Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive109

Page: List of Dragon Ball GT episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: DBZfan29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff (done as IP - admits it his him)
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Collectonian#GT Episode List, User talk:DBZfan29#September 2009 (after warning, left retaliatory one on my talk page)

Comments:
This user is just off a block for edit warring and incivility. After initially appearing ready to edit constructively, and having discussed the edits he wanted to make (and having it explained as to why they were not appropriate), he again returned back to edit warring on the article to add original research and personal/fan opinions, with later edits including falsely applied sources that do not back up his claims. Have given multiple chances to stop vandalizing the article with false information, tried discussing with him, but he continues to act inappropriately. When warned he would be reported, reverted back to his same arguments from last time he was blocked that if you do it to me, I'll do it to you (which he did before, retaliating an AIV report with one back), and claiming he is not reverting when clearly he is.[1], then posted a link to a bootleg DVD to the talk page to try to support his claims[2]--

) 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I was trying to help. If he already owns the bootleg, how is supplying a link illegal. I was just trying to help. And second, you have reverted more than me. I never hit undo once unless I had a reason to back it up. I warned you - and you deleted the warning. I reported you - and the report magically disappeared when I left the page. I've listened to everything the admins and you said. I added refs. I am being calm. Yet I'm always getting reverted! Anyway, did you have anything to do with my report being removed? DBZfan29 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you or he owns the bootleg. Linking to it violates Wikipedia's

talk · contribs

) 18:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I don't think that bootleg link has anything to do with this. I made a mistake. Another thing, you never said it was inappropiate - you just removed it even after I added refs to support the edit. And I reported you because you were doing this and you did remove the warning I sent you. How it disappeared, I don't know - but I'm certainly going to add it again. DBZfan29 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you were told, both on my talk page when you asked about it before hand and in the edit summary. Do not readd the warning as it would be inappropriate and a misuse of the template. --

talk · contribs

) 19:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [3]

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff

Edit war - User:Yopie against the three users: User:Karasek, User:Lucas and User:Jadran91.

• Page protected No one is doing the right thing, so instead of blocking everyone I've just protected. This will give everyone time to have a real discussion (one that reaches its end and maybe even results in a consensus) and seek third opinions and dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Lansing, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jakersw22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

• 1st revert: [5]
• 2nd revert: [6]
• 3rd revert: [7]
• 4th revert: [8]

Comments: I have let the user know that the problem is not what he's adding, but how he's adding it. It's written with a point of view as opposed to be facts-based which is required to post anything on here. He is either very immature or has some kind of mental disability. Either way, that's not my problem, nor is it wiki's. It's time to block him since he can't seem to understand why his silly edits are being reverted.

• Seriously the first thing you do is call the editor stupid, his edits vandalism and now you're mentioning a mental disability. Please read
  WP:NPA. This is not how good intentioned but inappropriate edits are handled. I've left a note on the editor's talk page welcoming him and offering to discuss how to add the information to the article appropriately. Shell ^babelfish
  03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Dickinson College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 72.79.190.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]
• 5th revert: [14]

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

Attempts have been made to resolve dispute on user talk page (User talk:72.79.190.67) and on an editor's talk page (User_talk:Falcon8765). Editor also did some yelling on my talk page.

Comments:

• 247
  06:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Edit war
  on

Modern Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jemesouviens32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 15:59, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 311245193 by Andi 3ö (talk
   ) The decision was keep from an administrator [NuclearWarfare] hence undo...")
2. 18:03, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 311308472 by Andi 3ö (talk
   ) Vandalism")
3. 06:28, 2 September 2009 (edit summary: "Edit war revert, between two users, discussion closed article was kept by administrator")

I reported this earlier(see above). Although since then two additional users have weighed in on the discussion (see edit summary [here] and Talk:Modern Buddhism), still the user has reverted once again, [accused me] of edit warring, although i clearly am not and instead try to discuss; he disrespects the results of the AfD and the preceding discussion here, misrepresents the decision of the closing admin of the AfD in his edit summary although the admin has clarified his decision on Talk:Modern Buddhism. Also, he now calls for page protection:

• 06:47, 2 September 2009 (edit summary: "Request for page protection")

...and he still does not discuss on Talk:Modern Buddhism.

• Diff of warning: here

—Andi 3ö (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider

08:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See here, where I told the reporting editor that he may seek another view here, though I don't think a block will resolve the problem.

247

08:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you,

247. Yes, i'd like to have a second opinion on that. Please read my comments at Nja247's talk page and assess the situation via the links provided above. Thanks, Andi 3ö (talk

) 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:POV about what "modern Buddhism" really is about. Andi 3ö (talk

) 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are his latest ad hominems, here is his latest attempt at totally distorting the reality of things (please compare with this statement by the closing admin of the AfD, only a few lines above of his). Of course we could RfC...his calls for dispute resolution are ridiculously hypocritical; we are right in the middle of it since almost two weaks now and he simply doesn't like the outcome. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

...and yet another misrepresentation: In his latest comment he claims that

) 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have filed an RfC now. Andi 3ö (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: )

Previous version reverted to: [16]

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

• 5th revert: [21]

• 6th revert: [22]

• 7th revert: [23]

User already warned by admin. and other editor. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25] to which I got this response [26]

Comments:

This entire sequence (above) followed a warning by an Admin to stop edit warring (noted above). The first war that brought the admins warning is documented here:

• Diff 1:[27]
• Diff 2:[28]
• Diff 3:[29]

I suppose you mean Monterey, California. Not a good start. There does seem to be rather a lot of edit warring over the photos. The response you got to your attempt to resolve the dispute [30] appears sensible; I'm not sure why you then took offense William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 10:11, 2 September 2009 by DHawker

• 1st revert: 01:53, 3 September 2009 (two consecutive edits by DHawker; reverts immediately preceding edit)
• 2nd revert: 04:47, 3 September 2009
• 3rd revert: 06:35, 3 September 2009
• 4th revert: 09:10, 3 September 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: DHawker is well aware of 3RR, having been blocked twice before for violating it on this article.

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

.

Comments:
DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting colloidal silver (see contrib history). S/he has a history of edit-warring on this article, and has been blocked twice before for this sort of thing. At the most recent AN3 report, an admin voiced the opinion that an indefinite block was appropriate. Either way, I'm bringing this here as a recurring problem. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not happy with indef; too long ago. 1 week; SPA edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Introman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1 20:33, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Previous lead is much better. Restoring that.")

1 20:50, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted unsourced remnant")

1 01:41, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "more sources for classical/social liberalism dinstinction, as well as source that says that the classification is common")

1 01:42, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

1 01:43, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

1 01:43, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

2 22:01, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Better vs of previous intro. Redid the 3rd paragraph, and gave MANY sources for the claim that Americans and Euros use "liberalism" differently, which Rick Norwood and Four Deuces have been disputing")

2 22:02, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

2 22:08, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "page #")

3 22:37, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Nonsense. Approximately this version of the intro was taken down without agreement.")

4 23:19, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted original research assumption that Marcus Aurelius statement is representative of liberalism, much less that that it encapsulates liberalism such that it should head the whole article")

4 23:23, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Deleted statement about American Declaration of Independence. This article is about liberalism. Don't make it U.S. centric.")

4 23:30, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "This claimed "elitism" branch of liberalism thing is not common, so doesnt belong in the intro.")

• Diff of warning: [33]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Excluding consecutive edits, there were 4 reverts

-The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces is a disruptive editor. He tries to own articles. He deletes well sourced material. He wont accept sources so one has to keep adding more sources. No matter how many there are he won't accept them. The edits above speak for themselves. I gave good explanations of my edits, both in the edit summaries and through extensive discussion on the talk page. There was no 3 revert violation. Some of what he's claiming is a revert is a partial revert with major working of a whole paragraph and addition of many sources. My edits are constructive, not destructive. This noticeboard complaint by him is just another attempt by him to prevent me from editing articles. He's made several such reports. It's a pattern. Introman (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

48h. Next time (though hopefully there won't be one), could you arrange the diffs to just show the 4 reverts, if necessary bundling 3 consecutive edits into one? Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I will do that. Thank you for your patience. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked previously for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
This single purpose editor is attempting to edit war tags and unsupported ideas into the article, and is soapboxing prodigiously on the talk pages. While he is not reverting to the exact old version each time, his behavior IMO is edit warring and needs admin attention. Skinwalker (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: G-Saviour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.195.10.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]
• 5th revert: [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48][49]

Comments:

The IP editor has repeatedly added unsourced material to the article G-Saviour stating that it is not canon to the Gundam franchise dispute repeated warnings[50][51][52] and a previously existing reference from the official Gundam website stating that it is part of the franchise. Even though the first revert is just outside of the 24h scope, it does show a pattern of edit waring by the editor. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page:

)
User being reported: 89.129.39.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gibraltar

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]
• 4th revert: [56]
• 5th revert: [57]
• 6th revert: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]
• 5th revert: [63]
• 6th revert: [64]
• 7th revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article "Gibraltar" talk page: [67]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article

Comments:
IP refuses to discuss the matter and insists on blanket reverting. Needs to cool down. RedCoat10 • talk 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Gibraltar
User being reported: 89.129.48.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if a block is warranted but requesting admin overview. IP editor was blocked yesterday for edit warring and bad faith attacks on Gibraltar. The block is currently in place but IP editor is continuing to edit with a new IP address see [69]. I might not have reported were it not for the fact that the IP returned with further bad faith attacks [70]. If this continues perhaps an IP range block may be necessary.

Errm, could you just delete the talk page comments rather than responding to them? I've blocked that IPs, but its a bit pointless because they will just get new ones William M. Connolley (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And already got another one, 89.129.42.174, comment on your talk page. Regards, Justin talk 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit warring. Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 140 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. Any attempt to modify these edits has been reverted without explanation. SlimVirgin also has a technique of mixing controversial with non-controversial edits and then assigning a vague or misleading edit summary, so that when she is deleting favorable or adding negative commentary, she will often use a summary like "tidying."

1. [71] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
2. [72] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
3. [73] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
4. [74] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
5. [75] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
6. [76] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
7. [77] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
8. [78] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
9. [79] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
10. [80] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
11. [81] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
12. [82] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics (in these edits she deletes commentary from the
    New York Times and Laird Wilcox to the effect that the "decoding" techniques of Dennis King
    and others are a form of conspiracy theory.)
13. [83]Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics
14. [84] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:

This seems to be a continuation of this [87]

) 15:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

These look like mostly contiguous edits, which count as one. Can you remove the contiguous ones please, if you want this to be considered William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. Move along. This is blatant forum shopping with exagerated difs provided by Leatherstocking. Slim is reasonably pairing down an article which is prone to needlessly expand if left unchecked over time. The meaning of the article is not changed by the edits. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)a

This is not a 3RR request. This is an open and shut case of edit warring. Slim is neither pairing nor paring the article -- she is reorienting it to her own POV, and edit warring to do so. If a rank and file editor did this, you would throw the book at him. Double standards undermine confidence in the project. --

talk

) 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This *is* an open and shut case. You opened it; I've shut it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Echoing WMC here. Leatherstocking, there are tons of editors editing this article (it looks to me like over 100 edits a day, and many large chunks of edits from other people, yourself included), I don't see why you're focusing on one. If there are content issues, take them to the talk page. I see no edit warring here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears that
  WP:BLPN, see [88]. Cirt (talk
  ) 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • User warned for forum shopping. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [89] (8 consecutive edits by OpticsPhysics; adds "“Classical” optics refers to those facts about optics that were known before the wave model of light in the nineteenth century." which is very different from the definition of "classical optics" previously on the page, i.e. "In classical optics, light is modeled as an electromagnetic wave..."

