Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive110

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&oldid=312688823

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=313137246
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=313104839
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=312905851
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=312677274

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADak&diff=313297067&oldid=241059218

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFisting&diff=313137913&oldid=312287308

Comments:

This edit war has continued for the last month. User:Dak is alone in the discussion believing a certin image should be included in the article. Three other editors (including myself) has explicitly asked that the image not be included. Reasons have been stated repeatedly by both sides. HalJor (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: User talk:94.192.38.247 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
Neutralhomer is adding a WHOIS template to the talk page of an IP. This IP is a static IP and is known to be used by Izzedine (talk · contribs). This is a repeat of an episode in August that ended up in blocks and admin apologies to the IP for the repeated placement of the same template. See talk page discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Izzedine and the anon in question are vandalizing an anon talk page, 3RR is moot in vandalism and this is clear vandalism. DC is doing nothing but stiring the pot and doing a little harrassment. For the full ANI post, please see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is really the appropriate form for this dispute—it's not so much an edit war as a disagreement over technical things. I would suggest withdrawing this report and dealing with things at the ANI thread that is already open; there's no need to spread this out over multiple noticeboards. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I will not make any other edits to the anon talk page for the next 24 hours just so I don't go over 3RR as I am currently sitting on it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Regardless of the ANI thread, this is a recurrence of a situation which has already been dealt with and discussed on the talk page. Neutralhomer restarted an edit war. Cutting to the chase, this comment on the talk page sums it up. Neutralhomer has already been told that he is in the wrong. The ANI thread will eventually end with the same conclusion. There's nothing technical about it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
        • From the edit-warred-over talk page: "Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates."
          Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. - NeutralHomer • Talk
          • 04:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sixth revert after stating above that he will "not make any other edits to the anon talk page for the next 24 hours". Care to revisit this one? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So he is allowed to continue to vandalize? Come on. By the way, weren't you supposed to have had your last word on all this? Wikistalking anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have marked the ANI thread in question resolved (admins don't care, why should I?), removed the WhoIs template in question, posted replies to both Izzedine and DC (even though I am not required) and am now retiring. Block me, I really don't care anymore. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h. This is all mindbogglingly stupid. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason in principle whether the whois gets to go or stay. But 3RR is perfectly clear, and NH has broken it (the accusations of vandalism didn't help either). Given the previous block log this could have been longer; but the is just so stupid I don't feel like it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Slavery in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 68.81.70.80 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

I strongly object to this characterization of my actions. Other "editors" repeatedly and summarily deleted my additions to the slavery page. At least the first three times, they provided absolutely no cause for doing so. I have time and again justified not only my restorations of my edits but the edits themselves, which are all factually correct and reflect a consensus among modern-day historians of the South. I am sick and tired of the revert-first mentality of altogether too many Wikipedia administrators, especially in areas in which they do not have sufficient knowledge. What happened to editing edits to make them better? What's with the wholesale deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.70.80 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Nirvana discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Str8cash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Comments:

The user is repeatedly changing the format of the article to one that goes against the one that was approved for featured article status, as shown here. Reverts of this user's edits have been done in an attempt to maintain the article's featured article format.-5- (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h. You too have broken 3RR. Just for once I'm going to forgive you but don't do this again William M. Connolley (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: List of Florida railroads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Reporting mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Illinois Railway Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Monticello Railway Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: List of reporting marks: I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

List of Florida railroads: Previous version reverted to: [22]
Reporting mark: Previous version reverted to: [23]
Illinois Railway Museum: Previous version reverted to: [24]
Monticello Railway Museum: Previous version reverted to: [25]
List of reporting marks: I Previous version reverted to: [26]

List of Florida railroads

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]

Reporting mark

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]

Illinois Railway Museum

• 1st revert: [32]
• 2nd revert: [33]
• 3rd revert: [34]
• 4th revert: [35]
• 5th revert: [36]
• 6th revert: [37]

Monticello Railway Museum

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

List of reporting marks: I

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]

Illinois Railway Museum

• Previous version as of July 14, 2009 (2009-07-14): [44]
• Previous version as of September 10, 2009 (2009-09-10): [45]

Monticello Railway Museum

• Previous version as of August 13, 2009 (2009-08-13): [46]
• Previous version as of September 10, 2009 (2009-09-10): [47]

List of reporting marks: I

• Previous version as of September 10, 2009 (2009-09-10): [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Various attempts at

and discussion of the matters took place within the appropriate talk pages:

• Inquiries addressed at user talk page: [50]
• Notification of the immediate conflict: [51]
• Discussion to resolve the current dispute: [52]
• Discussion to resolve the current dispute: [53]

Comments:

After performing some rather basic

templates and respective comments added afterwards aimed at improving the article.

NE2's pending conflict was immediately addressed on multiple talk pages of the respective articles using

) 12:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No vio / stale. 4R have to be on one article and within 24h. Further, you appear to have decided this issue is over [54]. This board is not a way of "winning" the issue that you should be discussing at

Wikipedia:CNB#Reporting_marks William M. Connolley (talk

) 13:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'd never want to stretch anything, it is my apologies for posting this within the wrong section. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Pepsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 12:40, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Marketing */ Added Frog/Toad section")
2. 12:41, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* The Frog/Toad Incident */ Moving Toad Section")
3. 12:41, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Colas */")
4. 16:08, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 313370080 by WebHamster (talk
   )")
5. 21:47, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 313399210 by WebHamster (talk
   )")

—WebHamster 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Steve Spurrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 68.58.213.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58]
• 5th revert: [59]
• 6th revert: [60]

Diff of 1st edit war warning: [61] Diff of 2nd edit war warning: [62]

I request help with the above situation involving multiple deletions and reversions of properly sourced and footnoted NPOV text by an anonymous IP user. The anonymous IP user has engaged in multiple deletions of the same text over the past two weeks, refuses to engage in talk page discussion, and has already been warned twice. Please help us in resolving this matter; it is becoming a huge waste of constructive editors' time and efforts. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1 week. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd appears to apply William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of new at this edit warring resolution thing . . . does that mean that the anonymous IP user is blocked for "1 week," or is that shorthand for something else? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, the anonymous IP user has reverted the change again in the last last hour. Is the IP user supposed to already be blocked? Is there some further action that I and the other editors on the Steve Spurrier article are supposed to take? Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it means I blocked User:129.252.69.41 instead. Ah well, this one too and I'll semi-protect the page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I was about to say the same thing. I've blocked the original IP for 1 week as per WMC already. Black Kite 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we clashed along the way. Anyway, we agree so all is well William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, gentlemen. Maybe this will bring our anonymous friend out into the sunlight of the article discussion page. Kind of weird actually, but I'm sure you see a lot of this sort of thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Template:Stephen King (edit | [[Talk:Template:Stephen King|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 69.210.133.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 3rd revert: [66]

Since two other editors disagree with him (User:Jmj713 and I) he was asked to bring it to the discussion page, which he ignored.

For the record, while these are in the last 24 hours, he's been edit warring since the 7th. So technically he hasn't broken the 3RR yet (I think).--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Warned As this user hasn't edited in over 12 hours, I've placed a warning on his talk page and placed this template on my watchlist - this should do for the time being, although obviously he's in a different timezone so this should be one for another admin to keep an eye on. Hopefully he'll engage in the discussion on the talk page.
  (bring on the trumpets!)
  17:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected After I warned this user, he made another revert under another IP (check the template history - the same reversion with a similar edit summary as before). I don't think blocking will solve this so I'm semi-protecting this template for a week. If anyone feels this is too harsh / lenient, please feel free to amend this.
  (bring on the trumpets!)
  08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP user which kept reverting the template continues to do so under the username Cartoon_Boy. Jmj713 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Page:

)
User being reported: Yeago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 06:02, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Outburst by Joe Wilson */ Removed synthesis and original research. There is no evidence that Wilson's outburst was about those passages which those sources address")
2. 17:42, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Outburst by Joe Wilson */ Remove NPOV synthesis. Wilson's motivations for his outburst are only speculated about, they are not explained.")
3. 23:01, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Illegal immigrant controversy */ The illegal immigrant controversy is well chronicled in related articles and not appropriate for further analysis here. This is about a specific speech.")
4. 01:53, 13 September 2009 (edit summary: ""Reception" is vague and sounds like post-speech media analysis.")
5. 07:46, 13 September 2009 (edit summary: "I'm sorry, I still can't see how an interruption to a speech can be grouped with critical reception. one was a spurious event, the other is normal fallout. It _was_ part of the speech.")

Diff of 1st edit war warning: [67] Diff of 2nd edit war warning: [68]

Comments:

In the above diffs, Yeago has reverted the edits of at least three editors: User:Jatkins, myself, and User:DePiep. Yeago has been repeatedly asked to stop and refuses. Yeago has received at least two warnings about his edit warring. In response to these warnings, Yeago said: "You are free to report whatever you want. If you think your "last warning" means anything to me, you're wrong."[69]

—Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This user is attacking an article on a school

) With a name that has been copied from disneys site for children do you not feel uncomfortable that this editor could be using wikipedia to groom or trap young children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.173.255.25 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This troll is most likely a sock of Yiwentang (talk · contribs). Arguments and style are the same and is most probably taking time out from an Asian holiday to show that he still cares about me. --WebHamster 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Frivolous complaint. Manning (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Pidkamin massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Paweł5586 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: []

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

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

Comments:
User talk:Paweł5586 keeps removing citation and ref improve tags from article see here User talk:Paweł5586#Palikrowy massacre for earlier this month when User:Paweł5586 was asked not to remove tags etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Stale
  247
  06:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cody7777777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): [73], [74], [75]: [History page

User in question has been adding challenged material to Byzantine Empire, a Featured Article. Cody continues to revert to his version, usually saying "per talk" after firing off a post and not letting anyone respond. He has been warned multiple times that he is edit warring, but asserts that he didn't "start it" and is thus in the right.[76] Reverting him again will obviously not help things but he refuses to discuss on the talk page, so Im at a loss as sto what to do.

—Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Stale
  247
  06:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: ASOTMKX's modifications
Proper version (community-sourced:) [77]

• 1st revert: [78]
• 2nd revert: [79]
• 3rd revert: [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments: Multiple members of the community have tried to mitigate ASOTMKX's efforts to insert this improper information.

Dustin Howett (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Stale
  247
  06:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: 2009 Pacific typhoon season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Typhoon2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• 4th revert: [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

[89]

Comments:

This may seem stupid but the JMA BT has not been released yet and he is citing a map which is supposedly the BT but isnt and is also not a reliable source> Also at the time of the regeneration i double checked and so did another 2 editors checked that they were the same system and we all agreed that they were.Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Stale
  247
  05:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]
• 5th revert: [94]

User engaged in blatant edit warring.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It was Epirus (region) not Epirus.Numbered user was reported and page protected i think twice history.Megistias (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You also mistakenly linked Megistias the Spartan soothsayer to me above.15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Stale Re-report if resumes after recent semi-protection added by another admin. Cheers,
  247
  06:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Awsome work guys. It is certainly stale, a whole two days stale...--I Pakapshem (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• Jackiestud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.6.43.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Latinaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 02:23, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 08:47, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 313773827 by Verbal (talk
   )")
3. 11:58, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 313798299 by Verbal (talk
   )")
4. 12:45, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 313834267 by Verbal (talk
   )")
5. 18:40, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 313925446 by 2over0 (talk
   )")
6. 19:27, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "tehre is no discussion. verbal doesn´t knowanything on simone. pls leave it the way it is so i can continue to edit")

Comments: User Jackiestud is blocked for legal threats and editwarring, amongst other problematic behaviour. Today we have two clear sockpuppets:

19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been resolved: 2 weeks for IP, account blocked. Verbal chat 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [95]

• 1st revert: [96] and subsequent (reverted changes one by one)
• 2nd revert: [97] reverted changes completely, w/o motivating, explaining, or using the talk page in spite of my message on his talk
• 3rd revert: [98] in spite of warnings posted on his talk

etc. etc.

You can basically look at his user history actually: [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [101]

Comments:

I realize I should have tried also to use the talk page, but since the user ignored even a direct message, I didn't think it was particularly useful. I accept in advance your call on how to deal with this situation, and will help in any way. --Raistlin (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Appears to be a single-purpose POV account that inserts unsourced statements critical of the university in question. First block against user. Manning (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

Version from before first revert here

Previous version reverted to: [102]

• 1st revert: [103]
• 2nd revert: [104]
• 3rd revert: [105]
• 4th revert: [106]
• 5th revert: [107]
• 6th revert: [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: McSly Warns and Systemizer blanks warning. I warn and Systemizer blanks warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted resolution on involved editor talk page

Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 7th revert [109]
• 8th revert [110]

Just as an update.Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• He is also editwarring on Holographic principle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he is inserting material "copied verbatim" from New Scientist. Verbal chat 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 9th revert [111] I have now used my 3 and will have to bow out of further reverting as I don't intend to violate 3RR myself. Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Some of his 'New Scientist' material is from comments on the article. I reverted him because of that and he reverted me immediately. He's had three blocks already for similar edit warring.
  talk
  ) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (Several previous blocks for similar behaviours.) Ckatz^chat_spy 05:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: It's too complex for this. I think the list of reverts below, with explanations, is clear.

• 1st revert: 06:21 Sep 14 [112] (reverted passage on 13 underage Central Americans which was originally added with this edit, as far as I can tell [113]
• 2nd revert: 18:42 Sep 14 [114] (this is a diff of the edit that was reverted: [115])
• 3rd revert: 19:11 Sep 14 [116] (the previous edit is the one reverted) Uncivil edit summary characterizing good faith, factual edit (The Brooklyn District Attorney's office announced it was starting an investigation into ACORN.) sourced to a daily newspaper: (remove WP:SOAPBOX claim sourced to non-WP:RS)
• 4th revert: 20:11 Sep 14 [117] (this edit did not just remove a reference but removed part of an edit as well -- "immediately")
• Please see the four bulleted items in my comment below. Now that I look at them closer, they seem to be Reverts 5-8, all from Sep 14 (today). --
  talk
  ) 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not a good idea. It wouldn't do any good. I've had too many difficulties with Lulu in the distant past. Best to resolve this problem here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not applicable: not all of this involves me. The part that did involve me was resolved by me in edit summaries (it was just that obvious), and my edits and edit summaries responded to the objections of Lulu and another editor, so a discussion did in fact take place -- on the "history" page here and didn't need to go to the discussion page.

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is a longtime editor who knows better than to edit war and better than to be uncivil in edit summaries (check out the edit summaries in the diffs cited above; check out the history page of the ACORN article, here (just over the past 24 hours will do, but you can quickly find more if you keep looking); these fit the definition of not just 3+ reverting but of edit warring. Warning Lulu is useless. I'm notifying him of this report. All the edits were part of a POV conflict on that page, with Lulu defending ACORN and casting a negative light on those who the article states are opposed to ACORN. Let's just say Lulu's actions and comments are not conducive to a civil working out of consensus. --

) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX not going the way he likes (and for the fact, I suspect, that the article became semi-protected, making it harder for lots of anonymous or SPA editors to insert rants). LotLE×talk

22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please compare the tone of my language with LuLu's, both within the article and everywhere else. Does adding facts, such as The Brooklyn District Attorney's office announced it was starting an investigation into ACORN. [118] constitute some kind of

WP:BATTLEground

conflict rather than consensus (all from today, 14 September):

• Edit summary: WP:SOAPBOX/rant/slander doesn't belong in lead) Look at the material removed: whether or not anyone thinks it should be in the lead, LuLu's description was uncivil [120]
• Edit summary: this is obviously more appropriate in section where it was before ranting anon moved it Even if the anon editor was ranting, this language doesn't belong in the edit summary. [121]
• Edit summary (and another revert today): remove lots more extraneous and ranting material introduced by anons None of the material removed could be described as "ranting" [122]
• Edit summary: these anons sure are going crazy with unencyclopedic additions Here was the language removed: A couple days later, another video was released showing the film team in Brooklyn, recieving the same advice on tax-cheating and trafficing as they had in Washington and Baltimore. Why a difference of opinion is "crazy" or "unencyclopedic" is not explained, and that's not the way to characterize good-faith edits by editors who could make a reasonable case if they weren't summarily discouraged from contributing by incivility from an experienced editor [123]

I'd show you LuLu's edits from the talk page, but he hasn't made any comments there since July 18, which is too bad, because they're worse than the examples above. I think it's obvious who's doing the edit warring here. --

talk

) 23:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I have to say that I don't see how these four edits constitute an edit-war. They really have nothing to do with each other. 3RR doesn't say that you can't spend your entire day editing an article (especially when the article appears to be under attack based on recent events). Also, it should be noted that the reporting editor is heavily involved, having made 3 reverts in a short period of time on the same article. This sounds more like a situation where everyone needs to chill (and perhaps the semi-protection should be extended to full for a day). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

From the "Definition of the three revert rule" at the top of this page: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Loonymonkey, like Lulu, is an editor who has been involved in disputes over political topics on Wikipedia, including at least one with me a year or two ago. --

talk

) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  247
  06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Classical liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Introman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 18:43, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "not supported by the soruce")
2. 19:54, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "removed portion of statement not supported by the sources.")
3. 20:03, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "there is no evidence that Goodman is a classical liberal. Putting his name there instead.")
4. 20:37, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "sometimes called "traditional liberalism" ..with two sources")
5. 21:50, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Expanding on what the source says on what the early liberals believed")

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

Comments:
Introman has made 5 non-sequential edits to Classical liberalism in just over 3 hours, all of which have been reverted by other editors. In each case Introman has made a different edit to the lead. He has stated that he believes that different edits do not count for 3rr[124] However it is disruptive edit-warring. Introman even posted a Wikiquette alert against one of the editors for deleting one of his earlier edits.[125] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman also made three reverts on Sept. 13, all of which were reverted by other editors. Even if Introman's last two edits on Sept. 14 were ignored, he still would have exceeded 3rr for a 24 hour period.

1. 17:35, 13 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "no evidence that the source is a "follower" of classical liberalism")
2. 21:27, 13 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Not the editor, the SOURCE. You are claiming that the source is a follower of classical liberalism.")
3. 21:49, 13 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "source doesnt specify "in the latter sense." Classical is classical liberalism. There is not multiple meanings.")

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To the administrators: Please look at this carefully. I did not edit war. I was making different kinds of changes, rather than doing the same thing over and over. I think I also gave good descriptions of my edits in the edit summaries, sourced my additions, and had been discussing things on the talk page. Simply doing more than 3 things to an article that The Four Deuces doesn't like doesn't constitute edit warring. Four Deuces tried to pull a fast one like this here before, and apparently an administrator didn't look closely enough and blocked me. However, I appealed and the block was removed. I had to explicitly and exhaustively prove that I wasn't edit warring in the appeal, as if one is presumed guilty before proven innocent. You can read about it on my talk page. Hopefully someone here will take the time to look at it closely this time so I don't have to go through the same hassle. Thanks. Introman (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• 247
  06:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Human rights in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: YMB29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert:[126]
• 2nd revert:[127]
• 3rd revert: [128]
• 4th revert: [129]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: his block history.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130], [131]

Comments: He just came back from a block for edit warring in the same article. In all four edits he is trying to modify the same paragraph that begins from "The Soviet conception of human rights was very different".

