Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive148

IP 174.27.28.59 reported by Rusted AutoParts (talk) (Result: no action)In The Fugitive, the Transit Cop is portrayed by Neil Flynn. In a episode of Scrubs, the creators used this as a plot devise and made Flynn's Janitor character the actor. I added a mention to that on the film's cast section, but the IP won't stop removing the sniplet, resulting in him violating the 3RR rule and continued after i undid his 3rd removal. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:46 8 January 2011 (UTC)

User Rusted AutoParts has been told in the past by other editors that this is not relevant information to the The Fugitive article, yet he keeps inserting it. He has started the edit war and is vandalizing the article. 174.27.28.59 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Engaging Rusted AutoParts in discussion on the matter. I'd prefer to not block either editor rather than block both. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Closing as a no action. Parties seem amenable to discussing the situation at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

User:DocOfSoc reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Warned)

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

Time reported: 01:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 13:51, 8 January 2011 (edit summary: "/*Restored lead which is a SUMmary! Life story is not for lead, it is redundant and repetitious. Smacks of POV. Please do not revert again!")
2. 14:59, 7 January 2011(edit summary: "Undid revision 406494988 b There is an ongoing discussion re: this on talk page. Please participate before RV. Horrible is not appropriate here"
3. 14:38, 7 January 2011(edit summary: "(Undid revision 406492435 YOu have been asked to discuss this on talk page. Please do not remove until discussed/and it would be violation of 3rr rule.,"
4. 14:25, 7 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 406489515 This says a lot about the man. Already moved to 2nd paragraph on lead. Please do not remove without discussion on talk page")
5. 13:46, 7 January 2011 (edit summary: "statement reverted. says a lot about the man")

• Diff of previous warning: here

Note: User has a very serious case of revert-itis, and was previously warned the day before at 15:07, 7 January 2011. User chose to ignore the warning, but continues to edit war on a page that is under scrutiny by many admins due to the recent block of

Wikipedia:ANI#Block of User:Collect by User:2over0

.

Disclosure: I made a series of eight consecutive edits from 06:56 - 07:12 on 8 January 2011 that restored previously removed information. This can be counted as one revert.[17] I have made no other edits to this article at this time.

—Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am truly astounded at this report and also User:2over)'s comment, following this previous comment on both pages:

• Thank you both for noticing this morning's
  Requests for page protection. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC) [18]

As seen above, I repeatedly requested discussions on talk page, all of which were ignored. Viriditas made his first eight edits to the article, adding redundant information already contained in the body of the article and not appropriate in the lead (Not the place for his life story that is repeated under personal info. ) Viriditas has posted the user box on his page that states "This user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war," yet made No effort at discussion. The above reverts cited were concluded, I believe, amicably, with an implied apology on my part. "...works for me. Soxwon, I would rather have you with me than "agin" me :) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC) [19] I am at a loss to find any "edit warring" with Viriditas. I only find a duplicitous remark that makes no sense to me, considering the many requests for discussion and the posting from his own userbox regarding such discussion. The core group working on this article have been working well as a Wiki team effort. Namaste... DocOfSoc (talk

) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a word of what you have said makes any sense, and I will leave it to others to parse. The facts are beyond dispute: you edit warred, you were warned, and you decided to keep edit warring. I have no role to play in your actions, as you have reverted multiple editors without any regard for our policies. You know better, and you need to learn not to do this again. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I again apologize to anyone who perceives I am edit warring. To my associates at the Glenn Beck page, I will take a short Wikibreak. I also promise to my editor friend to remember not to edit in the middle of the night when I apparently can't count. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Perceives"? Then you deny that you were edit warring? That is not an apology nor an admission.. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result -- DocOfSoc is warned. I requested on his talk page that he agree to stop warring and take a break from this article, and he has done so. He clearly went past three reverts. This 3RR report was filed 12 hours after his last revert, which makes a block less logical. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Except, he has not admitted to edit warring, and he can't agree to stop doing it unless he admits it first, and he has not taken a break from the article, having just posted to the talk page. The delay in reporting is due to the time difference and RL work. Since DocOfSoc has not agreed to your conditions, something needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Not for nothing, but his her agreement was not to do any more edits to the article Glen Beck, taking a wikibreak from it. The edit in question, made 44 minutes after the agreement on his her talk page, has been preserved to the letter (she made a post to article discussion). Maybe she's trying to discuss edits instead of just making/edit-warring them in, which is to be considered a Good Thing. As well, Viriditas's insistence that she admit to edit-warring isn't part of any policy or guideline that I can find. That she agreed to stop edit-warring - and has done so - means that she is taking the process seriously. How about you cut the guy gal a little slack, Viriditas? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Note To All - I know DocOfSoc: and it's "she" not "he". DocOfSoc is a woman. Doc talk 06:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Oops. - I've altered the post to reflect the correct gender. Sorry, no offense was intended. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by TFD (talk) (Result: 48h)

