Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive112

Page: Legality of cannabis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: CSjoholm (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:
At least three different editors have tried to discuss this matter with CSjoholm, but he continues to edit war. He claims the material is false, but refuses to provide a source. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result Blocked for 24 hours. — Jake Wartenberg 05:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Anne Applebaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 64.228.135.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

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

The third revert is different, removing (with an edit summary containing a false accusation of vandalism) a template noting the need to source claims in a BLP; the IP editor's disruptive intentions should be clear.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:64.228.135.90 (only comment, as of this writing, on IP talk page)

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

Comments:
There clearly is no consensus to add the disputed text, and discussion on the article's talk page and at BLP/N shows that a majority of editors, particularly established editors oppose inclusion of the disputed text. As my comments on the talk page, as well as imperfect references to

) 05:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) updated 05:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Majority of editors? No, that's false. Consensus, while not required, is trying to be reached. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz continues to revert despite the talk page and justifications. You've been accusing me of whatever comes to mind without discussion. You warn me, I warn you. Throughout, you refuse to leave a WP:BLP compliant section alone. You refuse to edit, just remove it. I guess I'll add more if I have to but I await some kind of discussion with you (not just links and warnings that apply equally to you, followed by yet another complete removal). You've also stated I'm an experienced editor (sock-puppet too, now?). If that were so, I'd create a nice entry like you've done and I'd be re-adding the well-sourced material with a click instead of fumbling around. Time for me to read the wiki notes (not all the wonderful links you've proided) so I can edit in style. 64.228.135.90 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• 6th revert (2nd after warning): [17] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: User has been blocked for 24 hours. No other participants in the edit war violated 3RR. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to this because of a warning from David Eppstein. A section was created on the talk page to address these users' complaints. Rather than avail themselves in a meaningful fashion, they continued to revert edits. They, as a group, attacked one specific section of the article. All criticisms were addressed and other editors attempted to disuss. The above complaintants continued to remove the entry in its entirety. See the talk page: 02:43, 2 October 2009.

• Administrator David Eppstein particpated in the edit warring:

1. 03:54, 2 October 2009
2. 05:08, 2 October 2009
3. 19:54, 2 October 2009

• User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has participated in the edit warring and violated 3RR. Also appears to have been edit warring to the same effect on their user talk page with the IP in question (continued to remove warnings).

1. 02:48, 3 October 2009
2. 03:18, 3 October 2009
3. 03:56, 3 October 2009
4. 03:58, 3 October 2009

• User Morbidthoughts chose a side soley to participate in the edit warring, nothing else:

1. 04:31, 3 October 2009
2. 05:47, 3 October 2009

Hired hand?

Additionally, Martin451 made no useful contributions to the talk page, only disingenious accusations between (some) reverts. What I'm saying is that this individual looked for a WP:something to toss out as a burdersome obstacle to faithful editors, then instantly reverted. He was asked not to yet continued. An editor would respond on the talk page and the user would move on to yet another accusation with little or no discussion. Some of the above editors would then repeat one or more of the accusations with no new material or thoughts added to the debate. This user seems to be schooled in overt 3RR avoidance:

1. 00:41, 2 October 2009
2. 01:21, 2 October 2009
3. 02:43, 2 October 2009
4. 04:52, 3 October 2009
5. 05:26, 3 October 2009

All of these users have avoided attempts at consensus building, repeatedly reject community input (see talk page and edit warring), and have collectively engaged in a campaign to drive away productive editors. All are guilty of skipping procedure to deal with disputes, choosing to, instead, meet a minimal threshold in an effort to silence opposing views. They are all

. Essentially, they appear to be in strong opposition to one specific section and will stop at little to get their way - truth, NPOV, relevance and reality be damned.

You may want to discuss these actions and the single edit block you felt necessary with administrator Krakatoa. I found the attacks on this user's efforts and mine offensive. I have, however, learned a lesson or two in effective trolling on the Wiki. If you will all excuse me, it would seem that I must be off to collect links and templates for future defense and attack instead of contributing as I had hoped. How unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.54.1 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has been protected, so I've unblocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

• 1st revert: [19]
• 2nd revert: [20]
• 3rd revert: [21]
• 4th revert: [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

• This user keeps constantly reverting and/or deleting information from the article. Moreover, he has gone as far as to attempt to use Wikipedia policy in order to bully other Wikipedians. This can be seen in this edit summary: "WP:OWN violation, last possible revert for User:MarshalN20 if he doesn't want to break WP:3RR as well". This is obviously completely against the spirit of the Wikipedia project, and this user should get the punishment he deserves for bullying and purposely using sources incorrectly.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  

• The user continued to revert the article despite I asked him to stop. I also warned him about it prior to this next revert, but he didn't listen. However, he accused me of breaking the 3RR, but I told him that 4 was the number for a 3RR. Then he replied: "Thank you then I'll put back my edition now". Will an administrator do something about this?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Both users blocked 24 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Comments:

This seems to be a new account of long time product promoter

) 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:MelicansMatkin

(Result: 31 hours)

Page: Misty (Pokémon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: J4V4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments: User:J4V4 also appears to be engaged in edit wars on several other Pokémon articles, including

) 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Road to the Multiverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]
• 4th revert: [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Discussion at talk page: [44]

Comments: The user has been asked to find reliable sources, but feels she doesn't need to because she allegedly drew the animations.

21:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate report, so here are my comments: User claims to be part of the production team, so I guess that gives him/her the authority to revert to unsourced fan site as a reference: This shows a subtle attack, and unwillingness to be civil during discussion

chat

21:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Modern Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jemesouviens32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 21:03, 3 October 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 317672673 by Andi 3ö (talk
   ) Vandalism")
2. 21:21, 3 October 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 317714992 by Andi 3ö (talk
   ) Vandalism part 3")
3. 21:31, 3 October 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 317715515 by Jemesouviens32 (talk
   ) Find another contributor Andi3ö you ahve no credibility...")
4. 21:34, 3 October 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 317717287 by Jemesouviens32 (talk
   )")

• Diff of warning: here

This is the third time that this user engages in an edit war on this article. From the beginning of the discussion, he has been the only one that opposes making the article a redirect/disambig and wants to keep it as a stand-alone (he is the creator of the article). We already went through extensive discussions on talk:Buddhism, an explicit deletion discussion that resulted in a clear consensus to make it a redirect/disambig AND an RfC with the same result on talk:Modern Buddhism

Although he has really done only two real reverts now (the last 2 where he reverted himself were accidens i guess) and as i do not want to be part of yet another edit war about this topic, please advise me on how to finally solve this problem and convince User:Jemesouviens32 to finally stop his childish behavior. Thank you very much, Andi 3ö (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Andi 3ö that Jemesouviens32 is now edit warring; clear consensus from RfC to change article, although J32 did not not agree with the consensus; now continues to revert article to his version even after warning. Singularity42 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected by NuclearWarfare. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Bowling for Columbine
User being reported: Dynablaster

Previous version reverted to: [45]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [We discussed on our user pages]

Comments:

<This appears to be a situation where the user is erasing my edits, initially doing so by reverting someone elses and erasing mine without mention. It seems to be a personal bias motive. This was discussed on each of our talk pages.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC) -->

Protected for three days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Konotop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: User Voyevoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just returned from a fresh block for edit warring merely 2 weeks ago and continues to revert pages without even making an effort to disscuss his actions at talk.--Hillock65 (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 03:59, 4 October 2009
• 2nd revert: 05:30, 4 October 2009
• 3rd revert: 05:42, 4 October 2009
• 4th revert: 06:01, 4 October 2009
• 5th revert: 07:31, 4 October 2009
• 6th revert: 08:04, 4 October 2009
• 7th revert: 08:15, 4 October 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 4 October 2009

Comments:

• I made an attempt to start discussion at the talk page of the article as well placed a warning at his User talk page, which unfortunately produced no effect.[50]--Hillock65 (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• There was a vivid discussion on the discussion page of the article where I linkes several sources. It's not clear why he portrays me as the reason of the Edit War being just the analog part of it himself. Everything of my edits that he removes is sourced. While he tries to hide unpleasant facts by deleting them of placing them into footnotes I pursue the policy of equal presenting of different sources to the reader, even those I don't support. The user is also involved in a dubious anti-Russian mailing list scandal. --Voyevoda (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• For the record, the discussion is far from being vivid and only started after this report had been filed. As well, in his absence several editors collaborated on the article and more or less stable version has been established, yet his second edit after coming from a block for 3RR violation was restoring the contentious version which was fought over before. This is leading nowhere. --Hillock65 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I was blocked only for 24 hours about 3 weeks ago. And even this was not explained properly. Hillock lies when he says the discussion started only now. Just visit the discussion and make your own picture of its developping and his discussion "skills". --Voyevoda (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was looking into this topic because having been on the receiving end of 3rrv decisions so far, i wanted to see what it is like to be an admin having to decide these kind of things. I realized that it is really not easy to get into this kind of discussions that you know nothing about content-wise. I have to say though that i would have decided differently in this case: i would have blocked both sides for edit-warring:

) 09:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of tag-team editing? I didn't communicate with User:Galassi and chose to stop reverting in favour of disscussion at talk. The other user just chose to push on his version of the article, now with the different user and only started discussion when he was reported. You can see from the article history, that User:Galassi edited this article before, so his appearance here was not an accident. --Hillock65 (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

i didn't say you were commuicating about it. I just counted the reverts: three for you, then three for User:Galassi. I really don't dare to judge who's right in this conflict. Just looking at it from a technical/procedural POV. Andi 3ö (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To Andi 3ö - I agree that there was too much reverting by all editors, though more from one than the others. My first instinct was just to protect the page, and that may be the right thing to do after all. I'll lift the block, protect the page, and warn all and sundry. Thanks for the advice.   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• initial insertion of preferred language: [51]
• first revert to preferred lede: [52]
• tagging article in retaliation: [53]
• first revert to restore tag: [54]
• second revert to restore tag: [55]
• third revert to restore tag: [56]
• further edit to add another
  wp:point tag: [57]
• fourth revert to restore tag(s): [58]
• fifth revert to restore tag(s): [59]
• sixth revert to restore tag(s): [60]
• seventh revert to restore tag(s): [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: article probation, warning and subsequent removal, additional warning, additional warning

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

Comments:

) 18:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I originally filed this report yesterday, but after it appeared

pov}} tag. user:J aka justen (talk

) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply I've reverted the habitual removal of a POV tag. An administrator has already agreed with my actions on the article talk page. I've warned users against removing the tag on their user pages until the matter is resolved on the article talk page.

My previous reply to this complaint was removed without my knowledge. Scribner (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the admin note from the article talk page: "Tags are placed so that all editors, not those currently participating, may weigh in on a conflict. It shouldn't be removed until the conflict is resolved. AniMatedraw 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)" Scribner (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any administrator that would agree with your violation of

wp:point and who have removed it as such. I should add that your original comment is not present here because I withdrew the original report (which was very much to your benefit), not because your comment specifically was targeted for removal. user:J aka justen (talk

) 18:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I view habitual removal of tags placed in good faith as vandalism. Scribner (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the actual dispute, but weighing in on your last statement. Vandalism is

clearly defined, not open to interpretation by each editor. Dayewalker (talk

) 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags aren't particularly part of the article and someone could incorrectly assume the conflict is over, so leeway is assumed. In this case, the tags were repeatedly removed, even after comment by an administrator advising against removal. Scribner (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was once told politely that if an editor has an issue and adds a template that it should not be arbitraily removed but the issues he has should be discussed first.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. However, tags added in violation of

wp:blp issues). He made his case, it was judged as baseless, now he's edit warring. user:J aka justen (talk

) 18:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth I have left him a note on his talk suggesting he leave the tag off for now, this is a silly dispute and it seems a shame to take away an editors priviliges for.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe he got your note. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, yes I saw that..I can only suggest that to be the cool dudes that you guys just leave the tags there for a bit, to stop the reverting.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Rob, but an administrator has already commented in my favor that the POV tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved. The unsourced tag is the same issue, material needs to be sourced per policy. If an administrator tells me otherwise, that's fine but I don't need to be blocked to get the point and at this point I will continue to revert the bad faith removal of tags on the Palin article. Scribner (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I concur that there's no sense in removing the tag if User:Scribner is going to continue to revert to restore it regardless, and have shared (here and here) that opinion with the other editors on the article. I've also asked User:AniMate to consider clarifying his comments for User:Scribner, but I'm not sure he's around at the moment. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week As far as I can tell, Scribner was edit warring against numerous other editors about the tags in the lead. The duration represents an escalation from his last two edit warring blocks of 72 hours each.  Sandstein  19:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Edit_warring asking for a one-revert-rule on that article, and also asking for previous transgressions of 3RR to be forgiven in hopes of a clean start. Sandstein, would you be willing to change your block to allow for this? kmccoy (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at

WP:ANI#Sarah Palin.  Sandstein 

19:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This sockpuppet is currently edit warring on List of conflicts in Asia. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody care to explain to me how a user who's userpage says he is indefinitely blocked, can edit on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The account was blocked 3 minutes after its last edit to that page. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. Thanks for the explanation. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Pete Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnny Spasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert (JS): [63]
• 1st re-revert (Y10): [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 2nd re-revert: [66]
• 3rd revert: [67]
• 3rd re-revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]
• 4th re-revert: [70]

Added

• 5th revert (is from an IP but gives no explanation, cannot determine whether this is the same user): [71]
• 5th re-revert: [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Johnny Spasm and Yankees10

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nearly all of Talk:Pete Rose is dedicated to this issue at this point.