• 1st revert: 09:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 10:48, 5 September 2009
• 3rd revert: 12:09, 5 September 2009
• 4th revert: 16:41, 5 September 2009

Each of the above reverts restores the material quoted in bold type above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:53 5 September

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14:37, 5 September 2009 (3 edits by me to Talk:Optics)

Comments:

Verbal did 3 reverts; however, Verbal was merely removing edits which had already been opposed by both Verbal and by Srleffler and by Srleffler at 05:43 5 September^{(17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC))} (before I arrived). Srleffler did one revert, along with other changes which attempt to resolve the situation with the definition of "classical optics". Verbal had also discussed on the talk page: [90]. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that just a minute before I filed the report, OpticsPhysics had self-reverted, as I had requested. I therefore would like to withdraw my report (if it's not too late) and request that OpticsPhysics be unblocked. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Not done User may request unblocking by following the instructions given in the block template on their talk page. Further, their creation of a new account to evade the block is unlikely to help their cause.

247

18:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring & Vandalism. This IP is deleting sourced content on the article[91]. He has been warned and reverted for vandalism by several other editors[92]. User refuses to discuss deletion of sourced table figure on talk page and insists (in Spanish) that 'false sources need no discussion'[93]. Diffs of edit warring. [94] [95][96] [97]. Likeminas (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• No violation There must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the rule to apply. Also, in the future, try to follow the example when leaving a report.
  247
  18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 14:32 5th September

• 1st revert: 23:05 5th September 2009
• 2nd revert: 23:13 5th September 2009
• 3rd revert: 23:34 5th September 2009
• 4th revert: 00:00 6th September 2009
• 5th revert: 01:06 6th September 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:41 5th September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:
This may also be linked to some recent blanking on Bellevue Baptist Church. The user keeps citing BLP (unusual for a newly registered user, who may have previous edited the Bellevue page under IPs) but the source given seems legit, at least to me. The user has now reverted to a version which includes part of the deleted text here, but I don't see anything wrong with the version that gave the full context. I am not going to revert further, for the moment as it is 01:54 and I need to sleep but will look at this again in the morning. Keep me posted. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours. Looks more like an attempt to remove criticism from the article than a legitimate BLP concern. There can be no doubt that the widely-report events cited in this article really occurred. Though some of the newspaper articles from 2006 are no longer visible on line, Google easily finds corroboration of these facts from other reliable sources. The Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas account, created August 17, seems to have no interests on Wikipedia besides removing material from this article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kevin5593 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [99]

• 1st revert: [100]
• 2nd revert: [101]
• 3rd revert: [102]
• 4th revert: [103]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Comments:
User was blocked previously for edit warring on this very page. They continue to add massive amounts of unsourced trivia without providing even a summary. Though they have the right to do so, they are also deleting warnings posted to their Talk page, quite possibly to avoid being reported.
Doniago (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• 247
  08:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

First of all I would like to report the following user for edit warring and causing disruption in the Kitchen Nightmares page. He brought in upon himself to changed the following pages by removing the updates of the restaurants without getting any concensus. The updates of the restaurants had references from reputed media and online sources.

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]
• 4th revert: [108]
• 5th revert: [109]
• 6th revert: [110]
• 7th revert: [111]
• 8th revert: [112]
• 9th revert: [113]
• 10th revert: [114]

Response: The proposal was made to remove the updates to the status of restaurants and discussed some days ago. User:Roman888 had the opportunity to participate, but did not. Consensus was reached, and is noted in the discussion by at least three editors; the rationale was based in part on issues of reliability of sources, and in part on a series of arguments made by User:Madchester on the article for the UK version of the show Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. Since then, two editors, one an anon IP have been blocked for edit warring by continually reverting, and two more anon IP's have made edits, all without engaging in discussion. Roman888 appeared this evening, both guns blazing, lacking in civility, determined to make this personal, and refusing to acknowledge the consensus in place, much less engage in any discussion. The edits he cites above are over a period of some days, and comparable edits were made by at least two other editors. There's an agenda at work here, having to do with Roman888's desire to add restaurant updates to the UK article, and my effort to encourage him to be civil and engage in discussion were met with this report. I have already made the admin User:Parsecboy aware of this situation, as he requested we do at the time he blocked the two previous users engaging in edit warring, in an attempt to resolve this amicably. Clearly, that's not possible where Roman888 is concerned. Drmargi (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Warned both users as both are edit warring. Any further reverts should equal a block for either or both parties depending. You must stop and discuss changes or seek
  247
  09:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tranquillity Base (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [115]
• 2nd revert: [116]
• 3rd revert: [117]
• 4th revert: [118]
• 5th revert: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120] (3rr meniton on 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC) and a heads up for these specific incidents given at "70: POV issue in the article". The user has been warned several times at the user talk page.

Comments:

The Sea Shepherd organization is contentious so differences in opinion is expected. The question on whether to add this to the Eco-terrorism category resulted in several reverts between different editors with many coming from Tranquillity Base. It looks like this caused some bad blood since Tranquillity Base instantly reverted three adjustments to recent edits. A heads up was given in the edit summary and the talk page. I believe that my adjustments were justified but even if they were not discussion would have been appropriate. I don't know if a block is necessary since the editing is not intended to be disruptive but I would appreciate an admin making a mention to the editor that this behavior cannot continue.Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno who edited the template to say "link permitted but they shouldn't have. Please use diffs. From the history, I can only see 3R in 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have no idea and probably shouldn't have been so confused by the template but was. I don't know what is needed but the edits can be seen on the history page between 10:14, 6 September 2009 and 10:42, 6 September 2009 at Revision history of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. There are also many reverts before but these jumped out as a concern. Is that enough information?Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Within your time range there are two effective reverts only, since contiguous edits count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1 and 2 are separate removals of the catagory 3-5 is reverts of adjustments made. 6 was a contiguous edit of 5. It doesn't need to be labeled a revert to be in violation of the standards, correct? Also, even if the editor is not blocked, T-Base has been reverting a few edits a day for the last several days and certainly deserves some criticism. IP #68 does as well.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by 6. can you not just provide diffs? There is a link in the edit history for it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what link you mean now. Give me a second to see if I can figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1: Revision as of 02:30, 6 September 2009 The eco-terrorism category is disputed. Tranquillity Base has gone back and forth with an IP for several days.

2. Revision as of 10:21, 6 September 2009 The IP reverted the revert and after several edits Tranquillity removed the category again. I honestly don't care if it stays or goes while the discussion is going on but this is inappropriate on both sides.

3. Revision as of 10:30, 6 September 2009 This is a straight revert

4. Revision as of 10:35, 6 September 2009 So is this one.

5. Revision as of 10:42, 6 September 2009 Oops, I was incorrect about 6. This was a revert to a single edit I made but it was not labeled "revert".Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, Within your time range there are two effective reverts only, since contiguous edits count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for the bold but I read it the first time. 1 and 2 could be considered the same edit. 3, 4, and 5 are all separate. They removed content from three different edits so they are not contiguous.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Crap "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert" sorry about that. I thought I understood it pretty well but didn't. Time to go make some reverts armed with this new knowledge (only half kidding :) )Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue has also been discussed at

WP:RFC. If the current pace of reverting continues, blocks for edit-warring appear likely. EdJohnston (talk

) 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite

(Result: 24h)

Page: William Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 96.241.12.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [121]

• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

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

Comments:

Previously blocked as

16:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

24h + semi the article for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Van Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JohnHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 07:10, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Blogs are not acceptable for admission under Wiki Guidelines, as was previously stated, and this is also irrelevant to Jones specifically as already stated.")
2. 07:26, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Stop using a Blog, especially in such a misleading manner as to use it and leave out that it says he was involved in 2002 in 9/11 conspiracies")
3. 07:33, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Vandalism")
4. 07:57, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Vandalism this reverted should be addressed now. Look at the history and talk page.")

There is no vandalism here, merely a dispute about the appropriateness of a source, namely a professional journalist's blog from the news publication Politico. User has reverted multiple editors and is not quite civil, IMO, on the talk page. Has been around since 2007 so he really should know better. Gamaliel (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

semi-stale but I don't see any evidence of contgrition, so blocked. However, I'd be sympathetic to unblocking if requested William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: I appreciate nableezy contributions and opintion, but this looks like silly edit war to me.

Agada is trying to change text that has been stable for more than 6 months. I have asked him to keep it as is while we await other responses on the talk page. nableezy - 02:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the change is in order to improve encyclopedic value of the article. I have no objection to you changing the article, in order to improve it, as you did earlier. So 6 months argument is not accurate, I can not accept it. I'm trying to hear to your arguments and implement your suggestions. Your edit pattern matches

edit warring pattern. AgadaUrbanit (talk

) 06:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, the only other person on the talk page discussion, which I started, has agreed that it is better to leave it as it was. I am just asking you to wait for consensus from other editors once the edit has been reverted once. It is also edit warring to continually revert an edit over the objections of other editors. nableezy - 07:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No vio. Agada admonished for failing to use the talk page for meaningful discussion. Leave out the geolocation nonsense, and don't try to make complex arguemnts through edit comments William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

William, thank you for your resolution, I appreciate and respect it. This is really unrelated to discussion subject, though I'd like to relate to your "nonsense" remark. Maybe my skin is not think enough and maybe I'm over sensitive. I related to line of arguments like this which I consider as opposite to Wiki spirit. Generally editors find escape from sad subject of discussion in humour which sometimes challenge civility and good taste borders. Hope you see what I mean. Thanks again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Rm125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [127]
• 2nd revert: [128]
• 3rd revert: [129]
• 4th revert: [130]
• 5th revert: [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring here and a number of other articles in the users short time here. nableezy - 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A warning about the technicalities and general concept of edit-warring may be in order. RM125 is a newbie editor that is "warned" by his editing opponents about everything and anything, whether its wiki-policy or not. Every once in a while one of the warnings sticks, as in this case, where there may have been a technical 3rr violation. One more point in order: Rm125 has thoroughly discusses his changes on the talk page. Tag-teamers have mostly ignored his comments with the knowledge that they won't go over 3rr in their reverts. In any case, a newbie final warning makes the most sense at this point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The newbie has already been blocked for edit warring, what other final warning is needed? nableezy - 07:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, you are correct. Rm125 was warned multiple times for edit warring but blocked for disruptive editing. nableezy - 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's better, but not perfect. He was "warned" by his editing opponents about every alphabetical policy that exists. Including one about

