Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive125

Page:

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

• Diff of warnings:

[1] [2]

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

[3]

Technically they are no in violation of 3RR. So I would rather show 3 diffs when Yopie was close to it:

,17:03, 26 February 2010
,21:17, 26 February 2010
,9:31, 27 February 2010

Comments:

I have a disagreement with EmilJ and Yopie on the article Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk that started on 26 February, 2010. Technically they are no in violation of 3RR. However, the users has absolutely ignored the discussion on the talk page which is a very serious sign of a fundamentally uncooperative attitude to editing. Interesting also to note that EmilJ told me to "get a consensus on the talk page" [4] on which he shows no interest to participate in discussion. --Nmate (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Stale What a silly thing to edit war over though. If any of the parties continue, they will be blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drummer182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [5]

• 1st revert: [6]
• 2nd revert: [7]
• 3rd revert: [8]
• 4th revert: [9]
• 5th revert: [10]
• 6th revert: [11]
• 7th revert: [12]
• 8th revert: [13]
• 9th revert: [14]
• 10th revert: [15]
• 11th revert: [16]
• 12th revert: [17]
• 13th revert: [18]
• 14th revert: [19]
• 15th revert: [20]
• 16th revert: [21]
• 17th revert: [22]

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

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

Comments:
Although it seems to have gone undetected until last month, this editor has been edit warring on Drum and Drum kit since 2007. Although I left a plenty-friendly warning about our EL policy and edit warring, he is unapologetic.

As you'll see at his talk page, he acknowledges that the links he's adding are to his own advertising-driven websites, and he says he won't stop "until fairness and common sense enter this picture."

These IPs could be socks or meatpuppets, as their only edits are to restore Drummer182's links:

• User:141.152.45.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• User:96.248.18.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

— Bdb484 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected / Flyguy649 --slakr^\ talk / 18:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Page:

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

The editor PiCo has engaged in an edit war to support a single POV for the Genesis creation myth article. He has consistently deleted properly referenced information in the Lead, Prologue, Philo, and Creationism sections that provide information on Jewish/Christian/Scientific research that is pertinent to this article. He has often replaced the information on Jewish/Christian/Scientific research with information of a Pro-babylonian creation myth point of view. Furthermore various editors on the talk page and in the edit comments have requested that he cease wholesale deletion of properly referenced information. PiCo’s edit war is a daily event wherein he routinely deletes whole sections often leaving the article in a state of disrepair.

• [24]

Deletion of Ex Nihilo refs (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [25]

Deletion of Ex Nihilo refs (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [26]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [27]

Deleted all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [28]

Deleted information and refs that were contrary to the Babylonian origin hypothesis (POV)

• [29]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [30]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [31]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [32]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [33]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [34]

Deleted all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [35]

Deleted all information and refs concerning Jewish and Christian interpretations in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [36]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo/Pre-Creation (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [37]

Noleander requests Pico revert his deletion of the prologue section

• [38]

Deleted information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [39]

Nefariousski requests that pico stop making wholesale edits and deltions of sourced material. Deleted information concerning philo (POV)

• [40]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo/Pre-Creation (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [41]

Deleted information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [42]

Deleted information concerning anti-babylonian motif in lead (POV)

• [43]

Deleted information and refs concerning creationism in lead and inserted Pro-Babylonian information (POV)

• [44]

Deleted Pro-Creationism info and refs and inserted anti-creationism info and refs (POV)

• [45]

Deleted Pro-Creationism info and refs in lead (POV see Pico’s editing comments at top of page of evidence of POV)

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

• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]

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

• [50]
• [51]

Deadtotruth (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Declined - You have failed to provide evidence that
  dispute resolution if you can't resolve this through regular discussion with the editor. -- Atama頭
  22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: FC Barcelona
User being reported: Chapecoense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona&oldid=347389493
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona&oldid=347382512
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona&oldid=347221736
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chapecoense&oldid=347390648

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

Comments: This user is previously banned for edit warring on

]

Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Comment added, Sandman888 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No violation - I don't see more than 3 reverts in more than 24 hours. But be aware of

21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

)

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

• 1st revert: [53]

of my 03:45 edit, found here: [54]

The edit referred to in this diff [[55] makes a false claim about the subject of the edit and is unsupported by the citation. I removed it within the guidelines of

Malke2010

17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit by I

• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58] this might require some context. This is a revert of my revert. I utilized the revert option because this specific issue was under discussion on the talk page between user:Malke 2010 and user:happysomeone. Before I saw a consensus reached, Malke re-inserted the questionable material AND deleted material I had added, both in the same edit. Even though we had both tried to direct Malke to engage us on the talk board.

This is not an accurate description of the editing or the discussions at that time. There was also no 'consensus' reached. I consistently used the talk page and at one point stated my objection to the continuous reverts of my edits without discussion. Please allow me time to collect diffs of the discussion. Thanks.

Malke2010

14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was the result of an edit war with Happysomeone that Happysomeone tried to mediate here:

20:08, 2 March 2010 Happysomeone (talk | contribs) (70,368 bytes) (Undid revision 347356626 by Malke 2010 (talk)OK, lets discuss at the TALK page first, please, before more editing. Please follow WP:BRD)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:09 on discussion board: [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:19 by [user:happysomeone] [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61] [user:happysomeone] agreed with these concerns at 02:46

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: final notice [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion was a long messy process, proably not well suited to a Diff. Most of the discussion can be seen here: [63] with some additional material also found here: [64]

Comments:
First of all, I'm fairly new here, so excuse me if any of this form is not filled out correctly.

There are a good deal more reverts done within the last 24 hours (and a few more just beyond), but with the overwhelming number of his edits and how complicated and tangled things had become over the course of the last 24 hours, it has become difficult to dig them all out. If he had simply REVERTED the edits it would be easier to document, but he almost never did that, opting instead to edit the article to copy-paste the material back to the way he wanted it - erasing the contributions of other editors. Throughout the day (and to some degree beforehand as well) he showed no regard for the BRD model, or for

warnings regarding his boundary crossing, and engaged in seemingly evasive tactics when these issues are addressed by myself and other editors. He reverts changes made by other editors without even some kind of compromise edit that adresses some of the concerns the edit tried to address. In my own personal opinion, his presence has consistently had a negative influence on the progress of the article and the quality of the dialogue on the talk page, and I find him to be a constant NPOV concern. A review of the talk page shows that if you search for "WP:" citations, almost every single time it is either Malke himself or someone pointing out an issue to Malke. I would ask why that is. He had to be repeatedly asked to stop removing material and reverting edits and to engage in straightforward discussion by multiple editors. When I thought it was all over and that he had finally realized he needed to discuss, I see it was done again. I finally resorted to this report as essentially a last resort with the hopes that if nothing else, this process might force a realization of his behavior so that things might improve in the future, if he is allowed to continue utilizing his editing priveledges here. I truly only want what is best for the article. --Izauze (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw this as Izauze has failed to notify me on my talk page. There is currently a dispute by Happysomeone and Izauze about the content of a paragraph I wrote that they keep deleting. I will collect diffs and you will see that both Happysomeone and Izauze are well beyond 3RR as they did continous outright reverts of my edits. My last edit was the removal of a completely false claim by Izauze that was not at all supported by the article he was citing. Please give me the time to collect diffs. Thanks.

Malke2010

14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts by Happysomeone

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

Reverts by Izauze

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

Please give me time to collect diffs of the talk page discussion. Thanks.

Malke2010

15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page diffs. I made 19 entries all tolled on the talk page.

[76] [77] [78] [79] [80]

[81]

Please don’t revert: They were both reverting me without discussing first.

[82]

[83]

cooperating with Happysomeone’s wishes

[84]

put the Carender paragraph where Happysomeone asked for it to be

[85]

Claim by Izauze that I’m not discussing on talk page (he seems not be paying attention)

[86]

again, another claim this time by Happysomeone

[87]

answered question by Happysomeone about sources

[88]

Left message on Happysomeone’s talk page

[89]

There is one more diff I'd like to add. I'll be back with it in a bit. I apologize for the number of diffs but I was using the talk page.

In general, the editors on the Tea Party Movement talk page have been working well together for a long while now including myself and Happysomeone. In fact, we'd just recently amicably worked out a compromise on an edit without any problems.[90] Izauze is new there. This section that is being edited in all these diffs was also what he called his first big contribution to Wikipedia.

17:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not see where I was required to post the notification on his talk page. (Again, apologize for the naivite of a newcomer.) I thought the three or four warnings and the seperate notification on the talk page would be sufficient.

And since it appears as if Malke 2010 is trying to shift responsibility here to the people who were trying to make him engage us on the talk page before continuing to delete material and such, I will try to narrativize the situation for clarity.

A number of editors were having difficulties building a sensible history section for The Tea Party Movement, as seen in the discussion here: [91] How to make the origins more complete had been batted around, and they asked for someone to take a stab at it. I let them know I did some digging, found some sources, and was building something I would add shortly.

I spent a lot of time creating the most complete, well-researched, well-sourced origins section (with 3 subsections) I could and posted the whole thing as one edit early yesterday. Recognizing the size of the contribution, I immediately started a discussion. In this discussion Malke_2010 graciously praised my contribution. I knew the entry was just a starting point and that many edits would occur to it, but what I did not expect that valid, sourced, significant material would be deleted repeatedly from it whole cloth in a flurry of edits from one individual. But that's what happened. (If you look at about 17:00 on march 2nd you'll see almost 20 Malke edits in a row [92]) I added this material and Malke reverted it. Usually without discussion (until someone brought it up to HIM) flagrantly ignoring the

WP:3RR and reminds him to not continue skipping the consensus process, and not to ignore or evade attempts to address the issue here: [107], another editor reminds him to stick to the matter at hand and not attempt to divert here: [108]

,

and that's just part of it in regards to this ONE section (he made additional reverts re: the Fox News section). As you can see, while things stayed generally civil in tone, it got pretty messy. It was a real flurry of activity for a while and became hard to follow everything that was going on.

Yes, he was using the talk page, but he was continuing to edit and revert people's contributions (and adding material that was still in the process of consensus-building) WHILE he was partipating on the talk page. And much of that participation was diversionary.

He says all the editors have been working well there together. I will agree that all the editors have done a very good job of remaining civil in their dealings with Malke 2010 and everyone has maintained a generally positive tone, but his lack of adherence to guidlines and procedures is a constant issue for them as well. As I said, almost every

WP:XX

site on the talk page is either directed at him or is coming from him. He never seems to think to ask himself why that is. That the others have tried to tolerate this and work through it is admirable, but I believe someone from the administration needs to make things more clear for him.

and I don't understand how he can claim that this report is part of a plot to control one paragraph of quotations he added, when ample proof of our generous and good faith attempts to find a compromise and a workable consensus that respected and addressed his concerns (despite his

WP:EW)are clearly evidenced here: [109]

(as well as in the surrounding posts).

I think the matter will be quite clear to anyone who reviews the details of what went on yesterday in both the edits and the talk page (unfortunately it seems like a LOT to review). Hopefully it can be used to find a useful solution and both Malke 2010 and the article will benefit from it. I definitely harbor no ill will, I just don't want him to be a disruptive force any longer. Anything that helps achieve that is well appreciated. Thanks. --Izauze (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did answer Happysomeone's request for a source for the Carender edit. [110]. Happysomeone apparently had this quote confused with something else and believed it was multiple quotes run together. I came back and provided the quote and the source on the talk page so he could see it. Also, I note the other editors aren't here supporting claims that I don't get on well over on TPM, nor do I see diffs to support said claims.