• Both editors blocked Both editors are warring; I don't really care whose version is better, the point is this kind of reverting shouldn't be going on. Once someone is contesting the edits, no matter how stupid that might seem, you guys should be trying to bring in outside opinions (try Wikipedia:Third opinion or a WikiProject) rather than reverting each other or dancing in circles at the talkpage (where no editors other than you two have commented). 48 hours for YMB29 because he's just coming out of another block; 31 for Biophys. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:09, 15 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)

history

This is getting out of control. Biophys thinks he owns the article and can revert anyone's edits at will.

I already reported him for edit warring, but it seems no one cares. In June all the changes in that article that were made from 3 Nov. 2008 to 15 June 2009 were reverted by him. Look here you can see that the versions are exactly the same!

Once in a while he pretends to try to discuss, but ends up not replying and then removing all changes that he does not like.

He also tag teams against me with User:Bobanni, who might even be his sock. Can an admin run checkuser on them? With Bobanni he avoids getting in trouble for 3RR.

I have tried to talk to him multiple times on the talk page, but it just turns out to be a waste of time.

You can see here that other users have the same problem with him.

-YMB29 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked Both editors are warring; I don't really care whose version is better, the point is this kind of reverting shouldn't be going on. Once someone is contesting the edits, no matter how stupid that might seem, you guys should be trying to bring in outside opinions (try Wikipedia:Third opinion or a WikiProject) rather than reverting each other or dancing in circles at the talkpage (where no editors other than you two have commented). 48 hours for YMB29 because he's just coming out of another block; 31 for Biophys. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a disturbing result, Rjanag blocked Biophys within 6 minutes of this report being filed. Where are the diffs that indicate Biophys had actually engaged in any edit warring? The only diff offered was something from June. --
  talk
  ) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• He had been reported just a few days before this (the report is now archived) and his overall pattern of editing was uncooperative and symptomatic of edit warring. Stop trying to grind an axe, Martintg. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What axe are you talking about? I think the community is entitled to some answers. I checked the report against Biophys you speak of here, it was submitted by

talk

) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the fact that both editors are continuing to insist on warring when there is clearly a problem is not good editing. And, as many people have reiterated already, it doesn't take 3 reverts in 24 hours to be edit warring. It only takes a bad attitude and an unwillingness to edit the right way. Now you're using some other report as an attempt to dig up a month-old dispute and question the result of it, which is not productive. But if you really think there is a problem (and one that can't be resolved by Biophys contesting his block, which he already did and then withdrew), you can report me somewhere. But if you're looking for someone who will automatically block every user who hits 3 and never block a user who hasn't, you'd be better off getting rid of all the admins and hiring robots. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Where on this page am I "using some other report as an attempt to dig up a month-old dispute and question the result of it"? The issue here is that this malformed report, which recycles a previous report from just last week, adding nothing new, re-submitted by the same apparent SPA with less than 600 edits against an established editor with over 20,000 edits results in block six minutes after submission apparently based upon nothing more than a diff from June. At best, this block seems to be punitive, and I request on Biophys' behalf that he is unblocked. --

talk

) 01:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and by now you have succeeded in spreading that request across three different pages [132][133][134] rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article is nothing but a long-term edit war. I know I'm not formatting this properly, but do have a look. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Format fixed Manning (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the actions of both parties involved and elected to block

.

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Single purpose POV account. Manning (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [135]

• 1st revert: [136]
• 2nd revert: [137]
• 3rd revert: [138]
• 4th revert: [139]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141] [142]

Comments:

Repeated offender, warned before[[143]] reverts with false edit summaries calling people "Polish vandals"[[144]], removes all attempts of discussion and warnings from his talk page.[[145]][[146]] Please also see his recent edit[[147]] for bigger picture of this user characteristics (nominating Holocaust survivors category for deletion).--

) 06:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Pre-war version: [148]

• 1st revert: [149]
• 2nd revert: [150]
• 3rd revert: [151]
• 4th revert: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Quark#Ne.27eman_part_in_the_QM

Comments: This is the front page article, so a quick resolution would be apprecited

} 08:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Warned \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Boxedor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 23prootie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I'll report two users, who undergone edit warring on the article Philippines for the last days.

• 1st revert: [153]
• 2nd revert: [154]
• 3rd revert: [155]
• 4th revert: [156]
• 5th revert: [157]

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

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

Comments:
Each users, especially Boxedor leaves some defamatory and offensive edit summaries: "what are you talking about? are you lost User:23prottiee, whats New york times got to do with these issues? lost" "User 23prottiee user obsessed with these history and weasel words. weirdos stick to facts please." --JL 09 _^q?c 14:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orsahnses. Boxedor (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of a indef blocked sockmaster who constantly warred on Philippines-related pages. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators: This report overlaps with a report still on this page (last edit to that report here), and some of the diffs overlap with the ones on that page. If it would be better to merge this report into the bottom of that one, please do so.

The admin who ruled on the previous report has told me on his talk page [158] that he will not be involved with this one and welcomes any other admin to do so. --

) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This does not apply; reverts are all over the page for an extended period of time and involving either full or partial reverting of other editors' contributions. There is no one version.

If these four reverts are somehow incorrect, please see the many other reverts in the previous report, most of which take place within the 24-hour period included in the 3rd or 4th reverts here -- somewhere in all this crap there's a pony:

• 1st revert (repeated from previous report): 19:11 Sep 14 [159] (the previous edit is the one reverted) Uncivil edit summary characterizing good faith, factual edit (The Brooklyn District Attorney's office announced it was starting an investigation into ACORN.) sourced to a daily newspaper: (remove WP:SOAPBOX claim sourced to non-WP:RS)
• 2nd revert (repeated from previous report): 20:11 Sep 14 [160] Edit summary: use one WP:RS (this edit did not just remove a reference but removed part of an edit as well -- "immediately")
• 3rd revert: 06:22 Sep 15 [161] Edit summary: (Reverted to revision 314026634 by Methusedalot; revert vandalism (same puerile change made dozens of times by anons)
• 4th revert: 06:27 Sep 15 [162] Edit summary: Needless duplication: Undid revision 314018027 by 24.217.91.82 (this edit, from 01:59 Sep 15, is the one reverted: [163]) The "duplication" involved was not some kind of uncontentious cleaning up, but a part of furthering LuLu's point of view and suppressing an opposing point of view. This is best seen by looking at the added language and its removal in context.

See four more reverts, below.

As I said in the previous report, whether or not these reverts somehow do not violate 3RR (and someone please explain to me how they do not violate it, if they don't), this is still continuous edit warring. Any editor who attempts to add information to the article that goes against LuLu's very strong, very pronounced point of view is reverted, usually by Lulu, and often with an uncivil edit summary, often one that describes the editors contributions vandalism, crazy or with some other abusive language. Some passages go in and out and in and out of the article (need more diffs for that?). LuLu does not participate on the discussion page (not since mid-July), and when he does, his last two statements were snide, rude comments. What's the point of participating on that page when LuLu will just abuse you there and other editors look the other way, including one administrator? The two reasons to avoid edit warring are to allow for an article to improve, which is more likely when disputes are worked out calmly and rationally, and to avoid frustration among editors who are trying to make well-meaning changes, which characterizes many of the editors and edits that LuLu is excoriating and reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: LuLu is well aware of my concerns, after I posted a note on his talk page about the previous report I filed [164], and he commented on it [165]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I explained in the previous report why this was not applicable diff to final edit in that report's section

Incidentally, ACORN has been in the news in the United States because two undercover filmmakers have taped themselves acting as a pimp and prostitute, going to ACORN offices in various cities and asking for help getting loans for a brothel. They are gradually rolling out videos where ACORN employees are depicted as being very aware of the nature of the business. One day a tape from the Baltimore office is revealed, another day it's a tape from the Washington office, then from one in Brooklyn. Last night, the filmmakers said they had another revelation coming out today and possibly another one after that. Since this is one of the ongoing, major disputes on the page (the most major), we can expect the pressure to edit war to continue. --

) 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I notified LuLu of this second report. [166] --

) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

As he did yesterday, Noroton has again successfully identified 4 unrelated edits by me to the ACORN page. I suspect that once this report is ruled "no violation", he'll file a third, fourth and fifth 3RR report against me, in the hope that someone will block me. Indeed, it seems clear that Noroton doesn't like me, I do think he's managed to demonstrate that fact above. Maybe in subsequent reports, he can just randomly collect all my edits to all articles, and hope that a 3RR violation magically emerges. LotLE×talk 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sticking to the issue at hand, violation of 3RR, as stated at the top of this page, takes place whether or not the same material is involved. Here's further edit warring by LuLu on the page today. For some reason, no one has yet been able to explain to me how LuLu's behavior is separate from the descriptions of "reverting", the "3RR" violating and "edit warring" given at the top of this page or at

WP:3RR

. We either have guidelines on this or we don't. LuLu is either violating them or he is not. These are all within 24 hours of the 3rd revert (06:22 Sep 15), noted above (3rd through 8th -- five six reverts in 24 hours); all of these edits revert material added within the past 24 hours:

• 5th revert: 21:24 Sep 15 diff

• 6th revert: 22:05, 15 Sep 15 diff

• 7th revert: 22:09, Sep 15 diff

• 8th revert: 22:14, Sep 15 diff

If I thought that LuLu had a less confrontational attitude, I'd have tried to settle this on his talk page, and I've been trying to do that with another editor even now. But his comments and continued edit warring show he's got the same attitude I remember from before. His block log is chock full of blocks for 3RR violations, although the latest one is from early 2008, but that log should confirm that he knows better. If I'm incorrect here, someone please explain to me how these edits don't show violation of 3RR and edit warring. LuLu's behavior here is giving a bad example to the IP editors coming to Wikipedia for the first time, as well as for other editors. --

talk

) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

* fixed my subtraction above --

) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: National Democratic Party of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Spitzer19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [167]
• 2nd revert: [168]
• 3rd revert: [169]
• 4th revert: [170]
• 5th revert: [171]
• 6th revert: [172]

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

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany#Your_Fact_is_not_a_fact_but_an_opinion_on_the_value_of_German_ethnicity_in_defining_Germans> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Have asked Spitzer to stop his persistant pov on this article. Refusal to discuss or reason. Have asked for him to come to a consensus on the talk page before editing, user insists he is right and ignores. His edits are emotional and pov, rather than encyclopaedic.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)>

Warned –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: WWE Legends of WrestleMania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Ziggymacho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [173]

• 1st revert: [174]
• 2nd revert: [175]
• 3rd revert: [176]
• 4th revert: [177]
• 5th revert: [178]
• 6th revert: [179]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:

This user is continually added unsourced info which could be considered OR to the article. From my view, he has come close to violating

) 19:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for disruption. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Other IDs involved: RKHosey, 66.238.57.90, 75.33.207.249, Arbeetor, 68.7.116.85

Page: E.Digital Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Cheyenne99911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [182]
• 2nd revert: [183]
• 3rd revert: [184]
• 4th revert: [185]
• 5th revert: [186]
• 6th revert: [187]
• 7th revert: [188]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:E.Digital_Corporation

Based upon the way this editor and the IP address reported have responded on their talk pages (which have since been blanked), it appears that this is one user. This user, along with multiple potential sockpuppet IDs, continues to delete sourced factual information from the article. Because 3 of the other IDs are known to be associated with e.Digital and because the edits are all similar with no edit summaries, it appears that this editor may be the same person and have a COI. I have tried to warn the user on both talk pages, but they have been blanked. I also tried to resolve this issue on the e.Digital talk page with no success. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Stale for now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: KKCK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 97.114.171.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)208.101.226.27 (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]
• 5 [195]
• 6 [196]
• 7 [197]

There is a more-complex revert in there, but it isn't worth the effort.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [198]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [199]

Comments:

Editor clearly does not understand/accept

, and firmly states that editor's personal knowledge trumps WP requirements, shown in edit summaries.

I think a longer block may possibly get the editor's attention. I will also ask for partial protection on the page.

A vandal-fighter, user:Neutralhomer, in-my-opinion-incorrectly interpreted these repeated OR-insertions as vandalism, and broke 3rr as well. - Sinneed (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked 48 hours; Neutralhomer sternly warned. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, Juliancolton is way smarter than I am and warned the actual IP on the difs, not the one I incorrectly pasted into the links. My profound apologies for the error. I will do better next time.

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: Original edit

• 1st revert: Diff 1
• 2nd revert: Diff 2
• 3rd revert: Diff 3
• 4th revert: Diff 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link

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

Comments:

User was warned after his 4th reversion as well as warned about his attitude, but his response to that warning shows little remorse. User also only decided to respond to talk page discussions after his 4th reversion. His attitude at the moment seems to be that other editors have "messed up the article" without any apparent discussion over the discrepency between multiple reliable sources which is at the heart of the matter. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A longer response was added at the same time I was posting this report. It is available here. The basis of it seems to be that he has no respect for the "system" of Wikipedia policies or those who uphold them because it gets in the way of him being right. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note User hasn't reverted since the warning, and appears to be discussing at this time. Will keep an eye out. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically there's nothing for him to revert since no one has reverted him since that 4th edit. However, as pointed out in my link to his talk page, he has expressed his mindset to continue to revert what he believes to be correct. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The359, it's not that I have no respect for the system; I have a great amount of respect for the system because even though I hate it sometimes it quite obviously keeps this place running. I have no respect for YOU because you circumvent the system while expressing some sort of false morality and acting like you're following the letter of the law. My edit stood for over a month. You changed and it and acted like consensus had been formed when in fact you simply put some pretty sweet ALL CAPS notes in the article and deleted my source. Now, ten days later, I'm trying to change it back, and you act like I've killed a small child. Eightball (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review the edit war on the history section of the quark article as well as on its talk page. User: Anonymous dissident actually repeatedly reverted sourced editings in a fashion that bordered with WP:VAND without providing any reasonable reasons.--Gilisa (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• No violation I don't see a violation of
  dispute resolution. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk
  ) 07:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reporter blocked for violating
  WP:3RR. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk
  ) 07:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Deepolo (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
• 5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

These diffs show repeated application of the same discounted sources and repeated application of the construction template.

The page was recreated after a previous

}} tag when the article is obviously not under construction as a way of delaying the AFD closure. I prefer talk page discussion to reach consensus but Deepolo has forced my hand by leaving an unjustified 3RR warning template on my user talk page (see diff) apparently in response to a justified copyvio warning template I placed minutes earlier on his talk page.—Ash (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Additionally, you are equally as liable to a block as he is if you continue edit warring in this fashion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: User talk:O Fenian (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

• 1st revert: [201]
• 2nd revert: [202]
• 3rd revert: [203]
• 4th revert: [204]

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

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

Comments:

Blocked for 24 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User:hAl is an established edit warrior, who has ignored previous penalties for edit warring on this very same article.

Diffs below show User:hAl continually inserting the word "free" into the intro of the article. There are minor variations each time, and he sometimes inserts "free format" or "free and open" etc etc etc.

• 1st revert: 18:30, 15 September 2009

• 2nd revert: 07:38, 16 September 2009

• 3rd revert: 12:47, 16 September 2009

• 4th revert: [diff]15:41, 16 September 2009

14:26, 16 September 2009 Warning to User talk:hAl talk page

Also, there was a long discussion about the "free" format claim on the article talk page. Other editors warned User:HAl further down the Article Talk Page

I also point out that this is one of many edit wars being conducted concurrently right now by User:hAl on this same article. I don't know whether the others are 3RR, but it certainly goes against the spirit of previous warnings and penalties applied to User:hAl for edit warring on this article. A glimpse at the article history will reveal the other wars now going on with other text on the same article. -Lester 16:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Comments:

Page protected. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. you suggest thise are all revert but it is actually improved on what the text was before. The article did not combine the free an publicly availalbe ISO/IEC standard information with the free and open information. I actually altered the information in the article to provide a more clear information. It was removed without argument. The information that the format is free was sourced and it also availble in the wikified articles that I referenced in that edit. I also tried to discuss on the talk page and ask why the ISO/IEC 29500

Open Standard. You and others objecting to the free and open claim refused blunty to provide any argument on why the format would not be free or open occording the the definitions for those on wikipedia. I have never seen that so many people are unable to give a straight anwser to simple question. hAl (talk

) 17:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this I would invite one or more administrators for mediation or even arbitration on matters around the article. I have asked for mediation before on the computing wikiproject and on the reliable sources noticeboard but noone has come forward. hAl (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: 08:30, 16 September 2009
• 2nd revert: 08:39, 16 September 2009
• 3rd revert: 16:29, 16 September 2009
• 4th revert: 17:07, 16 September 2009

In addition the same user was reverting from his IP address 195.35.72.49 less than 24 hrs ago:

• 5th revert: 08:09, 15 September 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:53, 16 September 2009

Several attempts were made to resolve the dispute at talk. The last revert occurred as I was adding data as part of a compromise resulting in a deadlock: [206]

Comments:

• I tried to resolve the situation amicably, myself started the discussion, offered compromise, but edit warring and stubbornness of this user lead to an impasse. Administrators' involvment will be appeciated. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• In addition, this user is recruiting revenge squads at Russian Wikipedia to come to help him with revert warring: [207][208][209] This is a very disturbing development as more people will be involved in edit warring and there will be ever less chance for a compromise. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Validbanks 34 (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: [210]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [211]

Comments:

• Mac OS X & has also personally attacked several users, including two admins.[212][213] 「 ɠu¹ɖяy 」¤ • ¢
    22:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And you haven't been edit warring? You've been reverting on that page several times each day.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • No I have been reverting your vandalism & your wishes to go against the consensus of the community on the talk page. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy 」¤ • ¢  23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:PeterSymonds. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: )

• 1st revert: [214]
• 2nd revert: [215]
• 3rd revert: [216]
• 4th revert: [217]

This is a page about a Transformers character, and the user keeps creating a new section about a movie the character isn't featured in, just to mention the appearance of a dog that's named after the robot.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bonecrusher_(Transformers)#Dog

Comments:
Dispute resolution was also attempted in the user's page here. --uKER (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

--uKER (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 09:34, 9 September 2009, removing, "nine terror attacks between March 2-5", originally in article between June 2008-August 2009[218], removed repeatedly --sans explanation -- by IP (sample 1, 2, 3), reinserted in 02:55 by Jaakobou.[219]
  • Comment: IP requested Tiamut edit-war for them and has made no attempt at discussion on the article talk page.[220]
• 2nd revert: 16:02, 9 September 2009, revert Jalapenos do exist.[221]
• 3rd revert: 19:59, 9 September 2009, large edit - sample re-insertions without discussion: (a) "According to" in aftermath, (b) "unequivocal victory", as well as (c) controversial ' Cheryl Rubenberg ' source. Corrections and concerns were made by Jaakobou.[222]
• 4th revert: 17:02, 10 September 2009, large "undo all of Jaakobou's (edit)" revert - sample issues: (a) "According to", (b) "unequivocal victory" (used 2 times in the same paragraph), (c) removal of "Israeli success" (Jenin and Bethlehem surrendered.), (d) reinsertion of controversial Cheryl Rubenberg source.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [223], [224] - She's also been blocked for edit-warring before and edit warred recently on Battle of Jenin, a sub-article of Operation Defensive Shield (warned by Black Kite).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Recent_edits

Comments:
Tiamut is not a new user, and a combative approach supplemented by 4 reverts to the work of others in approx. 30 hours are not okay, especially when just recently she violated 3RR on a sub-article of the same article (see above note). Tiamut has been recently warned to avoid adversarial behavior by 3 separate admins.