WP:CANVASS when he asked for my (and nobody elses) opinion about an article because I'm the only editor that was actually nice to him since he stepped foot into Wikipedia. Instead of seeing how many different ways till Tuesday he can be blocked, we should be nurturing this new editor. He was blocked for being disruptive be not explaining his moves on the talkpage. He began colloberating with editors on teh talk page, but what does he get as a reward? Another ground for a block. No wonder we're having a difficult time getting new editors to join. --brewcrewer (yada, yada)

07:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned for edit warring at

Al Ahram, at Blood libel, at nearly every page he has touched. You want to nurture him by all means go ahead, but he needs to learn to stop trying to force in a favored version of every article he sees. If an admin feels a final warning is in order then fine, I dont have a problem with that, but he cannot be allowed to continue this mass disruption at a number of pages. nableezy

- 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, please stop "enabling" Rm125, and let him take responsibility for his actions like a grown adult. He was warned about canvassing because he did canvass you and Jaakobou. He has spent nearly all of his time as a Wikipedia editor edit-warring on four articles. It's very noble that you want to protect Rm125, but he claims to be a grown-up, so he should take responsibility for his actions. It's not the other editors' fault, it's not the fact that English is his third language, it's not the "fact" that I'm a KGB Commissar—all things that Rm125 has charged—the bottom line is that Rm125 is an edit warrior and you're making excuses for him. Please stop. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned in this very thread that I want a neutral admin to warn him about 3rr and edit warring in general, so you're comment about "enabling him" is quite perplexing. Other than that, I guess I am a little weird in that I don't like seeing newbies blocked. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How many "newbie final warnings" is Rm125 entitled to before somebody finally blocks him? Have you seen the edit history of his Talk page? He's edit-warring, and the project would be better-off if he had a time-out. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

24h. BC, your concern is admirable but somehow you have neglected to mention that you are making the same reverts as Rm125 [133]. Please could you and Rm125 mark your reverts as such. No, extensive talk page discussion does not condone breaking 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Human evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 04:57, 29 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Homo neanderthalensis */ + review +{fact}")
2. 14:03, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 15:18, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genus Homo */")
4. 16:30, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 18:45, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 18:25, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "see talk, atempt to de pov the article.")
7. 19:02, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 312227566 by ArglebargleIV (talk
   )")
8. 20:20, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "+POV + {failed verification}")

This user is involved in several low grade edit wars on other articles including

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

).

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

1. 15:27, 28 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 18:27, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 311793241 by Muntuwandi (talk
   )")
3. 18:56, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "- contradiction from definition. Specimens insted of indyviduals.")
4. 18:57, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "- contradiction from definition. Specimens insted of indyviduals.")
5. 05:34, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 312026741 by 2over0 (talk
   )")

Low grade edit war on

Multiregional origin of modern humans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 05:08, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "-"most prominent list" based on non specific arbitrary criteria, e.g, personal webpage - step towards dePOV")
2. 05:18, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "- trim of information entirely , and verbatim, repeated in section criticism")
3. 07:18, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "fixed ref")
4. 07:40, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "- {clarify} rephrased sentence")
5. 05:07, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "- POV see talk, ME and RAO (now) are comparably crosslinked and tagged more even.")
6. 05:14, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */ - {Refimprove} because no {fact} or simmilar taggs")
7. 05:20, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism of the multiregional hypothesis */ errata, it was one {fact}, but explained. - it")
8. 14:09, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic evidence */")

• Diff of warning: here

The user just recently created an account but the user's edits are consistent with User talk:76.16.176.166 and User talk:24.15.125.234 who have been blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry per prior 3rr report Numerous complaints about lack of communication are indicated incident report. —Wapondaponda (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Scottish Knights Templar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 86.165.251.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: External Link: The Rosslyn Templar - Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, by R.T. McPherson, 1836

• 1st revert: (Undid revision 310142964 by GSOSMTH (talk))
• 2nd revert: (Undid revision 311221951 by GoBack1 (talk))
• 3rd revert: (Advertising a book about rosslyn has nothing to do with scottish knights templars)
• 4th revert: (self advertisement of a book related to rosslyn chapel and nothing to do with this article) (undo)
• 5th revert: (undo)
• 6th revert: (Undid revision 312318682 by Simsek (talk)) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:86.165.251.159

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The Rosslyn Templar - Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, by R.T. McPherson, 1836

Comments:
The anonymous IP is confrontational in the discussion on the external link e.g. "So I can take a photograph of the chapel, write a spurious book with little factual content and then wiki accepts it??? So Simsek, I am ready to escalate this" --Alithea (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

previous version being reverted to by IP : Revision as of 23:14, 29 August 2009 (tagged as :references removed)

• 1st revert: Revision as of 19:19, 5 September Has the word reverted in edit summary
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:27, 5 September Has the word reverted in edit summary
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:44, 5 September Has the word reverted in edit summary
• 4th revert: Revision as of 18:06, 6 September Has the word reverted in edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: multiple 3RR blocks

Comments:
There are several edits outside the reported ones but these fall within 24 hours. The problem is constant removal of a piece of text objected to by this editor and the supporting source. This was first done by an IP a few days before in a way similar to simple vandalism Revision as of 23:14, 29 August 2009 without any comment and was tagged by the system as :"references removed" (only visible in article history). The IP offered no comment for his action and the user (I'm unaware of any connection) offered also little commentary. User first said the "source does not exist" and after his concerns were addressed the source was re-verified and an additional web link added, plus the quote provided he still kept deleting the source and text, only switched his argument. The sourced text was not recently inserted it survived since it was added in 2008 January ([134]). Without commenting on it I'd add that the user also has some intense reverts on another article Dezo Hoffmann. All the edits are marked as reverts by the automated tool twinkle that the user used to make the reverts. Hobartimus (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

blocked for 48h for the report below. Didn't check this one William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Gabriel Bethlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 15:13, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nmate; No objections raised on talk, reverting to neutral, historically accurate and WP:NCGN compliant version. (TW))")
2. 18:07, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nmate identified as vandalism to last revision by Wladthemlat. (TW))")
3. 09:01, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nmate; Go see and express yourself at the talk. You're the only one being abusive here right now. . (TW))")
4. 10:24, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nmate; I am not innsultinng you, but you are nnot onnly avoidinng myself, you are avoidinng anny discussionn. Pozsonny is definnitely againnst WP:NCGN. . (TW))

" Comments:

Wladthemlat often objects to I am reluctant to take part in any discussions with him which is true, due to his aggressive behaviour. He, following all my contributions, is almost always reverting me, insulting with a summary of "identified as vandalism". [135] [136][137][138][139][140]. It seems that usage of this edit summary of "identified as vandalism" has been going on, even after he being warned thorough on his talk page [141][142] and in an edit summary[143], for what he answered to me with a provocative message on my talk page[144].

And after he had called me "a Hungarian with a tad overdeveloped sense of nationalism" on a talk page [145], I indeed tried to avoid any contact with him.--Nmate (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

48h. You too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: European route E80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Turkish Flame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_route_E80&oldid=312023154

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_route_E80&diff=312188054&oldid=312023154
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_route_E80&diff=312392124&oldid=312391670
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_route_E80&diff=312394051&oldid=312392693

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Turkish_Flame#3RR_2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result - No violation. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the 3RR rule. Editors who are tempted to revert war on matters relating to Kosovo should take a look at
  WP:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Try to find a Talk page consensus on this matter before reverting again. I note that a brand-new IP editor, 91.148.82.222 (talk · contribs) has been making the same reverts as Wexy. If this issue is brought to admins again, further study may be needed. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P. (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P.|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Craftyminion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [146]
• 2nd revert: [147]
• 3rd revert: [148]
• 4th revert: [149]

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

• Warning: [150]
• Statement in response to warning:"Your warning is noted and dismissed."[151]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [152] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C_DJ_Pusspuss.2C_Benjamin_Holman.2C_and_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless

Comments:
Craftyminion is attempting to

) 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-outsider comment. Whatever outing is involved here had already occurred days ago and has been allowed to stand, was originally committed by another editor, and can't be undone by the talk page deletions involved. There have been all sorts of similar statements being made in lots of other deletion discussions alleging vanity/COI editing, associating Wikipedia editors with real-world identities. None of this makes Craftyminion's statements OK. However, given that these are talk page statements, that they do not associate the Wikipedia editor involved with a real-world identity, but with various pseudonyms, and that they refer to undeleted claims that have been made elsewhere on Wikipedia, I think that Craftyminion may in good faith believe the deletion of his comments to be vandalism, so that an automatic ban is inappropriate. I think that the related AN/I discussion should be resolved first; the involved editors notified of the resolution; then, if any of them perform edits that violate that decision, appropriate sanctions/blocks should be imposed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by semi-involved Wolf?

I warned him about 3rr, and he wrote, "Your warning is noted and dismissed."[153]

On the current ANI, when an other editor suggested he remove his text, he wrote: "Given this is a matter of principle, I regret to say I'd rather chew through my own leg. My edits stand. "[154]

There is no compromise in these statements, and there is an awareness that he was going to break 3rr, and did it anyway. If we are going to have the 3rr rule, it should apply to everyone, especially editors who so actively flaunt it.

talk

) 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The disruption continues, for the first time on the ANI in those sections, I remove any mention of this editor, he reverts it back.[155] I will not revert further.

Editor baits me on my talk page, using the editors name.[156]

Admin tan was trying to help crafty in the ANI. To try and stop the drama, he originally protected the AFD,[157] on his talk page then unprotected,[158] later stating on his talk page, "Now, subsequent edits by Crafty are more or less proving their point that Crafty is being purposefully disruptive."[159]

talk

) 16:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

By "semi-outsider" I mean that I've been involved in an extended content dispute involving Benjeboi, that Benjeboi has encouraged editors trying to "out" me (mostly inept attempts), and that within the last few days Benjeboi himself made a substantial attempt to "out" me by highlighting the IP address I was editing from and linking it to my user page (information which became public through a standard caching problem, my browser showing me as logged in when I wasn't.)

Reverting vandalism is an explicit exception to 3RR, and removing other users' comments from talk pages is generally viewed as vandalism. I'm not saying that Crafty is right, but that he may reasonably believe his talk page comments were legit and that there's no basis for reverting them. Given the many, many occurrences of the same claim, not necessarily as definitely phrased, regarding the editor and articles in question, which have been allowed to stand when made by other editors, and the fact that similar claims regarding other editors in vanity/COI discussions in AFDs, I think we should assume good faith here -- although his subsequent behavior has been much less defensible. Still, given that's he's just repeating already existing, undeleted claims, singling him out for a

WP:OUTING violation at least appears inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing other persons edits are not vandalism. See:

Wikipedia:Npa#Removal_of_text

WP:OUTING

Okay, outing arguments aside, we can all agree there has been repeated disruption, which is why we are here, I am sorry about what you say, I am in contact with ben a lot, but he has a lot of projects I am not aware of. If this is an issue, I would suggest ANI.