Malke2010

20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer not to drag other editors into this if it's not necessary, though I'm sure if you interviewed them where they could speak freely, they would be able to provide a more long-term picture of Malke 2010's presence that would expand and illuminate my case. My own citation of this was just to notate how often people cite

WP:XX

to him, but if a few diffs of people's dealings with him are beneficial, I can try to provide that as well, though obviously I can't be too comprehensive in regard to everything contained in the archives and such.

[111] here is editor Roygoldsmith informing him that it is not appropriate to delete peoples well-sourced contributions citing NPOV.

[112] here is the same editor struggling to explain to him that contributions must be made on the basis of verifiability, not his/her opinion.

([113] here is Malke 2010 calling the article racist)

[114] another editor bemoans deleted material, calling it a sad disruption.

[115] in response, malke again calls the article racist "might want to rethink this article; it's shameful, gross, dumb, and racist", does not assume good faith, and engages in a possible personal attack.

[116] the editor responds, reprimands him/her for his lack of good faith and personal attack

[117] malke again calls the article racist and makes another deletion as a first resort.

[118] An editor reponds to a malke post to remind everyone that "This entire article is obviously undergoing a complete rewrite that has completely gone off the rails re: WP:NPOV."

[119] Editor scribner asks: No offense but it seems pretty clear that Malke2010 is an advocate of the movement and thus not in a position make impartial judgments or edits. Do we have some good impartial editors that could clean up this article and look over Malke2010's edits?

My response follows: I agree. I don't necessarily think that Malke2010 can't make valuable contributions (or that s/he hasn't already), but the repeated advocacy seems to call for some additional scrutiny.

[120] an editor again asks Malke to focus on sources instead of his/her opinion.

The above represents only about the top 1/8th of the current talk page (not including the many archives). Malke has made no secret about his personal POV regarding how he think the movement and the reaction to it should be protrayed. Occasionally he makes additions, but all too often he simply deletes or scrubs things he doesn't like and which don't agree with his POV of events... and he does so citing

. As a result, the article seems to slowly become a patchwork of leftover disconnected decontextualized material he didn't feel the need to delete, and the article as a whole has suffered as a result. When discussing these disruptions he rails about his point of view of the movement, asserting it as the right view, without regard for the concept of verifiability. He doesn't seem to understand what being an impartial editor compiling information from other sources is all about. And his responses thus far have only further demonstrated to me that he is not willing to examine his own behavior, which reinforces my belief that external forces need to be applied in order to achieve a lasting result. --Izauze (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sysops: I believe that we can resolve this issue ourselves, given enough time. There is no need to block anyone as yet.

Editors of Tea Party movement: Please gather at the Tea Party movement talk page and read the lower part of the section on Fox>Problem Sentence. We have time to resolve this. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the characterizations of me by Izauze has gone beyond the pale here. I am being attacked here. I'm asking an admin to please rule here. This editor is out of control and I don't appreciate the characterization of my good faith edits. When I first arrived on the TPM page there wasn't much activity and believe me that page was in terrible shape. The edits on the cartoons alone were fairly shocking. My edit summaries and comments on the talk page are entirely appropriate.

I look at these diffs and I don't see me going on rants calling edits racist, etc. and I'm sure the admins don't either. But the statements by Izauze are too much here and I'd like something done to stop this. And as you can see, the characterization of me is again not backed up by diffs. In fact, there's been every little editing on the article by me for a long time. We've been taking this long to discuss edits.

Malke2010

22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my understanding of the listing guidelines, I don't intend to dispute Malke2010 here. The information provided above is only to present as complete a picture I could in a straightforward manner. I do not intend to attack him or insult him as a person. --Izauze (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No violation - I don't see 4 or more reverts by Malke in a 24 hour period. I don't see any user talk warnings given to Malke despite what Izauze claims, or even a notice that this report was created (and yes, I checked the talk page history). The only thing I see is a big dispute on the talk page of the article, which is nothing unusual. Even in the report above, Izauze admitted that there weren't actual reverts occurring. I see nothing actionable. -- Atama頭 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Richard Mabey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SamHumphrey1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 10:54, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 10:56, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 11:11, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 14:43, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 14:50, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
6. 17:02, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "Please can we keep it like this. This is accurate and precice. I have, again, made changes at the behest of the author. Please don't change.")

• Diff of warning: here

--

) 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just 3RR warned the user before I saw this. D'oh. SGGH ^ping! 21:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Warned — looks like he's stopped for now. Feel free to re-open if he resumes. --slakr^\ talk / 18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

1. [121]
2. [122]
3. [123]
4. [124]

Not excactly in 24 hours, but User:NickCT was notified about the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions in the Arbitration/Enforcement case against him. In spite of that the user goes on with edit warring.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See this discussion. Mbz - This posting is counterproductive. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw Hopefully Nick got the message :) --Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not fooling anyone Mbz. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Also, keep in mind, that banned editors evading a ban are not permitted to edit articles / random talk pages, and the edits they make can be reverted with the same exception to the 3RR as vandalism. --slakr^\ talk / 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]

--Bold Clone (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected / SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) --slakr^\ talk / 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 08:00 EST

• 1st revert: 10:16 EST
• 2nd revert: 16:48 EST
• 3rd revert: 17:25 EST
• 4th revert: 18:08 EST

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning was issued, though he got the 4th revert in before I could issue it.

Comments: Badmintonhist is a longtime, established editor who is well familiar with this most fundamental of rules.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Stale It appears that since this report was filed, discussion has started taking place on the articles talk page and the instigator has logged off. I will add the article to my watchlist, if they start up again a block will be in order. Tiptoety ^talk 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: [[User:<Ctjf83|<Ctjf83]] ([[User talk:<Ctjf83|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Ctjf83|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Ctjf83|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<Ctjf83|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<Ctjf83|block user]] · block log)

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

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

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

Ctjf83 violated 3RR by continuously reverting edits of two different editors, and then mislabeled them vandalism

Are you referring to this unexplained removal of content from you?

chat

05:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: MaverickandGoose seems to be making the same edits as IP editor 99.237.122.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which puts this into an edit war on his side while Ctjf83 has only three edits. At least two editors have reverted the changes. Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reporter is a probable sock of

chat

03:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr^\ talk
   / 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Power ring (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bold Clone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [132]

• 1st revert: [133]
• 2nd revert: [134]
• 3rd revert: [135]
• 4th revert: [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137] in comment on 21:39, 3 March 2010 Hooliganb (talk | contribs) (44,841 bytes) (please, this is not your article where you make executive decisions. let's find a concensus before changing this again. another reversion will be 4 reverts; see

)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [138]

Comments:
After trying to open up discussion to finding some kind of resolution and thoroughly explaining my point of view, I was met with a complete disinterest in trying to find some kind of compromise and unwillingness to listen to any other opinion on the content of the article. Where as my edits attempted to incorporate the changes this editor made, he preferred to completely undo everything that I had changed even though it didn't all fall under the explanation he provided for his reverts. I'll admit to regularly editing the article in question and cleaning up other people's changes, but not blindly blank things they've done without reason.

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I should probably block both of you, but instead, I'll let you work it out on Talk. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Malayala Sudra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: User-multi error: "Suresh.Varma.123" is not a valid project or language code (help).Anandks007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140]
• 3rd revert: [141]
• 4th revert: [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:
This edit war in malayala sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed in the nayar page as user suresh.varma.123 declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution . [145] The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007 is the following link [146]. User User:Anandks007 has publically called for supporting edit wars in nayar and allied pages against me in bad faith.

I am still continuing to try to focus on the content dispute [147]

--Sanam001 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tiptoety ^talk 21:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Edit warring, Disruptive editing and personal attacks on

Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undefeatedcooler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 13:18, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346084776 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
2. 16:32, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346296011 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
3. 13:59, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346486331 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) stop it, talk page first !!!")
4. 23:41, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346513127 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) for goodness sake !!!!! TALK PAGE !!!!!")
5. 12:44, 27 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346600959 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) this is it, talk page !!!")
6. 05:12, 28 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346776015 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) you must stop from now on, see talk !!!!")
7. 13:26, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347601997 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) TALK PAGE ONLY  !!!")
8. 14:28, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347707175 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) please try to controvert the explanations first before you edit this article.(Talk)")

Undefeatedcooler, who is a pure single purpose account (see user contributions), has been stubbornly reverting the article for the past two week showing a pseudo-willingness for talk in his edit summaries. However, once there (see the discussion) he limited himself to asserting the same views over and over again but consistently failed to provide the repeatedly requested evidence according to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. He has already been warned of edit warring. I tried to bring in fresh views at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese", but there he simply continued his racist tirade from the talk page:

Village pump (miscellaneous):

• "His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce Lee:

• "“Bruce Lee was not Chinese”, that’s ridiculous. He was surely a Chinese person, I know there were a lot of anti-Chinese in America, but please put your bias and racism away." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Those were the key points for the lazy and stubborn people to read clearly. You are the one being immature, bullheaded and racist (anti-Chinese) with your insults and ignorant attitudes to this discussion page." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

—Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You see only two reverts only because I refrained from reverting which I feel now less inclined, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I did leave the editor a warning about not making personal attacks against other editors. If he continues, try WQA as suggested or perhaps even

WP:3RR. -- Atama頭

01:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: French and Indian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been previously warned about edit warring and is aware of 3RR: [153]

User has never responded on talk pages, see his history: [154]

Comments:

User has a history of contentious editing on a wide variety of articles; many of his contributions have been reverted. I have attempted to engage him in the past (e.g.

16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Blocked for 24 hours. This is a pretty straight-forward 4RR situation. -- Atama頭 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

German Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.1.3.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 01:10, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 17:45, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347429863 by Alansohn (talk)")
3. 18:08, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 18:14, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Check the facts before reverting my edit, DICK. I am correct. You can find postaqe stamps online with Friedrich Ebert on them that say "Deutsches Reich."")
5. 18:30, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "The translation of Reich as "empire" is patently wrong since the "deutsches Reich" continued to appear on German postage stamps in the Weimar period, as a quick search will show.")
6. 18:40, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Dick have you heard of Google? Plug in "Deutsches Reich" and "Friedrich Ebert" on an image search and you will see the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Reich does not mean "empire."")
7. 10:51, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Antiuser I suggest you read the discussion page where I have explained why the translation of Reich as Empire cannot be accurate, plus the fact that "Deutsches Reich" continued to be used in the 1920s")
8. 11:05, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "You guys are all action and no thought. Read how I justified my edit, and look at the discussion page again.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Uncle Dick (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Chimestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rschuehle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:50, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 21:22, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Chagnes")
3. 21:24, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Changes")
4. 21:28, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Changes")

• Diff of warning: here

—Uncle Dick (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stale The article is presently at AFD and the reverts have stopped. Both the listed editor and the submitter seem to have edit warred. I will watch the page. JodyB _talk 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Gümüş tv series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 213.240.232.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155]

• 1st revert: [156]
• 2nd revert: [157]
• 3rd revert: [158]
• 4th revert: [159]

Comments:

No violation No 3RR breach, and both editors responsible for slow-moving edit-warring. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undefeatedcooler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 13:18, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346084776 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
2. 16:32, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346296011 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
3. 13:59, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346486331 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) stop it, talk page first !!!")
4. 23:41, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346513127 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) for goodness sake !!!!! TALK PAGE !!!!!")
5. 12:44, 27 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346600959 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) this is it, talk page !!!")
6. 05:12, 28 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346776015 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) you must stop from now on, see talk !!!!")
7. 13:26, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347601997 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) TALK PAGE ONLY  !!!")
8. 14:28, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347707175 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) please try to controvert the explanations first before you edit this article.(Talk)")
9. 12:59, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347893541 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) stop reverting. Talk Page !!!")
10. 13:18, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347898427 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Talk Page. Remember, you are the one who made changes from a "long-term version"")

See declined notice above for the development so far. I then reported Undefeatedcooler allegations of racism to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and he received a warning by SGGH who explicitly pointed him to the need for providing evidence to his carved-in-stone views. Still, he continues to revert. I regard my reverts justified on the basis of

.

—Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked by

) 23:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Page:

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

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

• 1st revert: [160]
• 2nd revert: [161]
• 3rd revert: [162]
• 4th revert: [163]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [164]

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

Comments:

Duke53 | ^Talk 19:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(uninvolved) So where are your talkpage contribs? (just wondering...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Without removing it again, I would like to state that this is a bad faith report. I was making legitimate edits, I could see the problem with the context I was changing, so what does he do? revert me and try to pass off my edits as vandalism. I have support from another administrator that was nothing wrong with my edits. Duke53 is being disruptive, what hes done here has made a load of inapropriate bad faith reverts against me, and had he not done that then there would be no edit war on that artivcle.[165] Routerone (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your (routerone) edits were not vandalism. It was still edit warring. Duke53 should have left a 3RR warning about it on your userpage. In any case, it's this 3RR is moot, as Routerone began discussing things on the talk page and the article is also full-protected for a short time. In other words, there are large heaps of bad faith on both sides of this.

WP:STICK applies. tedder (talk

) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Duke53 DID leave a 3RR warning on his talk page ... he deleted it. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You've admitted my edits were not vandalism, he was reverting them on the accusation that they were. Meaning, had he not bothered there would have been no conflict. I reverted him back because I saw what was doing as tedious and extremely injustified, though I will admit that was a mistake and I should have took it to an admin. Routerone (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Very clever of Routerone to include a diff of a talk page AFTER he had deleted my comments. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did delete it, why? Because I don't believe that I should pay attention to any editor who reverts my edits for no constructive, plasubility suitble, or legitimate reason only to fulfil his dislikes against my religion (see the picture on his userpage). Anyone can slap a warning on a talkpage, but if its not for a legitimate reason, then its useless. You appeared from nowhere and reverted my legitimate edit for no good reason, passing them off as "vandalism", without even previously contributing to the article. So how can you possibly report me for edit warring? As your no-good deeds which were the cause of the problems. For if you hadn't have tried to pass my edits off as "vandalism" in a bad faith manner, I wouldn't have reverted again would I? for attempting to decieve like you did there is very inapropriate, and that is what you done to try and win the "war" (which you caused anyway), decieve. 'You did not contribute to the discussion, or like I said even edit the page previously. You simply appeared to stir up trouble, by reverting on prejudice for no good reason. So don't try and play this game with me. Routerone (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected by Tedder. -

) 23:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So an admin can allow an editor to commit a 3RR violation with no repercussions AND allow that editor's intended edit to remain permanently ? Why are there any rules, if they can be enforced in such a sloppy manner ? Duke53 | ^Talk 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Andrew Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 74.190.55.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [166]

1. 1st revert: 14:46, 4 March 2010
2. 2nd revert: 14:49, 4 March 2010
3. 3rd revert: 07:31, 5 March 2010
4. 4th revert: 18:09, 5 March 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167] (Not a formal warning, but this was after some dozen or so reverts)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:

I'd do this myself except I'm involved. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anybody here? This is continuing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 74.190.55.226 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. CIreland (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Rida1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [169]

• 1st revert: [170]
• 2nd revert: [171]
• 3rd revert: [172]
• 4th revert: [173]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Analogy#Merge?

Comments:

• talk
  ) 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: a number of Bischof Ralph sockpuppets

Previous version reverted to: Actually is hard to find any reasonable version. There are a large number of Bischof Ralph sockpuppets continuously pushing nonsense into the article. I suggest my own latest version, but basically the article is a mess and not going anywhere.

Article History

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige

Comments:
I suggest to close the article to admin editing only so that any changes have to be discussed and proven on the Talk page first. I don't see any chance to keep Bishof-Ralph sockpuppets from creating more of a mess. --Papphase (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Radhanath Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rswami108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 17:22, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Biography */")
2. 17:23, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Biography */")
3. 17:23, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Biography */")
4. 20:16, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347957353 by Gaura79 (talk)")
5. 20:27, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347966545 by Bkonrad (talk)")
6. 20:40, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Biography */")
7. 14:29, 6 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347999548 by Gaura79 (talk)")
8. 19:36, 6 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 348118239 by Gaura79 (talk)")
9. 23:07, 6 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 348175232 by Wikidas (talk)")
10. 23:10, 6 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 348190415 by Wikidas (talk)")

• Diff of warning: [175]

—I would appreciate a page protection (temp) and a block. Thanks. Wikid^as© 23:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is one more diff Wikid^as© 23:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected -- œ^™ 02:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Persian Bayán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nekunaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 03:07, 6 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 08:38, 6 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 348058140 by Jeff3000 (talk)")
3. 13:07, 6 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 348086902 by Jeff3000 (talk)")
4. 00:55, 7 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
5. 03:13, 7 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
6. 04:17, 7 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 348240917 by Smkolins (talk), quote is fully cited.")
7. 05:15, 7 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 348252005 by Smkolins (talk) Alternative interpretations do not necessarily annul earlier interpretations (see discussions).")

• Diff of warning: here

—Jeff3000 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Rothschild family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855028
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855230
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855338
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855432
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855679
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855778

I came across a bunch of POV edits by this user in this article which had no rationale for the edits. I restored them. Almost immediately this user made quick reverts without any discussion. I asked the editor to stop edit warring but he/she was not responsie to that and came straight back and reverted my corrections and made some erronreoud refence to

I have started a discussion/complaint abotu this editor on the talk page, but I fear it's pointless as this user is editing under a political bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rothschild_family#Complaint_about_User:Mbz1_and_his_POV_edits

Vexorg (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved here--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

nothing has moved. Your vendetta against me is seperate from this report. Vexorg (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

just to add: I gave the user Mbz1 notice I had reported him for edit warring and he didn't take it seriously and deleted it by writing it off as a rant http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=347858549 Vexorg (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried restoring the notification of this report of edit warring to the editor Mbz1 but he has simply deleted it again and is claiming it as vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=347859797 - It's clear this editor is not taking the due processes seriously. Vexorg (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by NickCT

I've had issues with ths editor edit warring before. I consulted an uninvolved admin over an edit war on some talk page recently. The admin offered his advice, which I followed, then, low and behold, Mbz continues to edit war!!

Mbz, I've enjoyed some of our conversations, and you're admitidly a darn fine photographer, but you must cease acting so unilaterally when editting. Try to find the value in other peoples POVs even when they don't match yours. If you fail to do so, you will simply end up fighting, rather than cooperating to make your edits. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

According to to that 3rr does not apply to me. I was reverting the violation of

wp:blp.--Mbz1 (talk

) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

External observations: (1) both editors seem to be clearly in violation of 3RR based on a simple observation at the article history. (2) A paragraph in question on at least one of the diffs is quite poorly written. (3) I've seen no citation for one of the fact tags added by Mbz1 (regarding Knesset donation[176]), and it is relevant to a biography - though, not of a living person. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about the edit you're pointing out to. I am talking about that [177]. Changing the section name to "Zionism" and changing ""Many Rothschilds were supporters of the

WP:BLP.--Mbz1 (talk

) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's still not clear why you see this as a BLP violation, at least not to me. Are you saying that the category is inappropriate and if so how ? Does the and are fail

WP:V compliance ? Is it inaccurate in some way ? Is the category/title being applied too broadly to the entire family given that many weren't supporters of Zionism ? Is it offensive in some way from your perspective ? What's wrong with someone supporting Zionism and wiki categorising them as a Zionist or using the term as a section heading ? Many people are proud to call themselves as Zionists so it's not at all clear to me why you would edit war over this and regard it as a BLP violation. Sean.hoyland - talk

16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It does mot matter, if somebody is proud or ashamed to be called a Zionist. If you'd bother to read the section, you will see "Many Rothschilds were supporters of the

WP:BLP. BTW the word "many" should be changed to "some"--Mbz1 (talk

) 17:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I should aslo mention that the user made edit warring over the same thing with few other editors in the past [178];[179];[180];[181];[182].--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read the section. I read the entire article. I also read the source cited in the article which says "And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world." So, based on the source and the section in the article where is the BLP violation ? It seems to me that what you are actually saying is that the category/title is being applied too broadly to the entire family given that many they were split over their support for Zionism. If so, that isn't a BLP violation, it's a categorization error/dispute (that I happen to agree is probably too broad). You can't justify disruptively edit warring over things like that on the grounds of BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I sure can. Here's a real life story: Once

WP:BLP--Mbz1 (talk

) 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Vexorg 1 -- There was no violation of

WP:BLP should be applied however on a case by case on articles of individual members of this family. Vexorg (talk

) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Vexorg 2 - There seems to be some personal agenda against me by the user Mbz1 - I may have unwittingly upset upset him/her at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners] ‎- FURTH adn very concerning is this user's almost obsessive arguments here which have appeared sine last night -- [[http://en.wikipedia.org

What an absurd suggestions. Quite a few people voted to delete it, so why is my "personal agenda" applies only to Vexorg?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

External observation (extended): (1) I'm not aware of the history of discussions over this but if Vexorg is promoting contested changes in this manner over an extended period, then it adds to the gravity of his current violation. (2) Also, I agree that "and are" counts as a real BLP concern. (3) Words like 'many' and 'some' are among

18:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the section title being Zionism or Support of Israel or various other perfectly sensible titles. I don't think it's a problem having the Zionism category but I can see that someone could legitimately object on the grounds that it places the entire family into a set when members of that family are not actually members of that set. On the other hand categories are primarily about helping people find information so in that sense having the category helps. The bottomline is that it's not BLP related, it's just a simple content dispute or it should be and there will be differences in opinion. There's no reason to edit war over it. There is no excuse for not sorting it out on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"The bottomline is that it's not BLP related, it's just a simple content dispute" - I second this.

