to block me is not a favor for me. It is his obligation to exercise discernment. Unfortunately he went half way in doing so, and I gave a detailed explanation why it is so. DrorK (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The climate change users group - again! reported by gemtpm (Result: reporting user warned)

Page: Climate Skepticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported:

Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MuffledThud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Skepticism

• 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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_Skepticism

I have a neutral view on Climate Change. Having read the WP coverage, it is impossible to get the sceptical perspective. Not that is the 'correct' view, but that perspective. Hence, we need this page. But a group of users is deleting any such materail. This is not how WP can survive as a 'reference' work. (Do we want it to, though?) Gemtpm (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Warned. Gemtpm, please seek collaborative discussion with your fellow volunteers - simply reverting to get your way is not productive. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept the right to reach a consensus. In the meantime, pages should not be 'redirected' which is in effect a deletion of the content. I can be blocked, but this will provide a fairly clear example of the failure fo Wikipedia to even pretend to be able to be a neutral 'reference' resource. There is a gross bias towards the 'climate change lobby' here, the skeptiks point of view has been deliberately supressed for several years, and now that events in teh public domain have made the former a 'minority' positon and latter a matter of great public interest, WP needs to remedy its past bias - and fast! I welcome a proper debate, so far there has been no attempt to have one. Gemtpm (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of 'redirects' is a problem here. I do not consdier this to be 'editing' - it is a form of deletion without going through any process. This 'edit war' indicates a systemic problem with Wikipedia, as does the routine banning or threatening to ban users such as myself who object to this tactic being used. Gemtpm (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this really where you should be discussing policy, Gemtpm? This is not the place for the "proper debate" you seek, I assure you... Doc9871 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ctjf83 reported by User:jstanierm (Result: Blocks)

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ctjf83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [218]
• 2nd revert: [219]
• 3rd revert: [220]
• 4th revert: [221]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [222]

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

Comments:

The first one was unsourced. This report is the user getting back at me for actual 3RR CTJF83 chat 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The first may have been unsourced but when you were reverted a citation was added (which you didn't bother to look into); you just began edit warring to push your POV. Apparently you have been at it for a while; I just noticed your recent reverts.21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstanierm (talk • contribs)

First link is unrelated too. CTJF83 chat 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours to Ctjf83 and OscarMilde for 3RR violation. Jstanierm has only two clear reverts this time around, but he is continuing an edit war on the same article for which he was reported here on 4 February, so he is blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:86.179.224.112 reported by User:Atlan (Result: Semi)

Page: Kent School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 86.179.224.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [223]

• 1st revert: [224]
• 2nd revert: [225]
• 3rd revert: [226]
• 4th revert: [227]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [229]

Comments:

A request for checkuser is filed to link this IP to blocked User:Keithmc2. The account and multiple IP's have been edit warring and block evading at Kent School (and reverting my edits wholesale on other articles). A discussion is going on and is about to be wrapped up at the article's talk page, where the IP does not participate.--Atlan (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Result - Kent School has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

user:GSP-Rush reported by User:Bubba73 (Result: 24h)

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

User user:GSP-Rush is still causing problems on Samuel Sevian. He was warned about 3RR on his talk page last month. He violated that today. His edits also violate Consensus, Crystal Ball, and Original Research. he has reverted four times today:

• 1st revert: [230]
• 2nd revert: [231]
• 3rd revert: [232]
• 4th revert: [233]

Was warned about 3RR and edit warring a month ago: [234]. (And he remooved it here.)

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

Comments:
Yet again bubba73 put me a warning that unfounded, he tries to take off things whit out justifying himself and say he has reach a consensus but doesn't give me any link to any consensus. I would like to know, for any administrator out ther, how can i report bubba73 for making claim that are unfounded and trying to repeatably get me block went his at fault. This is taking up my time, forcing me to take my time and come here and defend myself. I think this is unacceptable, if he would prove to me or give me a valid reason i wouldn't of undone it but he just impulsively took it off. GSP-Rush (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also to justifies the passed warning, first off the warning was issued by, who other then bubba73. And also i was warned, not because i undid thing, but because i had just started editting and i told him to fuck off, because i was unexperienced and he was harassing me. And since then i have learn to deal whit people on wikipedia, making agreements and staying polite, although a few days ago bubba73 told me to and i quote STFU . And for the most part his anger wasn't justified because his the one who harass me. Bringing up passed conflict whiteout explain wat happen is incredibly unethical. GSP-Rush (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was on his own talk page but he removed it here (the comment by EdJohnston, between the first 3RR warning and the Civility warning). Also, the consensus is on the Samuel Sevian talk page and in the history of the article itself - he is the only one putting it in and there are several removing it. He also made the unsourced claim that the person is a Candidate Master (see the Samuel Sevian talk page) and I told him to supply a reference or STFU (and I literally said [[STFU]] and didn't use the words, see [diff). He did neither. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My page is my page and i can remove wat i want form it. Also ther no consensus on my page all ther is 2 people, you and Edjohnson ( witch you warned him of me so he took your side at that time ). Also the consensus on the Sevian talk page like you call it isn't conclusive at all. Some people made statements about removing it but never replied back after i wrote argument or went they did replied they talk about other subjects. And for the unsourced claims i actually step back ( even tho he is a candidate master) because i couldn't prove it whit reliable sources. But like i stated once fide release it on the Internet i will re put it.

Also i would like this to be the last time i half to justifies my self for undoing thing he undid whiteout having a valid reason. It unreasonable to ask me to defend this all the time. Or at the very least ther has to be a way of sanctioning him for falsely reporting me all the time.GSP-Rush (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't keep claiming that you didn't know there was a consensus because it was right there on your talk page (before you removed it along with the two warnings). And from wp:Removing warnings "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours for edit warring. GSP-Rush has been persistently re-adding his favorite material after getting a number of warnings to work for consensus, and has been incivil on the article Talk to people who were trying to explain Wikipedia policy. Both parties should avoid using 'STFU' in discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Anonywiki reported by User:Tony Sidaway (Result: blocked by User:Vsmith)

Page: Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Anonywiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [235]

• 1st revert: 20:01, 29 December 2009
  
• 2nd revert: 18:16, 30 December 2009, note promise to edit war on this.
  
• 3rd revert: 19:16, 31 December 2009
  
• 4th revert: 20:30, 31 December 2009
  
• 5th revert: 22:36, 31 December 2009
  

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236] (Diff shows warnings at 20:33 and 21:04, 31 December, 2009)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [237]

Comments:

User:Borsoka reported by User:Criztu (Result: Stale/No 3RR at time)

Page: Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:38, 13 November 2009

• 1st revert: 11:29, 6 February 2010
• 2nd revert: 18:20, 6 February 2010
• 3rd revert: 18:35, 6 February 2010
• 4th revert: 19:55, 6 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:13, 6 February 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14:28, 6 February 2010

Comments:

In the talk page of the article I have provided my reasons for removing literary sources that do not document the Romanians, and for grouping sources by century and removing what i consider POV sections in the article, the replies i have received from Borsoka i consider being incivil. I have explained him/her that in the article talk page, and provided him link to Wikipedia:Civility, on which he replied "Dear Criztu, sorry but I do not understand your above remarks.". Further more, after i have noticed him about the 3RR on his TalkPage, he accuses me of "faking content of sources" and "obvious vandalism", which i consider continuous Incivility. user:Borsoka reply on my talk page Criztu (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. NJA (t/c) 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Note: Same report re-opened by reporting user by re-signing their signature at 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New comments
Not 3RR: the first "revert": Revision as of 12:39, 2010 February 5 and Revision as of 09:29, 2010 February 6 and (25 intermediate revisions not shown). the second revert is also not a revert and so on...--B@xter⁹ 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined Closed again as it's the same report, simply re-signed. As noted here, please stop. NJA (t/c) 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jasepl reported by User:Dimitree (Result: Page protected)

Page: Aeroflot destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: User:Jasepl