User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 05:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 08:15, 8 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "trout slap, stop it")
2. 08:25, 8 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 406645489 by Xenophrenic (talk)maybe they will ban both of us?")
3. 00:30, 9 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 406769733 by AzureCitizen (talk)no consensus on undue controversy section")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:
Magog the Ogre placed this article on probation 20 December, 2010. When one edits the article it says, "No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism."[21] Darkstar1st reverted an edit three times in 24 hours and was informed that the 1RR restriction applied. TFD (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would also add that Darkstar1st has been blocked twice in the past year for edit warring, and thus is aware that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

the same section on a tweet has been reinserted in the article 6 times by one editor in the past 4 days against objections on the talk page. my revert, and those of the other two editors who removed the same material, was in good faith Darkstar1st (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The content you boldly deleted has been in the article for at least 6 months, and your deletion has been reverted by multiple editors. Per

WP:3RR#Other revert rules. These types of restrictions are generally used for articles that are highly contentious (Israel-Palestine articles being a common case). -- Jrtayloriv (talk

) 06:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

D'Oh! Yes, I meant one edit/24 hours (I've changed my post to reflect it). Got the link. Thanks, Jrtayloriv. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I need my coffee too :). Take care. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the admins are being used as a part of the edit warI think that the admins are being used as a part of the edit war. The issue is insertion / removal of a section on a twitter comment by Sonny Thomas. Xenophrenic has been the champion warrior on this, their most recent re-insertions of this contested item were:

1/4 18:43

1/5 18:05

1/7 6:17

1/8 8:00

1/8 8:21

1/9 8:46

I didn't want to go running to get someone blocked, but I see that someone has done that to Darkster1st for a lesser transgression on the same item. I would rather see Darkster1st unblocked than Xenophrenic blocked, but we need some fairness & consistency here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with anyone in this situation. There's a reason I placed that article on probation (and for which I had ample consensus at ANI, save for User:Dylan Flaherty, who is now indef blocked): there is a ton of POV pushing here. My apologies if there is some collateral damage here, but D1 unquestionably knew what he was doing ("perhaps we'll both get blocked?" in his edit summary, paraphrased). If any editor acts innocently, he will not be blocked. But I can honestly see this going to arbcom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that the article will be an unstable mess forever (as is the Wikipedia way for articles where there are real world opponents on the topic) than going to arbcom. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Magog, you are correct. my edit summary and obstinance was an effort to expose the unfair bias in ani reports by some in wp. i was reported yet the other editor was not. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:124.168.30.180 reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Stale ->page semiprotected )
User being reported: 124.168.30.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Stale It's vandalism, regardless of 3RR issues, but they haven't edited in 7 hours, so I'm not comfortable blocking in case it's a shared or dynamic IP. Ping me if they come back and I'll have no qualms about blocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they've popped up on another IP (which has now made the very same reversion 4 times over the last few months). Would semi-protection of the page be appropriate? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Page now semi-protected. Skier Dude (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Afterlife10 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24hrs )
User being reported: Afterlife10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]
• 5th revert: [34]
• 6th revert: [35]
• 7th revert: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not applicable

Comments:
Looks like a case of WP:Harassment too. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sole purpose of the edits are to harass and annoy. --NorthernCounties (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Although he seems to have moved on from that particular edit-war, his is still editing and the harassment warrants a block by itself. Rockpocket 21:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

editwarring on Money creation (result: stale) and
User being reported:

Dbachmann (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=Dacian_script&action=historysubmit&diff=406898834&oldid=406895690
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacian_script&action=historysubmit&diff=406898875&oldid=406898834
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacian_script&action=historysubmit&diff=406684239&oldid=406684119
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacian_script&action=historysubmit&diff=406684331&oldid=406670298
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacian_script&action=historysubmit&diff=406688512&oldid=406688263
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADacian_script&action=historysubmit&diff=406899790&oldid=406899693
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADacian_script&action=historysubmit&diff=406688460&oldid=406687106
• 8th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacian_script&action=historysubmit&diff=406916979&oldid=406915520

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User_talk:Dbachmann#Dacian_script User_talk:Dbachmann#Talkback_2 User_talk:Dbachmann#Edit war at Dacian script and Talk:Dacian script

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Talk:Dacian script#Why it was removed from WikiProject Dacia? Talk:Dacian script Talk:Dacian script#Removal of valid proposal to merge the article to Dacian language Talk:Dacian script#Removal of relevant categories

Comments:

The edit war is on both

Dacian script and Talk:Dacian script

. User tries to impose his views, write his own content and decide to which projects and categories it belongs.

The list above is in a mess. It's out of sequence, two reverts are on a different page, several edits appear to be well more than 24 hours apart, and several belong to immediate sequences of edits and must be counted as one, but the way it's presented now this is hard to figure out. – That said, what we have here is a simple instance of several people engaged in rapid but overall constructive editing, with multiple bold-revert-discuss cycles accompanied by normal talk page discussion, with the only person who keeps dramatizing things and treating them as a battleground being Codrinb (who has been editing against a consensus of at least five editors, me included). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So, what we really have on dab's part is the following:

• one series of edits on 8 January, around 15:24 [38]
• over 24hrs later, another quick series of three edits on 9 January, around 17:05 [39] (note: there's one minor edit by another contributor that happened to get inserted in between, but the events are so quick this still counts as a single sequence.)
• two more edits at 17:18 and 19:06, thus staying clear of 3RR. [40] [41]. Given the fact that all edits were about different issues and part of normal, though quick, collaborative editing, this is not edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I am dissapointed that you create a coalition against me based on your personal views about that specific article and not looking the facts related to dab's editing. It should be obvious from the above, that he removed the article from relevant categories 3 or 4 times and from the very relevant WikiProject Dacia several times. And this despite the explanations on the talk page, that regardless of being a hoax or not, and without endorsing the validity of those so-called Dacian scrips, it belongs to those categories and especially to the project, because it clearly discusses or refers to that topic. I don't hold a grudge, and you can do whatever with that article, but please don't misrepresent and downplay this edit war, which is clearly obvious above. I know that you have more power and have more experience on this site, but this doesn't make you right. Not this time. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note - already protected. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 24 hours)
User being reported: GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am filing this report as a violation of the 1rr (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) present at all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:[42]

Arbitration request for clarification shows that violators of this can be reported to this noticeboard:[43]

• GHcool have previously re added the category "Islam and antisemitism" to the Hezbollah article: [44]

He has now reverted and re added this cat twice just within a couple of hours violating the 1rr: 1 rv, 2nd rv.

The user has been warned as the 1rr warning pops up when someone edits the article: [45] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention a COI with a pov to push. Lihaas (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I restate my original promise not to revert the article. I will not promise to not edit the article at all for seven days, but I do promise to tread more lightly than usual within the Hezbollah article. I will not deliberately rock the boat on the antisemitism/terrorism silliness, but when people request source verification and I have the means to provide them, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to honor the request. --GHcool (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours. Since the I-P 1RR rule is taken quite seriously, I don't see any reason not to impose a block in this case. A deal was offered at User talk:GHcool#Apparent 1RR violation at Hezbollah but it was not accepted. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:110.174.23.139 reported by User:Danjel (Result: 24h)
User being reported: 110.174.23.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

• 1st revert: [47] 22:32, January 9, 2011
• 2nd revert: [48] 10:30, January 10, 2011
• 3rd revert: [49] 16:17, January 10, 2011
• 4th revert: [50] 20:30, January 10, 2011

Diff of NPOV & reliable sources warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:110.174.23.139&diff=prev&oldid=406867678 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning & 2nd NPOV warning: [[51]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Top_Ryde_City#WP:NPOV_stuff_re:_Top_Ryde_City.23Workplace_Safety_and_Community_Concerns

Comments:

I flagged the article as having issues with neutrality, reworded some of the content that the IP had inserted to put forward his/her concerns in a more neutral fashion, then began the discussion on the talk page as given above.

The IP returned, and has repeatedly insisted on inserting his content which uses very non-neutral language to put forward his/her case. One of his references is a letter to the editor [[52]], which I don't feel is reliable. The other is a newsletter from the Top Ryde Chamber of Commerce, to which he is attributing undue weight [[53]]. Basically the editor is not aligning with

WP:NPOV

by using hyperbole to enhance the drama of his content.

It is clear that this is IP is somewhat of an activist in regards to this issue and is not participating in the discussion (except to accuse me of being a "vandal"). -danjel (talk to me) 10:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the IP made a section at Editor Assistance requests at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Top_Ryde_City. -danjel (talk to me) 10:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement that - The Ryde Chamber of Commerce initiated monitoring of dangerous road saftey practices during construction that resulted in some contracts being terminated - with what seems a valid and reputable source should not be subject to repeated deletion by User Danjel. If I have inadvertently breached the rules, it has occurred while protecting what seems a valid edit. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours to the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Spalds (Result:User blocked; pages protected for three days)
User being reported: Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [54]
• 2nd revert: [55]
• 3rd revert: [56]
• 4th revert: [57]
• 5th revert: [58]
• 6th revert: [59]
• 7th revert: [60]
• 8th revert: [61]
• 9th revert: [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63] [64] [65]

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

Comments:See this for my earlier report. Since then, they (TRBIH and the IP [using multiple IPs]) have continued to edit war without attempting any type of constructive dialogue anywhere. I recommend at least a week of full protection on this page, and also on Brian Sandoval (history), and Jerry Brown (history). I also recommend blocks on all accounts involved (although I'm not an admin, so have no authority on such matters). This needs to stop. Regards, Spalds (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Pages fully protected; user blocked for three days (some related ip blocked by another administrator); please keep a watch and come back after three days if required. A peer-review of the block has been opened by me at AN. Thanks Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Newmanthfc and 194.90.167.222 reported by User:Soosim (Result: 48h, semi)
Users being reported:

• Newmanthfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 194.90.167.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Newmanthfc#Edits to David Newman and NGO Monitor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Soosim#NGO Monitor

Comments:

There are two pages in dispute, David Newman (political_geographer) and NGO Monitor. Newmanthfc and now anonymous user 194.90.167.222 have reverted info from the David Newman page without reason (3 times) and then a fourth time and added a reason ("the article about professor newman is a factual rticle about him. it is not an article to promote or criticise his viws on this or any other position. this is part of ongoing cyberterror which is being practiced by NGO monitor against anyone who has questioned their credentials and veracity.")

On the NGO Monitor page, he/they have added unsourced material, non-NPOV material.

i apologize if i haven't filled in this form correctly, but i tried... Soosim (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

[Ed Johnston] wrote: "With this edit you seem to be restoring material to the article which is just adding an editorial opinion, in Wikipedia's voice. No references are provided in what you added. Can you clarify? This article is subject to the sanctions in

WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk

) 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)"

hi ed - that was NOT my edit. that was the one i was trying to revert. it was put there by newmanthfc. thanks and let me know if you need any further info.