"There is no excuse for not sorting it out on the talk page" - Strongly second this. NickCT (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are, aren't you? Have you seen those [183];[184];[185];[186];[187] by any chance?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen them. The 'are' statements don't comply with

WP:V. Neither did the statements before the edits were made. It's a content dispute. It's about complying with policy and finding consensus. Those edits are significantly less troublesome than your comment "Well, at least you got blocked fighting for the right cause!". If I were an admin I would have blocked you on sight for that remark. You need to calm down, stop throwing serious accusations around like they are candy, talk to Vexorg and try to work it out with him and other editors. No one needs to edit war over things like this. Sean.hoyland - talk

18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, just between the two of us, if I am to get blocked for "Well, at least you got blocked fighting for the right cause!" I will be PROUD, but I doubt I could get blocked for that. On what grounds? What will be the block reason? What policy did I violate. Your comment about me getting blocked over my statement clearly shows your own agenda here, as well as it shows you are not enough familiar with wikipedia policies to discuss some.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 - I think Sean was trying to offer friendly advise mate. Constantly accusing people of having "agendas" is probably not constructive. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"If I were an admin I would have blocked you on sight for that remark" is a friendly advise in your opinion? Oh well, I've nothing else to add.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If I were a lion I would eat you. Do you find that threatening? NickCT (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not about lions, it is more about vultures, not to say rats. Are you really do not understand, or only pretending that you do not? This is a board that administrators are monitoring. If somebody makes such a claim as sean did, an admin could follow up on it, but I am not going to respond you anymore. I could only repeat stop Wikihounding, and stop it now!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok Mbz1. You're right. We're trying to intimidate you because we have a secret agenda. You are a perfect person, incapable of fault, incapable of POV because your POV is truly NPOV, and all criticisms lodged against you must simply be people with agendas plotting against you. I'm glad you've figured this out. I'll bother you no longer. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Both of you nick and sean stop Wikihounding, and stop it now!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Mbz1, I was only watching this page because you had posted a complaint about me here earlier. NickCT (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note for people to see related topic with some info on the motivations of Mbz1's edit warring and personal vendetta [Topic ban proposal for user:Vexorg] - As you can see Mbz1 is getting increasingly more obsessive with his/her ever increasing list of non-arguments and innocuous past events in order to demonise me. The lengths he/she is going to speaks volumes and it's getting very tedious having to defend myself such a tirade. talkbrings up the term Wikihounding and this is exactly what talk is doing against me Vexorg (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• The way the report is formatted is hard to see exactly what is going on but if one editor is warring then both editors are warring, one editor is adding that the rochchild family are Zionists and the other is changing the wording, I am shock to find out that the rothchilds are Zionists and I have got this far through my life and I have never heard the rothchilds called that.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the Rothschilds are Zionists. The section was called Zionism for a long long time. I simply restored the section title and category. A section title or category does not imply that all Rothschilds are Zionists. it means as a family they have notably been involved with Zionism. I respectfully suggest you do some research if you have never heard of any Zionist Connection to the Rothschild. The Arthur Balfour declaration is a good place to start... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917 Vexorg (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Stale. There were no reverts of this article by either party in the last 48 hours, so there is no 3RR violation that is recent enough for us to act on. Anyone who is concerned about long-term edit warring by either Mbz1 or Vexorg may want to join the discussion at
  WP:ANI#Topic ban proposal for user:Vexorg. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chasewc91

(Result: blocked 72 hours)

Page: Naturally (Selena Gomez & the Scene song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported:

• Candyo32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Babyjazspanail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Candyo32, Babyjazspanail

This edit war has actually gone on for several days (I just noticed it), but I will link to the reverts from the past 24 hours. Other reverts can be found in the Naturally article's history. (I should note that I have not been involved in this edit war.)

Candyo32:

• 1st revert: [188]
• 2nd revert: [189]
• 3rd revert: [190]
• 4th revert: [191]
• 5th revert: [192]
• 6th revert: [193]
• 7th revert: [194]
• 8th revert: [195]
• 9th revert: [196]

Babyjazspanail:

• 1st revert: [197]
• 2nd revert: [198]
• 3rd revert: [199] (as an IP)
• 4th revert: [200]
• 5th revert: [201]
• 6th revert: [202]
• 7th revert: [203]
• 8th revert: [204]
• 9th revert: [205]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Candyo32, Babyjazspanail (both users were warned by

) 20:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• A silly edit war over how to arrange the genres. Babyjazspanail seems to be a good faith editor, and I know from my interactions with Candyo32 that s/he is. However, 9 reverts(!!!) is not acceptable behavior here. –
  Chase (talk
  ) 20:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure how to do this, sorry if I'm doing it wrong. I went to their talk page and we did talk about it but after a while I stopped getting a reply. I know it is pretty silly but I thought it was improving the article and reverting it wasn't. One time I saw a user get warned for trying to talk about it on on a user's talk page and said it's suppose to be talked out in edit summaries, I thought I was doing the right thing. I'm really confused about the whole thing myself. --Babyjazspanail (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that neither editor has reverted since I gave them a 3RR warning, and I think that Babyjazspanail's claimed ignorance of policy rings true. If this stays stopped, I would recommend taking no further action.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather torn on what should be done. It does appear as if the editors are done warring, as you have noted, but the last revert was only 40 minutes ago, and nine reverts is well over

Chase (talk

) 20:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

After I was notified of the 3RR warning, I reported to Wikipedia:Third opinion, and ceased editing to the page. Candyo32 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Candy032 has just made the tenth revert: [206], well after being notified of this discussion and of relevant policy.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for making the 10th revert after posting here claiming to have ceased editing the page.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

No 3RR violation (yet), but this user is certainly edit warring with multiple other editors on this article. The diffs list below demonstrate continued deletions to just one section which have been reverted by numerous different editors. Other sections on the same article have also been deleted multiple times by this user as well.

User:Bookew was asked multiple times to discuss his edits on the articles talk page - which he ignored until after several edit/revert cycles with other editors, and the article was semi-protected to prevent continued disruption by him. After the semi-protection expired, Bookew continued edit warring as though nothing had happened - despite the consensus on the article's talk page being against him; it's unlikely that further semi-protection would help much.

.

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

1. 15:40, 1 March 2010
2. 15:36, 2 March 2010
3. 16:47, 3 March 2010
4. 16:03, 4 March 2010
5. 16:22, 5 March 2010
6. 17:05, 6 March 2010

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of warning: here

The discussion supporting the edit has been open for a long time and reached an undisputed conclusion. Instead of adding arguments to the discussion, the users were edit-warring with me. When an argument was added to the discussion, I did not continue with the edit. Bookew (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours for long-term edit warring on this article. Bookew frequently removes things that are negative about TrueCrypt. I invited him to promise to stop warring on this article, but he did not do so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: The Invention of the Jewish People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

)

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

• 1st revert: [207]
• 2nd revert: [208]
• 3rd revert: [209]
• 4th revert: [210]
• 5th revert:[211]

The fact is that Factsontheground is a very problematic user. On Wikipedia for less then a year, he has already been blocked three times, twice for edit-warring.[212]. While edit-warring, he finds himself the subject of an ANI discussion because he removed another's comments at the talkpage. In summation, what the edit-warring and ANI thread indicate that Factsontheground has a fundamental misconception of what Wikipedia is all about: He thinks it's only his facts that count.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer is being purposefully deceptive with those diffs. The first two diffs are not reverts to previous states of the article, they are new material, and they are not even related to the same material! The first diff is a restructure of the article, the second diff is an addition of sourced reviews. These are not undoing the actions of any editor, since they are entirely new material that I discussed on the talk page before adding to the article. So the first two do not count.

And in the interests of compromise I will self-revert my last change: [213]. So the last (5th) diff at 3:22 shouldn't count since I have reverted it myself.

So the first two are not reverts and the last diff I self reverted. This leaves two real reverts (#3 & #4), and I have no intention of modifying the article in the near future. Blocking me for edit warring is unnecessary at this point.

Also note that no warnings were given by Brewcrewer, and no attempts were made to communicate either on my talk page or the article talk page. There have been no attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page by Brewcrewer or Gilisa. The first and only proper communication I had from Brewcrewer was that he had filed this report. This is purely a cynical attempt to "catch me out" and not to improve the article in question.

Brewcrewer has been edit warring on the exact same article, along with Gilisa, and has refused to explain his changes on the talk page.

I have gone over all my changes in depth on the talk page, and have yet to be answered by Brewcrewer or Gilisa (who told me to "Discuss it with myself") who nonetheless repeatedly revert my changes.

Gilisa has been extremely uncivil towards me, bordering on personal attacks. Gilisa's edit summary, refusing to discuss my changes: "You discuss it with yourself Factsontheground-revert highely bias editinig". Another of Gilisa's edit summaries: "I do not accept your editing anyway." This shows a lack of civility and a good faith attempt to cooperate. At the same time there has been a complete refusal to discuss any changes with me on the talk page from both Gilisa and Brewcrewer.

A good faith attempt to ask Brewcrewer why he was removing masses of sourced material from the article in question received this response from Brewcrewer: Peanut chews are my favorite. This shows a cynical lack of interest in discussion as well as a complete lack of civility.

Also, I haven't been the only one defending these changes in that article. User:Mick gold is also adding the same material as I am and being reverted by Brewcrewer.

Brewcrew is also lying about the subject of the WP:ANI. I did not remove someone's comments, I struck them through because they were purposefully misleading a discussion. Once I was advised about the specifics of policies, I removed the strikethrough and the issue was resolved for everyone, except Brewcrewer, apparently.

) 17:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to join to Brewcrewer request. I must tell there is nothing that Brewcrewer is doing along with me as Factsontheground suggested. Factsontheground made some huge edits in an article (on a controversial issue anyway). I reverted him/her and then he/she reverted me. When I tried to alert him to that he have to get consensus first [214]. After he revrted again he wrote in the edit suammary that he/she already discuss it, refering to the fact that he merely wrote what were his/her edits on the talk page. I admit that here[215] I was abit too hasty to accuse him on removing something he didn't, but it change nothing in the whole picture. I also asked him on his talk page to cease from this manner of editing here [216] (he deleted immediately my comment on his talk page and added sarcastic applying to my bad English) -when I warn him again here [217]-he provoke me to complain and by that "to knock myself out".--Gilisa (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"..Also, if you check the 3rd diff you can see Gilisa's edit summary: "You discuss it with yourself Factsontheground-revert highely bias editinig. Have no intention to get to edit war". This shows what I've been dealing with here, a complete refusal to discuss any changes with me on the talk page from both Gilisa and Brewcrewer..." If you follow the correspondence between me and Factsontheground you will find his assertions baseless -he completely took it out of contxt, his edit summary, which precede this of mine, point to that he "already discuss" his edits on the talk page -I only replied him in the summary he quoted-namley, wrote that he "discussed" it with himself (which is a fact) and anyway, you can see that I further discussed with him on the talk page after this correspondence was made. And If I recall correctly, Mick Gold don't realy have something to do with that-and any way, Factsontheground was very far from having consensus.--Gilisa (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to join Brewcrewer request, altough on the other hand I believe the user causes much less harm while edit warring on the subject he has not enough knoledge about versus writing articles of conspiracy theories. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know anything of the background of Factsontheground. I know that today I started to edit article on book The Invention of the Jewish People. I thought that the material added by Factsontheground was valid, I did not experience his behaviour as disruptive. I think that there is a differemce of opinion about this book between Factsontheground, on the one hand, and Gilisa and Brewscrewer, on the other hand. Mick gold (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mick, It's not about opinions-it's about article owenship, at the least. You didn't experience it as we did because this changes were in agreement, or in some kind of agreement, with you-so it's possible that naturaly you were less sensitive to notice there being disruptive.--Gilisa (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, let's wait all for the adminstrators desicions -quoting me out of context and adding half trues in bold text would change nothing. I wrote that I don't accept your changes anyway (which were mostly, and in essence all, on the structure of the article and not on new facts, reliable sources and etc) after you wa the one who don't realy show any will to discuss-you first edited in disruptive manner, and then, hardly, discussed it.--Gilisa (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Additional Comment: Factsontheground is also currently the subject of two different ANI threads: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refactoring of another user's comments on a project page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent attempt to influence wikipedia discussion through canvassing of outside sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation Brewcrewer. Factsontheground is not the subject of the second ANI report you linked to. Off-wiki canvssing is. That another editor speculated it might be FOTG (with no proof, I might add is a colossal failure of AGF) and you responded by posting diffs to the other ANI report and this edit-warring report proves only that you seem fixated upon him.