Previous version reverted to: [238]

• 1st revert: [239]
• 2nd revert: [240]
• 3rd revert: [241]
• 4th revert: [242]
• 5th revert: [243]
• 6th revert: [244]
• 7th revert: [245]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [246]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [247]

Comments:

• Seriously? You both seem to be engaging in tit-for-tat edit warring, and all the while, the article's talk page hasn't been edited since November. Work this out in talk. Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• OK, I've protected the page. Work this out. Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• What complete garbage. As has been explained to the poor "victim" on more than one occasion, additions of new destinations MUST include a valid source and, if required, an appropriate valid summary. This is a basic editing requirement across Wikipedia and also for the Aviation project. It is not a movable line either. And NO, "Aeroflot's planning department told me"

you defigurate my words, as usually. I said Aeroflot NETWORK planning Department. Be a man, who can face the truth. --Dimitree (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

is NOT a valid source. Jasepl (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• The complaining "victim" also seems to be blissfully unaware of basic concepts, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOTCRYSTAL, preferring instead to go all comrade this and Kondoleeza (whatever that is!) that. Wikipedia's basic requirements are very simple: if a reliable and valid source for reference is not provided - in accordance with the three tenets cited above - edits will be reverted, no matter how right or wrong the editor/victim is. Jasepl (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• First, I thank you for protecting this page (that I created). Second, few fords about THIS Jasepl. He (or it - I can't read this nickname) simply violates the rules. He (it?) demands others to offer a VALID source, but he (it?) doesn't give such a VALID source for any other date/flight/aircompany. When he (it?) is kindly corrected (with all necessary sources), he (it?) just starts his favourite game - reverting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 20 times a day. Nothing personal. Just trying to be objective. --Dimitree (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• May I ask your attention again: Jasepl has deleted official code-share partners of Aeroflot (indicated on its web-site - link available), without any VALID source. I've kindly asked him (here [248] and here [249]) to explain why he has done it. --Dimitree (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, that is because Aeroflot do not codeshare with those airlines. Only the reverse is true, as is evident from the very same link. If you bothered to familarise yourself with the WP:Aviation guidelines, instead of screaming Comrade this and Kondoleeza that, you would know that there is a difference between the two.

• Yes? Aeroflot DOES NOT codeshare with these airlines and indicate them as code-share on the web-site? Are you ok?! It seems to be not. Have a look, please, at OFFICIAL timetable of Aeroflot [250] and find, for example, code-share flight SU 595/CX 9240 or SU 535/AI 6535 or any other. --Dimitree (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. And I demand nothing; Wikipedia does. If you bothered to familarise yourself with Wikipedia's basic editing guidelines (such as WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:NOTCRYSTAL to name but a few), instead of screaming Comrade this and Kondoleeza that, you would know that too.

• And what? Which of my editions contradicts above mentionned rules? WHICH? No one! All dates and flights are available in GDS Timetable. It is YOUR problem that YOU have no access to these data base and YOU can not verify it, and you simply revert it. --Dimitree (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. All this has been explained to you dozens of times. But oh no, you'd rather scream Comrade this and Kondoleeza that. Not to forget how the entire English-speaking world is on some collective Russia-bashing mission and how you're being singled out for targeting. It's not true, so get over it.

• Explain yourself what to do, Mr. Kondoleezza Rice. No one asked you explain anything. When asked - welcome, when not - just very easy fuck off and very smoothly be gone. --Dimitree (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Lastly, and pay attention, because this is important: If a reliable and valid source for reference is not provided - in accordance with the three tenets cited above - edits will be reverted, no matter how right or wrong you may be. Compris? Jasepl (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Last, but not least: as I said above, all my editions have reliable and VALID sources such as GDS Timetable and official web-site (to which I always provide links but you delete them). Anyway, you can say whatever you want: Planning Department, Departmenning Plan - it's up to you. The truth remains the same: I have reliable and valid sources, you have no. That is why you revert everything that YOU (and no one else!!!) can not confirm. You are the only one here to impose constantly others YOUR INCORRECT point of view:

• First it was a wise dispute over Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan [251]. But you were defeated

• Second - GDS Timetable (or even aircompany web-site) is not VALID source [252] and here [253].

• Third - Aeroflot cod-share flights on OFFICIAL web-site [254]) or on OFFICIAL timetable of Aeroflot [255], are still NOT VALID for you.

• Fourth? What could be fourth? Ah! English grammar! There is a NEW Jasepl rule that says: forever and ever, the verb must always disagree with its subject: single subject = plural verb, plural subject = single verb [Jasepl]. The same for: to begin and to start - there is a yawning semantic chasm between these two verbs, and you must always keep it in mind [Jasepl]. Here [256] is a brilliant example of an excellent proficiency of the English language presented by Jasepl! Pay attention to the verb form used by Jasepl: Aeroflot (=it) DO not codeshare. Or Aeroflot DOES? --Dimitree (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: and this Jasepl accused me (here [257]) of an incorrect usage of English: incorrect is "flight starts" and correct is "flight begins" according to Jasepl...

user:Sumbuddi reported by User:2005 (Result: Declined)

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

User user:Sumbuddi made his fourth removal (all in a few hours) of a Dmoz link that has been on the Online bingo article for many months if not years. His justification is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He was warned after his third revert but then made a fourth revert anyway.

• 1st revert: [258]
• 2nd revert: [259]
• 3rd revert: [260]
• 4th revert: [261]

Was warned about 3RR: [262]. Likewise also removed a perfectly acceptable Dmoz link that has been there for years here

I pointed the User to WP:EL which states Dmoz links are valid links, in this case especially because it is a high spam subject with hundreds of possible external links. I suggested he go to WP:EL if he had a problem with the Dmoz guidance there, and on my third revert I warned him about 3RR. (I admit since this should be about the least controversial external link in the encyclopedia, and is plainly appropriate, I do not understand this editor's actions.) 2005 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Clearly a dispute, thus please consider dispute resolution guidance for tips on resolving. No clear WP:3RR vio, though if reverts continue without discussion then someone (or both) likely to end up blocked for edit warring generally. NJA (t/c) 09:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Criztu reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Declined)

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

Permanent modification of a well-sourced article without using reliable sources, or by abusing reliable sources. Modification of the text of sentences based on reliable sources in a way that the new text does not represent the writers' view any more. Ignoring any proposal for cooperation. The details can be found on the article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Warned: Note that both of you are in a dispute, thus you should be actively using discussion and if needed consult the dispute resolution guidance. NJA (t/c) 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Racepacket reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [263]

• 1st revert: [264]
• 2nd revert: [265]
• 3rd revert: [266]
• 4th revert: [267]
• 5th revert: [268]
• 6th revert: [269]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [270]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [271], [272]

Comments:

This is not a result of edit warring as I just explained on User talk:Daedalus969 and ANI.

I copied the article to prevent User:Ryulong from changing = symbols to + symbols. My copy does not have the unnecessary quote marks around the ref names. User Ryulong now agreed that we can work on the article without using the quote marks and reset the article to that state. diff For some strange reason user Daedalus969 has added them back in and is playing strange games in an effort to prevent me from adding more footnotes to the article. [273] These changes make absolutely no difference to the displayed article. Racepacket (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He never agreed to anything. He self-reverted out of frustration. That isn't agreeing.