Comments:
I have tried to mediate disputes between these users; however, I have obviously grown fed up, as a party who was external to the original discussion, of trying to get them to discuss. I know that at least one of these users has been blocked for edit warring before (not going to name names here), and it seems like, whether there is discussion or not, that the edit war, and discussion through edit summaries, will continue. This is really just an extension of the earlier edit war, which I tried to mediate and halt before it got out of hand, and regarding which there is a lengthy discussion on the talk page. One of the two users (Yankees10) involved in this particular incarnation of the edit war tried to re-open discussion on the talk page, but even after being asked to contribute to it, the other user continued to revert instead of discussing.

) 12:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be long-term edit warring by these two users. Ten of the last twelve edits on Pete Rose are reverts by these guys. I've notified them of the 3RR complaint, and invited both parties to promise to stop edit warring on Pete Rose. If there is no appropriate response, I think that blocking both editors would be logical. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I dont plan on reverting anymore. We are currently envolved in a peaceful discussion so i'm hoping the reverting and edit warring can stop for good--Yankees10 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours to Yankees10 and Johnny Spasm. Here is the attempt at peaceful discussion -- "Why do you have such an ownership problem with player articles. This is getting absolutely ridiculous." Further discussion on both editors' Talk pages and at my own talk led to no progress. If either one will promise to stop edit warring on baseball articles, the block can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 80.219.121.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]
• 4th revert: [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

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

Comments:
This IP is one of a list of IP's that are on that article the issue was raised at ANI here, but as it is a dynamic IP a range block is not appropriate. BigDunc 14:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected. User has probably moved onto another IP by now, so semi-ing article to keep the argument between registered users at this time. Black Kite 07:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=317852068&oldid=317705916

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=317897317&oldid=317878569 19:54, 4 October 2009
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=317920190&oldid=317899637 22:06, 5 October 2009
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=318007491&oldid=317947914 08:40, 5 October 2009
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=318078843&oldid=318053682 17:09, 5 October 2009
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=318081653&oldid=318080027 17:22, 5 October 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Otterathome&diff=318080369&oldid=318037525 17:16, 5 October 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tubefilter#Sources

Comments:

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [80]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive recent warnings of ownership.

Comments:

Has serious ownership issues, and bites other users, has a habit of refactoring talk (archiving it before an RFC, changing other's punctuation and capitalisation). Fifelfoo (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Keysanger has been a very naughty child.//Voice of Reason (165.91.172.194 (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

The users have to present precise claims. Somthing like: "It is POV" is not enough for a POV-tag --Keysanger (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I ask the administrator who judges this case to also take a look at the article's talk page and the history page. There you'll see that Keysanger has severely broken a series of Wikipedia laws.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protected. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Curtis23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [86]
• 2nd revert: [87]
• 3rd revert: [88]
• 4th revert: [89]
• 5th revert: [90]
• 6th revert: [91]
• 7th revert: [92]
• 8th revert: [93]
• 9th revert: [94]
• 10th revert: [95]
• 11th revert: [96]
• 12th revert: [97]
• 13th revert: [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACurtis23&diff=318131063&oldid=317862311

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_71#Zack_Ryder

Comments:

I've had no part in this warring, I've just been a spectator watching the entire thing unfold. As is made quite clear from the diffs above, Cutris23 has been adamant in maintaining a unique page for Zack Ryder rather than a merge with Curt Hawkins. The matter has been discussed ad nauseam on both project pro wrestling, the diff linked to above, and on the Zack Ryder talk page. Through my own reading of both pages, no clear consensus has been reached, which I'm sure has contributed to the frequent reverts back to a unique page. That said, a number of users have asked Curtis23 in the talk page and through edit summaries to desist. Instead of providing a meaningful argument for keeping the Zack Ryder page, he proceeded to revert a number of redirects by other editors (13 total beginning 8 September and continuing to today).

avs5221 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Edit: Curtis23 has also contacted me at my user talk since I notified him of the 3rr report. [99]

avs5221 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not fair you can't use my every edit of the last 27 days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Curtis23 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't ever reverted that page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period so I haven't violated any rule.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is not permitted regardless of whether or not you violate the 3 revert rule. --Aqwis (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But if I did violate a rule i'm sorry and I won't do it again.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No action taken, given the above ^ post. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Stedman Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 82.29.16.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

• 1st revert: [101]
• 2nd revert: [102]
• 3rd revert: [103]
• 4th revert: [104]
• 5th revert: [105]
• 6th revert: [106]
• 7th revert: [107]
• 8th revert: [108]
• 9th revert: [109]
• 10th revert: [110]
• 11th revert: [111]
• 12th revert: [112]
• 13th revert: [113]
• 14th revert: [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

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

Comments:
Not a 3RR violation, but IP user has been edit-warring on this article for the past month, continuing to revert sourced material without reason because it is not flattering towards the subject. He has been warned three times now by another editor on his talk page, but has persisted with behaviour. Article page was even semi-protected for several days due to this, but once protection expired, the IP user continued. Request lengthy or even permanent blocking for the IP address in question. MassassiUK 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just had a little look at this and the article does seem to have a poorly cited controversy, which this ip has been reverting, I would say the article needs a little look to ensure it is not a BLP issue, small artlicle with a big controversy section, I suggest if the ip is blocked ( he has been warned on his talkpage) that the block is small as a first block and that we should try to talk to the ip to see what the problem is.

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just left the ip a welcome, he has been here a month and has only been warned and never welcomed.

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the article and removed the controversy section as a BLP protection, it is controversial and weakly cited, I was almost immediately reverted, the article is in need of an admin having a look.

Off2riorob (talk

) 03:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you are a known troublemaker who has already been blocked for disruption more than half a dozen times this year and you removed adequately sourced information. Now it appears you are going up and down this noticeboard, causing more trouble for your own twisted amusement. The sources given on this article in question were from two leading UK music magazines and are suitable for inclusion. You have already been reported to the Admin Notice Board this week by other editors for disruptive behaviour as seen here. 80.41.82.61 (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are unworthy of AGF editing and verging on rude, please comment on the edits and not the editor. As I said those citations were poorly cited and if you look someone has found some stronger ones.

Off2riorob (talk

) 09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your history of disruptive behaviour speaks for itself. Get off Wikipedia and find something else to occupy your time. 80.41.31.169 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not log in and be uncivil?

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). 80.41.30.16 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Result - No action. Another admin lifted the semiprotection on September 30. In his log message he advised that the IP responsible for the BLP stuff be blocked if he adds the material again. The offending IPs seem to come from the 80.41.* range. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people need to pay closer attention. The admin who lifted his own semi-protection of the page was referring to the IP user who had been reported in this very thread (82.29.16.209) as s/he had been removing sourced material without reason or discussion for some weeks now. Several editors have been restoring the details only for the 82.29.16.209 IP to remove it again. The debate about the material not being sourced well enough is another discussion for another board, but the fact is it met

WP:V adequately and has now had further sources added anyway. Not that I think this will stop the guilty party from removing it again, and if that does happen, it means this whole exercise has been nothing more than a completely pointless debate. 80.41.41.30 (talk

) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

copied from my talk page I had added semiprotection but then removed it about a minute later, thinking my action to be a mistake; I saw that 82.29.* seemed to be the only vandal, rather than 80.41. (who was providing refs). I gave 82.29.* a final warning at the time, so he can be blocked upon further disruption. In retrospect, the article shouldn't have been protected at all by me because there was not enough vandalism to warrant such an action. —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

80.41, feel free to join the article talk page to persuade the other editors that your negative BLP material is well-sourced. You have yet to make an appearance on Talk. And every time you edit you have a different IP, which does not suggest you will be a reliable partner in any ongoing conversation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear God, what a storm in a teacup this has become. Edjohnson: there is already a section on the article's talk page about the inclusion of the material and its repeated removal without reason. It's only a small section because the user who kept deleting the material (82.26...) has not responded to it in any way, nor has anyone else - so it seems that no "persuasion" was necessary. It seems that several editors (including 80.41...) have restored the information each time it is deleted, as it was indeed adequately sourced, which is why I reported the matter here in the first place. At no point prior to this report was a BLP issue ever mentioned by the person removing the information (in fact, nothing was ever mentioned as they refused to talk). Although I would encourage editors to make an account and sign in to edit articles, I do not feel that user(s) 80.41... has done anything wrong in this matter, as Ed has confirmed above, and I think your tone and suggestion of unreliability towards him/her is perhaps misdirected when the true culprit is obviously 82.29.16.209. I suggest we wait and see if the article gets vandalised again. MassassiUK 09:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• 15th revert: [117] Lo and behold, what did I tell you! 82.29.16.209 has struck again despite further warnings. Is somebody actually going to block this IP number for constant vandalism now, please. MassassiUK 00:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [118]

• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123]

Comments:

Comment: Please note Aardwolf777 appears to be a sockpuppet (of whichever account caused the page to be locked down recently), as does Lion777 (talk · contribs), who jumped in after this report to make the same edits. Dayewalker (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Sockpuppet accounts blocked. Returning spammer with registered accounts as IP range was blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Page protected Protection reset. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Jk54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over a period of about a year and a half now, this user has consistently re-inserted their large WP:OR into the article

, despite the efforts of numerous other editors over the history of the article. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=316382567&oldid=315693400

This is what his/her original version of the article looked like before we managed to cut it down http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&oldid=223641695

The user has continually reverted, with no argument, to greater or lesser extents the attempts to remove their Original Research essay, and apparently ignores the discussions against this. It would be helpful if an administrator could help out on this topic somehow, or at least look into the article and watch the article, because the process of reverting their original research has stubbornly continued for over a year. Avaya1 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The activity is really too sparse and the content too complex to be dealt with here. I'm sending this report to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard for more input. CIreland (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Ma'ale Shomron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The point of contention at this article is where to place the term "Israeli settlement." User: Nableezy insists that words "Israeli Settlement" be the opening words of the article. Other editors don't have a problem with the term "Israel Settlement", but think that the words should be placed elsewhere in the article (like maybe at the end of the opening sentence). These other editors maintain that since "Israeli Settlement" can amount to anywhere between 5 and 55,000 people the term is not descriptave enough for the opening words. Despite the vagueness and semi-decisive nature of the term, User:Nableezy insists that "Israeli Settlement" open the article and is edit-warring in order to achieve this goal. Nableezy resorted to the article talk page after the 4th revert, but his attack mode comments about a J+S gang did not give any sort of impression that there was an intention for a resolution.

• 1st revert: [124]
• 2nd revert: [125]
• 3rd revert: [126]
• 4th revert: When Nableezy doesn't get his prefered version, he slaps the article with a NPOV tag:[127]

User: Nableezy is well aware of edit warring rules, having been blocked twice recently for edit warring. He has also spent considerable time bringing others to this noticeboard, resulting in the blocks of 6 different editors. (1 2 3 4 5 6).