I'd note that FOTG is corrrect in stating that the first two diffs listed here are not reverts. There is no 3RR violation here. Brewcrewer seems to have nothing better to do today than to pick on FOTG. His energy is probably better spent elsewhere, if his intention is to actually improve this encyclopedia. Tiamut^talk 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, you are aware that breaking 3RR is not necessary to constitute edit warring, right? And consistent edit warring is not indicative of a desire to contribute positively to the encyclopedia.

Breein1007 (talk

) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that. However, I would note that FOTG self-reverted his third revert, leaving only two reverts at issue here. IMHO, that indicates a recognition tht edit-warring is bad and a sensitivity to not wanting to perpetuate them. That he's participated amply in talk, both at the article talk page, and on the talk pages of user pages involved (and got blown off by Brewcrewer), is evidence that he's willing to discuss as well. The 3RR board is not for revenge, its for ongoing disruption, and I just don't see that here. Tiamut^talk 21:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I think you realy miss the point-the issue is not if Factsontheground is currently the subject of two additional ANI or only one-even if it may have relevance in a case that the administrators will decide to put sanctions against him. Till today I had no acquaintanceship with all of the involved here. You, on the other hand, seem to be regular advocator of Factsontheground. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Gilisa (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've only really become acquainted with FOTG over the last week or so after I objected to a posting made by User:Avraham at three different project pages characterizing him as an editor of concern (without providing any diffs). Looking into his edits led me to discover that Avi had speedy deleted an article FOTG had created, and I negotiated between them to come up with a satisfactory resolution that allowed for the articles' recreation without offending either one of them I think. :::::I think FOTG's is a good faith editor who is still learning about how Wikipedia works. I also think you are a good faith editor Gilisa (from what I've seen). I think you two just need to settle down and try to respect each other viewpoints a little better. Its a little frustrating to see all your edits reverted, just as it is frustrating to see an article you are working on changed all of sudden. Working together with more understanding of each other's perspectives would help, no? Tiamut^talk 21:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I realy appreciate your kind words-but I again in disagreement with you. I've no problem to see others point and even if I'm not allways easy is issues I see of high importance(as like many editors), many times I compromise (my prefer solution). The relevant aricle is naturally hard nut and while my edits were reverted twice, not by Factsontheground if I recall it right, I ceased editing immediately after the second revert-focused only on trying to reach consensus on the talk page. Factsontheground edits were not directly connected to those of mine, but he did them blatently, without showing any genuine will to discuss about the mass edits he made. He ignored my personal appeals, asking him to respect WP:CONSENSUS and showed bad faith when in his edit summary he depreciatingly mocked my English skills. It seems like he felt comfortable and protected to do every thing that cross his mind-and sometimes even to behave like he intend to provoke. Also, it is not that he got to edit war because sources or information were missing/unreliable or etc, it's just it seem that he had certain opinion about how the article should look like and consensus just doesn't was in his interests.--Gilisa (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Just to add proper disclosure: I now recall that I reverted Factsontheground once if I'm not mistaken. Also, my edits were reverted twice by two different users. However, Tiamut, I engaged the talk page instead of starting edit war-while the aforementioned always brandished he want discussion but show no real intention to get to one. More, when I think on it now-he took my words out of context based on small errors in my English-as it's very salient in his response here, I find it important to add this information.--Gilisa (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. Since Factsontheground undid his last change, it is not necessary to block him to stop an edit war. Nonetheless he exceeded 3RR on 7 March, and he is flying very close to the edge. If he returns to this article to make similar changes, without getting consensus first on the Talk page, admins may be quicker to act. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Gümüş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 213.240.232.170 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [218]

• 1st revert: [219]
• 2nd revert: [220]
• 3rd revert: [221]
• 4th revert: [222]
• 5th revert: [223]
• 6th revert: [224]

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 08:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Wokou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

I'm afraid you'll just have to watch this one. I am not involved in this dispute, but there is a huge amount of infighting going on here, perhaps this page will need oversight or lockdown.

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

Comments:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs)

• Result - Protected 5 days. The IPs don't participate on the Talk page, but you don't either. Please use this time to get a discussion going about the disputed points. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Comment: I have one edit (where I inluded maps into article) and one revert (returning maps to the article after Megistias removed them). It does not look to me as revert warring - user:Megistias already have very negative personal attitude towards me and he just trying to discredit me wherever possible. PANONIAN 17:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please check the sneaky delusion of user:Megistias where he presented my original edit as "second revert" - according to him, my first revert took place in "11:32, 8 March 2010" and second one in "08:30, 7 March 2010" - before the first one???? PANONIAN 17:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I informed you, i used the talk page, i explained to you the reasons, people can see the history if i made a mistake(did i?). Stay away from personal attacks please. Megistias (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You used false diff to show my second revert - that is simply unacceptable behaviour here. PANONIAN 18:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: user:Megistias now changed diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&action=historysubmit&diff=348568421&oldid=348561924 - but he clearly used false diffs in his original post: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=348522296 PANONIAN 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Panonian, i put them in chronological order...Megistias (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

They are the same diffs, as one can see when he clicks on them. Look at them again.Megistias (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Both warned. The two parties are edit-warring and they may be blocked if they continue. Try to obtain an outside view, say, from
  WP:RFC. Anyone who reverts again before a Talk consensus is reached may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 01:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Channel 3 (Thailand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 125.25.34.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
125.25.208.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [225]

• 1st revert: [226]
• 2nd revert: [227]
• 3rd revert: [228]
• 4th revert: [229]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [230]

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

Comments:

• Result - Semiprotected. All the IPs are probably the same person, and the combined set of IPs has broken 3RR. This article has amazingly poor sourcing. I hope that Paul_012 will have some time to start a discussion on the Talk page about article improvement. The IPs will be able to participate there if they wish to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: see individual diffs

1. 8 March, 13:43 (restoring passage previously added [232]
2. 8 March, 13:49 (removing "dubious" tag)
3. 8 March, 18:56 (removing "or" tag)
4. 8 March, 21:38 (restoring contentious passage previously removed [233])
5. 8 March, 22:08 (another tag removal)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [234] (prior to 5th rv)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mark Mindler (also discussion at Talk:Olympic Games)

Comments:
This user also broke 3RR on

22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 31 hours for 3RR violation at Mark Mindler. He should use great caution in his promotion of the Zappian Games as the first Olympics, since nobody else seems to agree, and he presses on regardless. His personal attacks on FPAS don't improve his reputation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: Art Deco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Carl Milles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
and 83.250.48.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [239] March 3, image changed by Special:Contributions/194.68.56.43

• 1st revert: [240] – March 5, by Carl Milles
• 2nd revert: [241] – March 5, by Carl Milles
• 3rd revert: [242] – March 6, by 83.250.48.172
• 4th revert: [243] – March 6, by Carl Milles
• 5th revert: [244] – March 7, by 83.250.48.172
• 6th revert: [245] – March 7, by Carl Milles

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [246] and [247]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Art_Deco#Chrysler_building_image

Comments:
The conflict is very simple: a new user would like to have a different image at the top of the Art Deco page, one that he feels is superior, and I disagree. The new editor has been using his logged-in username and his anon IP address to edit the article and to discuss on the talk page, so I have submitted this report on both accounts. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very true! I have been sloppy and not logged in properly. I will try to be much more careful.

Unfortunately Binksternet went into the edit as he/she belives the old one is better. I will probably not care about this (or any Wikipedia contribution whatsoever) anymore, if little people are allowed to rule by mere persistence, instead of trying to reach some concensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Milles (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. Carl Milles was revert-warring, under his own account and as an IP. We can accept his statement (above) as a promise to be more careful in the future. I am semiprotecting the article to be sure that Milles will edit the article under his own name from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well. I will not make any contributions to the English Wikipedia any more as people such as Binksternet are allowed to rule by pure persistence. This is what makes articles like the one on art deco stale, and there are numerous of other examples. Hopefully there will some other way of writing encyclopedias in the future. My part ends here.Carl Milles (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Page: The Invention of the Jewish People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:RolandR RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [252]

Comments:

• Isn't the first diff Roland's first edit of the day, making this three reverts, not four? And don't you have three reverts as well, Gilisa? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• You are surprisingly fast. Anyway, all are reverts made in much less than 24 hours. In any case, he didn't try to achieve consensus and verged, if not exceed, with article ownership. I informed him that his manner of editing is disruptive before he violated the 3rr. And I encourge you to count from the begining, I don't have three reverts, only two, while he have four. --Gilisa (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here are three: 15:16 7 March 14:41 8 March 15:08 8 March — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• This issue is already closed but just for the sake of good order: it's not a three revert. It is my first edit that was discussed on the talk page few hours before the edit was taken. --Gilisa (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the first "revert" was an original edit; the others were an attempt to prevent a POV reversion of this. I have discussed this at length on the article talk page, and have carefully explained the reasoning behind my edit. RolandR (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• No you didn't, you replied on the talk page only after the last revert you made on my edits. You didn't show any realy intent to discuss. I, on the other hand informed about my first edit much before it was done-here[253]-and you reverted my edit about two hours after it was made. Which mean it's a revert and not merely first edit.--Gilisa (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• My first edit was not a reversion. I didn't restore the text you removed; indeed, I agree with you that the words "by some" should be removed, and have not replaced them. RolandR (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pardon? Please read this[254] from the begining - I sepcifically informed on my intent to remove the words "by some" and to leave there only the word "controversial" and only after then I did it (This edit was according to the reference). You changed it in purpose to change the meaning and it can be learned from the correspondence on the talk page and in the edit summaries. Typically in your style of edits as I was impressed, you didn't discuss them first. It can be seen here [255] that your first edit was certainly with intent to change the meaning-so it's a revert, even if you didn't restore the original words (with which it seem, unlike you wrote here, you agreed before and after you engaged into edit warring (e.g., you wrote that you changed from controversial only to "has been described as controversial" because you don't think the book is controversial, ignored sources on one hand and challnged me to prove my proven and sourced assertion with sources on the other hand). In your last revert (of Kuratowski's Ghost) you removed without hesitation and discussion (even he posted on the talk page before his editing) a statement that was supported by 5 valid and reliable sources and restore to your own disputed version --Gilisa (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected five days. Is this really a revert war over a single sentence? Are people hair-splitting over the reverts? Did a person who has three reverts just report a person who has four reverts for edit-warring? Please! Three reverts is not an entitlement, and you are both warring. Since there are plenty of editors on this article, you could easily have started a discussion on the talk page with three or more people to sort this out. RolandR's first edit is technically a revert because it removes some words that were previously in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Public image of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:55, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Conservative support */ eliminated until it's resolved on talk page")
2. 21:41, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )")
3. 22:15, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "his public image may lead to conservative support, not the other way around...doesnt belong here")