However, content is irrelevant. You edit warred, and that is all that matters.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the attempts where Daedalus969 tried to resolve this dispute? You are using Rylong's harassing messages as evidence that *you* tried to work this out. Ryulong and I have worked this out. We are not even trying to alter any visible content. I am just trying to add content without having to check each time that Ryulong has not snuck in and replaced a = with a +. I have not reverted anything, I am adding footnotes. Why are you trying to engineer an edit war when none exists? I don't see what changes you are trying to make and I don't want to take the time to make sure that you haven't accidentally picked up some of Ryulong's stray + symbols. If you can't guarantee the integrity of the edits that you are making, please don't make them. Please explain why you are making the changes that you are making, because I don't understand your WP:POINT. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that I tried to solve anything. The text I have presented has not said such. It simply provided a link to a diff that attempts were made to solve the dispute. Lastly, there is no point that I am making. You edit warred. If you don't like our rules here, go somewhere else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, I don't think that adding new, undisputed footnotes is edit warring. Assuming that I edit warred, would it not follow that you and Ryulong edit warred as well since you are adding in the invisible quote marks to make the article imperceptively different from the version that I was working from? I don't want to edit war and respect the rules. If I understood what change you were trying to make to the article, I would be sure that it remained undisturbed. As far as I can see, I am accused of reverting a change that does not exist, while you deleted and immediately added back in the footnote in question just to make a WP:POINT. It is 4:30 a.m,, why have you wasted another hour of both of our lives on top of the two hours that User:Ryulong wasted with his silly, invisible quotation marks? Racepacket (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You can think that all you want, doesn't make it true. You reverted, he reverted. You both edit warred. If he gets blocked as well, oh well, but you still edit warred.

Secondly, you do not know my motivations for reverting or adding in any edit, so don't you dare accuse me of disrupting to make a point. You reverted, and edited, at the same time. I reverted your revert, and added back in the edit. Talk about a WP:AGF violation.

If it is so late, then go to bed. Look at it this way. If you are in the right, you won't be blocked.

Lastly, I have wasted no-ones time. It is your fault that you didn't take it to the talk page, and chose to edit war instead of discuss. Learn to take some responsibility for your actions. I am doing nothing to prevent you from going to bed.

And stop it with the personal attacks of disrupting to make a point.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so the record is clear: Here are Daedalus' diffs (which could be viewed as edit warring for edit warring sake although they lacked any visable effect on the article):

• no visible effect
• removed 2 footnotes
• added back the just one footnote without the unnecessary/optional quote marks

Here is Ryulong's diffs:

• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• note the change from = to + in the template parameter

This is the first time in history where a person (Daedalus) deliberately started an edit war over invisible content with someone who was not aware that he was changing that person's invisible content just to make a WP:POINT and to bring the artificial edit war here, instead of working it out on the talk page (which I am willing to do.) Racepacket (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus. H. Christ. Would you stop bringing up the =/+ shit? You keep acting as if I meant to fuck up the page. Also the first two diffs you link to are identical.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you. I fixed the second diff. Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• (EC) I think that Daedalus has the chronology mixed up. I made the 3:32 edit without realizing that Daedalus had made the 3:23 edit. He then left a warning message on my talk page at 3:43 and I responded on his talk page at 3:53. By then he had already filed this complaint at 3:47. So, Daedalus' claim that I should have worked it out on his talk page does not match the chronology. This is like the old Jimmy Stewart movie about Harvey the invisible rabbit. I am being accused of edit warring over changes that nobody, including me, can see. Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, their tag teaming results in perhaps unintended, substantive changes. In diff Daedalus deletes two footnotes. In the next edit, he only adds justone back in. And then Ryulong comes along and deletes the ref name that was common to both footnotes. Daedalus does not explain why he deleted the second footnote. Racepacket (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - It was suggested that I take a look at this thread by an admin who knows I've got a particular opinion on the formatting of references. To help clarify the issue of quotes and such, I think it would be easier for me to simply re-post a comment that I left on a fellow editor's talk page:

  You are absolutely correct when you say quotation marks are not required on the value of attributes in HTML, unless the values have spaces in them; however, being a web designer, I have noted that the MediaWiki software employed by Wikipedia tries valiantly to be written in the "transitional" flavor of XHTML 1.0, rather than HTML. Being fanatical about web standards, I am aware that true XHTML 1.0 Transitional must adhere to the standards of XML well-formedness so that it can be easily scraped by an XML parser. This happens with various applications that "read" Wikipedia and reuse the data, but when such applications encounter documents that aren't well-formed they either fail completely, or have to employ various algorithms to handle the tag soup. In this particular case, one of the rules of well-formedness is that the values of all attributes must be quoted. The space before the element-closing forward slash is not required, but it is put there to assist somewhat older web browsers that have compatibility issues. Now it can be argued that most of Wikipedia ignores these rules (largely because 99.9% of editors will be unfamiliar with the concept of well-formed XHTML), but I like to think the little universe that is my Watchlist can be a shining beacon of perfection!

  I hope you have found this perspective useful and interesting. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your perspective. However, we are not discussing anything that will be sent to the users as HTML or XHTML. MediaWiki delivers XHTML code as output, not as input. The cite extension parses the content of the <ref> tag in the course of generating the article page. See: Cite extension documentation, the arbitrary names given to particular references, with or without quotes, never sees the light of day nor affects the user experience. I am sure that Ryulong could find a million different ways of making invisible edits to a page (for example adding |foo=bar to templates that don't have a foo parameter), but why encourage useless, harrassing behavior? Racepacket (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(od)RP, do not refactor my posts. I have reverted your refactoring. If you feel like explaining your edits, do so in the comments section here, not in the report above.

However, there is no good reason to edit war. You were edit warring, and that is against the rules. The next time you disagree, take it to the talk page instead of reverting. Although you were editing in your reverts, your reverts were still reverts, and you were still edit warring.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And again, the content is not at what is at issue here. It is the fact you were edit warring, and you were most certainly edit warring. In fact, you are still edit warring, and as such, I have added another diff.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• So why did you delete the footnote? Racepacket (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It was clearly a mistake on his part Racepacket. He did not see that there was the <ref name=jfwp/> and I did not realize it was there either. That's why I removed the name="jfwp" from the reference. You should stop assuming bad faith of everyone around you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus has asked that I list the five alleged "reverts" separately, which in fact were five different substantive additions to the article:

• 1st revert: [274] (added publishers and changed + to =)
• 2nd revert: [275] (added sentence and footnote about $15 million grant)
• 3rd revert: [276] (corrected class size and added footnote)
• 4th revert: [277] (added footnote on year of founding law school)
• 5th revert: [278] (added two footnotes about Pearson becoming President}

The reason I made these changes to the article was to improve the article so as to address the GA review. The 5 diffs were not made with the intention of reverting article contents added by other users. However, in the course of making these changes, I did write over invisible changes made by Ryulong, for which I apologize. I still do not know why Daedalus969 deleted the second footnote and am willing to discuss it on the merits with him. I now accept Ryulong's statement that he did not deliberately change work=New York Times to work+New York Times, but believe he should take responsibility for his edits. I no longer see the need to work off a separate copy of the article. I had thought that the entire matter had been resolved before Daedalus969 made his three edits and do not understand what visible changes he is trying to achieve with his three edits. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat something that I have already quite clearly told you. If you are unwilling to read my reply, I am not going to do it for you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As to my three edits, they are an uninvolved user reverting the article back the the original version. I frankly don't care if there is no change in the html.

As I have been saying over, and over, and over again, and please, read it this time:

The content of the edits is not up for question here, Racepacket. What is up for question is if you had, or had not, been edit warring, and you are quite clearly edit warring.