There are times when Nableezy can edit colloberatively, but there are other times (as attested by his contribution history) when Nableezy will just revert and revert until other editors just get tired and go home. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if brewcrewer is being deliberately disingenuous or not, but what edit was the first "revert" a "revert" of? Is there a prior version of that article where "Israeli settlement" (by far the most common description of Israeli localities built in occupied territory) put before "communal village"? (There is not, the words "communal village" were added before "Israeli settlement" in this edit, my edit changed that order, but did not revert to any previous version). And I was not aware that an informal use of the word "gang" (2nd definition: crowd, crew, bunch) would rile him up so. And when 2 editors insist on retaining language used by an extreme minority in place of the most common descriptions across the world what exaclty should I do other than place a tag on the article and a notice on the talk explaining why? nableezy - 05:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy has clearly edit warred on use of the term massacre at Gaza War since the 27th. There have been even more over the last day due to some edits that may not be appropriate and there is certainly some 3rr violations in the last week or so. In his defense it looks like he truly believes he is preventing disruption. I think a block would only be punitive which is not appropriate when a simple reminder to show more caution in the future will serve the intended purpose.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you bring that up my brief look at the history of that article shows me making 7 reverts reinserting material in which 10 separate sources have been provided and which has been in the article for 10 months and has an RfC currently open over since the 27th. I may have missed something in my half-baked counting, but I dont think that constitutes edit-warring. nableezy - 05:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your counting was off since the 27th. I went through real quick and saw 12 labeled revert or undo + another 2 that were not labeled due to long edit summaries (if I'm off by 1 my apologies). Roma jumped in on a couple to limit what I assume would have been a slightly larger total. Keep in mind it doesn't need to be a 3rr to be an edit war but you do have multiples on a few of the days in that period. You have the massacre thing and whatever is going on in the lead that you are constantly preventing changes to. That being said, others participated in the reverts and you were the one to actually seek RfC on the massacre thing so it would be crappy to pin it all on you.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was counting specifically reverts of the removal of the term "Gaza massacre". There were certainly other reverts. And the ones in which there was a legitimate dispute (between me and Jiujitsuguy) were both resolved easily and amicably. But this report is about something else entirely. nableezy - 06:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Well to whatever admin is reviewing this it is shown that Nableezy has a tendency to revert alot. None of it is malicious so hopefully a quick reminder but not a block is in order.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ma'ale Shomron is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. That is by far the most common description in English sources, and the version Nableezy correctly prefers. Brewcrewer and Shuki want to call it a communal village in Samaria, which is the language of the Israeli political right wing. That's what this is all about. Zero^talk 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it would have been more helpful if brewcrewer had counseled the 'other editor' Shuki, that his objections to the standard NPOV term 'Israeli Settlement' in Ma'ale Shomron and other articles like Modi'in Illit (which have included reasons like the term being an attempt to 'delegitimze and dehumanize') are inconsistent with core policies. Perhaps have could have pointed him towards the Editors counseled section in the discretionary sanctions. That way, this whole situation could have been avoided. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Are these attempts to justify Nableezy's revert behaviour on this page (and apparently others as documented above)? Sean, editors who see poor and disruptive editting behaviour should not need to canvass other editors before reporting such behaviour. ANd thanks for a link to that 'editors counseled' advice because that is exactly what I did on the city of Modi'in Illit article, and my withdrawal from that discussion (as suggested by 'editors counseled') did not and does not mean that I approve of Nableezy's OR judgement there about what is 'a common description'. In this specific Ma'ale Shomron case, it certainly is not POV to call a village a village but it the struggle to remove it from the article might be POV. The secondary label 'Israeli settlement' was not removed so there is no attempt to POV either on my part. It is certainly poor editing (and poor syntax) to deprecate the main description of the subject of an article (type of locality: neighbourhood, village, town, city, etc...) to a vague and general label 'Israeli settlement' in the same sentence. And when 'Israeli settlement' can mean anything from a house on a hilltop to a city with 40 000 people, stores, factories, schools, etc..., then the 'specific' description cannot be reasonably deprecated to a general one. It was probably is taken for granted that locality articles on WP do not need BLP type guidlelines, but perhaps we do need them in this case. --Shuki (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This report misrepresents some basic facts. At the page in question, Nableezy made two reverts, and Shuki, commenting just above, made two herself. RolandR made one backing up Nableezy and Brewcrewer made one backing up Shuki. The page should be protected to allow all involved to discuss. But to try and single out Nableezy for sanctions is punitive. At Gaza War (which isn't even the subject of this report, but has been mentioned) Nableezy reverted to restore the consensus version, up for 10 months now, for which there is an ongoing RfC. Those changing the text without regard for the ongoing RfC and without support for their changes are the ones being disruptive there. Brewcrewer, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to prevent a good contributor from editing by misrepresenting their edits and eliding your own role, and tose of your "allies" in both disputes. Tiamut^talk 12:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Although there has been a disingenuous attempt to rewrite the lead to state that Ma'ale Shomron is "Also known as a 'settlement'", the facts are not really in dispute. For most of the world, the salient fact is that this is not primarily "a communal village", but "an Israeli settlement". Strictly speaking, it should be described as "an illegal Israeli settlement", but this usage has caused an inordinate amount of edit-warring in the past. The argument above that there are settlements of different sizes misses the point entirely; this phrase describes the nature and status of the community, not its magnitude. It's also rather odd to attempt to blame Nableezy for the fact that many editors who disagree with him have been blocked for edit-warring on this article. I see no valid complaint here. RolandR 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

comment shuki has been systematically editing articles with respect to their status as israeli settlements, often with misleading or 'minor' edit summaries. see [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134] - and this is only a partial list over the last couple of weeks. nableezy and others have been doing their best to prevent disruption by this user, but he simply moves on to another one as soon as editors tell him he is wrong. this report is focused on the wrong editor. furthermore, brewcrewer engaged in reversions without discussion as well, although his were against the consensus and source based version. untwirl(talk) 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, trying to change the accusation here to me? Nice job. And may I ask how you found out about this discussion given your recent absence and if anyone informed you? So, how does my WP interests contribute to this issue on Nableezy's edit warring habits? Your accusation attack is baseless, and non

WP:AGF. My edits are NPOV and if you can find a real issue about that, then make the effort to report me without the silly accusation to discredit me. As opposed to Nableezy who avoids edit summaries half the time as you can see here, and your mainly cryptic non-explanatory edit summaries here, my edit summaries over the past few years are on the most part detailed, explanatory and probably over-descriptive of the content of the edits, much more than both of you together. --Shuki (talk

) 23:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

this would be a more accurate link to provide for "edit summaries" but where did that even come from? And if you are counting you made exactly the same number of reverts as I did, though you did so to emphasize the language used by a fringe sized minority before what is used in the vast majority of sources. And yet you oddly invoke NPOV while doing this. But what does this have to do with anything. I made 2 reverts, you made 2 reverts. And you have yet to make one comment on the talk page as to why we should not use the most common description of places first? In fact nobody has said why we should not do so. So would you care to explain how it is that I am edit-warring but you somehow are not? Forgive my lack of edit summaries where it does not matter, like this board. nableezy - 01:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stale Somewhat stale now and I'm not convinced blocking is going to solve anything at this juncture. Rather,
  WP:AE for further reports. CIreland (talk
  ) 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Really. A case is opened about Nableezy edit warring (with a history of edit warring), and the result is that I get a warning/caution of I/P conflict articles? Nableezy already received that notice a few months ago and his issue is simply ignored? Before this is even over, he went and reverted again. What is stale about that? --Shuki (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Charles K. Kao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Matthew hk (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]

Comments:

• While other users were making contributions to the infobox in the article Charles K. Kao, User:Matthew hk just deleted those contributions immediately. I regard this massive deletion as a form of vandalism. He has been warned that he would be banned if he violates the 3RR rule, but he keeps on reverting. He refuses to resolve the problem on the talk pages. I find this very disrespectful, and is harmful to the harmony of Wikipedia. Since he doesn't care about the warning, warning obviously does nothing to him. I think he should be banned from editing. - Alan (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I had blocked without waring. The last waring is 1 minute before my last SAVED edition. And started the edit war is on the university he graduated. User:Alanmak 4 edit[142][143][144][145] is pure violate MOS of flags and adding unreliable fact for his nationality, to add eight flag, my act is to revert vandalism. And the 4 "revert" have minor different. Matthew_hk tc 18:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [146]

• 1st revert: [147]
• 2nd revert: [148]
• 3rd revert: [149]
• 4th revert: [150]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [152] see full discussion, involving multiple editors, on article talk page

Comments:
More fallout from the Roman Polanski controversy. Due to the initial edit war on this article, the page was protected for several days, and debate continued on the article talk page during the protection. (The issue was also debate at

by placing inappropriate and excessive importance on an event of no particular significance in the subject's career. Particularly disturbing is Krakatoa's focus on finding and citing provocatively titled blog comments, characterizing the subject, for example, as the "friend of a rapist." Even the claim that the subject's writing "created a firestorm" of criticism is sourced only to a blog.
The bottom line should be this: when multiple editors reasonably object to disputed content and raise BLP objections, it's simply not acceptable editing behavior to edit war to keep the disputed content in the article without substantively addressing the BLP issues. It's certainly not acceptable to violate 3RR to do so. WP:BLP authorizes the repeated removal of offensive content without regard to 3RR limits, but Krakatoa's behavior suggests that to do that will simply intensify the edit warring (note comments like this [153], so I've brought the matter here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz noted, this page was blocked for three days by administrator Tedder. The form of the article blocked by Tedder originally contained a paragraph regarding Applebaum's columns about Polanski and other writers' reaction to it. While the block was still in effect, Tedder removed that paragraph, but made no judgment whether it was appropriate or inappropriate, explaining "revert to more neutral version as the article is under full protection against BLP issues. Of course, see

WP:WRONG". See [[154]]. During the three days that the page remained blocked, I spent hours responding to criticisms of the disputed material on the Talk page: [[155]], addressing as best I could, and in good faith, all of the points raised by any editor who cared to participate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did not participate in those discussions, although he had done so earlier. After the page was unblocked, I added a different paragraph about the Polanski controversy (the so-called "1st revert" above). I did not and do not understand this to be a "revert," since the paragraph I added was different from that deleted by Tedder. I had changed the paragraph to remove sources of questionable reliability; add other, more reliable, sources; and make the paragraph more objective and concise. (I have since made further efforts to make the paragraph more objective and concise. It now apparently is acceptable to everyone except Hullaballoo Wolfowitz). H.W. then, without discussion or attempting to reach consensus, reverted my edit. I reverted him, he reverted me a second time (again without discussion on the Talk page), I reverted him a second time, he reverted me a third time, and I reverted him a third time (again, not to my understanding, a fourth time). At 16:25, a minute before his third revert, he had complained on the Talk page that I had failed to address Applebaum's response to the claim that she had a COI. I added a sentence to the article to address that - see [[156]]. I have continued to discuss the disputed material on the Talk page with David Eppstein and H.W. (see above link and [157]

), and to modify the article to address concerns raised by other editors. I do not think I have violated the 3-revert rule or acted in bad faith.

H.W.'s contention that I have not addressed the supposed BLP issues is baseless. I have discussed those alleged issues in both of the sections of the Talk page linked above. It appears that no one besides H.W. currently thinks that there is a BLP issue. As I said on the Talk page, Applebaum undisputedly wrote the two columns in question, and other writers indisputably criticized those columns in the manner described in the article.

As for my supposed "disturbing" search for "provocatively titled blog comments" like "friends of a rapist", I have made no such search. The title in question - "What's with these friends of a rapist?" - is the title of an opinion piece (not a "blog comment") by Katha Pollitt in the mainstream, conservative, well-respected Chicago Tribune - see [158]. However, I am sick of this. I have over 15,000 edits and am the editor primarily responsible for the Featured Articles First-move advantage in chess and George H. D. Gossip. If you think that H.W.'s claims have merit, please ban me for life and I will either get on with my life or kill myself, as appropriate.