• Diff of warning: here

— Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

What began as a slow-motion edit war where fully-referenced and notable content was repeatedly removed has now morphed into a technical violation. Here are some earlier related diffs:

1. 21:10, 2 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Conservative support */ eliminated sub section....why is that put there but not liberal support? or conservative/liberal criticism?")
2. 11:46, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )")
3. 22:32, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )")
4. 22:36, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "its not vandalism at all...we need to talk about this on the talk page before going further")

-- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've left a note for Jerzeykydd and asked him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  I had already notified Jerzeykydd of this report. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. Jerzeykydd has resumed editing without making any response to this complaint. If he continues to remove a section from Public image of Barack Obama without getting consensus first, he will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:07, 2 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   ")
2. 14:36, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Giraffedata (talk) to last version by The Thing That Should Not Be")
3. 16:34, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Karunyan (talk) to last version by Collectonian")
4. 17:29, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Karunyan; Rv; randomly reverting shit just because I reverted something you did earlier is childish; unnecessary and stupid change, original wording is perfectly acceptable. using [[WP:TWINKLE|TW]")
5. 01:47, 9 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Karunyan (talk) to last version by Collectonian")

—Karunyan (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Recommend any admin look at the whole picture. Karunyan is basically running around randomly reverting my edits purely because I reverted his "contribution" to the InuYasha character list.[256]. A second editor also reverted him when he tried again.[257] Among his reverts include a restoration of vandalism by the Bambifan101 sock puppet.[258] with a summary of "Just trollin'." and reverting a consensus approved merge[259] (which another editor reverted[260] This claims of reverts above are also bull. The first is from the second and was clearly vandalism. Being totally

talk · contribs

) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Of Karuyan's last seven edits, one was to file this report, the other six were all to revert Collectonian's edits with no explanation, save the one marked "Just trollin'" [262]. It certainly seems like provocation. Dayewalker (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the indications of

hounding, I've suggested to Karunyan that he withdraw this report. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Stale. No reverts in 24 hours. Karunyan has not edited since I gave him the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [263]
• 2nd revert: [264]
• 3rd revert: [265]
• 4th revert: [266]

) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history of the article in question, you will see that the alleged "reverts" are in fact revisions to accomodate objections by John Asfukzenski, such as creating a new "Criticism" section and adding references to establish that the material in question does not violate

WP:3RR here, it's John Asfukzenski.
Please also note that John Asfukzenski did not notify me of this report, per the instructions above. Groupthink (talk

) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Result - 24h to Groupthink for edit-warring and

) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: )

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

• See Tannhauser Gate history

This is a rather different type of conflict. Two editors keep reverting sourced content, then template Michael C Price everytime he re-adds it back (with explanations, sources, etc...). The content is both legitimate, sourced, and they just won't have any of it. Discussion is impossible (see User talk:Magnius, which followed the blanking of his userpage after we tried talking to him, and see User talk:Michael C Price#March 2010 as well).

Comments:

My request isn't in the form of the usual 3RR request, since I don't really know what exactly this falls under. Warnings for Magnius and RepublicanJacobite might be enough to force them to engage in productive discussions. Or maybe the routine 24 hour 3RR block is enough.

} 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - You haven't made any attempt at discussion first on the article's talk page, and you're reporting three editors for a non-3-RR violation here. "Hoah, boy!" Doc9871 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is more general than 3RR.

books

} 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Wouldn't it be best to exhaust discussion amongst the editors, or at least raise it on the article's talk page first? Just curious... Doc9871 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you check the links, you'll see this was directly raised with the editors themselves and the result was being ignored, and threatened with bans.

books

} 17:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really just mostly wondering why no discussion on the talk page has occurred since May 24 of last year. It seems odd. I don't know the full history here (give me 15 minutes), but I know things should be discussed before edit-warring occurs... Doc9871 (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This is absurd. I gave Michael Price one warning, which was for 3RR, a warning he earned. I never gave him any other warning. Furthermore, there have been no edits, by anyone, in regard to that matter in 3 days. The most recent round of reverts, in the last 24 hours or so, are in regard to another piece of trivia in the pop. culture section. Do these matters need to be discussed on the talk page? Certainly. Have we been remiss in not doing so? Yes. But, this is not a matter that needs to be addressed at ANI, especially considering that you never made any attempt to discuss this with any of the three of us before making this report. ---
  The'FortyFive'
  17:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems one of civility re

WP:DTTR, coupled with a shot-first attitude. User:Magnius's only mode of communication seems to be templating editors in this and a number of other articles. (I picked up a template for adding a citation request to a contested claim, and then another when I actually sourced the claim with a book reference.) Others have complained about Magnius on his talk page (which he blanked as soon as I added my complaint). Such behaviour sours the atmosphere generally and does not improve content. --Michael C. Price ^talk

21:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Following up on what I said earlier. My first revert in two days was reverting an addition by an IP editor, which was then reverted by Michael C. Price. So the "facts" as presented by Headbomb are a blatant distortion, and he's managed to leave out his own edit warring, since one revert is now classed as edit warring. This is a content dispute over pop culture cruft of doubtful relevance in an article already bloated with such material. Headbomb's approach here, though, has not been helpful, including leaving a message on my talk page, then deleting it, realizing he had the wrong editor. At any point, he could have started a discussion on the article's talk page. Why didn't he, given his concerns? ---
  The'FortyFive'
  01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Declined. This is intended to be an edit-warring complaint, but it's too hard to follow. How can admins verify that someone is going against the talk page consensus when there is nothing about the dispute on the talk page? I attach some concern to the edits by Michael C. Price; I do not see where that he obtained consensus for the changes he is repeatedly trying to make at
  Tannhauser Gate. Perhaps he should take the first step and ask for opinions on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 03:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Xandar reported by User:Karanacs(Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [267]

• Today, User:UberCryxic and I made changes to an article's organization. After that, several other users made other changes to the article - copyediting, formatting, etc, some completely unrelated to the layout changes. The organization changes are being discussed on the article talk page in several sections.
• Xandar came to the article, and, rather than discuss, immediately reverted. [268] He did not engage in discussion on the changes other than to say that he thought the process used to make them was unacceptable.
• Another user reverted Xandar's wholesale change.
• Xandar reverted again: [269]

Note that this page has been protected for editwarring repeatedly recently, and all editors on the page are well aware that we should not be edit-warring.

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

Comments:

Karanacs and UberCrycix have decided to break the rules of Wikipedia and try to impose highly contentious changes to the Catholic Church article which have not achieved consensus. These include a major reorganisation of this Good Article - which was not agreed when proposed. the elimination of referenced material and whole sections of the article. This is disruptive editing, which would not be tolerated on any article. I have reverted TWICE to the last consensus version, which is quite proper under BOLD, REVERT DISCUSS. If Karanacs wants to discuss her proposed changes to the article, she is free to do so. However she and her friend are NOT allowed to change the article radically without consensus, and then come here claiming that the longstanding editors have no right to insist on the longstanding version being retained. Their actions have been opposed by other editors including Myself, Nancy Heise, Richard Husr. Johnbod and Yorkshirian. I have several times proposed mediation on disputed content, but Karanacs and Ubercryxix seem determined to have their way by any means. Xandar 02:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've protected the page. See talk there and my talk for extensive discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:UberCryxic and User:Karanacs reported by User:Xandar (Result: See above)

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

Karanacs and UberCrycix have decided to break the rules of Wikipedia and try to impose highly contentious changes to the Catholic Church article which have not achieved consensus. This intention was announced here These people are attempting to edit-war major unagreed changes onto the Catholic Church page because they have lost patience with, or are not prepared to go through an orderly process of discussion and mediation on content. These major changes include a wholesale and non-consensus reorganisation of this Good Article - which was not agreed when proposed. The elimination of referenced material, and whole sections of the article. This is disruptive editing, which would not be tolerated on any article. Editors Johnbod, Richardhusr, Nancy heise, Myself and Yorkshirian all immediately objected to the changes and expressed intentions that they be reverted to the longstanding consensus version. Yet the pushers of this attempted transformation are attempting to bully it onto the page with reversions, and accusations that the editors obeying WP rules are the ones edit-warring. Xandar 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:213.240.232.170 reported by User:Maral616 (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Gümüş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 213.240.232.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [270]

• 1st revert: [271]
• 2nd revert: [272]
• 3rd revert: [273]
• 4th revert: [274]
• 5th revert: [275]
• 6th revert: [276]
• 7th revert: [277]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [278]

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

Comments:
This user keeps continuously adding numbers to the number of original episodes wich was 100, thus by doing so vandalizing the content of the article.

• Result - Semiprotected. This IP just came off a block for revert-warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsontheground

(Result: No action)

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

Breein1007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to: [279]

• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [283]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [284] Diff of attemp to resolve dispute on user talk page (subsequently deleted by user): [285]

Comments: Breein1007 has been notified of and is under the discretionary sanctions of

WP:ARBPIA

. He/she refuses to discuss their reverts in the article talk page or on their user talk page leaving me no option.

talk

) 03:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My reverts were made with valid edit summaries. I didn't have anything else to add to my point on the talk page. On the other hand, Factsontheground repeatedly reverted a series of my edits, while only addressing his concerns with 1 of them. More specifically, here are the diffs: [286] [287] - not only is Factsontheground also edit warring (ie: it takes two to tango), but he is also making blanket reverts without even so much as mentioning a hint of reasoning. His edit summary mentioned his belief that the source is not reliable, which I disagree with. But in his revert, he also hid the reinsertion of inappropriate material about Baruch Goldstein that violates

Breein1007 (talk

) 04:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here's my take on the issue. Factsontheground removed some paragraphs attributed to an op-ed on March 7th,[288] and opened a discussion on the talk page on the same day.[289] Breein1007 didn't join that discussion, but reverted Factsontheground's changes three days later,[290] in addition to removing part of a sentence about Baruch Goldstein. Factsontheground sent Breein1007 a message on his talk page about why he made a change he did, and asked Breein1007 to join the discussion on the article talk page,[291] then reverted Breein1007's changes. Breein1007 deleted the message from his talk page, with an edit summary of "no thanks".[292], and reverted Factsontheground, complaining that Factsontheground had reverted several edits.

As far as I can tell, Factsontheground made a fairly good attempt at starting a discussion on both the article talk page, and Breein1007's talk page. Breein1007 stated that he didn't want to discuss the issue. Breein1007 complained that Factsontheground reverted multiple edits, which is true. However, the only difference between Breein1007's multiple edits and his revision of Factsontheground was a few words in one sentence. He could have very easily just redone the changes to that one sentence, and joined in the discussion on the talk page, but instead he reverted en masse too. This started an edit war.