Obviously no outing is okay.

talk

) 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tan blocked him. Maybe he will apologize and get unblocked.

talk

) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

2009-09-07T17:31:36 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Craftyminion (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Disruptive editing: persistent violation of WP:OUTING and POINTy editing) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Algarve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xaman79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [160]
• 2nd revert: [161]
• 3rd revert: [162]

Extensive discussion/warnings about link placement here Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164]

Comments:
I've followed all the links - they are tourism information links & not encyclopaedic. This user's behaviour/contribution seems to be an spa whose only real interest is these links. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is a previous 31 hour block for spamming. Spamming aggressively and edit warring for an SPA account comes close to indef block but there are some small signs of positive intent. Both the opposing editors are well established wide contributers to WP and the links themselves belong in a link directory but not here. 72 hour block but next time I guess indef should be considered.--BozMo talk 18:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• Introman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 18:39, 7 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Original research to put a marcus aurelius quote to introduce the article. You need a source that says his quote encapsulates liberalism.")
2. 19:56, 7 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "not an undifferentiated philosophy")
3. 23:36, 7 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "putting in sourced statement that there is the classical and modern classifications")
4. [165] 04:48. 8 September 2009

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [166]

• Diff of warning: here

—The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not reverts but all different edits. The Four Deuces is the one doing the reverts of four DIFFERENT changes. See my complaint against The Four Deuces below. Introman (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Technically, four reverts in 24 hours. The 'undifferentiated philosophy' diff is one where Introman restores the Goodin and Pettit reference that others had previously removed. Undoing the action of another editor counts as a revert. This user was previously blocked 48h for edit warring on the same article. See next report for more commentary. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: {{Liberalism|}}
User being reported: {{The Four Deuces}}

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

• 1st revert: [167]
• 2nd revert: [168]
• 3rd revert: [169]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:
This guy deletes almost EVERYTHING I put into Wikipedia. Though the above is not 4 reverts, but 3, look at the nature of them. There were no reverts by me. Each one was a different edit, and I explained the edits in the edit summaries. I also put in well sourced sentences. But, reflexively he reverts them. He follows me around to various articles trying to revert EVERYTHING I do. He's even now going around trying to get templates that I created deleted. It's getting out of hand. I've violated the 3rr rule once before trying to deal with this guy, and apparently "edit warred" once (though I disagreed with the administrators' call on that one) but have wised up and don't intend to fall into that trap anymore. So now, I'm not reverting but doing something new with each edit, in order to try to contribute SOMETHING, but he STILL insists on reverting EVERYTHING, not matter how well sourced. I can't even get a sentence in! He guards against any changes from me. I don't know what to call his behavior, but it appears to be some kind stalking or harrassment. Please help. Thanks.
Introman (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Result - No action. Though this level of reverting is worrisome, only three reverts are reported here, and the Talk page seems to favor the position of The Four Deuces. See a related report just above. When he says "I'm not reverting but doing something new with each edit.." Introman does not seem to be taking in the message of
  WP:REVERT, which makes clear that anything that undoes the action of another editor is a revert. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 20:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Irish Volunteers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: R. fiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [170]

• 1st revert: [171]
• 2nd revert: [172]
• 3rd revert: [173]
• 4th revert: [174]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor used to be an admin till they lost their tools and are well aware of the 3RR rule.

Comments:

Well, those 3rd and 4th "reverts" are obvious not reverts, but different edits entirely. Nice try though. -R. fiend (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh but they are any action that reverses the actions of other editors is a revert you have made 5 now. BigDunc 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also here editor appears to be gearing up for another edit war. BigDunc 20:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours. Apparently four reverts by R.fiend on 8 September, against a pattern of other reverts by him on the same article since mid-August. (He keeps putting back the phrase 'The manifesto further stated..' after others remove it). I looked at Domer48's edits as well but his actions did not seem to quite reach the point of a block. All parties are invited to use the Talk page more and open a
  WP:Request for comments on any disputed items. To continue to revert while discussing doesn't work very well. Any admin may undo this block if the editor will agree to stop warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 02:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Hare coursing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jaquesdemolay92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported: 84.203.238.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [175]

• 1st revert: [176]
• 2nd revert: [177]
• 3rd revert: [178]
• 4th revert: [179]
• 5th revert: [180]

Plus talk page edits:

• 1st revert: [181]
• 2nd revert: [182]

Note similar edits by IP editor User:84.203.238.19:

• 1st revert: [183]
• 2nd revert: [184]
• 3rd revert: [185]

To talk page:

• 1st revert: [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I haven't warned the editor, as he feels I am the problem. This is a request for a non-involved editor to comment and advice. See vandalism warnings at [187] and [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See attempt on my talk page at [189]. MikeHobday (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Jaques was blocked 24 hours by User:Admrboltz. If the IP editor continues to revert, further action can be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Tony Danza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Colsandurz45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [190]

• 1st revert: [191]
• 2nd revert: [192]
• 3rd revert: [193]
• 4th revert: [194]
• 5th revert: [195]

Please also note that the user is vandalizing other's pages, seen here and here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196]

Comments:
Nevermind, the user has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Chabad messianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [197]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Zsero#Berger, Talk:Chabad_messianism#Berger_quote

Comments: I tried to reason with him. We both made three reverts already. I feel this is getting out of hand, and we need some help.

What 4th revert? Debresser hasn't linked any reverts, because he knows perfectly well that there are only 3. The claim that Debresser is constantly re-inserting is patent nonsense, and the alleged source is being misrepresented. I have a very low opinion of the alleged source, but he's not stupid; he would not and in fact does not make such a claim. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed not reporting a violation of the 3rr. I am just asking for help in resolving the conflict and edit war. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave my position at the talk page. So long as an absurd claim is being falsely put in the mouth of a source I will delete it. -- Zsero (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely this uncompromising refusal to listen to reason and consensus of a majority which makes me consider Zsero a potential disruptive editor. I have been a side-party to a conflict between him and another editor once before, and recognise the same behavior here. That was also about this page, see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Poss_OR_on_Chabad_messianism. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Question for Debresser: Have you even seen the alleged source? Do you have any idea what it actually says? -- Zsero (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What "consensus of a majority" (which is itself a contradiction in terms)? It's just you. -- Zsero (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I have not seen the source itself. 2. You forget the original author of the contentious paragraph. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Then how do you have the slightest clue what it says? Why do you insist in inserting something that you have just admitted you have no idea whether it's true??? 2. Two is not a consensus, and in any case that editor hasn't said anything at all. It's been just you, pretending to be a consensus, or a majority, or whatever. And now bringing the matter here. 3. I've reverted this three times, you've reverted it three times; what makes me "disruptive" and you not? -- Zsero (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I do not know for a fact whether that source makes that statement. I do know the source to exist and the statement to be true. In which case good faith initially prompted me to believe the original editor of the contentious paragraph. Notice that you have shifted your opposition to this paragraph from "nonsense" to "should be in separate section" to "not in source". So are you to be trusted here? 2. You are right that two against one is not consensus, but it is better than one against two, isn't it? 3. Your attitude. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. You do not know the statement to be true. Not only is the statement untrue, it can't be true, because it's logically impossible. If you claim to know for a fact that there are (significant numbers of) people who hold some belief merely because it can't be proven to be heretical, then you are simply not telling the truth. I have not shifted my argument; the claim is patent nonsense, and therefore Berger (not being an idiot) could not have made it. The claim should not be anywhere in the article, and I have never suggested that it should be; I did note that the quote itself is genuine, and probably does belong in a paragraph about Berger's reaction, but no such paragraph exists. And I've challenged the sourcing since the beginning; Berger couldn't and didn't write any such thing, and you have no knowledge that he did. 2. No, it isn't. Not even a little bit better. 3. You're the one with an attitude, edit-warring to insert a paragraph that you have no basis for believing to be true. -- Zsero (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Both parties warned. Each has made three reverts. If either one continues to revert the article without getting a Talk page consensus first, or opening formal dispute resolution, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of us has received this warning on our talkpages. But as far as I am concerned this note is enough. Debresser (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

On what authority do you claim to do this? The claim remains false and nonsensical; why should I leave it there just because one person who admits that he has no idea whether it's true or not insists on it remaining there? -- Zsero (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not admitted anything of the kind, and Zsero has continued the edit war in defiance of the above warning with this edit. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You admitted it right here in this thread: "I have not seen the source itself". Since you have not seen the source, you can't possibly know what it says, and therefore whether the claim you inserted three times is true. Since no argument whatsoever has been made for keeping that insertion, I have deleted it again, restoring the article to its status quo ante. I have "defied" the purported "warning", because it was not the result of any sort of consensus, but merely one editor's unilateral decision. -- Zsero (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe&oldid=312669920
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe&oldid=312671485
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe&oldid=312673795 - This revert made AFTER I warned him/her that I am reporting the edit war.
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheoloJ#Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] User I am reporting is not interested in the talk page. I did try ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe#2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

Comments:

I am reporting this user for edit warring. This editor has inserted material in the article that doesn't' belong in the article. After my first revert I started a discussion in the talk page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe#2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

The user I ma reporting has completely ignored the discussion and continues to simply revert. This editor has also placed patronising 'welcome to wikipedia' messages on my talk page - I deleted them so seethe history.

The user has also cited my good faith edits and reversions as being 'vandalism' which is complete nonsense of course as I've spelt out to this editor the reasons for my edits on the article talk page and on my own talk page.

I told the user on 22:34, 8 September 2009 that I had reported him/her. On 22:37, 8 September 2009 the user made a 3rd revert after I had warned him/her and has still not entered into any discussion on the talk page of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe#2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

JUST TO ADD: Even though the material should be removed from the article ( and article that should be up for deletion btw ) I shall not make any further edits to the article until this report has been resolved by an administrator. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, if you take a look at the page history and Vexorg's edits you can see he has a history of edit warring, in fact you can see he has been blocked 5 times for edit warring. He has continued to removed sourced material from the article, with 8 sources clearly stating a direct link between those 3 men convicted and Al-Qaeda, I posted the automated messages on Vexorg's user talk page in good faith after he continued to remove heavily sourced material. He responded with a borderline threating message saying "I won't ask you again. Please stop putting patronising templates templates onto my talk page". I have posted a request on Third Opinion while Vexorg took no such steps, preferring to simply edit war and then improperly report me. TheoloJ (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been properly reported. You have put material on the article that had no involvement by Al-Qaeda. One or more of the perpetrators meeting al-Qaeda at some back in time does not mean al-Qaeda were involved in the plot in question. A link with Al-qaeda is NOT Al-Qaeda involvement in the plot! There were no sources say Al-Qaeda were involved in this plot. Only a link. The main article, 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot is where those links to Al-qaeda should be cited and sourced.