ARBPIA}} banner to their talk pages, and they will be under a 1RR/day restriction from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:Lsorin

(Result: no vio)
User being reported: Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74]
• 5th revert: [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

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

Comments:

The topic of

WP:NPOV of the article according to the existing mainstream. Some of the personal attacks and accusations: [78], [79], [80][81]. As well, build up of any consensus, was just refused

by the user, by to even trying to answer to basic questions like "What is the mainstream of Coanda-1910?". About the introduction to

WP:REDFLAG. Why to state that, is because the mainstream opinion _{(covered in both tertiary sources like five day exhibition at the European Parliament celebrating the centenary of the first jet aircraft, [90], academic events, several encyclopedia and history books and primary sources like the leaflets, magazine,books news from around 1910,1911, witnesses, Coanda's patents, articles and TV interviews, his endorsing as honorable member of the Royal Aeronautical Society or Romanian academy, special medal give by the city of Paris of his work on jet propulsion starting from 1910, several museums in Romania, France, England, Germany, USA presenting unique artifacts related the first jet aircraft)} about Coanda-1910, is against the doubtful assessments of this two historians. My stance is driven as well by the WP:NPOV statement of Jimmy Wales with regard, especially to the scientific and historical related subjects. --Lsorin (talk

) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• No violation SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Analyzer99 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: blocked)
User being reported: Analyzer99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

• 1st revert: [92]
• 2nd revert: [93]
• 3rd revert: [94]
• 4th revert: [95]
• 5th revert: [96]
• 6th revert: [97], now six reverts

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99], [100], [101], plus discussion between Analyzer99 and Middayexpress (talk · contribs), who is at 3RR (I miscounted in the diff previously - he was at 2. Acroterion _(talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
The issue revolves around the definition of "African people." Analyst99 was warned when he was at 4RR. Since I reverted one time, I'm recusing myself from action. Acroterion _(talk) 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked both parties. Middayexpress was just as involved in the edit war as Analyzer, even though Analyzer reverted one more time. 24 hours for both parties- this was neither's first edit warring block. Courcelles 21:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Acroterion _(talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked (along with the other dude) --slakr^\ talk / 03:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Tumadoireacht (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [102] This current version is largely without any of my inputs as they are mostly reverted.

• 1st revert: [103]-9 january 22.26
• 2nd revert: [104]-10 january 00.35
• 3rd revert: [105] 10 january 07.33
• 4th revert:[106]-10 january 12.55
• 5th revert:[107] 10 january 13.17
• 6th revert:[108] -11 january 8.14
• 7th revert:[109] -11 january 8.15
• 8th revert:[110] -11 january 8.27
• 9th revert[111]-11 january 8.28

I posted a warning re this listing on Drmargi home talk page at 11:21, GMT 11 January 2011 and a link to this page at 11:43, GMT 11 January 2011 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmargi&action=edit&section=46}

>[112]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]

Comments:On bad advice from a warring editor I began a thread on the Notability Noticeboard about this dispute as it was wrongly suggested that notability was a content and not a subject selection issue and an instant justification for reverts with no further elucidation. Here is the link to that discussion. [114]

Both the discussion on the talk page and at the Notability Noticeboard seem to be stalled with no compromise in sight.There are also two ongoing discussions about it: one on the talk page of Drmargi as provided in the edit warring complaint notification above and one on that that of Debresser:

[115]

I feel strongly that i am being bullied through reverts by a veteran editor and am very unhappy about it. The speed of the reversions, their nature, their being made largely without discussion, their vindictive edit listing description, and the proferred rationale are notable. i am not sure that i filled out the form above correctly --Tumadoireacht (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This is rich coming from an editor who seems to have no grasp of the concepts of

WP:ANI for this editor's incivility might be in order, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser#Hill_Street_Blues

a report I ultimately decided not to make. This is the kind of playground tactic used by a bully who's been caught and is attempting to blame others for his own acts

Depresser feels that an external site featuring 143 high quality still shots of scenes from the subject of the article is irrelevant and should not be mentioned. Drmargi feels the photos are "unreliable" and should not be mentioned. I have sought clarification of what they mean by these strange assertions and adjectives but have received no response but more reverts citing pages that have no bearing on the matter. i have written long rationales for inclusion-they remain unanswered as do direct questions for clarification and compromise.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly refused to discuss with an eye toward resolution of the issue at hand, has been repeatedly warned about his/her incivility on the article's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues#One_off_appearances_by_those_who_went_on_to_fame_and_fortune, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues#scholarly_analysis_and_print_media_reception_and_viewing_figures, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues#Reversion_of_Guns_section; on the notability noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Hill_Street_Blues-.22Notability.22_of_cast_list, and on my own and others' talk pages, who has made a series of false and spurious allegations regarding my conduct and that of two editors (contained in the discussions linked above), and who has generally failed to operate in any sort of good faith.