Rather than edit warring on this issue, the opinion piece cited, written by "a PhD student in geography at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem", should have been taken to

WP:RSN. It seems to me either of you could have (and should have) done that before edit warring. But it's also pretty clear that Factsontheground at least attempted to discuss the issue (twice), while Breein1007 refused. ← George ^talk

05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the talk page discussion, it is true that I did not see the post until after I reverted. However, upon reading the post and then checking the article, there was nothing I had to add to the talk page that I didn't say in my edit summary. In terms of my talk page, I would have been glad to treat Factsontheground's message seriously, had he not decided to use a template to give me a bogus warning. I can't take "invitations to discussions" like that seriously. I wouldn't think

Breein1007 (talk

) 05:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion Breein1007, why not self revert, re-add the change to the

WP:RSN? ← George ^talk

05:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair suggestion. I will consider it... even though I still don't think that I should be the one expected to bring sources to

Breein1007 (talk

) 05:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources aren't RS by default. Isn't the editor who wants to use a source supposed to establish reliability prior to use ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)..unless it's obviously reliable. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Per

WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." ← George ^talk

05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did take this issue to

WP:RSN

some hours ago. If you want to argue for Frantzman's supposed expertise, Breein1007, there is the place to do it. And as George and Sean have noted, the burden of proof rests upon those who want to add material not those who want to remove it. You really need to self-revert and engage in discussion if you don't want to appear to be edit warring. By the way, Zero0000, an editor who knows a lot about I-P historical matters has posted a good comment debunking Frantzman's claims -[293]. Indeed, to anyone familiar with the history of the region the Frantzmans claims are ridiculous

talk

) 07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post is considerd RS, that's can explain much.--Gilisa (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But a blog in a newspaper is a RS for only the blogger's opinion, not for historical fact. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be completely frank here. Earlier today I had basically come to the conclusion that I should simply leave the issue alone and allow the information to be removed from the article, even though I completely disagree that the source is unreliable. I was for all intents and purposes prepared to give up on this issue because I didn't want this edit war to continue. However, the case has developed on

Breein1007 (talk

) 21:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action. Breein1007's comments might be interpreted by some as an intention to edit war, because there is no indication he intends to get consensus before re-adding the Frantzman material to the article. Since this has not yet happened, no action is yet appropriate. Breein1007 has already been notified of the
  Israel/Palestine Arbcom case. If edit warring resumes, this article may be protected, or editors who revert without getting consensus on the Talk page may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:75.183.125.170 reported by User:EPadmirateur (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Shadi Bartsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 75.183.125.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [294]

• 1st revert: [295]
• 2nd revert: [296]
• 3rd revert: [297]
• 4th revert: [298]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [299]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: RfC added [300] and subsequent discussion.

Comments:

This IP editor appears to want to add disparaging and sometimes unsourced information about Ms. Bartsch, probably arising from a controversy in which Ms. Bartsch is "dating" the married, now separated President of the University of Chicago, Robert Zimmer. Examples of these edits include: [301], [302]. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. IP editor has exceeded 3RR while making no attempt to discuss on Talk. IP has no interests besides this one article. Ms. Bartsch has achieved notability sufficient for Wikipedia through her teaching and research at the Univ. of Chicago. Do we really need to know who she is dating? EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:OuroborosCobra reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result: editor warned)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

User talk:ColDickPeters (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs). OuroborosCobra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:49, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* March 2010 */ new section")
2. 19:46, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 19:49, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 19:54, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 19:57, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349061623 by ColDickPeters (talk)")
6. 20:00, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349062111 by ColDickPeters (talk)")
7. 20:17, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Uncle Dick (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Would this be the place to respond with the fact that they have launched attacks based on what they have decided is my sexual orientation, that they trolled talk pages with homophobic posts, that in removing warnings from talk pages, they did so with personal attacks, that they have launched a personal war on the article of an organization they just don't seem to like, and have done so on unrelated talk pages as well? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it wouldn't. Try

WP:WQA for that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Warned SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • While I am accepting the warning, I would like to point out that only 5, 6, and 7 constitute actual reverts. In all other cases, I posted more in response to a conversation the other user had blanked on their page, while continuing on my own. If you look at the contents of the other edits, they all include new messages continuing an existing conversation. Those edits, 1-4, are not reverts. Technically speaking, by the diffs, shown, I do not have more than three reverts. I would also like to say that I am more familiar with Memory Alpha's policies and ways of doing things, where warnings are not to be removed by the user being warned. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

    You might want to check out the Wikipedia, not MA, definition of edit warring before relying to heavily on your definition above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am accepting the warning on edit warring, but I have also been accused of violating the three revert rule. I have not done so, I have not, by the Wikipedia definition, had more than three reverts within 24 hours. Four of the edits accused of being reverts are not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR was actually never intended to be for talk pages, despite there being no technical wording to state that in policy. It was meant to avoid content warring, not to prevent people from deleting or restoring discussions. If this really is being considered edit warring and 3RR violation, both warring parties should be warned. But if it's not an actual 3RR violation and rather just being called that in a desperate attempt to do something about the reverting, it would be better to simply inform OuroborosCobra that users are generally given the right to end discussions on their own talk pages, and that he should generally respect that. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:01, 10 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, since you're specifically allowed in policy to blank everything you want from your talk page except declined unblock requests, there are no grounds to block both parties here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. The applicable policy here is not 3RR but user talk page policy. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:08, 10 Mar 2010 (UTC)

User:KrumpKrumpKrumpKrump reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: 1 month)

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

Previous version reverted to: 1010 March 3

• 1st revert: 1317 March 5 "Undid revision 347485307 by Favonian (talk) Celebheights.com is reliable. Heights are from evidence"
• 2nd revert: 0626 March 6 "BBC is unreliable. Celebheights.com specialise in heights."
• 3rd revert: 0444 March 7 "Undid revision 348117514 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) Hell yeah! Celebheights.com specialise in heights FROM EVIDENCE. BBC doesn't!"
• 4th revert: 1054 March 7 "Please do not delete references. Celebheights.com is the most reliable site on heights of celebrities. Regards"
• 5th revert: 0828 March 8 "Celebheights.com manifests Mike Tyson "measured himself in 2005 and declared he was a 'pathetic' 5ft 10." Read the reference article. It is 100% reliable!"
• 6th revert: 1137 March 8 "Mike Tyson is 5'10 RIGHT NOW. He was 5'11.5 in his prime, not now. Celebheights.com states from an article "He measured himself in 2005 and declared he was a 'pathetic' 5ft 10.""
• 7th revert: 1312 March 10 "Celebheights states: Mike Tyson "measured himself in 2005 and declared he was a 'pathetic' 5ft 10.". Mike Tyson's last year of fighting was in 2005. Thus, his fighting height is 5'10. Understand?!"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 0548 March 7

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Celebheights.com.

Comments:
I blocked him for 24 hours between the 6th and 7th revert.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 1 month. This is his fourth block since 1 December. No sign that the earlier blocks (for as long as a week) made any impression at all. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that the editor is willing to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • He has toned it down a bit as of late, no? ;P Doc9871 (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Cgersten reported by User:JamesMLane (Result: 48h)

Page: Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Cgersten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [303]

Background of earlier reverts:

• [304]
• [305]
• [306]
• [307]
• [308]

Today's reverts violating 3RR:

• 1st revert: [309]
• 2nd revert: [310]
• 3rd revert: [311]
• 4th revert: [312]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [313] (article talk page), [314] (user talk page)

Also note prior 3RR warnings with regard to other pages: [315], [316]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts by me and by User:Jojhutton at Talk:Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration#2001 Airstrikes

Comments: Aside from the 3RR violation, the language the user keeps reverting to is clearly improper, citing praise of Bush but asserting as fact the accuracy of one POV on a contentious subject.
JamesMLane t c 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI-
  Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Cgersten. For this edit summary.--Jojhutton (talk
  ) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate that all this user does is edit war, over and over and over again. I haven't looked at the Bush article stuff, but re: Clinton, this thing is a minor news blurb about one section of the presidents SOTU address. It is completely out of place in a section that is summarizing major pieces of legislation, policy initiatives, etc... Tarc (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been slowly trying to remove this information for over a month now. Mostly on my own, and always careful to never make more than 3 reverts on a page a day. I knew that it was a matter of time before this user went over 3 reverts. All he/she seems to want to do is add random information, and thinks that as long as its cited, its okay. It finally took an extra pair of eyes to see what was happening. I didn't want to take it to a notice board, until he/she really did something worth mentioning, and I didn't want to try and get others involved, for fear of being accused of canvasing.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not citing praise of Bush (please read news artlcles cited), and how one can infer that is beyond me, especially considering future actions against Iraq that occured? What's more, apparently JamesMLane doesn't support Bush, while Jojhutton does. So one news item can be interpreted differently by people of different political views.

I was merely citing two front page New York Times news items (escalation by bombing beyond "no fly" zone), that considering future events is significant. Also the opinions about the raids on Iraq was from a reliable source (i.e., NY Times).

Only real question: Should someone researching the presidency of Bush be aware that Bush ordered this raid within 30 days of becoming president?--[User:cgersten] (talk)tuco_bad 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 48 hours. Block can be lifted or shortened if the editor will agree to follow our policies. He has been unusually persistent in his warring at Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. He seems unaware that caution is needed on high-profile articles, especially for someone like himself who appears to have limited knowledge of our policies. Since this report was filed, he has moved on to Presidency of Bill Clinton and has already made two reverts there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey reported by User:Emptymountains (Result: No vio)

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

Previous version reverted to: [317]

• 1st revert-a: [318] 20:57, 2010-03-08
• 1st revert-b: [319] 20:59, 2010-03-08
• 1st revert-c: [320] 21:00, 2010-03-08
• 2nd revert-a: [321] 20:42, 2010-03-09
• 2nd revert-b: [322] 20:50, 2010-03-09
• 3rd revert: [323] 03:19, 2010-03-10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [324]

• 4th revert: [325]

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

Comments: I have responded to YellowMonkey's and Shii's requests for more reliable sources in the section of the article being fought over. I have flagged two lines with "citation needed" to give Truthbody an opportunity to provide references, since he was the one to put them in there in the first place.

This edit [326] by YellowMonkey not only took out the two lines with citations needed, but also removed my sourced statements from third-party sources (e.g., Waterhouse, Spanswick).

YellowMonkey appears to be one of Wikipedia's more established editors, so I'm surprised he's not more willing to discuss things on the talk page.

• Comment - The last talk page entry was some time ago. Edit summaries of reverts are not "talk page" discussions... Doc9871 (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. When I posted the 3RR warning on YM's talk page, I asked him to explain on the article's talk page why he was removing third-party sources. Emptymountains (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So... you posted a warning to his user talk page after and reported him for edit-warring; have not participated in the discussion you raised on said user talk page (where others have), and there was (and still is) no discussion initiated whatsoever on the article's talk page. Am I missing anything? Doc9871 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - This part of the edit-warring report: "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]" comes into play here... Doc9871 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

YM is talking about me on his talk page, but not with me (e.g., "Well, regardless, he's plugged a bunch of self-serving info from self-sources"); you'll notice he did not respond to me directly. Specifically, I asked him to explain why Waterhouse and Spanswick are, in his view, self-published and non-idependent sources. I asked that he bring this discussion to the article's talk page, where everyone contributing to the article can participate; most editors wouldn't even know there was a 'discussion' going on at his user page. Emptymountains (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you take the first step towards fostering discussion by opening a new section on the article's talk page (agreed, not another editor's talk page), and the other editor does not reply; you are ahead of the game... Doc9871 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• No violation YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) has not made 4 or more reverts in a 24 hour period. Furthermore, since YellowMonkey seems to be removing blatant POV-pushing from a BLP, I would not be prepared to sanction regardless of the number of reverts. CIreland (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Drummer182 reported by User:Bdb484 (Result: blocked 1 week)

Page: Drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drummer182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [327]

• 1st revert: [328]
• 2nd revert: [329]
• 3rd revert: [330]
• 4th revert: [331]
• 5th revert: [332]
• 6th revert: [333]
• 7th revert: [334]
• 8th revert: [335]
• 9th revert: [336]
• 10th revert: [337]
• 11th revert: [338]
• 12th revert: [339]
• 13th revert: [340]
• 14th revert: [341]
• 15th revert: [342]
• 16th revert: [343]
• 17th revert: [344]
• 18th revert: [345]
• 19th revert: [346]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [347]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Drum#External_links, more on the user's talk page.