It does not matter if you edited content within your reverts. You are still reverting the article contents to your preferred version, and that, sir, is called edit warring. There is nothing more to say.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket: could you just no longer use the separate copy, and just add content as everyone else does? It should not matter if once you are done, I add the quotation marks in the name parameter as the days go on. Neither Daedalus969 or myself meant to cause any harm to the page, and no harm was done except to the level of discussion we have had.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you are arguing. You are saying that if someone leaves an invisible fingerprint in an article and then other editors make substantive edits, that those editors are "edit warring?' The flaw in the argument is that nobody can see the invisible fingerprint so there is no intent to revert. I can explain each of my edits. In contrast, User:Daedalus969 and User:Ryulong have no explanation for their edits other than to be vexatious. User:Daedalus has still not explained why he deleted the footnote or made any of his three edits. Absent some explanation, it would appear that he was trying to stir the pot and to engage in imperceptible conduct that he would define as "edit warring." I would say that changes have to be visible to be subject to the 3RR. Racepacket (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It was "edit warring" because you kept replacing the page wholesale with the version you have saved on your computer instead of modifying what was in the version on the website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me that Ryulong no longer insists on his formatting style. This should make it unnecessary for Racepacket to keep restoring the copy of the article from his own computer. I hope that Racepacket will respond to the suggestions from Ryulong, which sound reasonable to me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I stated yesterday that I would not use the separate copy of the UM article. The problem currently here is Daedalus deletion of the footnote, his reverting Ryulong, then reverting me, and then adding back only one of the two footnotes without the quote marks into the version that had the quote marks. (Three reverts without any articulated purpose or explanation.) I have restored the footnote deleted by Daedalus because he has not explained why he feels it should be deleted, but I will give his reasons every consideration if he objects to its restoration. I don't understand why Daedalus deleted it, nor do I understand Daedalus' reasoning that invisible changes should count toward 3RR. If invisible changes count, then Daedalus three changes would violate 3RR as well. Racepacket (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The footnotes are all there now. Just end this and don't keep referring to an offline version if I make these "invisible changes", as you keep referring to them, in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On his talk page, Daedalus969 has agreed he will stay off the article for a week. I hope that Racepacket and Ryulong will now be able to see ways in which they can coordinate their changes more effectively. (Neither party can blame Daedalus for any further delays). EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Rav chandni reported by User:jmh649 (Result: Warned)

Text added: [279] 1st: [280] 2nd: [281] 3rd: [282]

Thanks--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. It seems he did not continue to revert past 12 noon UTC on 8 February. That time is just after he got the warnings. If he starts reverting again, he will qualify for an immediate block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Clovis Sangrail (Result: 48h)

Page: Chilean American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [283]

• 1st revert: [284]
• 2nd revert: [285]
• 3rd revert: [286]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Hi, I hope I've done this right. I've listed 3 reverts counting the fourth as the original addition of material. The user has removed references and contradicted the original statement. The counter reversions were made by 3 different editors (including me), 2 of which had edit summaries requesting discussion on the talk page. No discussion was forthcoming however when I warned on their talk page they refered me to a debate on Chilean people: and ethnic composition: What a pathetic joke. There are also existing warnings on the users talk page regarding the article Chile. Does this warrant action?
Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 48 hours for edit warring. Al-Andalus seems to be a man on a mission. He has been adding his distinctive viewpoint on racial matters to various articles on South American topics. More than once he has used the edit summary ''Standarizing articles throughout Wikipedia that touch on Chile's ancestral & ethnic sturcture, to remove littany of misrepresentation of sources & outright fabrications of a white "majority" in Chile." It is not up to him to standardize these articles to his personal viewpoint if he can find nobody else to support him. His talk page is full of warnings and I don't see that he got consensus anywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Concern over Michael Cherney (Result: No action)

Hi all, this isn't a report as such, but over at Michael Cherney, a user has twice removed a link to the Interpol website with a listing of the guy as 'wanted' for money laundering, saying that the article is being 'vandalized by Cherney's political enemies' (e.g. [288] and [289]). In addition, the level 3 header 'Wanted for money laundering and organized crime' has been replaced by 'Harassed by political enemies with false charges of money laundering and organized crime'. I just wanted to confirm that reverting this removal of content is the right thing to do! Arctic Night 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not an edit war or 3RR issue, though it does seem to be a possible conflict of interest. Consider a post at WP:COIN if discussion with the user isn't helpful. NJA (t/c) 08:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have posted here that everything has been resolved. I wanted to confirm that by reverting the removal of the Interpol bit three times I wouldn't be falling foul of the three-revert rule, and considered this to be the most appropriate place. I know that the 3RR page has an exception to do with reverting vandalism, so just wanted to clear all that up. Anyway, I managed to settle for an appropriate compromise. Arctic Night 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Reality Maker reported by User:Guettarda (Result:72 hr )

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

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

• 1st revert: 14:23, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo)
• 2nd revert: 16:28, 8 February 2010 (Same content on "imminent cancellation, but with the addition of refs)
• 3rd revert: 16:42, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo)
• 4th revert: 16:49, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo)
• 5th revert: 17:00, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo; done after being warned that s/he was over the 3rr)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [290] (prior block for edit-warring, over a year ago)

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

Comments:

• While Soxwon is also involved in this edit war, there are real BLP concerns here, and his removal of these additions seems appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Vsmith (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:85.210.180.155 reported by User talk:86.193.84.62 (Result: 31h)

Page: Daniel Tammet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 85.210.180.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Tammet&action=edit&oldid=342683907

Previous version reverted to: [291]

• 1st revert: [292]
• 2nd revert: [293]
• 3rd revert: [294]
• 4th revert: [295]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [296]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [297]

Comments:

86.193.84.62 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Result - 31 hours. Adding unsourced controversial information to a BLP article is against our policy. In this case, the editor is adding what he claims is the subject's birth name. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

athenean reported by sulmues (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [298]

• 1st revert: [299]
• 2nd revert: [300]
• 3rd revert: [301]

Diff of edit warring : [302]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [303]

Comments:
I am reporting this user for edit-warring. He has NOT broken the 3rr rule, but his behavior of deleting 72 valid references is very much uncalled for. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As far I see User:Athenean, did not removed a single letter from the main text. Actually the insertion of 72 sources, in a part that's already sourced, in such a disturbing way, has absolutely nothing to add in the article and is completely superfluous [[304]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify user:alexikoua: I am reporting user:athenean for deleting references, not for editing on the main text. The edit that you brought is my revert to bring back the references that had been taken out from user:Athenean. Those references had been there for a long time (and had not been brought by me, but by a plethora of other contributors through time), however when I rearranged them, Athenean deleted them first in the 3rd of february and then twice today. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Frivolous, blatant bad-faith report. What Sulmues claims is my first "revert" [305] is not in fact a revert, because I did not revert to the version he is claiming I did [306], as that his HIS version. So I only have two reverts in the entire history of the article. This is a highly aggressive Albanian nationalist user who has been topic banned from Kosovo for six months and is on 3 month civility supervision [307] for extreme aggression [308]. Rather than scream insults this time, he is gaming the system by filing this bad faith report to get back at me, even though we have asked for a third opinion and are discussing things on the talkpage. His filing of a blatantly bad-faith report where he lies about the number of reverts I have made is WP:HARASSMENT and a breach of his revert parole. Athenean (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was me calling for the Third Opinion, and not you, but you wouldn't stop from deleting references. Calling me a "liar", mentioning three times that my report is "bad-faithed", throwing accusations, and describing my "bad" character for which you have already reported me and for which I already have been blocked several times, won't help your cause with an impartial admin. As for the reverts, they speak for themselves, I don't need to explain them again: there is no sophism that will make an admin believe that you did not delete the references three times. Those references are coming from three centuries of scholars that have strongly argued that the Albanian language descends from the Illyrian language, and this was started by a polymath, like Gottfried Leibnitz. Saying that we don't need these references and consistently deleting them makes Wikipedia a poorer place. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Including *73* refs to prove a single, disputed theory is an attempt to manipulate and deceive our readers. It is the very definition of WP:TEND and WP:UNDUE. I stand by my replacement (not removal) of those 73 sources (incl. some from 1705) by a single high-caliber source. And contrary to what you might like to think, my first replacement of the sources, which occured on Feb.3, was NOT a revert. But you've been editing this encyclopedia long enough to know that already, don't you? So you are just filing this report in bad faith, to get back at me, which is a blockable breach of your revert parole. Athenean (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not include the references, they were already there, hence I did not make any attempt to manipulate or deceive, so please don't accuse improperly. However even if I had included the references, the theory that the Albanian language stems from the Illyrian language has extremely strong supporters, so I wouldn't have been manipulating anybody. If anything, more content should be added to this article (or an entire subarticle Origin of the Albanian Language) from those references, but not delete them! People have made considerable research to bring them to Wikipeida: deleting is way too easy, persisting in deleting is worse. Furthermore I will recall that we are talking about Leibniz, Thunman, Kopitar, Hahn, Bopp, Camarda, Miklosich, Meyer, Pedersen, Kretschmer, Thumb, Sandfeld, Cimochowski, Lambertz, Gjinari, Mayer, Tagliavini, Mihaescu, Mihaescu, Mann, Çabej, Desnickaja, Pisani, Ajeti, Ölberg, Domi, Katicic, Riza, De Simone, Banfi, Huld, Buchholz, Pellegrini, Demiraj (in other words all firsthand linguists and scholars still appearing in my last not reverted version [309], but which you deleted and left but Kretschmer). The references had been there for a long time and I didn't include anything: I just rearranged the references. You saw my work and you went ahead in removing the references for the first time on the 3rd february. I reported the matter at user:moreschi ([310]) and ioeth ([311]). Then you removed the references twice more on the 8th of february. Now I am in civility supervision and I take that very seriously. I also notify people in my talk page about it (see my talk page in signature), but that doesn't mean that you may throw empty accusations at me. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreschi and Ioeth both completely ignored your post (maybe because I'm right?). That should have told you something, and you should have taken the hint. But no, you had to re-add all 73 of those sources, and in fact you made the first revert (and you also have two reverts). Now go read WP:UNDUE and stop this circus. Athenean (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ioeth has been idle (ioeth's contributions), whereas Moreschi has had very few edits (Moreschi's contributions), but he has had some time to make this edit ([312]) where he warns you to remember WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. He was trying to give his vote to delete Albanian Pederasty in which you were so egregiously involved with your edits ([313] and [314]) so that the article be kept (and by the way, Alexikoua above as well was working on that article to improve it and to keep it (see [315], [316], [317], [318], and [319]: unfortunately I cannot show his efforts in improving the article while it was in AfD, because helas! it's deleted now). An edit warring noticeboard is not a circus, and you should take it very seriously. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your continuing, deliberate mis-characterisation of everything I do (calling a "keep" vote in an unrelated AfD "egregious involvement", as if I don't have the right to cast vote) is blatant assumption of bad faith, which is clear-cut violation of your civility parole. You have really crossed the line into WP:HARASSMENT. One more false accusation, assumption of bad faith or anything similar, and I will file a report at WP:AE. This is your final warning. Athenean (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to report me at any time. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As User:athenean doesn't want to discuss with me any further in his talk page ([320]) I will have to respond here to his accusation that I do not understand Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight. I actually understand it very well. It says:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