I removed your inappropriate additions to the article and promptly went to the talk page and started dialog about your edits. You continued to edit war without bothering to enter into any discussion in the talk page, which should have been your first port of call.

your claims of 'vandalism' and posting 'Welcome to Wikipedia' templates on my talk page ( when you can see I'm not a new editor ) were both inappropriate and frankly childish. In short you have made silly claims of vandalism, patronising templates on my talk page, ignored the dialog on the Article's talk page and failed to inform me you have asked for a third opinion. Vexorg (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is considered a reliable source, if you look here (This is one of the sources used on the page by the way), you can see it states "the bombers were "directed some way by elements of al-Qaeda based overseas"." As you pointed out in the article's talk page, I'm new to Wikipedia, so clearly I'm unfamiliar with the appropriate etiquette and protocols, so perhaps you could have tried opening with a less hostile opening than "Don't patronise me". TheoloJ (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Your patronisation by putting 'Welcome to Wikipedia' templates on the talk page of an editor that has made over 2,300 edits is nothing to do with you being new and unfamiliar with any appropriate etiquette and protocols. You cannot use your 'newness' to wimipedia as an excuse for citing vandalism in your reverts either. Vexorg (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the Welcome to Wikipedia template you palced upon my talk page .... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vexorg&oldid=312670364 - Note that it says ... "When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page." - you'll note that I both left a reason for removal of the text AND I started a section in the talk page about the issue. You ignored the talk page and simply reverted citing 'vandalism'. - you also abused

WP:TW by the looks of it. Basically YOU didn't follow the advice of the Welcome to Wikipedia template you patronised me with. Vexorg (talk

) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, would you mind not patronising me by putting words like "NOT", "AND", "YOU" into capitals? I am capable of reading and I don't need your help deciding what parts of the text are the important bits. Thanks. TheoloJ (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't know or care how many edits you had made, I never looked at your userpage or contributions, it's not relevant either, you made unconstrutive edits, by removing sourced material and by your edit summary it appears you didn't even read it before removing it, your summary was "NO evidence of Al-Qaeda involvement. Being inspired by or even meeting someone from Al-qaeda is not an Al-qaeda involvement. Please see talk!!" - The information I added neither mentioned inspiration or any meetings, it did however mention the bombers being guided by militants in Pakistan. Since you seem to want to

own the page and remove all the information from it, I could consider such edits as nothing more than vandalism. TheoloJ (talk

) 12:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• No violation Gentlemen, please note the sentence at the top of this page - "Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution." Luckily, I see you have already done this, but there is no reason for the two of you to continue your spat here. Also, looking at the page history, it seems both of you have reverted each other three times, meaning that there has been no violation of the three-revert rule as of yet. Please continue to use the article talk page instead of reverting each other, and when an uninvolved editor provides you with a third opinion, please respect his decision.
  (bring on the trumpets!)
  13:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Miroslav Mišković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: BLIC-NEWSPAPER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [198]
• 2nd revert: [199]
• 3rd revert: [200]
• 4th revert: [201]
• 5th revert: [202]
• 6th revert: [203]
• 7th revert: [204]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [205]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [206]

Comments:
I am reporting this user for edit warring, getting the same copyright violation and/or libelous material back to the article for almost ten times, without regard to my warnings.--Vitriden (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  (bring on the trumpets!)
  12:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• While there hasn't been any violations of the three revert rule, there does seem to be some merit in what Vitriden has reported, specifically the copyright violations and the way the edits are inserted into the article. I'll put this page on my watch list and take any action necessary.
  (bring on the trumpets!)
  13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to report the behavior of user Tvor65[207] for edit warring at

• [208]
• [209]
• [210]
• [211]

and for

) 11:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Declined I only see two reverts, not three (two of those diffs are to your own edits), and no attempt to discuss these things to reach a consensus. You also didn't give the user a proper 3RR warning, you just shouted at him. I would suggest using proper warnings and starting a discussion at the talk page, rather than to jump here and hope to immediately solve your problem with blocks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear ANI - User Tvor65 has a long history of attacking my edits in the

IBDP. Now he/she has brought in User HelloAnnyong whom I have another complaint against for stalking me in the Van Jones article, to complete the 3rd delete. Tvor65 is constantly lacks civility, has not contributed anything of substance to the articles, merely tries to start edit wars. His/her allegation that I am trying to insert information from my website is unfounded and without merit. ObserverNY (talk

) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, Tvor didn't contact me about that. I have a watchlist, and I watch the IBDP page, and I agreed with him/her. That's all. By the way, Observer, your last revert was your third in 24 hours. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

@ObserverNY: This is the noticeboard for edit warring, not for civility issues, conduct issues, or outing. If you want to report one of those, you can do it elsewhere. As for edit warring, now you yourself are warring, against 3 other users; you need to stay at the talk page or you will be blocked. And for someone who is complaining about incivility, this message is not exactly civil either. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize for that, I was frustrated with being ganged up on once again and as you can see, I went and checked the user's page and welcomed the new editor. It doesn't matter. I won't be touching the IB articles any further. Thank you for your consideration. ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

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

Previous version reverted to: [212]

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

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

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

Comments:
Clearly is not going to learn in the absence of a block for assumptions of bad faith and blatant edit-warring. See also the edit summaries employed in [218]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Heatseeker (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.151.144.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 22:06, 7 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 312341445 by Eik Corell (talk
   )")
2. 09:47, 8 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")
3. 14:37, 8 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")
4. 15:38, 8 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")
5. 18:17, 9 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")
6. 18:53, 9 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")

• Diff of warning: here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments: This IP is doing nothing but edit warring on a handful of articles. It's unclear whether the editor is reverting material they originally added from other accounts, or is wikihounding User:Geoff B by picking arbitrary edits to revert-war over.

Blocked for the report below William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Voyage Century Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 81.151.144.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [219]
• 2nd revert: [220]
• 3rd revert: [221]
• 4th revert: [222]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [223]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [224]

Comments:Other articles likewise involved: Heatseeker (video game), Shellshock 2: Blood Trails, Evil Dead: A Fistful of Boomstick, The Mummy Returns

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 200.158.243.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [225]
• 2nd revert: [226]
• 3rd revert: [227]
• 4th revert: [228]

This user has also made similar edits without acknowledgeing the talk page for discussion or consensus. See here, (vandalism:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Man_(film)&diff=312830130&oldid=312829117], [229], [230]. This user has done similar edits for pages regarding The Godfather films, the list of action films, and the List of adventure films. All of which have been brought up on their selective talk pages.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has been warned by me and anothe r user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [231]

Comments:

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman. reported by jones.liam

12:28, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (54,272 bytes) (→Teachings)

12:44, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (52,919 bytes) (→Teachings)

12:43, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (53,045 bytes) (→Teachings)

01:57, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (49,203 bytes) (→Teachings: Restoring earlier versions. Uninflected quotes are not typically used in these sorts of summaries. Need to use secondary, not primary sources per WP:RS)

17:14, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (47,406 bytes) (→Teachings: (Re-)adding some information from recent edits by Jones.liam)

Yes I have many times discussed this issue with Nemonoman 9he wont reply just reverts) that Meher Baba repeatedly stated that He left NO teachingss so a main title called 'Teachings' is wrong on so many levels. I have given original quotes, secondary sources. He wont discuss. It is a problem. as editors we all have worked together on some issues, (see discussion) not as smooth as I would have liked, but some progress has been made re links, references, new material and the like. This 'Teachings' title problem is a sticking point with Nemonoman and is a very very similiar dispute to one a few years back (2006 archives 2 and 3) when he would not yield on the fact (now proven and changed) that the section on Townsend then was far far to big in an article on Meher Baba and made the article very unbalanced indeed. It was eventually removed with intervention by very vary part time wiki editors (Baba followers, whom yes I did know) who paid a price when Nemonoman tried to stop them with a sock puppet ruling. Townsend was eventually whittled down by consensus and common sense but I think this editor holds a grudge and is territorial. I am a researcher and 30 year + follower of Meher Baba. I know that "Universal Work" is what everyone in the Baba community (I know) call MB's work, NOT "Teachings" .

“I do not teach anything. I make the learned forget. I have come not to teach but to awaken." Meher Baba

Kalchuri, Bhau: "Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age. Meher Baba", Manifestation, Inc. 1986. p. 1487.

I enjoy Wikipedia but this sort of issue spoils it. This editor has an ownership issue with this webpage. Much else about the consensus process is working OK. But another complaint about Legacy may be avoided if this editor is prepared to resist new input.

--Jones.liam (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs
  01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

13:17, 9 September 2009 

Previous version reverted to: [14:42, 9 September 2009 ]

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

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

Comments:

After this revert two weeks of work and discussion were removed in one fell swoop.

It is a huge revert done to time with a protection

Much good new copy and verifiable data undone without discussion.

see discussion page as I have commented there

--Jones.liam (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No violation Yet another malformed, silly report. No links or diffs were provided, and if you look at Dazedbythebell's contribs you see he hasn't even edited the page in hours, and has been staying at the discussion page. Jones.liam, you will be blocked the next time you file a bad report like this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: )

Previous version reverted to: [232]

• 1st revert: [233]
• 2nd revert: [234]
• 3rd revert: [235]
• 4th revert: [236]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237]

The user, as can be seen from his/her block log has been blocked for edit warring (and harassment) before [238].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [239]

Basically this involves Russavia trying to add in "alleged" and "dubious" based on a single unreliable source vs. multiple reliable sources included in the article.

Comments:

• In view of a substantial history of 3RR blocks, I have blocked Russavia for 55 hours. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm double checking this, so here are the four reverts in sequence:

1. dubious; not dubious; dubious = revert; not dubious; dubious restored by
   talk · contribs). sources replaced with scholarly sources by Illythr; added again by Jacurek; removed
   by Illythr (current revision)
2. disputed; not disputed disputed = revert; not disputed
3. alleged; not alleged; alleged = revert; not alleged; alleged = revert; not alleged.

While it is clear that Russavia did revert four times, the dubiety of the underlying sources is an ongoing concern. Not an excuse. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Peaberry Coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Javalover100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [240]

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

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

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

Comments:

This editor's behavior was brought to my attention by a

but hadn't been notified of this yet so I left a notice and reverted them. They ignored the notice and reverted again.

As you can see from the editor's history, it is a

16:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left a notification that I've filed this report with a personal request to discuss things on the article talk page (rather than a template), but I don't have high hopes. -- Atama頭 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• (bring on the trumpets!)
  17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• This user has had his blocked extended to a week for sockpuppetry.
  (bring on the trumpets!)
  08:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: List of action films of the 2000s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 201.68.136.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [248]
• 2nd revert: [249]
• 3rd revert: [250]
• 4th revert: [251]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [252]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here and here several times.

Comments:
This IP has also been editing under the IPs 201.68.139.32 [253], 201.68.113.230 [254] and is 'evading a ban through this IP:200.158.243.232 User talk:200.158.243.232

• Stale Looking at the page history, you're very lucky no-one picked this up yesterday otherwise the two of you would have been blocked (I counted 8 reverts apiece, and the IPs edits clearly weren't vandalism). However, judging by
  (talk)
  18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

I am falsely being accused in revert war and threathened with administrative action. In fact, I was trying hard to comply with the requests of the opponent. One my edit in this time period was addinng the reference to a deleted unreferenced text. My another edit was removing any words which may be considered as original research or WP:SYNTH. My last edit (actual revert) was fixing an obvious error: a person erroneously assumed that I the term in question was not used in the cited book.