• [225] - I don't think I'm following you either. Jim likes your edit so it's correct to make no matter what Jaakobou says? What kind of dispute resolution is that? Jaakobou made a fairly strong argument about the dispute surrounding the UN fact-finding mission. Do you have a response to the argument, or will you just continue with the "I am right, you are wrong" line? —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) static link
• [226] - Edit Warring - I looked at the report about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and though I declined to block based on that report, it is clear that you may need to seek a less adversarial way of editing on controversial articles. I understand that it takes two to edit-war, but it would be better not to allow yourself to be sucked into blindly reverting. Thanks, Black Kite 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• [227] - Decorum - I noticed a post that you had made, and I hoped that you would think about striking parts of it to help preserve the
  1RR and discuss calmly on the talk page (giving yourself at least 10 minutes between each reply) before undoing an edit. NW (Talk
  ) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

2009-09-10T21:14:03 Skomorokh (talk | contribs | block) m (28,708 bytes) (Protected Operation Defensive Shield: Full protection: dispute. using TW ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Chronology of the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [228]

• 1st revert: [229]
• 2nd revert: [230]
• 3rd revert: [231]
• 4th revert: [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

The entirety of the following sections on the talk page have dealt with the current problem:

[234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243]

Comments:

I concur with Lisa's report here. Pico's edits involve the elimination of sources in favor of a singular POV, and he is not willing to work toward a consensus. His arguments lately have been that since he does not agree, there is no consensus, and therefore the edits should go his way to the exclusion of two other editors who disagree. Rather than engage in content dispute here, the edit warring needs to stop so that collaboration can return to the article in question.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that PiCo was warned about this on another article only a few weeks ago ([244]). -Lisa (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is unfair - an edit war is only possible if two sides are involved, and Lisa and Tim have certainly been involved.

The article attracts very little attention from editors. When I stated editing it, it had no reliable sources and presented what Tim would call "a singular point of view", namely that the Bible is true in every word. This is not to say it had no sources at all: it quoted a mystical Jewish rabbi from the 19th century, a Creationist Christian, and the Seder Olam, a Jewish text from (I think) the 6th century AD. It did NOT quote any modern scholarship. I replaced this with a version that relied on current biblical scholarship. Lisa doesn't like it because it offends her religious sensibilities, and Tim hasn't been very clear as to why he doesn't like it. Neither of them have given good reasons.

But, there has indeed been an edit war between the three of us. If you look at the talk page you'll see that I've suggested ways of avoiding this, but Lisa and Tim insist on wholesale reversion. I'd still like to find a reasonable way forward, and so I'd be grateful if the admins could suggest what we do next. PiCo (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Pico, we need to avoid bogging down this page with content issues. My preference is for an NPOV article that reflects all notable and verifiable POVs. The modern scholastic POV must certainly be included, as well as older and fundamentalist ones -- because of their notability on this subject. I've only reverted to restore content that you deleted. I have no objection to content you want to add. Just, please add it without deleting other work. Since I didn't write the earlier work, I can't go back and rewrite it to include it as easily as you can simply weave your own additions into the existing article. We are WRITING an encyclopedia, not deleting or replacing one. There are times for deletion, but this isn't it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• 247
  06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The moment PiCo's block expired, he reverted the article again, in the exact same way he did the four times that I reported here before. The block had no effect whatsoever. I don't want to simply revert it back, because then I'll be edit warring, and I'd rather not request page protection, because the last time I tried that (a year or two ago), the page wound up being "protected" in the state the edit warrior chose, which sort of defeated the purpose.

Please help. I'm trying to do this according to the rules, but PiCo apparently doesn't care about the rules. -Lisa (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a diff of what's essentially a fifth reversion: ([245]). -Lisa (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Validbanks 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [246]
• 2nd revert: [247]
• 3rd revert: [248]
• 4th revert: [249]

Gu1dry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently at 3rr, they are fighting over phrasing of whether the OS is Unix-based or not.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Validbanks 34 Gu1dry (Gu1dry removed their warning and did a 3rd revert)

--Terrillja _talk 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• (Taken from
  disruptive editing. You do not do something on Wikipedia just to prove a point to a fellow editor, no matter what your viewpoint is! --Dave1185 (talk
  ) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Agreed, though 3RR has been broken here and thus they should get a block. I edit the article a bit too much for my comfort to issue the block myself however. Other editor should be warned about behaviour so they can do better next time.
  247
  20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Warned Good report, but the problem has subsided for now, and both editors warned in one way or another, further it was discussed to some extent at ANI. Re-report edit warring by either user please.
  247
  06:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Validbanks 34 has come off his block & continues to edit war.[250] [251] I also I should have not been block, I was reverting Validbanks 34's disruptive edits of going against the consensus on the talk page about the OS Family. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

This user has been deleting the same sourced information over and over for the last few weeks on the grounds that he/she thinks it is promoting someone's book and he/she doesn't like the theories expounded in it. User:חכמביום has edited only this page, Yehuda Amichai, and seems to be a sockpuppet for some earlier user who consistently removed the same material. Is there anything that can be done? Messages to this person, from me and others, have not helped. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk
  ) 09:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This was not an accusation of 3RR. It was an accusation of persistently removing sourced information on POV grounds. If you can't help, please let me know who can.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would bring it up at ANI, for lack of a better location. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems you have dismissed the case too quickly. A little while ago, User:חכמביום reverted the material in question for the third time today. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protected All three of you are edit warring and all three of you could be blocked. To make things simpler, though, I'll just protect the page.

The point is, all of you are reverting one another without even giving edit summaries, and I don't see any evidence of consensus anywhere (the fact that it's two-against-one at the talk page doesn't mean there's a big "consensus"). Who knows, maybe חכמביום's edits are totally bad, but that should be dealt with through discussion, not through edit warring, Please take the time while this article is under protection to seek outside input (try Wikipedia:Third opinion or a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject Israel or WT:WikiProject Jewish culture) in the discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is an incorrect reading of the situation. There are comments by a fourth person asking this person to stop (look at his page). After several blanket reversions by חכמביום, I did a total overhaul of the article to create a separate section for the sourced information "he doesn't like," but that did not appease him. He has "edited" only one article, this one, and contributed nothing of any value to Wikipedia. He is a vandal, and I can't believe that has escaped notice.--Gilabrand (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Read

What is not vandalism before continuing. Throwing around the "vandal" label incorrectly is irresponsible and unconstructive, and makes people have little interest in anything else you have to say either—i.e., even if you have a good point to make, if you make a fool of yourself by incorrectly accusing people of "vandalism" you just shoot yourself in the foot. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

04:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the information on this page more carefully. It says that Vandalism is" Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason...Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." I believe that applies here, unless "not liking the information" is a valid reason.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that guideline refers to page blanking like this. Removing stuff during a content dispute, when the user has stated his reasons at the talk page (doesn't matter if the reasons are valid or not, he has still stated them), is not vandalism. Insisting on calling your enemies "vandals" is childish. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I never called this person an "enemy" and I think you are out of line in making that assumption. You have also called me childish, irresponsible, unconstructive and a fool. I am sorry, but you have overstepped the bounds of a "neutral judge." --Gilabrand (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was neutral when I started. You have only your behavior to thank for swaying me one way or the other. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. You came here hostile and you don't deserve to be in any kind of authoritative position. You ought to block yourself for incivility. I came here to seek advice on a dispute which you have not helped to resolve. On the contrary.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hostile? My first edit to this thread was to suggest forums where you could get your problems solved. The first "hostility" was when you began to throw around the "vandal" moniker without having ever read that page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: English Defence League User being reported

• ist revert: [252] reinsertion of Labour Party:
• 2nd revert [253] Labour party again
• 3rd revert [254] switches to Fabian Society possibly to avoid 3rr
• 4th revert" [255] Fabian Society again
• 5th revert [256] Fabian Soceity
• 6th revert [257] Fabian Society

Warning issued here: [258]

This is one of those all too frequent cases where any criticism of a subject has to be qualified by a designation of that person as "left wing" "right wing" or similar. In this case a Minister of the UK Government has made a statement about an extreme group, and the editor concerned is constantly inserting qualifications. This is a problematic article with some other extreme statements such as this by another editor. Aside from the 3RR issue the article may need some admin attention. --Snowded ^TALK 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Editor seems to have stopped edit warring after warning -- that last revert was only a minute after the warning, and they may not have seen it before saving.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [259]

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

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

BLP warning placed on user talk page, without response: [265]

Comments:

) 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No action required, request withdrawn. Editor blocked on prior AIV report. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Validbanks 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [267]

• 1st revert: [268]
• 2nd revert: [269]
• 3rd revert: [270]
• 4th revert: [271]

24 3RR block

• 5th revert: [272]
• 6th revert: [273]
• 7th revert: [274]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [275]x5

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [276]

Comments:

• Mac OS X as Unix. I have stayed out the second wave of the undoing, even though I shouldn't have been temp blocked in the first place. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢
    00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours (by another sysop). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I really doubt a second 24hr block will do much good, but thank you. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