In this sense the prominence of the Illyrian theory is preponderant, so prominence should be given to it through representation of the scholarly work.

The policy continues:

In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.

As opposed to the Illyrian theory, the Dacian/Thracian theories are minor (there are 2-3 scholars as opposed to 50 of the Illyrian theory), hence they should not be included at all. But right now ([321]) the article reads:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Albanian as the descendant of Illyrian[10], though of late this hypothesis has been seriously challenged by linguists, who maintain that it derives from Dacian or Thracian.[11] (Illyrian, Dacian, and Thracian, however, may have formed a subgroup or a sprachbund; see Thraco-Illyrian.)

(Copying from what I wrote in Athenean's talk page):This sentence, while seemingly neutral, just gives the reader the idea that Albanian descends from Dacian or Thracian (not from Illyrian), because one ore two scholars have argued so recently, throwing away all the 3 century work that considered Albanian to stem from Illyrian. We just have to be patient to see if more scholars will bring down the arguments of the Dacian/Thracian origin, because the dead linguists can't do so any longer. Leaving one reference per argument simply leaves the doubt that the most recent scholar work should be the winning one, while that might not be the case at all. If someone wants to learn from Wikipedia, it is better to not leave the words of the editors talk, but mostly those of the references and scholars. That is why we write in the English Wikipedia, to bring together the worlds' knowledge. If I were to open an Albanian Encyclopedia, chances are it will be different from the English Encyclopedia and also from the Greek one. In the English wikipedia we need to take into account as much information possible, because every editor can make a change at any time, but important work in analyzing descendance from 50 scholars in 300 years still needs to be seen although some editors wanted to get rid of them at a certain point. Deleting the references makes wikipedia a less serious encyclopedia.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 04:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - This is a content dispute. Please try to get consensus as to which references should stay in the article. Consider opening an WP:RFC or using WP:3O to get more opinions. Both parties seem rather excitable. The one who is more excitable should try to stay calm and measured so that his topic ban doesn't get widened to include all Balkan articles. Albanian language is in the scope of Arbcom cases regarding Eastern Europe, and admins can impose discretionary sanctions if they perceive that editors are unwilling to work cooperatively with others. EdJohnston (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiamut and User:Harlan wilkerson (Result: No action)

These two users are acting like a "tag team" reverting legitimate edits, most particularly on the article State of Palestine. Harlan Wilkerson edits almost only articles related to Palestinian issues. For long time he "hijacked" the above-mentioned article and prevented any edit that wasn't acceptable on him. After long discussions on the article's talk page, he had to accept major changes to the article, but keep trying to revert them by deleting paragraphs or reintroducing POVized material. When he is at risk of breaking the 3R rule, Tiamut does the revert work for him. The two of them cooperate extensively in introducing POVized material into articles related to Palestinian issues. DrorK (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I encourage admins to investigate this complaint further, though I reject the allegation of tag-teaming and believe a review of the edits will show this to be simply false. Please note that Drork has reverted to restore the same material 3 times in the last 24 hours:

1. 21:55, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "illegitimate edits - if you want to add information, add relevant facts, and do not erase paragraphs")
2. 22:36, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "Illegitimate revert by the Harlan-Tiamut tag team")
3. 22:41, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "")

DrorK has already been warned about edit-warring at State of Palestine. Just two weeks ago, he broke 3RR at that article by making 5 reverts (listed in the talk page section here). Tiamut^talk 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that Drork is the subject a report that was recently closed with the page being protected above [322]. Tiamut^talk 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All I did is protecting legitimate edits made by me and other users, and explained in details. If you look further into the history of the article you will see that Tiamut and Harlan piratically hijacked the article, preventing any edit that doesn't comply with their political opinions. Being well-aware of the 3R rule, they reverted legitimate edits alternatively. I wouldn't rule out a possibility that Harlan is in fact Tiamut sockpoppet considering the pattern of their edits. Unfortunately I don't have "tag-team partner" nor do I create sockpuppet, and I have to counter such conduct myself. DrorK (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The warning Tiamut was referring to had been addressed to him too. The fact that he knows more tricks to bypass

editing policies cannot be held against me. The "ignore all rules" principle refers exactly to these cases, when misconduct should be prevented even at the expense of breaking such rules as the 3R. DrorK (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• WP:PLAXICO seems to apply here. The article has been the subject of a slow-moving edit war for the past few days, and it seems to have reached a boiling point today. Drork seems not to have learned anything from yesterday's incident, and I would block her/him but for the fact that Drork already has begun to complain about me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask you not to pass judgment on this case and let another admin treat it. You supported Tiamut in the past, and I criticized you for making poor judgment. You are not impartial. DrorK (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, I just wrote that I'm not taking action because of your complaints. What more do you want from me? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. DrorK (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Declined I'm unsure blocks would be the best thing, rather discussion or use of WP:DR should discussion fail. There are also numerous noticeboards to ask for help listed in the dispute resolution guidance. NJA (t/c) 08:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to revisit that decision? Drork just made his 4th revert [323] of the same material in 24 hours. He also posted this lovely message of talk, accusing the three editors opposing his edits of a "group effort to hijack the article". [324] So much for dispute resolution. Tiamut^talk 13:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was one of the subjects of this request, but Drork didn't notify me about it. The only edit I made to the article yesterday was to restore well-sourced material that Drork had deleted without explanation. He complains that I won't let anyone add material saying that the State of Palestine does not exist, but he has deleted a Ban Ki Moon quote to that effect that I added on two separate occasions (including yesterday).[325][326]