I find this action of the opponenet as incivil intimidation and strongarming, and I would like thgis edtor was explained that his behavior is improper. - Altenmann >t 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's customary to put a note on the user's talk page before reporting their violations of policy. That's all I did; it was not an attempt to threaten or bully you. You violated the policies here, I spelled out the violation, and gave you a chance to correct your error. You chose instead to report me without a warning on my own talk page.

Second, you did blatantly violate the 3RR: you made four reverts in 24 hours. The fact that you added a reference to your revert, or that you believed you were correcting another user's error, does not make it less of a revert. It would be better to try to achieve consensus on the page rather than going against that consensus as you currently are. Below are your four reverts today. csloat (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 15:48, 8 September 2009
• 2nd revert: 09:52, 9 September 2009
• 3rd revert: 12:26, 9 September 2009
• 4th revert: 12:56, 9 September 2009

Previous version reverted to: [255]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [256]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion here [257]

Comments:

• Comment Why are you reporting yourself? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears he is trying to report me for calling him on the edit warring rather than himself for edit warring. It's my perception he does not believe he violated 3RR but I'm not fully clear on that. csloat (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And for me it is fully clear that this case is blatant abuse of WP:3RR:

• -I make an edit
• -Commodore Sloat reverses it
• -I make a different edit
• -Commodore Sloat reverses it
• -I make a still different edit
• -Commodore Sloat reverses it.

It happens that my edits has one term in common. So Commodore Sloat decides I am reversing his actions. And his actions is reverting whatever I write. Very nice wikilawyering, thank you. Since I am no longer in the mood of fighting self-righteous ones in whatever topics, I declared in the talk of the page in question that I am no longer going to edit that page. - Altenmann >t 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looks like 4R to me William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Sublime (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 67.80.201.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An anon (

) 02:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [258]
• 2nd revert: [259]
• 3rd revert: [260]
• 4th revert: [261]
• 5th revert: [262]
• 6th revert: [263]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [264]

Comments:

• No violation -- there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider
  247
  07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [265] (art blog sourcing); [266] (subject-sourced account of 3d party wedding)

• 1st revert: [267] (art blog sourcing)
• 2nd revert: [268] (subject-sourced account of 3d party wedding)
• 3rd revert: [269] (subject-sourced account of 3d party wedding)
• 4th revert: [270] [271] (art blog sourcing, link corrected)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [272] Swancookie previously blocked for edit warring on same article, no additional warnings required, especially since there are four reverts in two hours today

Example of link to attempt to resolve dispute on article: [273] This is a current flare-up in a long-running dispute over poorly sourced promotional claims in a walled garden of BLP articles regarding various minor-league LA based cult figures affiliated with a social networking site which encourages users to promote each other on Wikipedia

Comments:

Reverts 1 and 4 should be seen as clear vandalism. Briefly, a blog hosted on the site of an art magazine claimed that Jessicka was listed as an artist's "muse" in a gallery listing for the artist's show. The blog clearly fails the tests required for inclusion as a source in a BLP. Even more important, the listing itself can be viewed online (a reference User:Swancookie is careful to avoid), and does not mention Jessicka, as a "muse" or otherwise. [274] (In fact, Jessicka even goes entirely unmentioned on the artist's own website [275], indicating just how dubious this promotional claim really is.)

Reverts 2 and 3 restore incorrect links to Jessicka's self-published description of Marilyn Manson's wedding [276]. The text involved goes beyond what's in the source; it's a self-published source involving 3d parties, raising BLP issues, particularly given the exaggeration of the claim. In the larger dispute, accounts of who-went-to-whose wedding reports have been a particular sore point, and the consensus has developed that such accounts are trivia, not appropriate to include in Wikipedia articles. (Note, for example, that similar material has been removed, apparetly, without objection, from the Dita Von Teese article.[277]

There is no good-faith content dispute here;

) 19:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[278] isn't obviously a revert. The 4th revert you've marked is a link not a diff and it is old. Can't see why 1, 4 are vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link for fourth revert.

The edit which you say "isn't obviously a revert" adds this text to the article:

"Jessicka was one of the 60 guests who attended Marilyn Manson's wedding to burlesque performer Dita Von Teese on December 3, 2005, in a non-denominational ceremony at Gottfried Helnwein's castle in County Tipperary, Ireland."

The previously removed version [279] of the parallel text read:

"While in Europe, Jessicka attended long-time friend Manson's wedding to burlesque performer Dita Von Teese on December 3, 2005, in a non-denominational ceremony at Gottfried Helnwein's castle in County Tipperary, Ireland"

The texts are pretty much the same (although the sourcing is different, but in neither case BLP-compliant).

The case for the other two reverts being vandalism is fairly straightforward. First, the editor is adding a previously deleted blog-sourced claim to a BLP, after being repeatedly told by multiple editors that such blog sources can't be used in BLPs. Second, the claim the blog is cited for has already been proved incorrect, and Swancookie knows it's been proven incorrect. It relates to the "listing" of an art exhibit by an art gallery; that listing is online and can easily be viewed, as linked above. [[280] Despite this link being child's play to identify, editor Swancookie substitutes a general link to the gallery site, to make it appear as though there is a second, reliable source for the claim.

This is more complex vandalism than the norm, but I don 't think there's any question that seizing on an incorrect assertion in an unreliable source and incorrectly citing the relevant reliable source to disguise the error is unacceptable editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Marc Garlasco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is no definitive previous version since the article has been worked on during this time period. I only added reverts where the edit summary indicates the user used the undo button per the 3RR report helper tool. I'm fairly certain there are more reverts in there.

• 1st revert: [281]
• 2nd revert: [282]
• 3rd revert: [283]
• 4th revert: [284]
• 5th revert: [285]
• 6th revert: [286]
• 7th revert: [287]
• 8th revert: [288]
• 9th revert: [289]
• 10th revert: [290]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [291]

I have not been involved in whatever dispute is going on. I just saw an egregious violation and reported it.

Comments:

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverts of BLP violations do not count against the 3RR. Unsourced accusations calling a living person "Nazi obsessed" should be deleted on sight. Forum links used to disparage a living person should be deleted on sight. Unsourced accusations of a living persons username at a forum having Nazi overtones should be deleted on sight. This report is without merit and should be ignored. nableezy - 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are not the reasons given in most of the edit summaries. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at the edits, Sean was removing BLP violations such as citing defamatory information to a blog or an unsourced "Marc Garlasco - Is HRW's Anti-Israel Investigator A Nazi-Obsessed Collector" (bold in original) and other clear-cut BLP vios. Those do not count against the 3RR. But you are right that Sean should make clear in his edit summaries he is claiming a BLP exception to the 3RR. Ill go remind him of that. nableezy - 20:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 24h for 3RR. SH is on thin ice. Curious as to NMMNG's role in this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm astonished and saddened that SH is on thin ice. I'm sure he'll figure it out just fine.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ice ? It's 36C here. Comments noted though. Some eyes on the article from BLP/N would probably help along with closer admin monitoring of the article and other HRW related articles on the basis of the sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 18:32, 7 September 2009

• 1st revert: 19:57, 8 September 2009
• 2nd revert: 00:46, 9 September 2009
• 3rd revert: 15:39, 9 September 2009
• 4th revert: 16:21, 9 September 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:04, 9 September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:58, 9 September 2009

Comments:
This user has consistently reverted my contributions to this page. Take note of the date formatting for the references for links for a good example in each revert listed above. Also note that there has been extensive discussion of some of these issues on my talk page as well as an admin he reached out to. I deliberately left the disputed images out of my future edits to the page while I was waiting for a response on the talk page. ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Not a serious pattern at this time. Engage user on the talk pages to come to a
  247
  07:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Note, the user in question has submitted an additional request below. I will make a response there. ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I first met editor Psantora when I suggested at this edit [292] on September 8 that edits he had made (which I did not revert) might well be innapropriate. His reaction has been to wikistalk me, following me to the pages that I have edited. If you look at his astoundingly high number of edits over the past four day, you will note that the vast majority have been in situations where he has wikistalked me to pages that I had previously edited, and made subsequent (often disruptive, on nonsensical) edits to my edits. In short, he has spent the past four day editing almost exclusively pages that I had edited first, and then making edits to undo what I had done.

The edit war that he describes above was initiated by him in just such a fashion. He has paid special attention not only to articles I have edited, but especially to pages I started. The Shells is one such page. If you look at hit edits to that page since he wikistalked me, his energetic enthusiasm for reverting my edits on it may well impress you.

The edits referred to above are such a case. Here -- like all edit wars Psantora that has engaged me in -- Psantora wikistalked me to the article page in question (as you can see by the sequence of edits to that page). He then edit warred, insisting on inserting a date format in all footnotes of YYYY-MM-DD, despite the fact that

states: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates ... are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness."

The discussion pages to that guidance make clear that the guidance does not permit the format he was using -- other than for long lists and tables (which was not his proposed use). Psantora insisted, however, on inserting that unacceptable format in the above instances (and in similar instances in other articles that I had edited, as you can see if you wade through his edits from the time I first met him).

Entreaties to him to stop and discuss were to no avail. His insertions of the unacceptable format only spread even faster to other pages that I had edited.

I should note that after I involved other editors om this issue, and moved to a third format of date (along the lines of May 3, 1999, rather than the 5/3/09 format I had used initially--which though directly addressed in the guidance appears not to be in favor), Psantora did finally allow my edits to stand and stopped edit warring with me on this particular issue.--VMAsNYC (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

The user is starting an edit war again.

Another user made a change to a section of the article:

15:50, 15 June 2009

Biophys then proceeded to revert the change (that is what he said in the summary). However this was just a pretext. He reverted not only the change but the whole article to a version he likes (but fails to prove/discuss):

23:46, 15 June 2009

I noticed it and reverted his sneaky changes, but he and User:Bobanni (who might be Biophys' sock) keep on reverting. They are resuming an edit war from over a year ago.

I made numerous attempts to discuss the issues (you can see on the talk page [293], [294], [295]), but Biophys fails to carry on a discussion and just reverts. Trying to talk to him only proved a waste of time.

-YMB29 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The only revert warring I see here is coming from you, sprinkled with a good dose of bad faith. Please stop such behavior. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How so, explain? You don't see the edit he made on the 15th of June? You don't see what went on on the talk page?

I think you should stay out of this. Your objectivity is very questionable here becuase of your association with Biophys. For example, he supported you in this arbitration... -YMB29 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporter blocked for 24h for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That was fast! I could not even respond. YMB29 was already blocked twice for edit warring in this article, see here and he was the only one who reverted this article 3 times during 24 hours. Yesterday, he came again and suddenly reverted a stable version of the article [296] that existed for several months. He did so without any explanation except the aggressive edit summary which targets a user instead of addressing any content. He made only 501 edits in WP and a significant part of them are reverts [297]. As about me, I debated a lot with YMB29, for example here,here,here. I can talk more.Biophys (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I only got blocked before because I did not realize about 3RR. You make more reverts but you are careful to avoid more than 3 in 24 hours. Plus you have Bobanni to help you.