Comments:
Note: This request is being reposted. Another admin declined to take action because one of the pages in question had been protected. Now that the protection has been lifted, the user has returned to edit war. Although it seems to have gone undetected until last month, this editor has been edit warring on Drum and Drum kit since 2007. Although I left a plenty-friendly warning about our EL policy and edit warring, he is unapologetic.

As you'll see at his talk page, he acknowledges that the links he's adding are to his own advertising-driven websites, and he says he won't stop "until fairness and common sense enter this picture."

These IPs could be socks or meatpuppets, as their only edits are to restore Drummer182's links:

• User:141.152.45.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• User:96.248.18.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• User: 68.238.26.6 (talk · contribs · 68.238.26.6 WHOIS)

— Bdb484 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week While the list of diffs above makes the report appear worse than it is, the editor did declare an intent to continue adding the link until common sense prevailed.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian reported by User:UberCryxic (Result: no violation )

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

The version before all reverting took place: [348]

• 1st revert: [349]
• 2nd revert: [350]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [351]

The following is the straw poll that agreed to my version of the article: [352]

Comments: The version of the article that I posted has gained wide support in the talk page (see the link above) and I went ahead and implemented it after the protection of the article came down. User:Yorkshirian then got rid of all my changes and went to the old version, I reverted once, and the user reverted me again, bringing me here. This is not 3RR, but I have no wish to engage in an edit war with this user and do not want the user banned either. I notified the user that he is edit warring, but I don't think that will do much good. I just want him verbally reprimanded and instructed not to engage in an edit war when he has no consensus for his version. I hope something can be done here. Thank you very much for your time, and I'd be happy to provide more details as necessary.

UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I suggest that you please see here. It appears that there has been considerable conflict over this article. User:Tom harrison, an administrator, full protected the article and began a straw poll on two versions of the article. During that straw poll, two editors of the article opposed to the version proposed by UberCryxic were blocked. The administrator, Tom harrison, characterized the block as "a (successful) campaign" to get the two editors in question (see here), invalidated the straw poll, and unprotected the page. UberCryxic declared victory (apparently the "vote" at the time of invalidation was 11-7 for his version) and was rather sharply reprimanded by User:Bigtimepeace for his comments here. Good luck dealing with this one, I'm out of here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

UC, I think you would need to leave the straw poll open for longer than a day or two, and ideally have it closed by an uninvolved editor or admin. The changes you want to make are substantial, and therefore the onus is on you to show you have consensus before implementing them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for scattering the discussion everywhere. I didn't know that I was allowed to write here. The user and I are currently hammering out our differences in the talk page, so no action may be necessary. For those who are interested in following the discussion, I have also made comments here and here to the administrators Wehwalt and SlimVirgin. Thank you for your help.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We have come to an understanding in the talk page. No action is required. Sorry to bother you with all this.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bevus1 reported by User:Kittensandrainbows (Result: 0)

Page:

Tall Guy Short Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)
User being reported: Bevus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [353]

• 1st revert: [354]
• 2nd revert: [355]
• 3rd revert: [356]

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

Comments:

I didn't try to delete the page, just suggest that the content be merged into another article. Author keeps removing the call for discussion without responding on the talk page. (Hope I filled this form out right.)

talk

) 07:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a new user, should have been warned before being reported. Has not reverted more than 3 times. However, this article is an obvious candidate for speedy (it is already mentioned on the Johnstones page, I'm not sure there is much more to merge). I've slapped an A7 on it, if the user keeps reverting blindly, please notify me. Thanks, yandman 16:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions

)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Watkins (2nd nomination) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Watkins (2nd nomination)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 19:59, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 18:59, 11 March 2010 (edit summary: "removing a second blatant, unnecessary, and unfounded personal attack made by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
   WP:NPA
   ")
3. 17:56, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349352199 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) reverted personal attack for the *second time* NPA")
4. 18:27, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349461622 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) PLEASE STOP ADDING PERSONAL ATTACKS FOR THE LAST T")
5. 18:36, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349464160 by
   WP:NPA
   ")

—LotLE×talk 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

These two editors need some distance.

Related discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk

) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:202.129.79.232 reported by User:Morenooso (Result: malformed)

Page: El dannys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 202.129.79.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

--Morenooso (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs. Stifle (talk
  ) 11:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Report was actually fine. The problem is that the page was deleted 2 minutes after it was filed, invalidating the diffs. Moot anyway.
    talk
    ) 07:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsontheground

(Result: no action)

Page:

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

)
User being reported: Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [358]

• 1st revert: [359]
• 2nd revert: [360]
• 3rd revert: [361]
• 4th revert: [362]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [363]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [364]. I also attempted to resolve the issue on the user's talk page but he deleted the discussion: [365].

Note that Mbz1 is also edit warring on Robert F. Kennedy attempting to insert similar POV-pushing material:

• 1st revert: [366]
• 2nd revert: [367]
• 3rd revert: [368]
• 4th rever: [369]

Comments:
User has

ownership issues

with this article and is ostensibly asking for help yet rejecting any edits that do not agree with her pro-Israel agenda. She is cherry picking quotes that support her point of view and removing any quotes that are balanced or neutral.

She is also removing important, sourced facts from the article that do not support his agenda, such as that RFK was 22 at the time of his trip and only spent several weeks in Palestine.

I would also like to note that Mbz1 has a serious problem in the way she treats Wikipedia

as a battlefield. As this edit shows she seems to believe he is "fighting for a cause" and not merely writing an encyclopedia. It may not be relevant here, but she has been extremely uncivil towards me in the past ([370], [371], [372]) and other Palestinian users such as Tiamut (talk · contribs) ([373]

).

Amazingly, Mbz1 has even removed such objective, important information as the dates that RFK was in Palestine simply because they don't further her agenda. This user really needs to improve their understanding of neutrality on Wikipedia.

talk

) 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, Factsontheground, Mbz1 is a woman, not a man. With respect to Robert F. Kennedy, I see as much revert-warring from you as from her. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
    talk
    ) 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Thank you, Malik.
    • To the closing administrator. May I please ask you to note that me and the filing party are involved in the discussion at the article's talk page, where we have agreed on some edits. Apparently filing party agreed not to add a quote that is not from Robert Kennedy's reports he wrote in 1948. The last edit I've done to the article was done 10 hours ago. I was mote than surprised to see the report. Please also notice that this report was filed right after we have agreed to discuss changes here, and there were no more reverts ever since. Please also see the discussion page of the article in particular user:George and mine extensive and successful negotiating.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Entirely stale. No current edit war = no action taken.
        talk
        ) 07:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:76.219.200.59 reported by User:Doniago (Result: already blocked)

Page: Mafia (party game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 76.219.200.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [374]

• 1st revert: 16:55, 12 March 2010
• 2nd revert: 17:58, 12 March 2010
• 3rd revert: 19:53, 12 March 2010
• 4th revert: 19:57, 12 March 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [375]

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

Comments:

Doniago (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked for 31h by

talk

) 07:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:204.9.221.126 reported by User:GF940 (Result: no vio)

Page: Aurora Flight Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 204.9.221.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<The IP address is from Cambridge, MA and is part of the Aurora Flight Sciences company who is in an edit warring phase with respect to the article above. Please block the IP>

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

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

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

<PLease see the discussions section on the article where a dialogue was attempted. [diff]

Comments:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by GF940 (talk • contribs)

Only one edit on the article in the past two weeks or so.

talk

) 07:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsontheground reported by User:Debresser

(Result: Warned)

Page: Cave of the Patriarchs massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

User:Factsontheground added a piece of information to Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in this edit of March 7. I have removed it since, and Factsontheground has insisted on restoring it a few times, as can be seen in the edit history of the article. On March 9, I opened a section about this issue on the talk page, where I and others have argued against inclusion of this piece of information. Factsontheground refuses to accept the fact that consensus is in disagreement with his opinion, and in this edit

of March 13 has again added it (albeit in shortened form).

• 1st edit: [376]
• 2nd edit: [377]
• 3rd edit: [378]
• 4th edit: [379]

I have asked Factsontheground to accept that consensus disagrees with him, both in the talk page discussion, and on his talk page as well. [380]

Note: this is not a case of 3RR, but of general edit warring.

Desired outcome: a warning to Factsontheground to avoid edit warring and to restrict himself to consensus edits. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Debresser (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Result - Factsontheground is warned. He insists on adding a passage claiming that in 2010, a group of Jews celebrated Baruch Goldstein's mass murder of Palestinians in 1994. Though he did not exceed 3RR, Factsontheground should be aware that Ynetnews says "A video obtained by Ynet depicts Jewish residents of east Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood during their Purim celebrations singing songs of praise for Baruch Goldstein", without commenting on its veracity. The Jerusalem Post merely said that "a video was circulating on the internet." I hope he does not take these reports as a ringing endorsement that the events narrated in the video actually took place. At

WP:ARBPIA and admins may take a dim view of careless editing in this area. EdJohnston (talk

) 22:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can appeal this, because this is very silly.

I've seen some pretty funny consensuses in my time on Wikipedia, but Debresser + 2 other dudes who comment once is the weakest "consensus" yet. Not to mention that there is Zscarpia who is part of the debate but refuses to take any sides.

Secondly EdJohnston made judgements about the content. I thought WP:AN3 was not a content noticeboard, but a behaviour noticeboard. I thought judgements about content were supposed to remain at the relevant talk page.

Thirdly, my recent addition was a completely different compromise text that was not the same as the other 3 reverts. It was so different to say I was "reverting" is quite wrong. I was attempting to compromise my reducing the mention of the incident to a single sentence.

Also, why didn't you give me any time to reply before closing? I live in AEST and I was sleeping at the time.

Debresser also edit warred against me and ZScarpia to remove any mention of Purim and Ramadan from the lede even though we had a good, mainstream source (Time magazine) that described the significance which Debresser accused of "poor journalism".

I recently went to the trouble of finding a book quote that supported the common-sense mention in the lede in order to end the silliness once and for all; a book quote that significantly improved the sourcing of the article. And what do I get for my trouble? I am not "edit warring" on the article I am trying to improve it.

Debresser himself is edit warring about the simple factual title of the section in question, and has yet to provide any argument why it should not be in accordance with its content. [381]

The section is about people celebrating the massacre. Its not just about the veneration of Goldstein himself. That is a fact, not an opinion.

FWIW, ZScarpia seems to agree that I was not edit warring. [382]. As he says, "It may be seen as significant that none of Factsontheground's edits has involved hitting the Undo button."

talk

) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this on the Talk page of the article. This report lists four reverts by you. Though they are not within 24 hours, the four reverts all restore the possibly-bogus video to the article. I trust you will not consider a bogus video to be so fascinating that it simply must be included in our article. Per the usual admin detachment, if you can get consensus for this, it can go in. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)