He has posted complaints at the Original Research Noticeboard [327], but was advised my edits are well sourced. He posted a complaint at the Editor Assistance Noticeboard [328], but I have not created a synthesis of published material that advances a position. I am citing and quoting the published analysis of John Quigley, Marjorie Whiteman, and the General Editors of the State Department FRUS series. That analysis is supported by many other verifiable secondary sources. harlan (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jasepl reported by User:Dimitree (Result: Declined)

Page: BMI destinations

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

Previous version reverted to: [329]

• 1st revert: [330]
• 2nd revert: [331]
• 3rd revert: [332]
• 4th revert: [333]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [334] and [335].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [336]

Comments: May I ask all your attention once again to this Jasepl: he launches editorial wars at every page related to almost each aircompany destinations list. Recently, it was Aeroflot and British Airways destinations, now I found it is BMI destinations. We have to stop him somehow from reverting without any reasons or valid sources. In case, no measures are apllied, I'm going to take this question to Arbitration. Thank you! --Dimitree (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Declined As noted in red at the top of this board, please only report recent edit wars here. Further, even if today were 19 Jan, the edit history doesn't demonstrate massive disruption to warrant a block. If discussion is failing, consider the guidance at WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 08:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jt14905 reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 31h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Susan Roesgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jt14905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:45, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2009 Chicago Tea Party */ TVNewser not WP:RS")
2. 00:05, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342810335 by Gamaliel (talk)")
3. 00:13, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342812557 by Off2riorob (talk) I agree with substantially everything that was said on talk in favor of omitting")
4. 00:27, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342815478 by Gamaliel (talk) See talk")
5. 00:35, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342816904 by Off2riorob (talk) No. It's not a reliable source, sorry.")
6. 00:41, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342817635 by ThinkEnemies (talk)")

Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jt14905&oldid=342814074

User also engaging in attacks on the talk page. —Gamaliel (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for first clear violation of 3RR. Personal attacks and other edits marked as contentious were not taken into consideration, thus another admin may wish to assess. NJA (t/c) 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Thedarxide reported by User:Snek01 (Result: both blocked 48 hours)

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

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

• 1st revert: [337]
• 2nd revert: [338]
• 3rd revert: [339]
• 4th revert: [340]
• [341]

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

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

Comments:

• User:Snek01 thinks that using non-breaking space is against Wikipedia:Footnotes
• User:Stemonitis and User:Thedarxide (which may be sockpuppets) thinks that using non-breaking space before ref is all right.

--Snek01 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Declined You (the reporter) are to stop your reverts and to seek discussion pending outcome as alerted to you multiple times. NJA (t/c) 11:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

reopened — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snek01 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 February 2010

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Blocks were implemented by Spartaz as per the related thread at WP:AN/I. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969 reported by User:Racepacket (Result: Warned)

Page: University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [342]

• 1st revert: [343] 03:23, 8 February 2010
• 2nd revert: [344] 03:36, 8 February 2010
• 3rd revert: [345] 03:37, 8 February 2010
• 4th revert: [346] 17:21, 8 February 2010

The sentences involved reads: One of Ashe's longtime assistants, Jay F. W. Pearson, assumed the presidency in 1952.[19] A charter faculty member and a marine biologist by trade,[19] Pearson ushered in a decade of growth for UM.

User:Daedalus969 has deleted the first footnote 19 once and the second footnote 19 repeatedly and refuses to explain why he wants that footnote deleted despite repeated questioning. talk page diff, talk page diff, talk page diff, talk page diff, [347].

User:Daedalus969 has not edited the University of Miami page in the past six months. However, he acknowledges that he is a regular follower of WP:ANI and read about a controversy over whether quotation marks should be used in <ref> tags. Such quotation marks are optional and do not affect the contents of articles at all. There is also a dispute over whether one carriage return or two should be used following the end of the infobox template, which again, has absolutely no affect on the finished appearance of the article layout. If such annoying trivia is not bad enough, another editor made mistakes in pursuing his goal of wikimarkup perfection by changing a = symbol in a template to a + symbol. Perhaps in violation of WP:POINT, User:Daedalus969 decided to join in this nonsense by deleting the two footnotes in the above quoted sentence and then adding just the first one back (without the optional quotes in the <ref> tag). He did not add in the second quote back. The other editor then deleted the name from the <ref> tag. Hearing no explanation for why the second footnote was deleted, I added it back in, and he deleted it again. He refuses to respond to questions about his substantive concerns, but the other editor claims he doesn't realize he is deleting the footnote. However, he should take responsibility for the visible effects of his edits, whether he intends them or not, because they are causing confusion and extra work for others. Racepacket (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on this page: [348], [349], [350]

Comments:
If I thought that User:Daedalus969 was trying to improve the substance of the article, I would not raise this, but it becomes apparent that he is just doing this to be disruptive and vexatious. Racepacket (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. Daedalus969 has already agreed to my request to stay off the article for a week, and has not edited the article since. Since he has made no reverts in the past 20 hours I'm not clear on how he is keeping you from getting your work done on the article. Your harsh criticism of other users is unlikely to win much sympathy for your position. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What a fabrication. Ed, I cannot believe that you would think that I was edit warring. I never breached 3rr. Did you actually bother to read the diffs? 1, 2, and 4 are reverts, while 3 is re-adding a footnote I accidently removed. RP has also lied about my responses, as I told him several times, it was a freaking accident. I never meant to remove any refs, and I told him it was his fault for wholesale reverting RL's changes while editing at the same time, and to stop calling it a point violation, which is a personal attack. I am not disrupting to make a point of any kind. I made a mistake and I fixed it. How on earth is that edit warring?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

'Warned for edit warring' would have been better. I now agree you only made three reverts. The simplest course would have been blocks for at least two participants, but sometimes diplomacy is needed. Racepacket's new filing here certainly shows chutzpah, and I wonder why he identifies you as the person who is being 'disruptive and vexatious'. I wish we could charge for unnecessary usage of noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Drork reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [351] revert of this

• 1st revert: [352]
• 2nd revert: [353]
• 3rd revert: [354]
• 4th revert: [355]
• 5th revert: [356]
• 6th revert: [357]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just warned the other day on another article, just brought two other users here above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Too many to list, see here and the rest of the talk page

Comments:
Drork has been edit-warring on a number of pages within the I/P area, so I do not know if this or AE would be the right place to deal with it. On this article he is edit-warring against 3 users failing to address the issues with his edits. He is simply removing cited information and replacing it with his own ideas. And in his last edit summary he says he will keep reverting over and over. nableezy - 14:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Nableezy would explain why he reverted legitimate edits to the article, and what kind of relations he has with Tiamut and Harlan? It is very convenient to bypass the 3R rule by forming a three-men coalition and make the illegitimate reverts in turns. It is also convenient to "hijack" an article like this and complain about users who try to make much-needed changes. I asked for opinion about this article here. This is the advice I've got: "A good principle in controversial areas is to keep the number of articles small and the articles brief and to the point. That way there is more of a chance of sensible discussion". How am I suppose to do that when three people hijack the article? DrorK (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Overly emotional and ludicrous hyperbole aside, you do it by pursuing the processes laid out in WP:DR. And there has been no "hijacking" of anything. Only you trying to force in your favored views, often without sources or by making wild leaps the sources you do bring do not make, through edit-warring. Since you have returned to Wikipedia you have done almost nothing but edit-war at 3 or 4 articles. nableezy - 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And Drork has now reverted for a fifth time while he is here for edit-warring. Can an admin finally block this user? nableezy - 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy actually acts here on behalf of Tiamut User talk:Nableezy#About State of Palestine. Why does Tiamut need a lawyer? What you are doing here is very dishonest and even cynical. You three are acting like Grifers DrorK (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is, simply put, a lie. I act on my own behalf. It is in my behalf that I request you be blocked for continuing to attempt to force in your own viewpoints, largely unsupported by the sources, into a number of articles. It is on my behalf that I ask that other users not have to deal with you accusing them of being in PR for the PLO. It is on my behalf that I filed this report, and to say otherwise is a lie. Please dont lie. nableezy - 16:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And now a 6th revert, two of which were made after being reported here. Drork has now reverted 4 different users a 6 times in the last day. Does WP:EW or WP:ARBPIA mean anything at all? nableezy - 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, why did Tiamut ask you to file this complaint? Was it just coincidental? Why are you constantly objecting my edits, which were explained in details in the talk page? Is it because they are not compatible with your political views? And by the way, weren't you previously blocked for similar actions? DrorK (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