I do not believe I have violated 3RR, having reverted any given edit no more than twice, always in an attempt to return the editor to the discussion process when he/she has attempted to use a comment by an editor to force a new set of edits. Each attempt has been met with an increasingly aggressive attempt on the part of this editor to force his/her edits, uncivil behavior and a general lack of willingness to find a resolution to the issue that is satisfactory to all concerned. I would suggest that

WP:3RR

him/herself and has unquestionably been an active edit warrior.

I will concede that I could have chosen to step back earlier, which I'm doing now, but felt that I was operating within policy, and was mindful of

WP:3RR throughout. Drmargi (talk

) 15:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am delighted to see a willingness to seek consensus and dialogue after a morning of 4 undiscussed reversions in one half hour period from Drmargi Pure

WP:3RR . I note that Drmargi earned an edit warring 24 hour ban a week ago and wonder if a pattern is emerging. The thrice repeated assertion that my "petulant edits" and content suggestions could be ignored while the "real work" went on was particularly hurtful. I think that once some veteran editors get a critical mass of edits carried and reverts unchallenged that an ownership mindset sets in. The language used and actions taken reflect this. It is hard to interact with or to find compromise. --Tumadoireacht (talk

) 15:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Said dispute resolution to be pursued elsewhere.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that it here then  ? " No 24 hour bans ? Go seek a mediator ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

IPs reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Semi-protected 1 week)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Two IPs have been going at each other for three days on this article. Hell if I know who is right, but it should be looked into and/or locked down.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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:

• I've just filed a request for temporary semi-protection at
  WP:RFPP; seems like the best option (especially as there doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation). In the meantime maybe it's worth opening a discussion on the talk page and inviting both IP addresses to discuss the issues. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]
  13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  And the article has been protected for one week. Hopefully that'll be enough time to persuade the IP editors to discuss. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Shakzor reported by User:Duffbeerforme (Result: 48h)
User being reported: Shakzor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

First Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122] Discussion followied involving multiple editors. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

After making my first change I have addressed my reasons, basing it on wikipedia guidelines on the articles

Goodwin's Law. I requested help on where I should go to get help ((very understandedly on rereading but not intended (not trying to get help, just knowing where I should go)) read as canvasing and counseled, i erred badly in my wording there, sorry). This was read and responded to in support of my position (with the canvasing caveat). Further talk (on the talk page and my own) has not gone beyond personal attacks and non encyclopedia reasons (eg it's useful). I believe my position is supported by consensus. A new editor, Shakzor, has made 4 reverts in 26 Hours (technicly outside 24 hours but close enough IMO to be gaming the system by being just out) and has included in their diff comments an understanding of of what is happening "ongoing loosely policy-based edit war" [123], and an attack on my motives "Reverting attempted castration of article" [124]. I admit I have come close myself (31 hours) I have attempted to engage in talk, both on the talk page as stated above and later in diff comments [125], [126] [127] (as Shakzor appears to have been reading per their responses). Shakzor did finaly respond on the talk page with a (mild) personal attack and a threat to edit war [128] duffbeerforme (talk

) 15:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted his edit and the page has been protected for 3 weeks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:51 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor states they will continue reverting after portection expiers [129]. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Now he's on the fast track for a block. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:49 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i have conferred with User:5 albert square about this, submitting the conversation on Shkazor's talk page. We'll see how it turns out. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:00 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. Unfortunately, you all seem to be focusing on what I am doing, and not why I am doing it. And yes, I just recently created this account, though I have been contributing casually for a very long time as a guest user (see my user page for that previous IP). I made an account specifically so people would not think I am just some random user out to stir up trouble. And while stirring up trouble is not what I specifically intend to do, it is a very likely result of my methods at the moment. To those who would see me blocked, I hope you are satisfied with your bureaucracy. Good day to you all.

"..I am going to keep bringing the links back as long as I am capable of doing so, and I encourage others to do so as well.." This block can be lifted if you will agree to accept any consensus about the links which is found on the talk page or at a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:slatersteven reported by User:Jack Sebastian

(Result: The parties will avoid each other for seven days)
User being reported: Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version

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

• 1st revert: [130]
• 2nd revert: [131]
• 3rd revert: [132]
• 4th revert: [133]
• 5th revert: [134]

The first three are standard revets, the last two being

disruptive edits

to argue that if one usage of theory can be used, then it should be used in every instance throughout the article. As the other party in this matter, I am not blameless - I have reverted three times in the article, and growing somewhat disenchanted with the user in question as per their willingness to edit collaboratively with me. To whit, I've self-edited elsewhere (or sought to, but edit-conflicts precluded such), and have been using the discussion page more. I desire not so much that the user be blocked for 3RR but rather that they edit collaboratively.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135], followed by request to self-revert to avoid 3RR violation [136].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137] - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC) -->

Comments:

After posting this the user not only does not inform me but actaualy asks for a truce [[138]]. In fact the user clearly disguses the warning as a comment about him not breaching 3RR. I would also poiont out the users own breach of the rule [[139]][[140]][[141]][[142]]. I would also point out the users admission that one of these reverts was not based on content but the user who made the edit [[143]] clear edit warring even without the other difs. Many of my 'reverts' are not in fact reverts at all but new material insertesd to adress a lcear POV bias (that person a's veiw is a theory but persons B view is a susgestion).Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm missing something, but I count two reverts (the second and third reverts listed by Jack Sebastian), and the rest are standard edits. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • My apologies - allow me to spell it out a bit more clearly. The Slatersteven has been marginalizing the noteworthiness aspects of the reported incident for nigh on three months now. The edits he reverts are almost exclusively mine, and mine alone. The first revert undid an edit of mine. the subsequent edits after the third are - as noted before -
    WP:POINT edits, akin to strawman edits. I thought you might have wanted to look a little bit deeper before responding to Slatersteven's email request for assistance. - Jack Sebastian (talk
    ) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Slatersteven has not "emailed me for his assistance." You are also not correctly characterizing his edits or the locus of the dispute, which is you editing against consensus. The edits you cite are not "pointy" or "strawman" edits, but rather routine edits you don't like. Slatersteven appears to be correct that this report has no merit. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I am going to avoid a lot of the drama that accompanies this sort of discussion and cut to the chase. You were not listed in the 'what links here' portion of this page until after SS commented. That means that you were either stalking my edits, were requested to contribute via unknown method, or magically used your spidey-sense to know that this was being discussed. I don't really care which, but it bears pointing out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • You may want to
          think of other possibilities, as well as the actual content of WP:STALK, before you make baseless accusations of canvassing and stalking. Also I wanted to point out that Jack Sebastian's comment above that the "the first revert undid an edit of mine" is incorrect. It was not a reversion of anyone, but an edit changing four words. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a frivolus and contentious attmept to bully and inidimidate based either on ignornace or (as I bleive based upopn the dishonest way this has been conducted) deliberate ignoring of the rule.Slatersteven (talk

) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How so? You were advised as to your third revert. You were advised subsequently to self-revert; you chose not to. What part of this is bullying, intimidation or dishonest? Perhaps you should explain how you are defending your reverts instead. Maybe you thought that you had to protect the article from me? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When you provided a link to this you disguised it as a link to 3RR. Whilst at the same time saying that we shold lay down the gauntlet. That was dishiniest as you had lunched this prior to offering a reboot in our relashionship.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You were advised of your impending breach, followed by your breach and a suggestion that you self revert, to cure the breach. You chose to ignore it. I don't think I'm required to point out the obvious three times in a row. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your indentating makes it difficult to follow youe posts please try to better indent. As to your warnings. The fact is you hid your informing me of this, in a way tht had to be deliberate. The fact is you saud you wanted to start afresh having in fact allready launched this (thus how could I resppond before this to your offer of a fresh start).Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to look at these false accustions of breaching 3RR and of canvasing (difs please). Should I take this issue to AnI?Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an assumption; where there's smoke, there might not always be fire, but certainly something generating the smoke. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Now 4 reverts on time travel urban legends [[144]] [[145]] [[146]] [[147]]. After reporting me the user now breaches the rule hi8mslef, and altering the text it a very POV way.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, I think not. Is it your intent to submit any copyedit I submit as edit-warring, SS? Wow, that is going to have a chilling effect on any edits I happen to make in a Wikipedia article.

You might want to look at the second fourth edit again; it fixes problems with grammar, flow and readability. I did remove the supposition about WWN, as that appears to be a personal viewpoint. We don't allow that here in Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A copy edit does not alter the meaning, your edits do (especialy the fourth edit which changes the text from fictioal to real), except for one of the reverts which is a reversion of is the very edit you claim of my is a reversion (anbd thus counts towards 3RR).Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, except that the reporting of the matter is real. We are not concerned whether the dude is lying through his teeth or whatnot. The litmus for inclusion is

verifiability, not truth. We write non-evaluatively, leaving that task to the sources we reference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ufodigest.com as a source for statements of fact, hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk

18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol, that's what I thought. But the dude was arrested and promptly skipped bail. The digest (which apparently has editorial oversight and qualifies as a RS for its referenced stories) seems weird as heck, but they are the only ones aside from WWN reporting on the guy. What sorts of sources are you going to have about some nut who claims to be cheating because he's from the future? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not an RS for a derogatory fact about a living person. Good catch. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask this to be closed and that admins take a closer look at User:Jack Sebastian's activities here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course you would. As for me, I would be content with the user simply being advised by someone other than me to not edit-war and, when advised of impending 3RR violations, to stop and self-evaluate. It's their first time at bat here, so the aforementioned might do wonders as to SS's disposition and spirit of collaboration.

I agree that I need to try and work more with people with whom I fundamentally disagree with, and develop a thicker skin where they are concerned. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You do understand what a revert is?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I perceive that both Slatersteven and Jack Sebastian have been behaving badly. One is being aggressive and the other has been making personal attacks here in the 3RR report. Each has reverted three times on

Time travel urban legends and they are also reverting each other today at The Circus (film). I am open to a promise that they will avoid each other and any common articles for seven days to allow the problem to cool down. Otherwise, sanctions for edit warring should be considered. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I can live with that. What advice would you offer on how to progress after the week is up? The other user hasn't really demonstrated a willingness to collaborate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Would this include this mediation request(assuming it goes ahead which looks doubtful)Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film) and notice boards? I assume that from your wording it just applies to articles. Hut I thought it best to confirm. Which in this case is two. So if that is the case then OK.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can both participate in the mediation. You would just need to avoid editing the same articles or article talk pages until the seven days are up. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result -- Per the above agreement, the parties will avoiding editing the same articles or article talk pages for seven days. They may still participate in the existing mediation. I encourage them to avoid complaints at noticeboards about one another for the same period. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Thorwald reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Both main editors involved blocked, 24 hours and 3 hours)
User being reported: Thorwald (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=History_of_supernova_observation&diff=prev&oldid=406220051
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_supernova_observation&action=historysubmit&diff=406406731&oldid=406297340
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_supernova_observation&action=historysubmit&diff=407290482&oldid=407281779
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_supernova_observation&action=historysubmit&diff=407290482&oldid=407281779
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_supernova_observation&action=historysubmit&diff=407290482&oldid=407281779