) and also others.
User being reported: 24.2.247.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The pattern of behaviour is easy to determine from the user's edit list.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [278]

Comments:

This user has a persistent pattern of expanding the US healthcare debate onto any article that may be even marginally relevant; also of reverting changes to those articles to their preferred version; all this over a period of several months without any single attempt to discuss the matter. I would appreciate another admin's presence in these disputes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No edit warring since warning. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, he comes in and does a burst of editing and then goes away. He'll probably be back. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

...and he's back. No talk, no rationale, just a revert. I'd block him myself if I wasn't involved in the article. Another admin, please... DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Origin of the Albanians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Aigest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [279]

• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]
• 4th revert: [283]
• 5th revert: [284]

Tendentious editor, also keeps re-adding material the same material over and over [285] [286] [287]] even though there is no consensus for it and it has been removed by other users [288] [289]. Although user participates in the talk page, he does so in a tendentious, disruptive manner, repeating the same thing over and over while pretending not to hear, with the result that other users give up in frustration [290]. --

) 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Warned As there was no warning given, and the editor has taken to discussing on talk instead of reverting, I don't feel right blocking at this point. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note that this user was blocked in July for edit warring. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the first change,[291] Veigand position has been exposed at Hamp above and below, the fact that "it was argued by one of the great specialists on the Balkan languages, Gustav Weigand, that the Albanian language itself is not of Illyrian stock" is pure non scientific argument. The linguistic arguments should have their point, just like those above and below in the same text. Apart the fact that Veigand position 1927 (!) is very outdated it also has been challenged even by Vladimir I. Georgiev 1960 who also argues the non illyrian origin. Either use Veigand 1927 or Georgiev 1960. Both of them is WP:SYNTH (Note that Georgiev is used below)

The second change here is very funny.[292] The paragraph here was "The phonetics of the bulk of the Albanian lexicon are moreoever of Thracian origin.(website ref) However, as with Illyrian, most Dacian and Thracian words and names have not been closely linked with Albanian (Hamp linguist ref)" Apart the fact that not many traces of

a well know linguist it was left while non logical website ref has been put aside.

As for the third change[293] it was pure WP:SYNTH as has been argued here in the talk page by me.[294] A combination of multiple sources for arriving at a conclusion, moreover user Megistias misused the sources as it is explained his statements are not found in the reference book he points to.

The fourth and the fifth change are related to the same paragraph. None of the editors came to the talk page to discuss why I said this paragraph as a WP:SYNTH.

While another editor did not reply to my specific accusations that author did WP:SYNTH and misused the sources http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOrigin_of_the_Albanians&diff=314495088&oldid=314360738 the answer was that

"An informed presentation of mainstream opinion isn't "WP:SYNTH". But of course, in order to be able to give such a presentation, you would need to understand mainstream opinion first, wouldn't you." A great explanation, moreover he was accussing me of POV while in the same time heis position is clear as stated above by himself "The Albanian and Illyrian languages have nothing to do with one another, barring a handful of possible loans."  So much for the supposed NPOV position!

Actually I am discussing the issue in the talk page with another editor which does not avoid the answer and does not make personal attacks. Aigest (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Chronology of the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 02:35, 13 September 2009 [295] Sorry Lisa, that's a pretty poor-quality version, very unscholarly, not like the present one.
• 2nd revert: 22:22, 13 September 2009 [296] rv to the sourced version - Lisa, you need to be less emotional about this and more constructive.
• 3rd revert: 01:02, 14 September 2009 [297] Lisa, there's obviously no consensus,, since I don't agree with you.
• 4th revert: 05:53, 14 September 2009 [298] Consensus is when everyone agrees, and we don't - so let's stick with the version that has reliable sources.
• 3RR warning: 13:30, 14 September 2009 [299]
• Report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:35, 14 September 2009 [300]
• 31 hour block: 05:59, 15 September 2009 [301]
• 31 hours later: 12:59, 16 September 2009
• 5th revert: 10:02, 17 September 2009 [302] rv to the version with reliable sources.
• 6th revert: 23:53, 17 September 2009 [303] Sorry Lisa, but I hope someday you'll understand how necessary this is to me :)

PiCo's rationale:

• 09:59, 17 September 2009 [304]
• 11:29, 17 September 2009 [305]

Comments:

Given PiCo's accusation in his reversion comments that I was being emotional, I found it interesting to see his comment on the 6th reversion. It's clear from the two diffs under "PiCo's rationale" that PiCo wants to be banned. And that he intendes to be disruptive until he is banned.

I hope that doesn't happen. PiCo is a good editor, even if he has problem understanding what

) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• by another admin \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert warring over several articles with several editors, is at four reverts at Joseph Banks Rhine: [306] [307] [308] [309] and five at Displacement (parapsychology) [310] [311] [312] [313] [314] Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mitch1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [315]

• 1st revert: [316]
• 2nd revert: [317]
• 3rd revert: [318]
• 4th revert: [319]
• 5th revert: [320]
• 6th revert: [321]
• 7th revert: [322]
• 8th revert: [323]
• 9th revert: [324]
• 10th revert: [325]

Comments:In the above diffs, Mitch1981 has reverted the edits of at least four editors. He has been repeatedly asked to stop and refuses. Instead of discussing on the talk page for a consensus, he has involved in an edit war. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Provisional Irish Republican Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [326]

• 1st revert: [327]
• 2nd revert: [328]
• 3rd revert: [329]
• 4th revert: [330]
• 5th revert: [331]
• 6th revert: [332]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [333]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [334] [335]

Comments:
The editor has also broken 3RR removing my comments from the article's talk page. O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) by another administrator. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: The College Dropout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [336]

• 1st revert: [337]
• 2nd revert: [338]
• 3rd revert: [339]

This, too, is essentially a combination of a 3RR violation and just plain disruptive editing. It's obvious that the user

) 05:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Declined You're edit warring just as badly as he is. Both of you need to stop editing and start discussing. Any more reverts from either of you and there will be blocks. Try using

WP:WikiProject Hip Hop to get more input from other users. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

05:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, whatever. Anyone who is familiar with the material in the article already knows the truth; the references were satisfy Everything counts' requests. A tracklisting and proof of the verse being reused, what more can he want? This isn't the UN; I'll probably continue reinstating my references when he reverts them, so you might as well block us both now unless someone wants to familiarize him with the reliability of OHHLA and Last.fm as sources. I'd rather do it my way than yours; too much work, and this site and article don't really matter anyway. 173.66.252.156 (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard isn't the place to have a content dispute, it's just for reporting edit warring. If you want to post a message about why you think your references are good, do so at the article talk page or at

User talk:Everything counts

—since neither of you have made an attempt to discuss things with one another.

If you "do things your way" and if doing things your way means edit warring, you will be blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: 2PM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Uladelz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [340]

• 1st revert: [341]
• 2nd revert: [342]
• 3rd revert: [343]
• 4th revert: [344]
  • Plus more reverts afterwards.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [345]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [346]

Comments: This is concering a Korean boy band that recently had its leader leave the group amidst controversial remarks he made about South Korea. It is a sourced, proven fact that the group will now continue on with 6 members, as per remarks made by the management company/label. However, this user has constantly reverted any changes to the page that make it 6 members and reverts it back to his original edit (which undid the 6-member change to begin with).

I would like to disclose that the 2PM talk page warning did come late (like, before this posting), but it's clear from the article that any indication of the group being 7 members is just but a fan wish, as there are multiple sources indiciating the group's 6-member status. Please also note that the user has blanked his talk page twice ([347] and [348]), erasing warnings and notices regarding the 2PM page.

This is essentially a combination of a 3RR violation and just plain disruptive editing. It's obvious that the user doesn't want to discuss the issue or even look at it reasonably. SKS (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• 247
  21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [349]

• 1st revert: [350]

• 2nd revert: [351]

• 3rd revert: [352]

• 4th revert: [353]

• 5th revert: [354]

• 6th revert [355]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [356]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [357]

Comments:
A new account is attempting to force nonstandard theories about physics into the Hollow Earth article. Cardamon (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A user called WLU constantly deletes references supporting the AAH, even factual errors that have been corrected appear again if the correct fact might add possibility to the AAH.--87.188.223.239 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined No evidence of edit warring; in WLU's only recent set of edits, all he did was add references. Next time you file a report, please use the template that is linked at the top of the page and follow the instructions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 18:05, 18 September 2009
• 2nd revert: 19:26, 18 September 2009
• 3rd revert: 19:33, 18 September 2009
• 4th revert: 13:54, 19 September 2009
• 5th revert: 20:12, 19 19 September 2009 (slightly outside)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: familiar with 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first post 08:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
This time the user did discuss his edit on the talk page so it's definitely an improvement over previous cases (see), however there is a posting which might explain the numerous reverts over many articles performed by this user recently and in the past. When accused of

) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Fourth block in a month. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [360]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gaza_War#background

Comments:
nableezy - 22:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Obviously a lot of edit-warring around the table. Enjoy the holiday. -- tariqabjotu 23:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Due respect tariqabjotu, but that makes no sense at all. There is a lot of information coming into that article as a result of the UNHCR report and protecting it when you have one user reverting against 2 over things that were presumably resolved 2 weeks ago is not the best way of dealing with the issue. There are a number of users adding information and preventing that because one user is not happy he is not getting his way is not all that smart. nableezy - 23:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I can see that, and I think I mistakenly looked at Arabmaniac's edits as more legitimate than they really were (and, thus, there was no edit-warring in reverting him).-- tariqabjotu 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: 2PM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Uladelz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [367]

• 1st revert: [368]
• 2nd revert: [369]
• 3rd revert: [370]
• 4th revert: [371]
  • Plus more reverts afterwards.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [373]

Comments: This is concering a Korean boy band that recently had its leader leave the group amidst controversial remarks he made about South Korea. It is a sourced, proven fact that the group will now continue on with 6 members, as per remarks made by the management company/label. However, this user has constantly reverted any changes to the page that make it 6 members and reverts it back to his original edit (which undid the 6-member change to begin with).