You reverted the stable version (all changes since the 3rd of Nov. of last year) on the 15th of June and tried to hide it. Anyone can see on the discussion page (if they actually look) that you failed to respond and continued to revert. -YMB29 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, William, where's the 3RR violation here? Where is there even three reverts here? Given that I've seen you let slide much more egregious violations of the letter and spirit of the 3RR restriction why were you so fast to block here?

) 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, my most sincere apologies - I did not read the text carefully enough.

) 23:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I still want this resolved. I got blocked for reporting an edit war? I guess I should have continued edit warring with Biophys... Again, all the changes that were made from 3 Nov. 2008 to 15 June 2009 were reverted by Biophys. Look here you can see that the versions are exactly the same! So is anyone going to do something about it or just continue to not care. Is there an honest admin here, or do I have to report admin abuse? Looks like the admins' decisions were influenced by Piotrus' initial comment, who of course supports Biophys, based on their history. -YMB29 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Belgae This anon seems to be a fan of fringe theories surrounding historical Germanic peoples and has been warned and temporarily banned for vandalism on more than one occasion before. Now (s)he is at work again reverting corrections made to Belgae. Sometimes makes two changes at once, perhaps in the vain hope that it can't be reverted that way. It's not technically 3RR violation, but it looks like a bit of gaming the game by a repeat offender is going on. Paul S (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. (cur) (prev) 13:13, 11 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,808 bytes) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 13:10, 11 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,798 bytes) (Undid revision 313065332 by Paul S (talk)) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 20:27, 10 September 2009 Paul S (talk | contribs) (12,644 bytes) (Undid revision 312883942 by 66.130.4.20 (talk)) (undo)
4. (cur) (prev) 00:21, 10 September 2009 66.130.4.20 (talk) (12,734 bytes) (Undid revision 312865422 by TEB728 (talk)) (undo)
5. (cur) (prev) 22:26, 9 September 2009 TEB728 (talk | contribs) (12,644 bytes) (Undid revision 312847463 by 76.65.240.91 (talk)) (undo)
6. (cur) (prev) 20:46, 9 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,734 bytes) (Undid revision 312840918 by Paul S (talk)) (undo)
7. (cur) (prev) 20:09, 9 September 2009 Paul S (talk | contribs) (12,644 bytes) (Undid revision 312803743 by 76.65.240.91 (talk) fringe theory. Also no "Roman Britain" before Claudian invasion) (undo)
8. (cur) (prev) 20:08, 9 September 2009 Paul S (talk | contribs) m (12,734 bytes) (Undid revision 312804144 by 76.65.240.91 (talk)) (undo)
9. (cur) (prev) 16:23, 9 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,734 bytes) (undo)
10. (cur) (prev) 16:20, 9 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,734 bytes) (undo)

Page: Illyrians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Anatolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported:'

)

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

• 1st revert: [298]
• 2nd revert: [299]

User has ARBMAC restriction of one revert per week in areas of diptute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athenean#ARBMAC_restrictions

Both reverts made by him in both articles fall under this restriction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Area_of_conflict

Thank you. --I Pakapshem (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1/7RR is per article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: British Isles
User being reported: 83.44.182.107

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.44.182.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [300]
• 2nd revert: [301]
• 3rd revert: [302]
• 4th revert: [303]

The use of "

" which precedes it in the same sentence - why not use it?

The editor has been asked to discuss the edit, but to no avail. A warning has been placed in his discussion page.

2009-09-11T21:03:12 Black Kite (talk | contribs | block) blocked 83.44.182.107 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Block evasion: also WP:3RR violation on British Isles) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Category:Epidendrum Subgenera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hesperian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

note - no diffs provided, no 3rr / edit warring alleged. question appears to be about a series of category deletions the nominator believes were unwise.

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]The page was deleted without any chance for discussion, together with the history page. Unless an administrator can resurrect it, its content is lost.

In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.

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

The complaint has nothing to do with WP:3RR, but with immediate deletion of content and other unbecoming conduct.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]I suspect that the password of this experienced user (administrator?) may have been hacked (see OPTIONAL below). Warning the hacker that we may be on to the crime may not be a good idea.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]The article was deleted, not simply blanked, making the talk page an orphan. By this means, "Hesperian" prevented me from trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page.

Comments:

The subject category page had significant introductory text, as well as several links. The subject editor (administrator?), or perhaps someone who had hacked his account deleted the category less than one minute after deleting the last page ("Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium") linking it, using as an excuse "[[Wikipedia:CSD#C1|C1]: Empty category" which requires that the category be empty for four days. Although I know no way to provide diffs for the deleted pages (no history page) unless an administrator resurrects them, the following lines have come from my watchlist page

• (Deletion log); 03:07 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Subgenera" (C1: Empty category: subcategories upmerged during nomenclatural fixes)
• (Deletion log); 03:07 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium" (C2: Speedy renaming: now Category:Epidendrum subg. Amphiglotium)
  

The other links were removed by the same user only shortly before:

• (Deletion log); 02:06 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Hormidium" (C1: Empty category: accompanying text copied to article Epidendrum subg. Hormidium with attribution)
• (Deletion log); 02:01 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Spathium" (a nomenclatural disaster; moved to Category:Epidendrum subg. Spathium)
• A similar page:"Category:Epidendrum Amphiglottium" (I may have misspelled it as Amphiglotium) which I was not yet watching, but whose subcategories were also removed by "Hesperian":
  
• (Deletion log); 03:00 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium Schistochila" (C2: Speedy renaming: a nomenclatural disaster; moved to Category:Epidendrum sect. Schistochila; accompanying text moved to Epidendrum sect. Schistochila with attribution)
• Another linking category (to the best of my memory) which I was not yet watching, concerning section Polycladia. Because it was deleted, I have no diff.
  

An additional link was removed from the article Encyclia, which I was not yet watching. The line from the history was:

• 01:47, 10 September 2009 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (10,137 bytes) (not a subgenus) (undo)
  

The diffs are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclia&diff=312621953&oldid=311052765 (before) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclia&diff=312928532&oldid=312621953 (after)

When, in good faith, I looked for any improvements I could make in other articles edited by "Hesperian", I found an error I had made in Epidendrum cornutum and corrected my error with the note "The error was in the taxobox,according to Rchb.f. Fixed taxobox." Less than an hour later, "Hesperian" reverted my correction of my own error with the notation "I would prefer that you thanked me for cleaning up your nomenclatural mess, rather than reverting me in ignorance." The diffs are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epidendrum_cornutum&diff=312977864&oldid=312928985 (my change)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epidendrum_cornutum&diff=312983462&oldid=312977864 (response by "Hesperian")

Requested Actions:

• If possible, return the deleted material. (This was not page blanking, but deletion, making the content unrecoverable by the usual means, and carrying the threat of sanctions for re-creating it because of the assumption that at least four days of due process had been carried out during the minute of 03:07, September 10, 2009).
• Remove any record in the returned articles of their deletion. They have not been deleted using Wikipedia due process.
• Block the "Hesperian" account until the rightful owner can re-take control of it. It seems incredible that an experienced user (administrator?) would behave in this manner. Alternatively, if Hesperian has indeed been behaving in this reprehensible manner, try to educate Hesperian that summarily deleting pages for no other justification than a false claim about the passage of time is not acceptable, and that ignorantly reverting pages with bombastic ignorant claims of ignorant reversions is not conducive to the goals of Wikipedia.
  

"Hesperian"'s view, as best I understand it "Hesperian" did deposit a belittling comment on my talk page, (after I tried to fix some of the damage) complaining that I was not following the most recent style guide published by an organization external to Wikipedia:

Hi,

You don't understand nomenclature yet. That's okay, you'll learn. Meanwhile, please restrain yourself from reverting the people who do.

Racemosi may well be a section of subgenus Spathium, but in accordance with Article 21.1 of the International Convention on Botanical Nomenclature, "The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic name and a subdivisional epithet. A connecting term (subgenus, sectio, series, etc.) is used to denote the rank." That means that section names takes the form "Genus sect. Section", and the subgenus doesn't get a mention. Those are the rules. I didn't write them.

If "Hesperian" was acting in good faith, we must conclude that "Hesperian" believes that this quotation from "The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" not only outlaws certain content (saying that a subsection is a subsection of a section instead of a genus, or that a section is a section of a subgenus instead of a genus) , but also justifies page deletions that violate Wikipedia policy. "The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" is powerful, indeed!
Jay L09 (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I left a note on Hesperian's talk suggesting some ways this might be resolved. I suggest we should wait for him to respond before making any decision on this report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment From what I can tell Hesperian has responded appropriately to a situation where incorrect information on Wiki needed to be replaced with correct info - something we deal with all the time - and he has indeed outlined his rationale for making such changes per a
  WP:BURO this does not require a standing committee or a drawn-out process to achieve. Additionally, what is it doing at AN3? There is no suggestion at all that he has edit warred (let alone broken the 3-revert rule!) and the only things offered by the initiator of this claim are unsupported bad faith allegations against Hesperian (along with suggestions his account has been hijacked and demands that he be blocked!). Disputes like this, if they lead to poor quality content surviving rather than being dealt with appropriately, decrease our efficacy amongst those who are aware of the true details. Orderinchaos
  20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No vio. can't quite see why this is here. Did you mean

) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What actually happened here is I speedily renamed a cluster of categories that followed neither botanical nomenclature nor our conventions nor common sense. The text of these categories contained articles with taxoboxes, so I copied that text into their own articles before deleting the replaced categories. Then I cleaned up the nomenclature of all the articles contained in the categories. I took great care that all the information posted was retained. There was a case, and it would have saved a lot of time, for me to simply declare the category tree unsalvageable, and upmerge to Category:Epidendrum. But I didn't. I spent two hours carefully copying and correcting information. In the process a single block of text slipped through: I failed to find a home for the text on Category:Epidendrum Subgenera. That is half the cause of this complaint. Jay then undid several of my fixes, reintroducing the incorrect nomenclature; and I restored them, leaving the above message on his user talk page. That is the other half of the cause of this complaint. Hesperian 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"note - no diffs provided, no 3rr / edit warring alleged. question appears to be about a series of category deletions the nominator believes were unwise.

What actually happened here is that Hesperian deleted several pages (categories) and much content without any discussion on the talk pages, simply because he did not approve of the formatting of the correct information, and not because of any objection to the information itself. By deleting rather than simply editing or page blanking, Hesperian also removed the talk pages and history pages, thereby preventing the possibility for any discussion, reversion or even quotation of diffs. That is the cause for my suspicion that a respected user like Hesperian could not have performed the actions, and that his account had been hacked. The second half (unbecoming behavior) stems not from "restoring" pages which I had "restored" to their previous condition, (one man's reversion is another man's restoration) but from reverting my own correction of my own error and then ignorantly accusing me of ignorance for reverting what he perceived as a corerction, simply because he chose to ignore what the change was that I had made.