Link to edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Thorwald#Your edit to History of supernova observation

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History of supernova observation#Change in date format

Comments:
Thorwald seems determined to force his preferred date format upon the article, despite being aware of the

WP:Manual of style (dates and numbers) convention for deciding what date format to use in an article. Torwald has stated the convention is "rather silly". Jc3s5h (talk

) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours and 3 hours Less to RJHall because he was, in fact, following the Manual of Style. However, note that Arbcom, on their finding of the matter, recommended not revert warring: here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Herostratus reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: 31 hours)
User being reported: Herostratus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version without an image, removed by the commons delinker bot during a temporal deletion. It was restored soon after[148].

• 01st removal: [149] 8 May 2010
• 02nd removal: [150] 8 May 2010
• 03rd removal: [151] 11 May 2010 he then protected the article in the imageless version[152](notification) until 21 May [153]
• 04th removal: [154] 1 August 2010
• 05th removal: [155] 3 August 2010
• 06th removal: [156] 5 August 2010
• 07th removal: [157] 2 September 2010
• 08th removal: [158] 6 September 2010
• 09th removal: [159][160] 8 November 2010
• 10th removal: [161] 10 January 2011
• 11th removal: [162] 10 January 2011
• 12th removal: [163] 11 January 2011
• 13th removal: [164] 11 January 2011

The image was subject of a RfC , and, to his credit, he started a discussion here. But in his last edit he removes again and insists that the image has to remain removed while the discussion is ongoing.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #Sigh, #semi-protection, #RFC on Image Inclusion, #Image

Comments:

In September 2010 he was already given a final warning, by two uninvolved admins, for making personal remarks while removing the images from Gokkun and Creampie_(sexual_act) [166], related to ANI report. In October 2010 he was warned again for ignoring consensus, ignoring BRD, "substituting your personal opinion for policy or its interpretation", edit warring, inadequately closing a RfC where he was also an involved party, "disregard[ing] the fact that consensus must change to be able to remove the existing image", "If you further disrupt these pages by removing or replacing the existing image without there being a definition of a consensus formed (and by an uninvolved third party) to do so, I will block you for disrupting the project. You have been warned previously by an admin, and again recently by me. You may dispute the grounds - but if so, please refer specifically to policy or guideline - or get a third opinion. In the meantime, don't disrupt the pages. (...) Again, your judgement is seriously in question" [167]

I menaced Herostratus with 3RRN if he removed the image again[168]. He then opened a discussion on the talk page, but he insisted that no consensus in the expired RfC meant no image, and that the image has to stay removed until this new discussion was finished: "the default state of the article is to not have the image, and there's no consensus to restore it (see thread above)"[169] in #Image. Note that this is false: the image was first added in September 2008[170] and it stayed 22 months until Herostratus started removing it in May 2010, semi-protecting the article to prevent the restoral by an IP. Several editors (including myself) have since restored the image with assorted arguments in edit summaries and talk page comments. The only removal not made by Herostratus himself was made in 22 November 2010 because the RfC was still open[171].

In summary: Herostratus has been edit warring, using his personal opinion instead of policy, and disregarding consensus over a period of 7 months, and during that period he was given final warning by uninvolved admins in two separate occasions. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't have time to read through the history here. However, I do see a clear case of edit warring against multiple editors and after warnings. Uncool. Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:New Age Retro Hippie reported by Prime Blue (talk) (Result: both blocked 6 hours)

User being reported: New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 20:04, 11 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Revert. A video game article does not have to be broad in its coverage to the point where it covers in depth anything outside of itself. Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire is a GA without having a remake to its name.")
2. 22:19, 11 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Again, you have literally no right to do this. Consensus may not be based on a vote, but no one agrees with you on this.")
3. 22:45, 11 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Fixed.")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:
User continuously reverted information necessary to fulfill the good article criterion "broad coverage", blind-reverting edits without incorporating other fixes into new revisions and deleting a section that was previously present.