I would like to disclose that the 2PM talk page warning did come late (like, before this posting), but it's clear from the article that any indication of the group being 7 members is just but a fan wish, as there are multiple sources indiciating the group's 6-member status. Please also note that the user has blanked his talk page twice ([374] and [375]), erasing warnings and notices regarding the 2PM page.

This is essentially a combination of a 3RR violation and just plain disruptive editing. It's obvious that the user doesn't want to discuss the issue or even look at it reasonably. SKS (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• 247
  21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [376]

• 1st revert: [377]

• 2nd revert: [378]

• 3rd revert: [379]

• 4th revert: [380]

• 5th revert: [381]

• 6th revert [382]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [383]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [384]

Comments:
A new account is attempting to force nonstandard theories about physics into the Hollow Earth article. Cardamon (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A user called WLU constantly deletes references supporting the AAH, even factual errors that have been corrected appear again if the correct fact might add possibility to the AAH.--87.188.223.239 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined No evidence of edit warring; in WLU's only recent set of edits, all he did was add references. Next time you file a report, please use the template that is linked at the top of the page and follow the instructions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 18:05, 18 September 2009
• 2nd revert: 19:26, 18 September 2009
• 3rd revert: 19:33, 18 September 2009
• 4th revert: 13:54, 19 September 2009
• 5th revert: 20:12, 19 19 September 2009 (slightly outside)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: familiar with 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first post 08:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
This time the user did discuss his edit on the talk page so it's definitely an improvement over previous cases (see), however there is a posting which might explain the numerous reverts over many articles performed by this user recently and in the past. When accused of

) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Fourth block in a month. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [387]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [393]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gaza_War#background

Comments:
nableezy - 22:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Obviously a lot of edit-warring around the table. Enjoy the holiday. -- tariqabjotu 23:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Due respect tariqabjotu, but that makes no sense at all. There is a lot of information coming into that article as a result of the UNHCR report and protecting it when you have one user reverting against 2 over things that were presumably resolved 2 weeks ago is not the best way of dealing with the issue. There are a number of users adding information and preventing that because one user is not happy he is not getting his way is not all that smart. nableezy - 23:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I can see that, and I think I mistakenly looked at Arabmaniac's edits as more legitimate than they really were (and, thus, there was no edit-warring in reverting him).-- tariqabjotu 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

• 1st revert: [394]
• 2nd revert: [395]
• 3rd revert: [396]
• 4th revert: [397]

(the total number of reverts and partial reverts is more than that and includes other reverts such as [398], [399] and [400])

Comment: The user is not new to Wikipedia and is already aware of the 3RR and had been previously warned and blocked for violating it in 2006. Overall, he/she has about 550 edits and has received warning from about 10 different users (related to different issues, from 3RR to personal attacks). Alefbe (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• For each of the reverts linked above, could you also provide a diff of the edit that Paradoxic was reverting? From my skimming the history, it's not clear if all of these are reverts, because I can't really tell what he's undoing, and it seems to be different for each one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In all those reverts that I mentioned, he brought back a propaganda piece (by PressTV) in the section "2009 Quds Day protests". He also continued edit-warring in other reverts, but the 4 reverts that I mentioned should be enough to block him (so there's no need to discuss other reverts). Alefbe (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• The only one I've found so far is this (most recent, undoing [401]). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: His reverts are still going on [402] [403]. This is getting really ridiculous. Alefbe (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to decline this. This article is clearly in the middle of a large burst of editing (seems like close to 100 edits a day since the 18th, and maybe 4,000 page views if you total up all the redirects) and in such a spurt there's always back-and-forth. Furthermore, the reverts of one another appear to be over a content disagreement (specifically, what I see is whether it was "thousands" or "millions" of people who marched.) In a situation like this, where the edits are not blatant vandalism and the article is being edited so heavily, I think it will be more effective to have a discussion at the article talkpage about what to do with the article and reach a consensus there; the people at the talkpage are the ones who know what's going on anyway. If you guys reach a consensus there that Paradoxic's edits are undesirable, and after that he keeps doing them, then you can report him for blocking at ANI or through an admin who has dealt with that article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So you mean Paradox doesn't need to obey 3RR? 3RR is not related to vandalism. He is aware of 3RR and has violated 3RR and should be blocked for that. It doesn't matter if his edits are vandalism or not. Alefbe (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I just said find a more appropriate place to discuss this. There appears to be a discussion ongoing at the article's talk page, and I'm not going to block someone in the middle of it if I see no evidence that the block will help. 3RR is only a guideline, per my standards, I don't block anyone unless it's clear how the block is going to improve the situation. Now, if you can have a discussion at the article and establish a clear consensus that these edits are bad, and Paradoxic continues doing them, then you can come back to me and I'll block him. But as of yet I don't see a strong reason to block. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, if that's your approach, ask another admin to comment about this issue (Paradoxic's violation of 3RR). I think your approach is really against the 3RR policy. Alefbe (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Strike that; since my last message, both of you have continued reverting. [404][405][406][407] Two apiece for each of you in just half an hour; now that's edit warring. Both blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: [408]
• 2nd revert: [409]
• 3rd revert: [410]
• 4th revert: [411]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [412] - Simon Dodd {

} 03:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like both of you are edit-warring, not just him. (For example, reverts with unclear, unhelpful edit summaries like "those changes are not acceptable".) But I'm not taking any admin action on this since we already have a history; someone else can deal with it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He has broken the three revert rule; I haven't. We encourage users to not break the three revert rule. I have complied with that; he has not, and action is therefore both appropriate and mandatatory agauinst him while permissible but inappropriate against me.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 04:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You have made at least 3 reverts in the past 24 hours: 1 (reversing part of [413]), 2 (labeled as a revert), 3 (labeled as a revert). And your insistence that you aren't edit warring if you haven't broken 3RR suggests that you've forgotten all of your last big dispute about how 3RR works. Finally, your going up to 3 reverts and then stopping and making a big point about it is quite clearly gaming the system to get your "opponent" blocked.

Again, I'm not going to do anything because I already have a history with you. But to whatever admin does review this case: I strongly suggest you block both these editors for edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) I've made two reverts, not three. Anyone who clicks through your link will see through the ruse. (2) Blocking me would thus be an asinine reaction since it would send the message that there is no point in trying to follow the 3rr rule. It would tell editors: should you find yourself in or about to be in an edit war, don't feel constrained by the 3rr rule, make as many reverts as you like, because either way you'll still be blocked even if you've made only two reverts. No admin worth their salt would be so foolish as to undercut 3rr in that way. - Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 04:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. You have been told this several times before, but apparently it still has not sunk in. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And what "ruse" did I make? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you bring it up, it's unfortunate that you still don't understand that your actions in our last confrontation on this point were inappropriate. You have evidently mistaken the community's indifference to the dispute for an endorsement of your position; it was not. You were and are wrong. As to this issue: I've made myself abundantly clear on the "3rr is not an entitlement" strawman. Never said it was. What I said was that if you want editors to work to avoid breaking 3rr, the rule and its consequences must have teeth. 3rr has deterred me from simply reverting all of Mysteryquest's destructive changes to the article en bloc, but if I had reason to believe that I was going to be blocked anyway, simply because two reverts allows an admin to block me, then gee, I have nothing to lose so I may as well make that third, fourth, umpteenth edit. Your "block 'em all and let God sort it out" interpretation of the rules is asinine because it increases the likelihood of edit warring, which is one reason why, as mentioned before, you were and are wrong in your interpretation. And lastly your ruse was in citing [414] as a revert. The difference between a revert and an edit will often be unclear because almost any edit to an existing article can be said, in a manner of speaking, to undo another editor's changes in part. The community has thus taken a common sense approach, one that rejects your reductio ad absurdum view that a constructive edit can be branded a revert for the convenience of an admin fishing for reasons to block both sides of a dispute rather than the one who broke the rules.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"

A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". Your edit undid all the changes to the first two sentences that had been made in the previous set of edits

. Thus, it is a revert.