Two other editors have since made minor edits to the paragraph in question. See [[159]] and [[160]]. The bottom line is that consensus now appears to have been reached, on the part of everyone except H.W., no thanks to him/her. Krakatoa (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached to keep this paragraph in the article. This paragraph places undue weight on one incident in her career, and just because someone does not keep replying to every comment reiterating their views does not mean that they have changed their view. You continued to re-add the paragraph despite ongoing BLP concerns of other editors. This edit to the talk page by User:CanuckMike even threatened to edit war to keep the paragraph in. Martin451 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I perceive that Krakatoa's four reverts listed in this report are genuine reverts within 24 hours, with the last one happening at 16:29 on October 6. This violates

RFPP. Admins Tedder and David Eppstein have tried to assist but the dispute continues. Another spell of full protection does not sound like it would be productive. EdJohnston (talk

) 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Result - On his talk, Krakatoa has agreed to accept a voluntary one week ban from the article. It will expire at 16:48 UTC on 14 October. People are encouraged to open an RfC to solve the outstanding issues. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Roman Polanski (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wilhelm meis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

• 1st revert: [161]
• 2nd revert: [162]
• 3rd revert: [163]
• 4th revert: [164]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [165]

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

Comments:

It's a simple issue. Meis objects to a section heading which clearly indicates the issue being discussed and has taken it upon himself to suppress and censor clear discussion of Reliably Sourced content germane to the article's subject. When appropriately notified of policy regarding 3RR and the removal/refactoring of another's legitimate edits - he reverted the policy suggested template found in the instructions for this page and marked the edit as "Vandalism". 99.142.15.209 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Meis was attempting to insure that 99's header was complaint with BLP policies. 99 has a history of contentious behavior and of posting lurid headings on the talk page announcing his/her latest unflattering find regarding the subject of the article. While I will not get in an unblock wheel war if another admin decides to block Meis, I object to any such block strongly. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way are verifiable, reliably sourced, specific issues which are directly germane to the article in any possible way a violation of BLP? It appears that policy is being falsely asserted here to inappropriately and abusively bully discussion around. Short-circuiting discussion through false policy in order to censor and suppress discussion is an absolute violation. It is fundamentally wrong. 99.142.15.209 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Meis' small, trivial change is not a matter deserving blocking. 99.142/141 is attempting to pick fights at every juncture with other editors (including me). This is another example. I object to the blocking of Meis, who has made valuable comments and maintained his composure in what is a testy Talk page. Oberon Fitch 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Note, oberonfitch is a week old editor - his claim needs to be supported by diff's. (His complaint is false, he will not add relevant diffs)99.142.15.209 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I support a 24-hour block for 3RR violation, this is a rather clear cut case, and we cannot make an exception from policy for Wilhelm meis. I disagree that Meis was "attempting to [e]nsure that 99's header was complaint with BLP policies", I don't see how the original section heading was in any way problematic. Both the section heading preferred by the IP and the one preferred by Meis work fine, the problem is Meis' habit of starting edit wars, even over such ridiculously minor issues. Wilhelm meis has also previously intentionally been edit-warring against several editors, and the article had to be protected because of one of his edit wars ("Full protection, here we come!"). It should also be noted that he has a bad habit of mass-templating his opponents. Urban XII (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• No violation Removal of material that violates
  WP:BLP is not subject to the three-revert-rule. It seems clear that the diffs given above show such a removal. I am more inclined to ask why it was considered necessary to edit-war to restore the obviously sensationalist heading. CIreland (talk
  ) 16:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As you're making a finding of fact that the material violates BLP - Please support your contention.

BLP clearly states, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

The item was sourced to his biography, is mentioned in related articles on Wikipedia and is discussed from his point of view as to why he did it in his auto-biography. This has all been discussed in the Talk page.

I urge you to reconsider your unsupported basis for rendering a decision here.99.142.15.209 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I urge User:CIreland to show us some evidence for how the section heading was a violation of the BLP policy, which I consider to be a false claim. Edit-warring is not acceptable, and an experienced user like Wilhelm meis should know better than intentionally breaking the 3-revert-rule. Urban XII (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 

• It is clear that Judith Reisman is not a reliable source for this, and thus it was a BLP violation to state it in the header. Mention should be made of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#99.144.255.247, this is not the first time the IP edit wars to restore inappropriate talk page material, as can be seen here: [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]. I had filled the ANI report for outside opinions and given the continuation of the disruption, blocked the IP for 48 hours. The section that is the subject of this report was created shortly after its expiration. I have indicated however that I would not take further admin action on this user, as I am tired of this and maybe other admins can handle it. Cenarium (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Judith Reisman is not in relevant. We're referring to A: His Biography which mentions it. B: His Autobiography mentions it. and C: The specific mention of the controversy that exists in the Tate article. 99.142.15.209 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

A little background:

is very explicitly only forbidding/discouraging articles that consist solely or almost entirely of primary-sourced plot summaries.

He was given a last chance in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#User:DreamGuy, to stop, or be blocked or banned from tagging

DreamGuy is editwarring against a clear talk-page consensus, and the FA reviewers. See Talk:Candide#DreamGuy

Previous version reverted to: [172]

There is no 3RR violation, simply edit-warring against a clear consensus (this is a recent FA, for god's sake!)

Candide (Talk:Candide#DreamGuy - talk page discussion) 2 October

• 1st revert: [173]
• 2nd revert: [174]

3 October

• 3rd revert: [175] (just to note, Casliber reverted this. I removed some IP vandalism before the next bit happened)

7 October

• 4th revert: [176]

All the edit summaries are personal attacks, see Candide

See also the very similar edit warring at Roy of the Rovers, also an FA. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a deceptive report, filed solely to try to wikilawyer his way into prevailing in difference of opinion. The claim that there is consensus is both false and misleading, as some FA result in no way endorses all content of that article for all time. His argument here would mean that nobody could then ever tag or edit an article ever again after it came up at FA, which is of course complete nonsense. On top of that, he's trying to use the

WP:NOTPLOT covers -- only forbidding/discouraging articles that consist solely or almost entirely of primary-sourced plot summaries -- are outright false. The actual policy says nothing of the sort, but rather specifies that plots must be "concise" and encyclopedic. The plot summaries in question were anything but concise. Shoemaker's Holiday has tried and failed to change the policy to say something other than what it actually does, and he has made no secret of his desire to completely remove that portion of policy. The problem is that he acts like that policy does not exist and then because highly aggressive and threatening when people do follow it, as we are all required to do. DreamGuy (talk

)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Candide#DreamGuy, Wikipedia_talk:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#This_essay, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#User:DreamGuy Comments:

1 week, not for 3RR exactly, but rather for overall disruptive editing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 204.62.193.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Taivo's version in this diff is accepted text

• 1st revert: [178], reverted back by Alanraywiki here
• 2nd revert: [179], reverted back by Bkonrad here
• 3rd revert: [180], reverted back by Storm Rider here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: A general warning was issued here, a formal warning here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here is the last comment. The issue was actually discussed several months ago and resolved by consensus among the active editors (which includes both LDS members and non-members) in favor of "sacred text".

Comments:

This is a single-purpose account set up to dispute content in LDS topics as shown in his/her contributions. IMHO, it should be permanently blocked. (Taivo (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

This IP has now become User:204:62:193:69. Compare this diff with those above and you will see the same pattern of vandalism. Look at his/her user log and you will see that the only 2009 edits (so far) are anti-LDS edits. (Taivo (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

And again here. (How many of these do I need to post before this IP [range] is permanently blocked?) (Taivo (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

• WP:RFPP or at my talk page. CIreland (talk
  ) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have thought of semi-protection before. Duh. (Taivo (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

Page:

)
User being reported: Sturunner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) abusing and bullying other users.

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godhra_Train_Attack&diff=316803209&oldid=316572169 [diff]
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godhra_Train_Attack&diff=316800952&oldid=316571338 [diff]
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godhra_Train_Attack&diff=316800952&oldid=316571338 [diff]
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godhra_Train_Attack&diff=317193465&oldid=317006130[diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Godhra_Train_Attack

Comments

You of all people ought to be talking, "Unbiasedpov". You are the one who came out of nowhere and started moving pages without any discussion at all. The link you gave to your "discussion" (now at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Godhra_train_burning&action=history) shows no evidence that you tried to engage anyone. And all the history is there. I made very sure that I cleaned up the mess you made correctly. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Article is redlinked because «04:56, 7 October 2009 J.delanoy (talk | contribs) deleted "Godhra Train Attack" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial maintenance. (TW))» — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Made "REDIRECT

) 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours for move warring to both parties. See Sturunner's move log and Unbiasedpov's move log for the repeated moves. (Sturunner, though he did not initiate the move war on the train, has moved two articles three times each since September 29). Unbiasedpov was the first person to move the Godhra train article, and he should not have continued to move it after it was clear that the move was contested. Neither editor did a proper investigation as to whether these moves had consensus before they did them. Sturunner's move of
  Day care sex abuse hysteria was also discussed (after the event) at User_talk:Hersfold#Locked a page on the non-consensus state :( and on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 13:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: [181]
• 2nd revert: [182]
• 3rd revert: [183]
• 4th revert: [184]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Gibraltar#Detail_of_Capture

Comments:
The user insists on reverting to a version for which there is currently no consensus. Has previously been warned for edit-warring. Needs to cool down. RedCoat10 • talk 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Stale at this point. I'll keep an eye on it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [186]
• 2nd revert: [187]
• 3rd revert: [188]
• 4th revert: [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191] and [192]

Comments:

Dispute over adding excessive nicknames to the infobox. User Vintagekits has again reverted as discussion was ongoing on the BLP noticeboard.

) 12:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is considered vandalism to removed sourced material from a reliable source without concensus. Therefore reverting this vandalism does not fall under 3RR. Finally it was you that removed the sourced information without concensus.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, its not within 24 hours and this editor "bullied" other editors to revert the article to "his position".--Vintagekits (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This accusation of bullying is uncivil and uncalled for.

Off2riorob (talk

) 12:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"uncivil and uncalled" - maybe, but not incorrect.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked Vintagekits blocked for edit-warring for 1 week. CIreland (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Super_Mario_Bros._(film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [193]

• 1st revert: [194]
• 2nd revert: [195]
• 3rd revert: [196]
• 4th revert: [197]
• 5th revert: [198]
• 6th revert: [199]
• 7th revert: [200]
• 8th revert: [201]
• 9th revert: [202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

whose edits were being reverted. (no diff provided, as new page was created when message was added)

Page: Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to: [204]

• 1st revert:[205]
• 2nd revert:[206]
• 3rd revert:[207]
• 4th revert:[208]
• 5th revert:[209]
• 6th revert:[210]
• 7th revert:[211]
• 8th revert:[212]
• 9th revert:[213]
• 10th revert:[214]
• 11th revert:[215]
• 12th revert:[216]
• 13th revert:[217]
• 14th revert:[218]
• 15th revert:[219]
• 16th revert:[220]
• 17th revert:[221]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here and on Peparazzi's user talk page.

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

See the article's history

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

Page: List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See the article's history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

Comments:
WikiLubber has been in numerous edit wars, and has broke the 3RR rule numerous times. The user has also been warned numerous times for taking part in edit wars and breaking the 3RR. The user keeps removing the warnings from their talk page, which confirms they read the rule and understand, and has stated in their edit summary that they "have been in edit wars before", yet continues to edit war. If anything, I believe a block should have been implemented a long time ago.

~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• No violation. No violation of 3RR at all, and I don't think that removing unsourced information and nonsense from articles, over a long period of time, is in any way disruptive. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am intrigued to know why the reporter does. Black Kite 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR was violated, for example in the edits of Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. Just pulling a few differences, 345 and 6. Continuously reverting the same edit over and over again without getting a result doesn't constitute as constructive, does it? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

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

Ryulong knows about

on July 30, 2009.