She did not ask me to file this complaint. I object to your edits because you push an extreme minority viewpoint, usually unsupported by sources, into a number of articles. And yes, I have been blocked for edit-warring, which is why I am here instead of re-reverting you. nableezy - 16:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say she didn't ask you to file a complaint, do you mean this, where she asks "someone" to revert and file a 3RR report, and guess who does both? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? She did not ask me to file a complaint, I saw Drork had continued edit-warring and I filed one myself. Tiamut is capable of filing her own reports, as am I. But what exactly is your point? Do you have something to say about the now 6 reversions of 4 users Drork has made in the past day? Or have you come to do what you do best, distract from the issue and make this about something that it is not? nableezy - 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I explained my point below. The admin who reviews this complaint should have a look at the behavior of the other editors involved, not only Drork. I assume you're OK with that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I am. If an admin looks they will see that I stopped at 2 reverts just to avoid an edit-war with a user that apparently will never stop reverting. nableezy - 17:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DrorK, for lack of a more measured response, be quiet. Your accusations are not helping your case. You violated 3RR, egregiously, WHILE YOU WERE HERE FOR DOING IT. That's edit warring even if Nableezy is PAYING other editors to shill (which I highly doubt is the case). --King Öomie 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"And by the way, weren't you previously blocked for similar actions?"

Similar to your actions. --King Öomie 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree Drork should stop reverting at this point (or probably a little before this point), I hope the admin that takes care of this complaint looks into the actions of the other editors Drork is edit waring with, including User:RomaC who just reverted him despite never having edited the article before. This is not a tag team. It's a gang bang. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And guess what Drork did after that? nableezy - 17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You've already addressed and made clear the issue of Drork's reverts. You conveniently ignore the issue NMMNG has brought up about the edit-warring that your team is doing and try to refocus the attention back to Drork. Do you really think this last comment of yours will sway an admin looking at this case? I'd like to give you more credit than that. Breein1007 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the hopes of getting the point across, I am going to type very slowly. There is no "team", there are a number of users who take issue with Drork's original research and various unfounded views. Those editors have reverted Drork. Instead of seeking a consensus to make his proposed changes Drork instead tries to force the edit in. I stopped at 2 reverts and came here. Drork has continued. This board serves one purpose, to report edit-warring, including violations of the 3RR. If you would like to discuss something else, do it somewhere else. I dont think I need to "sway" an admin, I just need one to pay attention. Drork has reverted 6 times in the last 24 hours, 3 times after being warned, 2 times after being brought here. He has written that he will continue to revert with impunity. He should be blocked so that he may not continue doing so. nableezy - 17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a team here. I encourage any admin who decides to look into this mess to look at the reverting that has been going on over last few weeks. This is not to say Drork hasn't been edit waring, but as is often noted on this board, it takes two to tango. Only in this case a few others have been cutting in to avoid breaking the letter (but not the spirit) of 3RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, four editors found Drork's changes to be unsatisfactory. Each time an editor rejected his changes, Drork reverted to restore his preferred version. He is clearly editing against WP:CONSENSUS. There is no conspiracy here. Tiamut^talk 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nab. Though we've had our differences, you and I have gotten along relatively well in the past. Having said that, I must take issue with your attempts to have sanctions imposed on User:Drork. For one thing, you know what it means to be on the receiving end of the sanction stick. You should therefore be a bit more mindful before having others sanctioned. Second, I actually empathize with Drork's frustrations. Having 3 editors with similar POVs teaming up is an excellent way to circumvent 3R but is equally, if not more egregious. My apologies if this is not the case but on the face of it, it sure looks like it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not the case. Drork introduced several errors in his reverts, among them replacing "officially" with "in some contexts" when referencing the official name of the state, also repeatedly writing that the UN "did not recognize" Palestine when a. no source says that, and b. the UN does no "recognize" states. He refuses to accept that his opinion on the existence of a Palestinian state is meaningless on Wikipedia and instead demands that his own views be placed ahead of articles by respected academics published in peer-reviewed journals. Drork has revert 4 different users 6 times. The only reason why it is not 7 times is because nobody feels like re-reverting just to see Drork revert once more. nableezy - 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours for edit warring. Drork has clearly gone over 3RR, and even if, for the sake of argument, his opponents constitute a tag team, nobody is forcing him to violate our usual limit on reverts. He is the one who decides that. Any complaint about tag-teaming should be raised at WP:AE. Drork and No More Mr Nice Guy are free to pursue the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if they don't like the state of the article which the majority of editors have chosen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that was directed at me. I did not participate in this edit war. Too bad the others who did got away scot-free though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Sanam001 reported by Axxn (talk) (Result: Both 31h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sanam001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 1st revert: 15:58, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Editing to maintain social and anthropological accuracy")
2. 2nd revert: 16:05, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "adding link")
3. 3rd revert: 16:36, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Refer discussion section - correcting primary discription")
4. 4th revert: 16:50, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Comprehensive aefinition of nayars-kindly refer discussion")
5. 5th revert: 17:37, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Definition inadequate- refer discussion")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [358]

Comments: Attempted to resolve the dispute on talk page, but user not co-operating and reverting instead. Axxn (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note In reality, the reporter has violated 3RR, with the reportee one revert away. I've warned the reporter here, and gave the reportee the standard 3RR warning. NJA (t/c) 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 12:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

128.214.205.4 reported by User:Paralympiakos (Result: Both for 24h)

Page: UFC 110 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IP being reported: 128.214.205.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [359] is the original version and [360] is the version that this IP keeps changing to.

• 1st revert: [361]
• 2nd revert: [362]
• 3rd revert: [363]
• 4th revert: [364]
• 5th revert: [365]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [366]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [367]

Comments:

Under the nationality of people from Great Britain page, the rules state that there is no definitive method of using flags. However, one rule generally is to not change it without good reason and also to leave perfectly good versions alone if there's no need for change. This IP, I believe, is in violation of that.

I have tried to explain why a ENG flagicon is perfectly sufficient and this has been constantly reverted by the IP. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Further notes left on their talk pages. NJA (t/c) 08:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:190.10.63.69 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Content delivery network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 190.10.63.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated re-addition of redlinked "see also" entry, despite warnings. Continued beyond 3RR warning on user's talk page.