But here we go, once again you're trying to distract people from your own misconduct by wikilawyering, changing the subject, writing long rants, and generally being disruptive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) In any case, this has gone stale by now; no other admins seem to have been active at this page all day, and it's too late for there to be any point blocking anymore. If edit warring continues this can be brought up again, but for now I'm leaving you both warnings and suggesting you discuss things before edit warring. Simon, I will not be blocking you because I don't believe in punitive blocks, but I will leave a note in your block log to reflect that you should have been blocked if an admin had acted here more quickly. If you disagree you're welcome to contest it somewhere, and create even more drama (again). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boston_College&diff=302865941&oldid=302706042

Previous version reverted to: [415]

Please note that from July 1 through July 21, the user in question edited the page approximately 44 times: much more than anyone else. One telling revert is this one (please note the deletion of references from the paragraph's bottom. During mediation, it became obvious to the other party that the Carnegie citation does not belong in the opening sentence where he or she was insisting on placing it:

• 1st revert: [416]

I have tried seeking a request for comment, but the mediator whom I have sought to corroborate the story has evidently been away. Though the page's instructions say the request should have been deleted after 48 hours, it is still intact after nearly 21 days! [417]

I do not know how to warn the other user, I am--or would be--quite new here. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Attempted mediation: [418]

Comments:

The other user 'tattooed' my talk page with--unfounded--notices about vandalism when I tried to log in and clean up the introductory section and reference information that had long been presented there. There has not really been ground to attempt a direct dialogue, so I brought the matter to the mediation cabal, and informed the other user of the case (See link above). He or she participated initially, continuing to controversially revise the page, and then refused to continue with mediation. The problems with the user's actions have not been acknowledged, my talk page unfortunately still reflects this behavior, and contributions made in good faith are still erased. WayGoneOr (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined There are lots of things you should be doing rather than reporting this here. First of all, there is no recent edit to be reported—the last time Inquietude edited this article at all was 10 days ago, and the revert you linked to is a full two months old. Wikipedia blocks are to prevent immediate damage to the encyclopedia when a person is being disruptive right now; they are not used for punishment during a dispute. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Plus, you yourself have been gone for over 20 days—what suddenly prompted you to file this report now, of all times???
• Secondly, I see no appropriate attempt at discussion. You have never posted a message at
  MEDCAB
  case.
• Finally, I don't see anything wrong with the other user's editing. This is a content disagreement, not inappropriate editing; editors are always free to disagree over how to best word a paragraph or whatnot. The other user's edits are certainly not vandalism (please read
  What vandalism is not
  before ever accusing someone of vandalism; usually when people call each other "vandals" they are misusing the term and it just pisses everyone off). Plus, the message he left at your page were not "tatooing" you with notices—from what I can tell, what he sent you was a carefully written and well-thought-out point-by-point explanation of the changes he was making, and why he thought they were appropriate, with links to Wikipedia policies to support them. That is the very crux of discussion.
• So, long story short, there is no point blocking anyone here, nothing to do here. You, however, do need to read up on some policies and try to edit more cooperatively. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are capable of reading my post here, you would see that I have been waiting for a request for comment during the past 3 weeks! What needs to be explained? The person made up LIES and posted them on my talk page, I then determined that the mediation cabal was the right place to turn. After the other user refused to follow through with mediation, the mediator suggested a request for comment and then disappeared. I had been waiting all of this time for the mediator to respond because two persons are needed for a request for comment, but there has been no activity from him.

The good faith edits I have made are still erased, and the only way to restore the information would be through "edit warring." You are not introducing a community that I care to participate in, so do non instruct me to do anything, unless you can be helpful toward me with this matter. WayGoneOr (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [419]

• 1st revert: [420]
• 2nd revert: [421]
• 3rd revert: [422]
• 4th revert: [423]
• 5th revert: [424]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [425]

Related edit warring on History of special relativity and Introduction to special relativity as well. Tim Shuba (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear edit-warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [426]

• 1st revert: [427]
• 2nd revert: [428]
• 3rd revert: [429]
• 4th revert: [430]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [431]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [432]

User was blocked for 3rr on same page on 13 June 2009. Izzedine (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked Both of you are edit warring, and no attempt at all has been made by either of you to explain why either version is better. Just a bunch of messages saying "don't revert my edits!" That's not discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Daniel_Hannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 90.240.126.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

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

1. 16:22, 20 September 2009 (edit summary: "rv - further coverage today")
2. 17:49, 20 September 2009 (edit summary: "rv blanking - please make your case on the talk page before deleting")
3. 17:59, 20 September 2009 (edit summary: "Please see
   WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
   ")
4. 18:06, 20 September 2009 (edit summary: "rv see talk - calling an MP "unpopular" isn't a reason to delete his comments")

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

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

Comments:
Have attempted to resolve issue on talk page but user is determined to have edit put in place (using reverts) despite relevant WP policies being pointed out to him.

• 247
  21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Both users

), but perhaps an admin can take a look and calm things down.

--DestroHolmes (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Zhenboy had not been warned about 3RR. I have just warned him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

SPAs, and Zhenboy looks like a sock (but both of those are issues for other noticeboards). Both have reverted since being warned. Both blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 88.2.224.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [433]
• 2nd revert: [434]
• 3rd revert: [435]
• 4th revert: [436]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [437]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [438]

Comments:
Various editors have created

) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• WP:3O or a relevant WikiProject to look for an outside opinion to comment. But in any case, the IP's repeated removal of tags without consensus is edit warring. 18:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 02:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [439]
• 2nd revert: [440]
• 3rd revert: [441]

Comments: Arzel edits out anything negative about any conservative sites, groups, etc… and tries to use any rule he can find to support that. Other people that do the same even write him, his and their talk page, to get his help to revert things such as the edits above. He has been told his POV is not the only one that matters and items that are truthful, supported, and talked about do have their place in wiki articles even if it is not of his belief. Also this is not the first time he has done this and has been warned, see his history, many times before.

• This looks like it just needs to be protected. Everyone is reverting one another right and left, and you yourself have at least 2 reverts, so you're edit warring just about as much as he is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Certainly no violation here; Arzel wasn't ever issued a 3RR warning and he's not edit warring any worse than Marlin or Tdinatale (both at 2 reverts so far). The page seems to be in the middle of a dispute. There's nothing to block for (indeed, if Arzel gets blocked so should Marlin and Tdinatale; you can't have one block without the others), and I will leave it up to you others to seek page protection if that is necessary (although the best thing really is just to be mature and have more discussion on the talk page before edit warring). I will keep an eye on the article, though, and if there are more reverts there could be blocks. Also, I'm warning all three editors. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [442]
• 2nd revert: [443]
• 3rd revert: [444]

Instead of reverting a third time, I thought an administrator should deal with this mess. I didn't bother to warn this user, since all I want is for someone to hear me out.

There is currently a Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Character Names going on regarding the use of manga/FUNimation dub names in all Dragon Ball articles. It seemed that some people decided to go with the manga names, so I took it as an oppurtunity to change something on the article page. "Hercule" was used instead of the Japanese/manga name "Mr. Satan" in FUNimation's early dub of the show. Now that the season sets came out, they revised the dub a bit and used "Mr. Satan." He's arguing that because these episodes were never re-aired in this new format, the older dub should be used on the names. He says people who watched the show in the '90's would recognize with "Hercule" more because of this, but clearly these sets were big sellers (they are even the basis for episode divisions on Wikipedia, now!). We discussed the change a bit after two reverts each, and then out of nowhere, and without replying back, he reverted yet again telling me to knock it off when I didn't do anything then. Can someone deal with this, please?

... The discussion was with another user, my mistake, so the issue was not discussed by me and him. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As a participant in the discussion and editor of the list, I'd suggest that there was no edit warring here, no 3RR violation, and if D4c3nt3n0 felt there was, he did not give any warning to Sesshomaru. Both were editing at the same time, which resulted in conflicts as D4c3nt3n0 was editing one section while Sesshomaru was editing in another. As noted, there is already an on-going discussion about the names, but consensus has not been reached yet so the changing in the names was premature. --

talk · contribs

) 01:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't feel he needed to be warned because all I wanted was to see what an administrator had to say. Also, Mr. Satan is now the dub name, as well, so really the manga has nothing to with the change. Can it be changed? D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling of the article name (small 'c' on 'characters') throughout the above report so that all the links would work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined There wasn't four or more clear reverts in 24h, further this appears to be a content dispute that rightfully should be discussed on the talk page. Generally, reverts seemed to have calmed for now, so no real need for a block at this point.
  247
  07:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: Morgan Fairchild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 74.130.251.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [445]

• 1st revert: [446]
• 2nd revert: [447]
• 3rd revert: [448]
• 4th revert: [449]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [450]

Diff of linkspam warning on IP's talk page: [451]

Comments:

IP editor repeatedly adding linkspam (image gallery forbidden by WP:EL as well as copyright violation) to article on actress. IP attempting to evade 3RR by making 4th revert exactly 24 hour after 1st. IP has been making the same edit for several days, reverted by at least three different editors, including me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours AdjustShift (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Van Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Time reported: 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I added back information that Observer said was POV and I made the case that it wasn't. He then reverted me 4 times

• 247
  22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Content delivery network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Worldcupsailing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 18:19, 21 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
2. 18:10, 22 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
3. 18:12, 22 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
4. 18:17, 22 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
5. 18:33, 22 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 315553051 by Haakon (talk
   )")
6. 18:37, 22 September 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 315555851 by Barek (talk
   )")

• Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Page: Iron_Man_2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported: 94.192.137.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [452]
• 2nd revert: [453]
• 3rd revert: [454]
• 4th revert: [455]

Thor Reverts

• 1st revert: [456]
• 2nd revert: [457]

Super Hero Squad Show Reverts

• 1st revert: [458]
• 2nd revert: [459]
• 3rd revert: [460]
• 4th revert: [461]

GI Joe Rise of Cobra Reverts

• 1st revert: [462]
• 2nd revert: [463]
• 3rd revert: [464]
• 4th revert: [465]

Iron Man 2 Reverts

• 1st revert: [466]
• 2nd revert: [467]
• 3rd revert: [468]
• 4th revert: [469]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [470] (not my Diff, but at least someone's tried to talk to him about it.

Comments:

Come on man, you have got to notice that there's a reason all your GI Joe and Iron Man link adds were taken out, and your SHS links are just as bad. Like you've been told, over and over, your blog, however nice it may be, doesn't actually have anything to add. It's just some pictures from other official sources, already linked to by the way, and believe it or not, Wikipedia isn't a promotional tool. You've got a couple pages where your link was removed 4 times already, and Wikipedia has rules against that!Asdf now (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Warned His editing is clearly a problem, but he's never really been given a proper spam warning either—the message you gave him a week ago was a good start but didn't say much about WP policies, and the talkpage diff (above) he probably never saw. I gave him a uw-spam3 warning, which can be considered more or less final. You can re-report (here, to me directly, or to
  AIV) if he starts spamming again after having gotten this warning. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs
  01:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)