Comments:
In March 2009 there was a

02:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the content in question which can be found at

WT:TOKU#Infobox numbers. In the process of this two-sided edit war, Powergate92 got Black Kite to revert me for him. And the four reverts he has picked out are to different content. The first two reverts are undoing his preferred content for the article. The last two reverts are a hidden tag I added after I reverted myself and added back the content Powergate92 prefers, but he disagrees with the tag. Powergate92 does not edit the article regularly and has only shoehorned himself in for reasons I don't understand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page "I did not ask Black Kite to revert your edit, I asked Black Kite "What do you think about this?"" and "I was asking other user what they think about this, if you look, you will see that the users I asked (User:Ckatz and User:Black Kite) are users I disagreed with within the last month." Powergate92Talk 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, there was only an agreement that the number could be there. There was no agreement on how often it should be updated. Right now there is a discussion to clarify what should and should not be on the articles, for which I am waiting more input from the editing community. Also, there have been no edits (contentious or not) to the article in the past hour and a half. A block at this point would be punitive and unhelpful to anyone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the March discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu, User:Bignole said "if a group of editors wish to update a number every week, and the community (in this case the Tokusatsu community) does not have a problem with it, then that's the way it should be." I said "I agree with Bignole." and User:Mythdon said "What I want to have done in this situation is fully my opinion. If you don't want to update weekly, then simply don't do it. Me and Powergate92 want to update weekly. Fair enough?." That sounds like a agreement to me. Powergate92Talk 05:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the last time I was blocked for 3RR it happened several hours after the edit war had ceased and Powergate92 decided to report me for it, regardless. The old discussion can be seen here. This is the second time that Powergate92 has reported me to this board simply because an edit war had occured and he feels someone needs to be blocked for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can really say about this that hasn't already been said is that Powergate92 is a rather contentious editor who has made virtually no content contributions to pages under

WP:TOKU; nearly all of his work in this project consists of picking fights with Ryulong over formatting issues and performing mass date delinking, which IIRC is forbidden by a couple of ArbCom cases. jgpTC

03:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor checking in. I read the discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu carefully and did not see a consensus, nor even a formal call for consensus, rather there were three editors carrying on a discussion, two disagreed with each other, one offered a neutral position while another editor (now banned) chimed in. Extrapolating a consensus here is wishful thinking. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

As I said on my talk page "On September 3, 2009 I added some info to the "International broadcasts" section in the

List of Power Rangers: RPM episodes[228] Powergate92Talk

03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would to note that the March WikiProject Tokusatsu discussion was started as a discussion at WikiProject Television. Powergate92Talk 05:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Still no consensus determined anywhere. The WPTV discussion says, again, that the community who edits the particular pages should decide what happens. That has yet to occur.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To the reviewing admin, it has now been approximately six hours since any reverts have been made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And now fifteen hours after I made that last statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24h. The merits of the contested material, and who if anybody has consensus on his side, are irrelevant under
  WP:EW. The report is not stale, and the block not punitive, because the article remains in the version preferred by Ryulong and he has neither reverted himself nor promised to stop reverting, and has indeed made an additional revert of another editor ([229]). The block is therefore required to prevent continued edit warring.  Sandstein 
  11:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Law and Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 89.80.162.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [230]

• 1st revert: [231]
• 2nd revert: [232]
• 3rd revert: [233]
• 4th revert: [234]
• 5th revert: [235]
• 6th revert: [236]
• 7th revert: [237]
• 8th revert: [238]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [239]

• Blocked 3 days by Juliancolton.  Sandstein  11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: 2009 Nobel Peace Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: GVU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 12:05, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 12:08, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "Norway is not international reaction because it is an award awarded by Norwegian politicians, hence, the opinion of the opposition in Norway is an internal matter")
3. 13:10, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 13:26, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "this is sourced below and needs to be mentioned in the lead")
5. 13:53, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 14:25, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "pathetic")

—Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [240] and [241]

Also see discussion at : User Talk page and article talk page. User is also edit-warring, and has broken 3RR at Barack Obama over the same issue of trying to label the award as "controversial".

1. 12:03, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
2. 13:58, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
3. 14:16, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
4. 14:24, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
5. 14:33, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "NPOV - the section on the Peace Prize is not neutral because it only contains praise and does not mention the widespread and well sourced criticism")
6. 14:54, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")

Note that both articles are on article probation, but I am not taking this to AE since it is a straightforward case of edit-warring and user has no prior history on Obama related articles. Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

Comment: User

) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.144.70.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 11:54, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 12:59, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 13:15, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 318862221 by Verbal (talk
   ) No need for this "right" wing tag, they don't care about small gov")
4. 14:03, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 318867168 by Verbal (talk
   ) Pointless tag, see discussion")
5. 15:16, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 318876693 by Snowded (talk
   ) It's a pointless tag, it's a pointless tag...")

Continued and continuing removal of "far right" against talk page consensus and reliable sources, and other policies. Some diffs are made up of several edits. —Verbal chat 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours AdjustShift (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ongoing problem, user switched IPs: 82.29.1.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Verbal chat 16:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Both IPs blocked for 1 week for edit warring and sockpuppetry. AdjustShift (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Continuing problem at English Defence League, now with 195.228.173.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Template:Infobox SG rail museum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [242]

• 1st revert: [243]
• 2nd revert: [244]
• 3rd revert: [245]
• 4th revert: [246]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [248]

Comments:

Also alongside the above are mirror reverts falling under the same timeframe at: Monticello Railway Museum, Indiana Transportation Museum, Infobox rail museum, Illinois Railway Museum.

From what looks to be

) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As an update to this report,

WP:3RR have been given here: [249] [250]

An administrative sanction and/or insight into this editing war is much welcomed. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment here, except to say that it would be appreciated if someone uninvolved would read the discussion on the content noticeboard carefully. I will not reply anymore here, so don't reply to this and except a response. --NE2 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Protected one week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Cataphract (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Gamer112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Reason: Disruptive editing, while unwilling to engage in any discussion

Two weeks ago, Gamer112 reverted one of my actions (1st revert) and justified his 2nd revert later by requesting prior discussion ("please refrain from removing large chunks of material without prior discussion"). Fine, I did exactly that by giving my reasons on talk page, but since then Gamer112 has refused to engage in any discussion and simply continues to revert my edits without forwarding any reasons at all:

• 3rd revert: [251]
• 4th revert: [252]
• 5th revert: [253]
• 6th revert: [254]

Notably, his pattern of contributions shows him to visiti Wikipedia mainly to undo my edits. I notified him of being in danger of an edit war ([255]), but he did not react. Since no-one else takes an interest in the dispute, and since Gamer112 steadfastly declines to talk to me and explain his rationale, I don't know what to do anymore. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've requested comment by Gamer112. Currently, I am inclined to warn both editors that they will be blocked if they continue the slow-motion edit warring. The last revert was 2 days ago, so no immediate block is required.  Sandstein  11:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on blowing such a trivial issue right out of proportion. To be blunt & efficient; my main gripe with the state of the article (Cataphract) as it is now and Gun Powder Ma's contributions is simply put, his holier-than-thou attitude and complete disregard for the hard work and months of contribution I have made to greatly improve this burgeoning article. Without so much as a peep on the discussion page or even brief blurb about his changes in an edit summary he significantly alters half the article, with an overall poorly referenced, poorly worded and slightly-POV pushing edit:[256]

Fair enough, I assumed good faith and left a friendly invitation to work this issue out through open dialogue on his talk page: [257] He took offence to my reverts (and I use "offence" in the strongest sense possible, as it seems the mere thought of someone reverting his changes seems like a literal slap in the face to him), although I would like to point out, without any prior discussion, any elaboration or significant attempt to try and have full partisan support of other editors on this article such as myself, his contributions were wholly uncourteous and completely disrupted the flow and overall quality of this article. I reverted them a mere three times prior to contacting him directly and instructing him to discuss the issue there within the edit summary.

I fail to see the serious breach in Wikipedia guidelines I have allegedly committed. All three reverts were on completely separate days and Gun Powder Ma, whom the burden of proof falls upon here, as he edited the article not I, made no attempt to try and reason the issue out with me, instead just kept on reverting my reverts. Why exactly am I responsible for his lack of communication?

He seems to be under the impression that only HE is allowed to edit and revert articles without prior discussion or notification while other users have to abide by his "unwritten rule" mentality. I really do not see the big issue here. As it stands now, the article includes both of our shared contributions in a relatively ad-hoc manner, but nevetheless readable and conforming to encyclopaedic conventions. I propose it be left this way and both of us barred from editing it until we manage to reach some mutual compromise.

Gun Powder Ma's explanation as to why certain parts of my material are not deemed "fit" to be included within this article basically amounts to a juvenile "because I said so" reasoning with little rational basis behind it:[258] Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I spare myself replying to your rant and expect you at the talk page for providing a rationale to your edits. You should be aware that the only reason why we both are not blocked is because I refrained from another revert even though you confined yourself for two weeks to stubborn reverting without commenting on it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Both warned, per Sandstein's comment. Any further reverts that do not enjoy a talk page consensus may result in blocks. The policy on WP:Dispute resolution is there for a reason. Please consider using it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [259]

• [260]
• [261]
• [262]
• [263]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [265]

Comments:

I am trying to highlight that there are a number of verifiable errors on ESPNsoccernet with this one author and readers should be aware. Donhend wants to hide this and will not engage in a conversation of any kind to find a resolution.

) 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)andrewponsford

• Result - Protected one week, since the edit war has continued. Neither party to this complaint seems to have figured out yet how to make neutral contributions that are backed by
  WP:FORUM. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Mishawaka, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 66.99.50.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 76.16.133.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [266]

• 1st revert: [267]
• 2nd revert: [268]
• 3rd revert: [269]
• 4th revert: [270]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271]

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

Comments:User is changing IP addresses to avoid violating 3RR. See edit-warring on October 2. Report was filed, but no action taken by admins.

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Protected three days. I note that the IPs are participating on Talk, and I see no evidence that any party is waiting for consensus before reverting. WP:Dispute resolution gives advice on what to do when parties disagree. After protection expires, continued reverts by anyone (who can't demonstrate Talk page consensus for their edits) may lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there an edit war by people attempting to violate

) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Article protected by User:Bibliomaniac15. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [272]

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318921156
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318897640
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318773825
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318924774

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

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

Comments:

Hammertime2005 (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Already blocked by User:FisherQueen. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Joseph Jett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Hammertime2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318924774]

• 1st revert: [273]
• 2nd revert: [274]
• 3rd revert: [275]
• 4th revert: [276]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [277]

Comments:

Deaththrow (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all of the dispute, but notice that the article history shows you, Deathrow, repeatedly calling Hammertime2005 a "NAZI". I would strongly recommend choosing a different way to voice your displeasure. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Deaththrow is already blocked for edit warring by FisherQueen. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [278]
• 2nd revert: [279]
• 3rd revert: [280]
• 4th revert: [281]
• 5th revert: [282]
• 6th revert: [283]
• 7th revert: [284]
• 8th revert: [285]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [286]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [287]

Comments:
Take a look at the edit history of this page. There are many more reverts than this (most without explanation). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected three days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• [288]
• [289]
• [290]
• [291]

[292]

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

Comments:

• Nice try. The third edit is to my own page, therefore, the four edit rule hasn't been violated. HalfShadow (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that you don't need to explicitly violate the 3RR to be "guilty" of edit warring. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering what I was reverting, I feel comfortable in my actions. HalfShadow (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit more skeptical unfortunately.

WP:RPA suggests that derogatory comments directed at a specific user may be removed if deemed necessary. In this case, I see no such personal attacks. Malleus' remark was not necessary, but it wasn't so severe as to justify edit warring over its removal on Ottava's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk

03:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In any event, this is Stale now. I'll keep an eye on it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• So Malleus falsifies a 3RR report and you're okay with this? Despite your stating that four edits aren't strictly necessary, I only made three edits, which he knows isn't enough to make an official 3RR report, so he basically 'makes up' a fourth edit. Oh yeah, and he's a liar,too; I didn't edit the page in question after recieving his charming little warning. HalfShadow (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I neither endorsed his request nor took action against any of the involved parties. However, this is the edit warring noticeboard, so all reports of potentially disruptive edit warring are acceptable, regardless of whether or not the user in question breached the arbitrary 3RR. That said, there's noting that can really be done at this point, other than remind editors to remain civil and cooperative. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Afaprof01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [293]

• 1st revert: [294]
• 2nd revert: [295]
• 3rd revert: [296]
• 4th revert: [297]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [298]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [299]

Comments:
Editor changing consensus on the lede in controversial article Marriage, was warned about 3RR and asked to take it to the talk page to discuss. He made one comment on the talk page, then reverted again with a different edit summary [300] for his fourth reversion. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Just logged on, can't believe this one is still here eighteen hours later. For the attending admin, Afaprof01 is now also at a contentious 3RR on Christianity. Dayewalker (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours for edit warring. Editor seems to be POV-pushing on the lead of
  Christian. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Pat Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 65.32.195.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pat Robertson page history

Comments:
Introduced personal opinion after reverts.

This looks a bit more like silly vandalism and the ip is gone now, he only has three edits in total, perhaps keep your eye on him and if he comes back and continues with the actions then report him again.