By the way, a note on "common sense". As everyone should know, "common sense" is what everyone understands. If I believed that the categories followed common sense, then they could not possibly defy common sense.

Not quite - common sense is what everyone *should* understand. The old saying goes "the unfortunate thing about common sense is it is not that common". As for the issue of having to delete rather than redirect categories, you should raise that one with the MediaWiki developers - it's been an issue of mine for a long time too. Hesperian's action was sadly necessary as category redirects are not possible in the software, and empty categories are a speedy deletable ground in our encyclopaedia so can't be maintained purely to keep history, etc. Templates, main space, user space, WP space etc it would have been feasible to simply move and a redirect would be preserved as would the history. Orderinchaos 04:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"No vio. can't quite see why this is here. Did you mean..." —William M. Connolley

It was here because I could not find a better place to raise my suspicions that an account had been hacked. Is there a better place? Where should suspicions that an account has been hacked be raised?

"note - no diffs provided, no 3rr / edit warring alleged. question appears to be about a series of category deletions the nominator believes were unwise.

"The diffs are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclia&diff=312621953&oldid=311052765 (before) and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclia&diff=312928532&oldid=312621953 (after) "

"The diffs are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epidendrum_cornutum&diff=312977864&oldid=312928985 (my change)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epidendrum_cornutum&diff=312983462&oldid=312977864 (response by "Hesperian")"

— version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=313231402&oldid=313228454 of this page, before the note that no diffs were provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay L09 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I did see those diffs, but simply posting "a diff" of someone making an edit you disagree with doesn't actually help an edit warring complaint. The two diffs above are not evidence of edit warring or 3RR breach, which is what this noticeboard is here to address. Your claim (although one I don't believe can be upheld) is a different domain regarding use of admin tools. He's placed a reasonable explanation here as to why he took the actions he did, and it appears to me (and did from an early stage) that he was acting both in good faith and in the encyclopaedia's best interests, so it seems fair to close it at this point. You would have been better in the first instance to try and engage with him directly rather than drag him here and demand he be blocked, which, seriously, was never going to happen. You have to understand this board is a busy place dealing with a lot of stuff, and there is a lot of stuff it needs to deal with, so placing stuff here which doesn't belong here is a supreme waste of your time in preparing and posting it, and everyone else's in declining it with rationale. As someone suggested you could have taken it to AN/I, but my opinion is it would have failed there too as you've failed to demonstrate that there was any abuse - it seems that an admin took appropriate action to ensure Wikipedia conformed with the appropriate scientific convention (and it seems there are tight rules on these things). I'm not a biologist (I last did it in 10th grade at school then had to teach a room of kids in it a few years ago during a prac - quite a crazy experience!) but I know chemistry well enough (I did a minor in it at uni) to understand both the reasons for these conventions in the scientific field and their enforcement in literature in the real world, eg for publishing works or findings. Orderinchaos 04:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I have trouble seeing how you could have come to the conclusion his account had been hacked. I read the diffs involved and was in no doubt it was the originator of the account. Orderinchaos 04:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Edit Warring
  violation on

The Shells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles. Psantora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1. Revision as of 20:16, September 9, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"
2. Revisions as of 21:03, September 9, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"
3. Revision as of 16:09, September 11, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"; Deletion of section: "Discography"
4. Revisions as of 18:03, September 11, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"; Deletion of section: "Discography"

The above is the tip of a very large iceberg. As background, on September 8 I questioned this editor's revisions to citation form (without even reverting him; see [304]). He immediately began to edit vigorously (almost exclusively) articles I had edited recently, with special emphasis on the one I had created (The Shells), and those I later created.

Often his edits were simply revisions to format that were of no substantive effect. But more recently he has begun to delete properly sourced portions of the article (see above).

He has also begun deleting any mention of this particular band (whose article I created) in other articles -- even when sourced (see [305] and [306].

Efforts to communicate both in edit summaries and on his talk page, requesting that he desist disruptive edits and instead leave the page as-is, have been to no avail.

I have left him the appropriate notice as directed on this page.--VMAsNYC (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that I reported VMAsNYC

WP:RS). ~ Paul^T+/_C

00:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that a glance at Psantora's edits since I first encountered him on September 8 will amply demonstrate that the vast majority of his torrent of edits since then have been to pages that I had edited, and that he has paid special attention to reverting any of the few pages that I started (most notably, The Shells). Why he has made these many hundreds of edits since the date that I encountered him almost exclusively to pages that I edited (or began) first is something that only he can answer. But the record is stark in this regard.

As to his complaint of edit warring at an earlier entry above on this page, as I indicate above, it was in fact he who violated the language of the guidance. He now, I believe understands that, as he is no longer edit warring to insert that particular prohibited date format in all articles that I have touched.

A review of my record will show that I am not a single purpose account. When I created one page (The Shells), Psantora edit warred over inlining the band members' names, etc., insisting on doing so even though he could not maintain that they were notable. I only even sought to make the band members and the like into pages because of that -- because he himself inlined them (which calls for an article to be created). At the end of the day, the band members' articles were (reasonably) taken down as non-notable by another editor, and redirected to the band page. What edits I have made to the Shells page after its creation have almost entirely been in an effort to undo the damage he has done to that page -- I would be happy for it to look the way it did days ago.

Psantora has in fact made many more edits to The Shells page in the past four days than I have. Apart from reacting to his entries, as you will see my edits have been spread about among a number of interests that I have (bands, trios, the VMAs, people performing in the VMAs, and NYC music primarily). I have no conflict of interest (other than as a fan of those subjects). I am not and have never been employed by any company with any connection to any of the subjects of my articles (or even any company in or in any way connected to the music industry), I am not and have never met anyone who wrote any of the articles mentioned, and I have never worked in the music, media, or blog worlds and have never written a blog myself or even responded to one.

I really wish someone would look at Psantora's edits, query him as to whether he happened to make the vast majority of his many edits in the past 4 days to articles that I had edited only by chance or if rather he chose those articles specifically by looking at what articles I had edited. And if the latter is the case, why he has done so. The torrent of edits have been disruptive, as I had hoped to put more work in on the VMA articles prior to Sunday, but that has been neglected by the need to look at and (often) react to his many edits.

Finally, as I pointed out above, the disruptive edits cited above are just the tip of the iceberg. But I must say, many of his reversions have been odd to me -- of no substantive effect whatsoever, though they do result in reversions of my edits, and pop up on my watch screen, and make me scratch my head. As examples, he:

1. changed my edit Trio to Trio.
2. He then changed my entry of
   all-female
   .
3. He then changed "publisher= Seventeen Magazine" to "work= Seventeen Magazine".
4. And then, he responded to my request at [311] that he "pls stop edit warring; if you want to explain why your edits are mandatory please continue the discussion on your talk pg where we have been discussing, leaving the article as-is" by plastering a
   WP:3RR warning on my page at [312], and writing (incorrectly) "Note, you are in violation of the there revert rule on The Shells
   . You might want to revert your own last revert on that page lest you be blocked from editing."

I repeatedly asked him to stop, and to discuss the matter while leaving the articles intact. His response, as here where he simply deleted my request, was not to do as I had suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMAsNYC (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is he doing this? Why the non-substantive edits, why the wikistalking, why the substantive disruptive deletions of sourced material? What will it take for him to disengage?

I'm not seeking to have him punished in any way. I bear him no personal animus. It's just clear that for some reason my comments to him on September 8 triggered hours of work by him focusing on looking up all my edits and reverting them in the hundreds, in edits both meaningless and (as in deletion of sourced statements above) disruptive and harmful. I just wish he would stop, go away, stop hounding me and engaging in these senseless reversions, and let me be to continue in my efforts to improve Wikipedia articles. Many thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven’t read through the provided diffs to ascertain the true facts. However, wikistalking is without-a-doubt prohibited behavior on Wikipedia—and for good reason. It seems perfectly reasonable that an admin around here could click a few links to ascertain the facts of that issue and probably (hopefully) resolve this whole dispute with a to-the-point warning on the talk page of the offender, Psantora. Judging from his user page, he is experienced enough to know better. This may simply be a case where there is a highly experienced editor who likes getting his way and knows how to go to the edge without going over. No conscientious and well-meaning editor should have to put up with being stalked in order to contribute to Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just like the report above but the other way round, this is a no vio. The issues of possible stalking are out of scope for this board. You want

) 20:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:HOUND the accepted term is "wikihounding" as "stalk"ing carries an unintended (I assume) legal connotation that is inappropriate.) There have been a few admins that have looked into this, the first being User:Mazca by the request of User:VMAsNYC. You can read the result of that inquiry on his talk page

, and he did not see any evidence of malicious behavior. Quote:

I remain unconvinced that anyone is doing anything malicious here - by my interpretation, some of the edits you've [VMAsNYC] made are incorrect as far as our policies go, and I don't view people making good-faith changes to them to be in any way stalking or harrassing you.

According to

WP:HOUND

there is nothing wrong with fixing policy violations that occur on multiple articles from the same editor. Quote:

Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam.

I think the bottom line here is that VMAsNYC feels some

bias against my contributions. Regardless, as William M. Connolley

stated, this is not the proper venue for this discussion.

William M. Connolley, I just want to point out that my earlier report technically was a violation but was declined since it was "not a serious pattern". As I explained above, I have tried other dispute resolutions to come to a consensus as suggested but so far VMAsNYC reverts pretty much any contribution I make to the article. ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is perfectly your right to “take offense” to what I and others write. Since you addressed your above post to me, it is perfectly my right to point out three things I wrote above: I haven’t read through the provided diffs to ascertain the true facts, and It seems perfectly reasonable that an admin around here could click a few links to ascertain the facts, and [an Admin can] (hopefully) resolve this whole dispute with a to-the-point warning.

  Mind you that if the allegation is true, (take note of the “if” qualifier) that you are following VMAsNYC from article to article by tracking his or her edits via the contributions link, that would still constitute wikistalking—even if you are strongly of the opinion VMAsNYC has “ownership” issues. The litmus test for whether wikistalking is occurring hinges on whether the varying nature of the many articles you and VMAsNYC are conflicting on make it exceedingly improbable that it could have occurred purely by chance.

  Now is probably a good time to actually go out of your way to avoid VMAsNYC, and vice versa. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment above wasn't intended to inflame, but to inform. I saw your note that you did not read through the diffs so I thought I should present some examples of steps that have been taken to resolve this dispute-including investigating VMAsNYC's assertion that I'm wikistalking. I also see your "if" qualifier, but wouldn't you feel the need to respond if it were your name being referred to as an "offender" in a dispute where you haven't done anything wrong? If it were your name that was being referred to as a "stalker" all over Wikipedia (even after apologizing and explaining your actions), how would you respond? Thanks for the advice. (Also note, the only reason I "named" you specifically was because I wanted to respond to you and Mr. Connolley and addressing you each individually seemed like the easiest way to accomplish that.) ~ Paul^T+/_C 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)