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

1. 20:14, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
2. 20:26, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
3. 03:03, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
4. 15:44, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
5. 16:07, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
6. 16:23, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
7. 16:36, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
8. 21:36, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")

• Diff of warning: 17:31, 9 February 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48h EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:ExitW3Must reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 31h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Susan Roesgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ExitW3Must (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:16, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342854844 by Ronz (talk) Whose consensus?")
2. 23:41, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343035824 by Off2riorob (talk) I did and it does")
3. 00:09, 10 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343039811 by Off2riorob (talk)")
4. 00:19, 10 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343045534 by Gamaliel (talk) Eagerly await a valid argument")

Warnings: first warning second warning user deleting both warnings

Almost certainly a sock of User:Jt14905, who was blocked yesterday for 3RR on this article, which is a sock of lord-knows-who. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by another admin. NJA (t/c) 09:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:ExitW3Must reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: 31h)

Page: Susan Roesgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ExitW3Must (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [368]
• 2nd revert: [369]
• 3rd revert: [370]
• 4th revert: [371]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [372]

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

User has failed to move to the talkpage after requests. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

User is not bothered, he's on a dynamic IP and he can come here every day and create a new account and be disruptive and waste good editors time and upset people because he can, please consider a rangeblock if possible to stop him being able to edit wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by another admin. NJA (t/c) 09:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:78.184.234.107 reported by User:Kurdo777 (Result: 24h)

Page: Siege of Tripolitsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 78.184.234.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [373]

• 1st revert: [374]
• 2nd revert: [375]
• 3rd revert: [376]
• 4th revert: [377]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [378]

Comments:
This is a dynamic IP starting with 78.184.***.*** [379][380][381][382] [383], who is engaged in border-line vandalism and edit-warring on various pages, and his edit only consist of removing sources, changing/tempering with sourced statements, and reverts. I warned him about this [384], but he ignored the warning, responded with a personal attack [385], and continued reverting afterward. [386] --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of hours NJA (t/c) 13:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Sumbuddi reported by User:Sceptre (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [387]

Over the past 60 hours:

• 1st revert: [388]
• 2nd revert: [389]
• 3rd revert: [390]
• 4th revert: [391]
• 5th revert: [392]
• 6th revert: [393]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [394]

Comments:

No 3RR violation by the letter; he's probably gaming the rule. However, there's a slow-boiling edit war here and on Casino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) re: external links. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another one post submission: Online bingo - Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That was reverting vandalism by the anon IP. Not the same thing. Thanks for continuing to take such a keen interest in me though. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another IP has just restored the vandalism. [395] Both are Blackberry IPs so presumably the same user. Perhaps the page should be semi-protected? Sumbuddi (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And another Blackberry user here, but this one restoring a link to dmoz, which he previously claimed to hate. [396] Hmmmmm. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is clearly defined as edits made with the express purpose of causing harm to the project (for example, replacing a page's contents with the word "penis"). If the user in question is attempting to improve the project, it's not vandalism. Period. And that means even if their methods are less than kosher (like COI editing- which is not vandalism). Editing against consensus is not the same as vandalism- and by reverting it again and again, you are participating in an edit war. --King Öomie 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This fits that definition perfectly. A US IP added the link here [397] He then apologised for doing so here [398] , given that it is off-topic (made in error - good faith, hence not vandalism).

The useless link was then added back by this (Canadian?) Blackberry user: [399], who is demonstrably NOT the same as the US IP, given that the US IP had apologised for his mistake. The same Blackberry user (different IP each time), after being explicitly told "to the anon: that link contains zero links relevant to online bingo. So don't add it back" then added it back. Clearly a bad faith user trying to stir up trouble - unlike the US IP, who seems clear that he doesn't like ODP links, this IP just wants to revert - reverting to a completely off-topic Yahoo page on Online bingo while reverting to ODP at Casino - the only consistency is 'Revert Sumbuddi'. Trolls need to be more careful about the edit wars they get involved with - this kind of thing could get them into trouble..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.11.57 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

68.171.233.177 is the only IP in the six reverts linked above, and it's in the United States. As are the other two Sumbuddi points out later. --King Öomie 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That very much depends on which geolocation service you use. I checked two which say Canada, one which says Massachusetts another says California. I guess you can't be certain, given that the same vandal has three different IPs in the space of a few minutes. 'North American' anyway..... 86.178.11.57 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours In particular, for violating 3RR at Casino. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:66madewoqa reported by CTJF83 chat (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66madewoqa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 19:57, 10 February 2010 (edit summary: "Same-sex marriage has its own section.")
2. 20:12, 10 February 2010 (edit summary: "Same-sex marriage has its own article.")
3. 20:39, 10 February 2010 (edit summary: "Nat, read the comment I posted on your talk page before you undo this.")
4. 20:43, 10 February 2010 (edit summary: "My edit is not vandalism. Same-sex marriage has its own article.")
5. 20:45, 10 February 2010 (edit summary: "Same-sex marriage has its own article.")

• Diff of warning: here

—CTJF83 chat 20:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:Franamax. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Constitutional1787 reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: Indef)

Page: Mark Weisbrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Constitutional1787 (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]

I have never understood how to use this page, and it's too time consuming. Constutional1787 has blanked Mark Weisbrot five times, and is an account that was created after Scalabrineformvp blanked it three times. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp; if I have to provide all those diffs, I guess he can keep vandalizing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [400] [401]

Result - Blocked indef by Floquenbeam. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy

Nableezy constantly reverts legitimate edits that do not comply with his political views. [402] [403] [404] He also uses personal attacks: "Drork, please explain why you re-reverted several errors, lies if they are intentional, into the text?". His "rage" was triggered by the introduction of sources like this [405] and this [406] which he apparently deem deceptive. DrorK (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made 2 reverts. Drork, fresh off a block for edit-warring, has already made 3. Here are the reverts in question:

• [407] original edit a few days ago
• rv 1: re-replaces "expelled" with "fled"
• rv 2: straight revert
• rv 3: straight revert

Drork has been attempting to play up a narrative that has largely been debunked in mainstream reliable sources, that Israel did not "destroy" the Syrian village of Quneitra. He has presented the destruction of the city as simply a "Syrian claim" that the UNGA "voted to accept". The fact is that a huge number of third-party sources documented the destruction that took place during the Israeli withdrawal from the city and the UN established a committee to investigate the issue. Yet Drork continues to attempt to play up an extreme minority position. To avoid that fight on the Golan Heights page, I simply copied the relevant text from the featured article Quneitra. Drork immediately reverts me, taking out a number of third party sources that dispute his favored narrative. I'll also note that the text I put in also includes what Drork attempted to give undue weight to, that Israel denies that thwey systematically destroyed the city. nableezy - 16:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The content dispute doesn't matter here. Drork, I can't say I'm pleased seeing you come back from your block and immediately go on the attack, especially with such a weak claim. You yourself have violated 3RR, again.

I would suggest re-blocking the filing editor, and considering a topic ban from all subjects relating to Israel (nothing but trouble for this user). --King Öomie 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He has violated 3RR with 2 reverts? That's ridiculous. And your statement that an editor is "nothing but trouble" is highly inappropriate and I'm sorry to see comments like that appearing here of all places. Drork has been a solid contributor in this area for quite some time. You have no right to judge him as "nothing" but trouble. Breein1007 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He has not violated the 3RR, but he made 3 reverts, not 2. nableezy - 17:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork appears to have made "only" two reverts, as did nableezy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) It certainly is an inappropriate comment when entirely removed from its context and reinterpreted, yes. So... don't do that.

The user has caught two blocks while edit warring over Israel-related topics, and is on the fast track for more. His strong convictions relating to this topic, and penchant for expressing them through the use of the "undo" button, are nothing but trouble in this context. Nowhere did I call Drork "nothing but trouble". It was a recommendation that an administrator consider the option, not a damning judgment. --King Öomie 17:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit problematic that you count the number of reverts, and do not pay attention to the nature of these reverts. There are certain articles that are immured from changes, or to be more exact - changes that are not approved by certain editors. Nableezy is entitled to his political views, but there are sound sources that suggest otherwise which he ignores, and even worse - prevent any attempt to introduce them in order to improve certain articles. I don't have a group of supporters. I am working on my own here. If you think sources like Time Magazine, for example, should be overlooked, that's another story, but as long as they are considered reliable, Nableezy has no right reverting edits which rely on this source, and those who suffer from his behavior should be protected. DrorK (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, the Time magazine article you linked here is still in the article, I did not remove it, in fact I did not even modify what you wrote using that as a source. The NYTimes source does not add anything that the current text does not already include. For you to come here and say that I am removing the information in these sources is an outright lie. You on the other hand removed a number of sources and all the information that was sourced to them multiple times. Please do not continue to distort what happened here. nableezy - 18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate forum to discuss content disputes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)