) 00:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If this IP comes back one more time to add nonsense, a block seems appropriate. He has not edited in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: [301]
• 2nd revert: [302]
• 3rd revert: [303]
• 4th revert: [304]
• 5th revert:[305]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [306]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [307]

Comments:

User:Onefinalstep is repeatedly blanking the "Controversies and Criticism" section of the article, a section which is being debated and discussed on the article Talk page. In the last 48 hours, a spate of new and long-dormant editors (including Onefinalstep) have arrived at the Levin article and engaged in everything from blanking to outright vandalism, due to the article subject (a radio host) directing his listeners to deface the page here. It's not unreasonable to suggest that Onefinalstep's blanking is an offshoot of this campaign. --BobMifune (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep; the discussion is still ongoing and he removed the content whilst the discussion was ongoing, first without explaination. Clearly violated the 3RR rule; suggest a temporary block until a concensus regarding the section can be reached. --

(mailbox)

03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Could this contretemps be construed more as a content dispute that needs to be resolved on the article talk page? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Apparently not. He's blanked it again. Action requested, please. --BobMifune (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins have gotten involved. As a result, the section has been moved to the Talk section for further discussion. Therefore Onefinalstep has essentially been proven correct. This matter should be closed with no action taken against Onefinalstep. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See here and here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He was not correct in breaking 3RR over a content dispute, sorry. His interpretation of BLP is roughly summed up as "no criticism ever". Shall we allow him to edit war over every article using this interpretation? I think it's shameful he hasn't been blocked over a 5RR. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, given the circumstances, I highly doubt Onefinalstep will be acting in that fashion again. I think he learned his lesson. The purpose of a block is to teach him a lesson and to stop the repeat reverts. That purpose has already been achieved, and Onefinalstep has been working again with the community. Had the block come sooner, I would have had no problem with it. But as time has passed, it no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended. So, like I said, I agree with you, but time has moved on and a block at this time is not appropriate, at least in my opinion, for what that's worth. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to reluctantly agree. While the lack of prompt response to this complaint is unfortunate, it's a long time since the offense, and he's stopped, so there's no real point in blocking him now. A discouraging official word would be nice and would drive the point home in case he hasn't gotten it, however. Gamaliel (talk)

Cool. I've been friendly to him. Perhaps you ought to leave such a message for him--I'm not an official!!  ;) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ... I didn't get notice of this until just now. I would like to say that I think I was proven correct in my actions because the article in question is a BLP and the deletions I made were of controversial material. I simply want to have the material discussed on the talk page before it goes up. This is in line with the BLP guidelines. Both Gamaliel and BobMifune are also guilty of reverting my edits in unison more than three times. So if I am blocked I at least ask that they be blocked also so that cooler heads may take this issue up on the Mark Levin discussion page. ThanksOnefinalstep (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I would like to add that I am not a "dormant" editor or editing because of some call to arms by Mark Levin. Removing the section is not vandalism it is in line with WP guidelines. The discussion page has come to an agreement to discuss the material before it is added to the BLP which, I believe, is the proper "conservative" stance.Onefinalstep (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You've just proven exactly why you should be blocked. You've fragrantly broken the 3RR and when you go unpunished, show up here to proclaim in triumph that this administrative oversight proves you are right, then compound that obnoxious behavior by making a blatantly false accusation against me. Either immediately retract your statement that I broke the 3RR or prove it by providing links. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Onefinalstep, I've been supporting you here, but I have to say I'm disappointed with your comment. And Gamaliel is in no way, shape, or form acting like that other editor. Did you even read what has been said about you here? Why you would come in here and say those things about Gamaliel after he said what he said is beyond me. I'll make the assumption that you are just having a very bad day. May I suggest that you politely apologize to Gamaliel and retract your statement about his behaviour. Everyone will then forget this and move on. Cool? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All I said was that he and bob were reverting my edits as well. "Say those things?" Didn't he say the exact same things about me? I don't mind that he said them but why are you guys upset that I also said them. It's not as if I am calling him names.Onefinalstep (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You also said "more than three times", which would make it a violation of the 3RR policy, a policy I take very seriously, but you evidently do not. You made a false accusation against me and again I demand you retract it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Result - Warned. A number of admins have been watching the article and adding their advice on the Talk page.

WP:BLP will emerge. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
Users being reported:

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

This is complicated. I'll include diffs that I think are reverts or claimed to be reverts, and let the closing Admin decide to lock the page. Again.

Consider the changes only to the Consistent clause only, please. There may be incidental changes to other sections.

• B2C#1: 22:05, October 8
• Pma#1: 03:19, October 9
• B2C#2: 17:47, October 9 but only a quasi-revert. It's a paraphrase of a previous version.
• B2C#3: 20:07, October 9 he's added {{dubious}} to that section before, making this a quasi-revert, also.
• Pma#2: 21:57, October 9
• B2C#4: 22:02, October 9 straight revert
• Pma#3: 22:03, October 9 revert section to a previous version (at least that's what he says he's doing)
• B2C#5: 22:30, October 9 adding {{dubious}} to that version
• Pma#4: 22:43, October 9

I also have 2 reverts in the past 24 hours,

may have 1.

I'm sure all of the editors in question have been warned for 3RR a number of times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It won't help. B2C will not accept anything which has Consistent as an unadorned principle, and Kotniski, Pmanderson, and I will not accept it other than as an unadorned prinicple, (myself unless all the principles are given similar "except when other principles conflict" or "except as established by other Wikipedia guidelines"; I can't speak for Pmanderson or Kotniski).

B2C has been arguing for a particular interpretation of this policy and related guidelines for over 4 years, sometimes reaching a limited consensus for part of his point of view. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems these two editors settled down completely after this report. At any rate, this report is Stale. KrakatoaKatie 21:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

)

• 1st revert: 2009-10-09T22:52:38
• 2nd revert: 2009-10-09T22:59:34
• 3rd revert: 2009-10-09T23:05:34
• 4th revert: 2009-10-10T15:17:32 ([308])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Jacurek was multiply times blocked for the 3RR, edit warring vio [309], and was warned for the specific case too [310]. IP (78.34.218.97) actions should be investigated alongside. M.K. (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The 4 reverts must be about the same thing in this case they are NOT and is not even on the same day but if I indeed broke the rules please apply necessary blocks. I also would like to point out that it is quite possible that I'm being set up. Right after this report a new account has been created by somebody who deleted this complaint.[[311]] This is really strange because I'm constantly being accused of using socks[[312]] or I'm being provoked by strange new accounts[[313]] into the edit wars. Could somebody examine this please? Please note that user MK was not editing Roman Polanski article [[314]]but was monitoring my edits to file this complaint. Thank you.--

talk

) 00:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I see very unfortunate, that you instead from distancing yourself from edit wars (this time for real) you continue old claims, that "reverts must be about the same thing" (like you did here [315]), while definition of reverts is clear -reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. And it is plain silly to engage in edit warring on high traffic article, like MR. Polanski's one, which is watch listed by dozens of editors.M.K. (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So you did not make any contributions to the Polanski article, but you were "just watching it" and "just" noticed that I was so terribly edit warring there, that you had no choice and you had to report it :) o.k.... Why did not you report an anon IP[[316]][[317]][[318]] who I was "edit warring" with? Any comments on that? After all your only concern is "the good" for Wikipedia and not to get a specific editor, right? Any comments on the mysterious account which immediately deleted your complaint[[[[319]]]] to make look, like I was using a sock? I'm sure this is just a "coincidence", right?--

talk

) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

See at first I thought that 3rr had to be on the same day, but they totally don't, just in the same 24hr period. Also, what you are reverting doesn't matter, because as long as an editor "makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period". It appears the the user has some fixation of soviet whitewashing where poland is concerned. WookMuff (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your block log is quite impressive. Your last block ended just two days ago. Thanks for commenting.--

talk

) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So my knowledge of 3rr is strong. I don't think casting aspersions on my record makes me less able to see you are biased. WookMuff (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What is your agenda here? Could you please take your comments to your or my talk page if you want to discuss me being "biased" etc.? Thanks--

talk

) 01:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no agenda here. I made a comment, to which you responded with a snarky passive aggressive comment about my block list. WookMuff (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue on each other talk pages if you want, o.k.? This is not a place for this "constructive" conversation. THE END--

talk

) 01:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, please take my advise and try to adhere to 1rr on this article (and it is a good policy in general). Yes, 3rr applies to a 24h period and does not have to be the same content (although I don't know if the edit 4 reported above is a revert). You may want to take a day or two break from that article and edit other things. Take a cup of

04:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I can do that no problem, note that 3rd was not even a revert and 4th was next day completely unrelated but I can do voluntary 1RR of course. What I worry about is that in my opinion I'm being followed around by somebody or group of people who are trying to set me up, see my comment above.--

talk

) 06:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Briefly investigating your contributions, it is evident that revert wars of your is a problem, and actually you cant keep your word of 1RR as we see, some background: promise to stop edit warring on the Edit warring noticeboard,notification of editing restrictions, inducing note on reverts, another complain of your reverts, another friendly warning on revert wars, your promise to fallow 1RR rule (which it seems was broken as well [320]), and now we have revert war on Mr.Polanski's article , even after the another warring to stop was issued. Of course

London Victory Parade of 1946 was your recent place of edit war as well ([321]). M.K. (talk

) 09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No M.K. on Victory Parade I have chosen to back off[[322]] and I stopped editing the article because in my opinion I was being provoked by yet another mysterious new account[[323]] which was created with the purpose to get me into the arguments. Somebody is trying to frame me and set me up and I hate to say that but I think that you are taking a part in it.--

talk

) 13:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MK could you explain why you are following me around? Also I see you have a lot of fun here[[324]] what made you so happy, the fact that you didi something good for the project or the fact that you "got somebody" you were after? --

talk

) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I would just like to point out that someone, using an ip address rather than a username, left a vulgar piece of hatespeech on the complainant's talk page after this complaint was made, under the heading

agreed to limit himself to 1RR about two weeks ago. WookMuff (talk

) 09:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would advise you WookMuff to rather watch your own behavior and be civil yourself[[325]], maybe then your lectures will be taken seriously.--

talk

) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have invited Jacurek to agree that he will follow a personal 1RR from now on, which can be enforced by admins if he deviates from it. (That's one revert per article per day). The period would be 3 months. If he does so, I suggest this case could be closed with no block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I agree.--

talk

) 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Jacurek has agreed to accept a 1RR restriction for six months. It expires at 17:36 UTC on 11 April 2010. If he exceeds one revert per 24 hours on any article, it can be reported for action here at this noticeboard or to any administrator. I updated the period to 6 months based on Jacurek's agreement to the new duration. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Page: Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 99.142.8.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [326]
• 2nd revert: [327]
• 3rd revert: [328]
• 4th revert: [329]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:99.142.8.221 (see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#99.144.255.247 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wilhelm_meis_reported_by_User:_99.142.15.209_.28Result:_No_vio.29)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Roman_Polanski#Categories, consensus is against the inclusion of the category, reverted by multiple editors, including previously uninvolved editors Cenarium (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
NOTE: A complaint regarding 3RR Gaming and willfull ignoring of Talk Page Discussion has been opened at AN/I. It may be found here:[330]

Editors are simply Gaming the system by reverting without discussion an edit which has been subject to lengthy and serious discussion. Essentially my edits have reverted a form of Vandalism in which people have stripped out content without even attempting to overturn consensus or engaging in Talk in any form.99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary data

Adding of category (without consensus) since the unlocking of Roman Polanski (Most recent first) NOTE: (dynamic ip?) All adds by same ip user (lower pair of numbers shift - user gave notice of shifting ip - took a few edits to complete) DEL 02:45, 11 October 2009 -User:Cenarium (admin) ADD 02:44, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 DEL] 02:39, 11 October 2009 - User:JBsupreme ADD R02:38, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 DEL 02:31, 11 October 2009 - User:Will Beback (admin) ADD 02:27, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 DEL 23:39, 10 October 2009 - User:Rd232 (admin) ADD 17:02, 10 October 2009- 99.142.8.221 DEL 16:57, 10 October 2009 - User:Off2riorob ADD 16:00, 10 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 User_talk:99.142.8.221 DEL 14:09, 9 October 2009 - User:Physchim62 ADD 14:06, 9 October 2009 - 99.142.5.86 DEL 13:50, 9 October 2009 - User:Wilhelm meis ADD 13:20, 9 October 2009 - 99.142.5.86 User_talk:99.142.5.86 NOTE ALSO: 99.142.1.147 User_talk:99.142.1.147 48 hour block 17:42, 4 October 2009

COMMENTS: (I have observed)

• 99.142.x.x participates on talk page, but argumentatively asserts sufficient consensus to add category, but does not have consensus.
• 99.142.x.x's assertions are often misleading/misdirecting etc.
• Disclosure I have been in contention with 99.142.x.x over the past few days (most lengthily and absurdly over talk page management, to wit: whether a topic can be removed or collapsed on the talk page). I have directly asserted that some of 99.142.x.x's messages are Misleading bs (and have, for the first time on Wikipedia, I think, used the whole word "bullshit") It is not my habit to do so, but such is the nature of the communication patterns described. Other contentions around undoing of a few things I've reverted (with full edit summaries and talk page discussion.) BOTTOM LINE: Lots of BS. Lots of wasted time. 3RR fully broken and crushed. etc etc.

-- (data & comments) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No one denies the subject wasn't contentious and difficult - there actually may have been dozens or more reverts on the subject of tag by a number of editors. But many ignore the fact that the subject was discussed intelligently, at length and with reason - and that consensus was reached and described without objection as "Second look or not, we do have ample precedent and community consensus for the use of the cat here - as admittedly disagreeable as it may be to some - our intellectual honesty can no longer deny its current applicability." There was no voice in opposition to the declaration of consensus on the Talk page then - or now. _ 99.142.8.221 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor is only adding a category which fulfills

WP:COMMON in every sense. Polanski molested and raped a child and was convicted of it, so the category is hardly a matter of honest dispute. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk

) 06:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 07:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: [331]
• 2nd revert: [332]
• 3rd revert: [333]
• 4th revert: [334]
• 5th revert: [335]
• 6th revert: [336]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [337] User has a few warning on his talkpage recently.

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

Comments:

Here is what he thought of his last warning .

) 15:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a bad faith report by a user who is wiki-stalking me and who has been involved in unrelated disputes with me. The material that was removed at Herta Müller was clearly soapboxing, inappropriate, unsourced (there was a source but it did not support the claim) and unencyclopedic, as explained to the user who added it at the talk page (actually, adding that a Nobel Prize winning author whose works have been translated to over 20 languages is a "little known writer" immedeately after the Nobel information amounts to simple vandalism and can be reverted as such). The alleged "warnings" were posted by a user who is solely engaged in disruptive edit-warring/POV pushing, which is evident when you look at this Special:Contributions/Feketekave. Urban XII (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made this report in good faith and I feel it is beneficial to the wikipedia, the diffs are reverts, as in..removal of other editors good faith additions.

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. The diffs are removal of obvious disruptive edits to an article that is featured at the main page at the moment. Urban XII (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the claim of 6 reverts is false. There were not actually 6 plain reverts. Urban XII (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban, a revert is any removal of another editors good faith addition.

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Not all the edits you cite were complete removals. Editing a page 6 times, in order to uphold encyclopedic standards, is no crime. Also, removal of unsourced material from the biography of a living person is a BLP issue, hence, 3RR does technically not apply. Urban XII (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There were other edits, I was very careful only to bring the reverts.

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

These are not all reverts. Urban XII (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you were refering to

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was contentious. Urban XII (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look in any way contentious, you do realise that it is not a daily revert total, it is any 24hour period.

Off2riorob (talk

) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That claim that she "was little-known outside Germany" was contentious and unsupported by the source that was cited. It was of course also unencyclopedic, soapboxing and undue to give such an unsourced and obviously incorrect claim the same weight as the Nobel award. A Nobel Prize winning author whose works prior to her Nobel Prize had been translated into more than 20 languages and who had received such awards as

International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award years before is by definition not a "little-known writer." If someone had added that Barack Obama was a "little-known politician", I had also reverted it. Urban XII (talk

) 16:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are continuing on the same path without any understanding of the complaint here, perhaps you have a point for removal, but there was nothing that desperately required removal and the place to go was the talkpage to ask the other editors what they thought. You know all this though.

Off2riorob (talk

) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Per request, I have already undone my last edit to the article[338]. I hope someone else will remove the soapboxing material, especially because this article is featured at the main page at the moment. Urban XII (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - No action. User has undone his last revert, per this request, and has agreed to stop edit-warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: reversions of different edits, each explained below

• 1st revert: [339] reverting wording "While some writers believe that Egyptian Muslims are considered Arabs but Egyptian Christians are not, others state that neither Muslim nor Christians in Egypt are Arabs and that neither of them consider themselves Arabs." seen in this edit, rv of this edit
• 2nd revert: [340] rv of this edit
• 3rd revert: [341] removal of sources that says "Ninety percent of the population are Eastern Hamitic Arabs" saying in its place that "No statistics are available", source added in this edit
• 4th revert: [342] same as above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [343]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

nableezy - 20:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of these were changes made to the article and explained on the talk page, not reverts. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Each revert is listed with the edit that it reverted from or to. nableezy - 20:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What you call "revert 1" is clearly different from this version [344]. What you call "revert 3" makes absolutely no sense. How can I revert something at 15:41 if you wrote it at 16:27??? --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 20:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I put it in the wrong order. I fixed the order. Rv 4 (now listed as 3) was the revert of my edit, and rv 3 (now listed as 4) was the revert of my revert reinserting the material. There should not be any confusion now. nableezy - 20:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, even after the changes you made, what you call now "revert 1" and "revert 3" make no sense as reverts. They were insertions and rearrangements. Check again. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• rv 1 reverts the wording Generally-speaking, Egyptian Muslims are considered Arabs, while most Copts do not consider themselves Arab. added in this edit and restores While some writers believe that Egyptian Muslims are considered Arabs but Egyptian Christians are not, others state that neither Muslim nor Christians in Egypt are Arabs and that neither of them consider themselves Arabs. that you first put in this edit. You reverted to the exact same phrasing as before. It is a straight revert of this edit.
• rv 3 is pretty simple, you completely removed a source and what it supported (90% of Egyptians are Eastern Hamitic Arabs) that was added in this edit. nableezy - 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Page protected I almost blocked both of you for this nonsense, but I instead protected the page for 24 hours. There are hundreds of articles that manage to use multiple sources for multiple views without edit warring. Work it out but don't return to this back-and-forth reverting behavior. It leads nowhere. - KrakatoaKatie 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
Users being reported: Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been a long running edit war between Polaron and Doncram on geography articles and historic places. Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been attempting to mediate this dispute, but Polaron and Doncram are still at it. These two have been steadily reverting each other's edits and working up to 3RR on individual articles, but they've gone over three reverts in this series of diffs:

Polaron edit 17:16, 5 October 2009

Doncram revert 1 22:29, 6 October 2009

Polaron revert 1

Doncram revert 2

Polaron revert 2, plus another edit thereafter

Doncram revert 3

Polaron revert 3

Doncram revert 4

Polaron revert 4

Doncram revert 5

Polaron revert 5 20:49, 7 October 2009

Other articles where they've only gone up to 3RR include: San Miguel Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 10-07-09

Polaron add

Doncram revert 1

Polaron revert 1

Doncram revert 2

Polaron revert 2

Doncram revert 3

Polaron revert 3

Virginia City Historic District (Virginia City, Nevada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 10-07-09

Polaron edit

Doncram revert 1

Polaron revert 1

Doncram revert 2

Polaron revert 2

Chiricahua National Monument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 10-07-09

Polaron edit

Doncram revert 1

Polaron revert 1

Doncram revert 2

Polaron revert 2

Doncram revert 3

Polaron revert 3

Silver City, Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 10-07-09

Polaron edit

Doncram revert 1

Polaron revert 1

Doncram revert 2

Polaron revert 2

Doncram revert 3

Polaron revert 3

Historic Village of the Narragansetts in Charlestown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 10-07-09

Polaron edit

Doncram revert 1

Polaron revert 1

Doncram revert 2

Polaron revert 2

Doncram revert 3

Polaron revert 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I haven't specifically warned Polaron and Doncram of their behavior, but they've been warned by others. [345] is Acroterion's latest warning to Polaron, while I believe Acroterion's correspondence to Doncram has been at User talk:Acroterion.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [346] is the current version of User talk:Acroterion. User talk:Acroterion#Mediation contains a long, drawn-out description of this. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Winter Island Historic District and Archeological District -- raises a general procedural question is also an example of the argument.

Comments:

I am not involved with any of the revert cycles. I have been involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, where it's obvious that I'm frustrated with the edit wars and with the project in general. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've tried working with both parties here, but it's clear that they intend to use the letter of 3RR to further their conflict. My efforts have yielded occasional fruit, but it has reached the point that their behavior must be modified by a more formal and enforced process. As part of my mediation I stated that I wouldn't use blocks myself to enforce good behavior, but it is clear that behavior modification must be backed up by sanctions. Both editors' positions are so entrenched that, while they've occasionally reached an accommodation on a single issue, the truce has been swiftly broken by one party or another. Both editors make valuable contributions, but must understand that their actions have poisoned the air around the NRHP wikiproject. I'd suggest they be formally restricted to 1RR (I'd informally asked them to abide by 1RR, but that's been cast aside), enforced by blocks of appropriate duration. An entire ban on splits and merges by the two editors, and submission to binding mediation might be indicated. Acroterion _(talk) 12:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment (ec) Acroterion seemingly would prefer for the conflict to disappear by my allowing the unsourced assertions and the combative redirects to stand, thus handing the field to Polaron and allowing him to keep extending the battleground. The battleground is every article he touches, where he has shown by past behavior that he will edit war to protect his personal knowledge-based judgements. It's also more complicated as there are other editors involved. I object somewhat to Acroterion's implication that the conflict is among two equal editors.

Before ec, what I wrote was: What this relates to is a broad campaign by Polaron to redirect and merge town/village articles with NRHP-listed historic districts. In hundreds of cases, Polaron has unilaterally implemented redirects replacing existing articles, or create new redirects, and in some cases edit the merger target articles, all without providing sources upfront and without complying with Wikipedia style and content guidelines. Polaron also makes related edits in articles making unsourced assertions. In general he has either been unable or unwilling to provide

wp:RFD

.

While I cannot delete the redirects that Polaron creates, I can delete the unsourced assertions and have been doing some of that; these cases are in that category. In one of these instances, the San Ygnacio one, Polaron has eventually provided a reference in an edit summary but not composed a reference in the article. In two recent cases he has eventually coughed up relevant sources that other editors then put into proper references in the articles.

A mediation process in which Acroterion was invited by Polaron and myself to be the mediator has plugged along slowly in dealing with several hundred cases in CT, VT, and RI. The bulk of the dispute may be seen at

Talk:List of RHPs in CT and Talk pages and articles linked from there. At Talk:Poquetanuck

is an extended discussion which was perhaps close to reaching some grandiose compromise between Polaron and myself, but which may not have met with agreement of Orlady, another determined participant. There was a ceasefire some time ago which Polaron has been enforcing a "status quo". However, the ceasefire and general process has seemingly failed in recent days, with expansion by Polaron to perhaps a hundred more cases nationwide and no action by Acroterion to actually curtail expansion of the conflict. Polaron has not stated this, but I suspect he is irked by the lack of progress in hundreds of disputed merger/splits, and has chosen now to escalate the problem.

About the 5RR count, I was unaware of being over 3RR in the San Ygnacio article. This shows a lack of skill on my part in edit warring. In previous active reverting back and forth with Polaron, he has been one ahead of me in the reversion process because he had been the one reopening a dormant problem case. He is meticulous in his counting and is absolutely reliable in practice in going up to 3RR. After i had opened a wp:3RR report about two months ago, Polaron advised me of his familiarity with the 3RR processes and that no action would be taken given that 4RR was not reached and that reporting was initiated by an involved party, which turned out to be exactly correct.

In my view, what's needed here is for Acroterion to step up and handle a process of reviewing the hundreds of disputed mergers and redirects, or for other WikiProject NRHP administrators to step up to that. A number of NRHP members have expressed embarrassment or similar emotions about the conflict, but there is no effective process to address the rising number of disputed cases. Unfortunately Acroterion has seemed to regard the problem as being the dispute itself, not the substance of the dispute. doncram (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"The battleground is every article he touches" indicates that Doncram has been following Polaron around and reverting his edits. It's also unfair to ask other

WP:NRHP administrators and editors to get involved in the dispute. The project doesn't have many administrators, and those who are administrators have their own opinions about the dispute. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak)

13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see, so it's now my problem that you're edit-warring? No. You may not edit-war. Period. You have ignored polite requests to restrict yourselves to 1RR. Your dispute doesn't give you license to behave as you have, and I've explained to you that my time is limited, and if you want me to judge "hundreds" of merge-split issues, I expect your behavior to be exemplary. I'm not going to read a wall of text for each one, followed by rebuttals and arguments of bad faith by various parties.

I was out of town all last week, and my time this week is restricted. I am a volunteer. You seem to believe that any criticism of your behavior is an endorsement of you opponent's, which is emphatically not the case. You must realize that the issue to be addressed here at AN3 is your behavior, not the editing dispute. The article issues may continue to be resolved as my time and that of others permits. The disruptive behavior must stop before any substantive work may proceed. Acroterion _(talk) 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Responding to Elkman: No, the battleground was defined by Polaron's practices following his creation of several hundred redirects of CT NRHP articles in July 2008 more than a year ago. I eventually bumped into his edit warring on those when i had occasional cause to create NRHP stub articles (usually to support NRHP disambiguation). Others including Nyttend and Swampyank had also experienced Polaron's combative editing to defend his redirects. I became concerned that this was a minefield for potential NRHP editors who would not be able to deal effectively with an adamant edit warrior. I began addressing the problem a couple months ago, mostly organizing discussion at

Talk:List of RHPs in CT

. Following advice at previous 3RR report, i opened an RFC which was on that Talk page. At some point later Polaron and I discussed possible mediators whose judgments we would intend to accept, including two who had indeed expressed opinions already. Acroterion was one of those and he accepted the invitation to serve in that role. I note he was recently away from wikipedia for a while and has communicated he has little time to spend on this.

Responding to Acroterion: No i endure and accept plenty of criticism. I appreciate that you and me and everyone else involved are volunteers. If you focus on just the articles where there is reverting back and forth, though, you are condoning Polaron's creation of new redirects and expansion of his watchlist, where his past behavior shows he is committed to defending his personal knowledge-based opinions. What do you say, if not here then in some other Talk page, about the disruptive behavior of extension of the conflict by Polaron to articles nation-wide. There needs to be some limit on extension of the problem, and some progress in addressing the contested cases. Actually i think most old and new cases could be dealt with rapidly by deleting redirects (requires an admin) and supporting removal of unsourced assertions, in all cases where no reliable source describing relationship between HD and place is provided (which is almost all cases). Almost all of these are premature mergers, when obtaining the stupid NRHP document, which only I have done for any of these cases (except for one or two cases where Orlady found one online), would provide clear information. doncram (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elkman that the edit warring between Doncram and Polaron has spiraled out of control. Acroterion made a noble effort to mediate, and has made some progress, but the continuation of senseless reverts indicates that additional action is needed.

This warring has hurt Wikipedia in many ways. One is the time absorbed by the fundamentally pointless activity of seemingly endless discussions of topics about which nobody actually has any information (see

disruption of Wikipedia to make a point

, including (but not limited to) the insertion of nonencyclopedic speculative statements (such as saying that a particular building may or may not be in a particular historic district) into article space.

It's no secret that Doncram and I have had issues for a long time. My perception has been that he was convinced that I was out to get him, so he started following me around and doing things that could be predicted to provoke a reaction. I've tended to be sympathetic to Polaron in this, partly because there were some instances where I agreed with him, but also because I perceive that Doncram let up on his harassment of me and started following Polaron around instead. At this time, however, I judge that both parties are fully engaged in warring. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't condone the edit warring. But nowhere has anyone provided an real alternative between the edit warring or letting Polaron spew his messiness wherever he wants. Doncram has repeatedly and in many forums asked for help with the fundamental problem of Polarons unsourced. personal knowledge based redirects. All anyone ever does is say "stop fighting". It's impossible to deal with every one individually. What IS the venue? I'll take it there and ask for help, if Doncram has damaged his credibility. Is the only answer anyone is espousing to let Polaron have his way? Asking Doncram to stop reverting Polaron is in effect allowing Polaron's disputed edits to stay everywhere he feels like putting them. Lvklock (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lvklock for commenting. Following is my reply to Orlady that i put in without seeing your comment.

Response to Orlady: That's funny, I am pretty sure it has been you following me around. Having Orlady involved and somewhat taking Polaron's side has always complicated matters. I believe it has emboldened Polaron in making unsourced statements in articles, in edit warring to destroy articles actually under merger proposal at the very moment, and to expand the contested area. I think Orlady once or twice somewhat mildly condemned the edit warring by Polaron. She has raked me for every possible fault in something i wrote (like my writing a true, non-speculative, statement that a building might or might not be in a given historic district, a statement that I would never object to having corrected or moved to a Talk page, but is not harmful and is not

wp:POINTY

) but effectively condoned statements added by Polaron which might or might not be true at all, and which almost always are unsourced, and which Polaron will edit war incessantly to restore. In some cases Polaron may indeed have a source, but he is not able or willing to share it, and I cannot tell the difference between those and other cases where his judgment turns out to be wrong. I have perceived Orlady's efforts to round up sources that actually bore on the question to be generally helpful in spirit, although usually not adequate to answer the relevant questions. Questions which would be answered easily by the NRHP document that no one but me has been willing to obtain by request to the National Register. (It then turns out that sometimes Polaron's guesses on whether a merger is appropriate are sometimes on target and sometimes not.) Polaron has been exploiting the fact that redirects are easy to set up but hard to remove, and that he can easily set up a lot of them and edit war to protect them, without providing any mainspace statements and sources supporting their implicit assertions that the redirect topics are significantly related to the target articles. I would have hoped that Orlady, general a stickler for sourcing, would have facilitated removal of redirects and other elements of the unsupported mergers being set up and enforced by Polaron, which are effectively unsourced assertions. Also, Orlady's concern that true statements describing the situation but exposing lack of certain knowledge (like that a historic district includes part or all of a given hamlet or vice versa) cannot be allowed in mainspace, has effectively blocked using such statements as compromises until definitive sources can be found.

The long discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck was not about that one article; it was about what to do about merger proposals where information was lacking and no one was willing to get the NRHP document that would be definitive (which applies to almost all of the contested cases). An agreement between Polaron and me was actually reached on that one article, as a sort of test solution, and then Orlady promptly claimed not to understand the agreement and repeatedly edited contrary to it. This seemed to derail an approach to resolving the hundreds of CT cases, because if Orlady couldn't accept it and abide by it then there would be little prospect that it could be applied elsewhere.

About being fully engaged in edit warring, that is Polaron, whose practice has been to set up unsupported redirects and watchlist them and all related articles, like laying a minefield, and edit war when anyone else blunders in. The commitment by Polaron to edit warring is on, full-time, on all of these, you just don't observe it. What you do observe is where I have occasionally been setting off some of those mines by removing unsourced statements. Also, previous flareups happened when I occasionally created stub articles in replacement of redirects. You do not observe me adding unsourced statements to articles and battling to protect them. doncram (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have left notes for Orlady and Acroterion trying to get some ideas for how to close this case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people think the participants might agree to a deal. This is now being explored at Acroterion's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Result - On hold. Need to sort this out. If no agreement can be found at User talk:Acroterion, the case should be reopened and handled like a regular edit warring case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I made a few suggestions for how the underlying dispute might be solved. Discussion happened at Acroterion's talk page. Doncram did not like the proposed deal, and Polaron did not respond. Further suggestions are welcome, especially from members of the NRHP WikiProject. The project could deal with the underlying issue if they would use an RfC-like process to create guidelines for treatment of historic districts. I am not inclined to close this case myself. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I sympathize with your frustration, EdJohnston, but I hope that something can be done to get past the current impasse. Things have calmed down, and we can hope that they have improved permanently, but I don't truly believe that the matter has been resolved.

A capsule restatement of Doncram's objection to the proposed resolution is that his ego has been bruised and he believes he should not be subject to restrictions because he is totally blameless in this dispute and editing restrictions would damage his aspirations to becoming an administrator. Meanwhile, he seems to be avoiding content areas related to the dispute, but is instead contributing inconsequential stubs like this one -- whose quality is not of the caliber expected from a contributor with his experience and capabilities. In effect, he is abiding by the proposed resolution by staying away from the topic, but because he does not acknowledge any blame in the edit warring and clearly doesn't have his heart in work that he is doing instead, I think it likely that he is itching to get back into the area of the dispute after the dust settles here.

I think that you are the LAST person who should be allowed to provide a "capsule restatement" of Doncram's feelings about anything. I have, in fact, several times seen him explicitly ask you NOT to do so. Let's just say that this is you OPINION, which clearly does not ASSUME GOOD FAITH. As far as "inconsequential stubs like this one", if you looked at the edit history, I'm sure you noted that it was part of setting up a disambiguation page, and was done, I believe, in order to make that entry a blue link so that it could stay in alphabetic order geographically, which has been disputed by some DAB editor recently, who insists that blue links must come first. Isn't staying away from the topic what everyone has ASKED him to do? But now, he's doing it, and you're still going to assume the worst. And, yes, clearly he must be "itching" to have the issue settled. That's been the point, all along.

Meanwhile, although Polaron did respond to the proposed resolution, he also appears to be trying to abide by it. In so doing, however, he seems to be continuing to seek historic district names that possibly could be redirected to existing articles, but he is asking others to intervene instead of creating the redirects himself. Also, a few of his recent edits, such as this series, have been fix-ups of earlier work by Doncram.

I think you meant to say although Polaron did NOT respond. Right. Polaron is still working to advance his cause. And yet, you clearly are not condemning him, but instead are condemning Doncram for the way he is staying away?! Earlier work, for sure....nine months old...before any conflict between them. So, is Polaron following him around, looking for things to make him look bad? Yes, Doncram has a habit of writing editorial stuff into articles, thinking he'll get back to it and then not doing so. That type of note clearly belongs on the Talk page. It doesn't have anything to do with this current dispute, but is apparently being brought up here to further the "beat up on Doncram" tendency I have noted elsewhere. Lvklock (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this situation will not be resolved until the underlying issues on historic districts are resolved. I had hoped that uninvolved NRHP Wikiproject members could mediate this, since Wikiproject members are most likely to understand the issues, but I'm not sure that there are any WP members who are both uninvolved and willing/qualified to mediate. Notwithstanding that view, I don't think that resolution of the underlying is ever going to occur within the NRHP Wikiproject, however. First off, Polaron not "officially" a member of that Wikiproject. More significantly, I believe that the underlying problem is a difference of opinion/perspective between (1) some (many?) of the Wikiproject members and (2) other Wikipedians who contribute articles about U.S. places and historical topics, but aren't particularly interested in the NRHP per se as a topic. I don't think that a permanent resolution this underlying conflict can be reached within the Wikiproject, due to many participants' views that appear to hold that (1) the NRHP listing is the primary source of

notability for an area that is designated as an historic district, (2) in some cases, the "standards" (my term, intended to avoid using terms like "guideline" and "policy" that have specific defined meanings) of the Wikiproject supersede Wikipedia-wide "standards", and (3) articles about NRHP-listed properties are diminished by inclusion of information that is not directly related to the NRHP listing or the physical attributes of the listed properties. (Note: I predict that Doncram, Lvklock, and perhaps others will dispute my last statement, which is admittedly an oversimplification that likely does not precisely reflect anyone's opinions.) --Orlady (talk

) 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak to my own views. I do not believe I have ever asserted that "NRHP listing is the primary source of

notability", just that it is A source of notability, and therefore that separate articles should be ALLOWED. I'm not even going any further here. It's all been said before. I would just note my objections to Orlady's comments being considered AT ALL objective. Lvklock (talk

) 00:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston's proposal concerning the edit-warring parties is in line with those proposed and enforced in similar situations. It was my intention to await resolution of the edit-warring issue before working with the historic district issue. This may not be possible. Polaron's suggestions at Talk:Poquetanuck represent the best existing material for future action. Since no editors appear to wish to compile a list of articles for examination or arbitration, and nobody has come up with a better methodology, an RfC may be the best opportunity to develop a codified policy, using those suggestions as a starting point, and drawing the issue away from the NRHP project, which clearly can't solve the problem on its own. That would also (I hope) draw the issue away from personalities and personal feelings. Acroterion _(talk) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Since no editors appear to wish to compile a list of articles for examination or arbitration"? What about User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list? I note that Doncram continues to try to RESOLVE these issues, while Polaron is ignoring the whole process. Lvklock (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I eventually caught on that Doncram had put it in my userspace; I had missed it in overlapping new messages. We are trying to direct the discussion away from editor X vs. editor Y, so this arrangement may be better than what I proposed. Let's stop casting this as one editor vs. everybody else, please. Acroterion _(talk) 13:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)