—Prime Blue (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To note, the reversion that was made, the initial reversion, was Prime Blue's. Upon reverting his edit - an action which corresponds with the actions of "bold, revert, discuss." Prime Blue may have followed this in the simplest sense of doing all actions, but he did not follow the guideline that he should have left it to its original state until the discussion was complete. I must also add that this is a noticeboard for edit warring - something that you, Prime Blue, did. It takes two to tango, and you very clearly violated it. 3RR does not just exist to deal with people who make three reversions, but anyone who knows not to edit war is in violation of it. So I would suggest you get off your high horse before you argue that your actions were okay because you made less reversions. -

User:Eleassar

(Result: stale)
User being reported:

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

)

Previous version reverted to: [172]

• 1st revert: [173]
• 2nd revert: [174]
• 3rd revert: [175]
• 4th revert: [176]

The user Doncsecz continually readds the section 'Prekmurian language' to the article 'Languages of Slovenia' though it has been continually removed from the article by different users (supported by Doremo, Mhus, me and at least two anonymous editors). Using Google, I haven't found a single source that would list Prekmurian language as one of the languages of Slovenia (if not counting Wikipedia and its mirrors). BTW, the user was blocked numerous times already for different reasons, including attacks/harrasment and edit warring.[177], [178], [179], [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

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

Comments:

• Stale This happened two weeks ago, and the reporter is just as guilty as the reported.
  talk
  08:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  Another searchers from the Museum of Murska Sobota, for ex. Franc Kuzmič also attest this facts. Kuzmič is active contributor in the Pentecostal Church Prekmurje and also cultivate the Prekmurian. Doremo, Eleasar and others be a stranger this informations. Doremo moreover is not Slovene.

  talk

  08:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  The point is: In the communistic Yugoslavia by 40 Year was repressed the Prekmurian. For 1991 the Prekmurian ressurect, Radios, Tidings, Books and the Church again cultivate the Prekmurian: The homeland regards Prekmurje not as a part of Slovenia but something peculiar within its borders… It is unthinkable for two Prekmurians to speak with each other in anything but Prekmurian. I used to meet the former President of the Republic Milan Kučan at public events quite often. We always spoke Prekmurian, it would have felt odd to use literary Slovenian, since he is from Prekmurje too. Others joked about us, asking why are we so secretive. When I met a compatriot in Australia, Africa or America, we immediately started to talk in our own language. This is our language. (Evald Flisar, Gerlinci, 2007)

User:173.170.135.174 reported by User:Esprqii (Result: Semi)
User being reported: 173.170.135.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [183]

• 1st revert: [184]
• 2nd revert: [185]
• 3rd revert: [186]
• 4th revert: [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [189]

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit-warring by IPs who do not participate on the talk page. This upsurge of unusual edits may be due to a recent football game. If the problem goes away, the semi could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:209.36.57.248 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: already blocked)
User being reported: 209.36.57.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See [190], threatening edit warring and has been disrupting page for weeks. Blocked numerous times already and uses a number of IP socks to evade blocks. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked  for a period of two weeks Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hallersarmy reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)
User being reported: Hallersarmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

• 1st revert: [192] "redo [sic] changes which alters the meaning of the paragraph. The subject is Jews in Haller's army, NOT pogroms."
• 2nd revert: [193] "undid revision. Subject is the existence of Jews in Haller's Army, nothing about politically what they were or not guilty of doing. People can read the originals on their own. Stay on topic."
• 3rd revert: [194] "Faustian is changing the entire meaning of the section. He is pushing his agenda. Desist or continue the edit war."
• 4th revert: [195] "Told to take my changes to the talk page, but previous changes to my work were made without using the talk page. I insist take it to the Dispute review Board."

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

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

Comments:

I asked User:Faustian and User:Hallersarmy to discuss their disagreement on the article's Talk page but, as the edit summary for the fourth diff indicates, Hallersarmy doesn't wish to follow my advice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours for 3RR violation.
  User:Fram
  (Result: No action) plus some twenty other pages
  User being reported: DanTD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  
  Previous version reverted to: [197]

  • 1st revert: [198]
  • 2nd revert: [199]

  While the above is only one revert, it is one in a large series of page moves with the same pattern. On december 28, DanTD moved more than 20 articles about Sacramento RT stations from their undisambiguated name to a disambiguated one, with the edit summary "New name complies with naming conventions". These pages had been at the previous, undisambiguated name since May 2009, so a rather stable situation.

  After discussion with DanTD (see section below), I reverted these moves per

  WP:RM
  if he still disagrees with this.

  Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [201]

  Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First attempt[202], with request for clarification of which naming convention he referred to, and request to undo his moves. Further discussion[203], still asking for a naming convention supporting his moves. Two days later, I indicated that I would revert him since I believed his moves were against our guidelines[204].

  After he indicated that he was willing to edit war, I pointed him explicitly to

  Fram (talk
  ) 08:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  Comments:
  

  • Other users at WP:Trains did find a problem with Fram's edits when I brought it to their attention. I don't believe he paid any attention to the existing standards with other systems. I only indicated that I was willing to engage in an edit war, when he refused to see the error of his renaming of these articles and insisted on undoing them. ----
    Fram (talk
    ) 11:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

    You never even paid attention to how other stations were named in the United States, and you completley ignored the problems of leaving the system out of the name. Furthermore, when I created a dab page for one of the names, you disregarded that, and changed all the names back. Your edits are the problem in this case. ----

    WP:BRD. Although I can't put my finger on why I feel like I've frequently seen DanTD's name come up before regarding edit wars, so it may (or may not) be a long term behavior issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  User:Lsorin reported by User:Andy Dingley

  (Result: blocked 2 weeks)
  User being reported: Lsorin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  
  Previous version reverted to: [206]

  Lsorin's edits today [207] are broadly those of the 10th [208], the prime intention off which is to re-introduce the contentious statement

  "The

  jet-propelled

  aircraft. "

  as the first sentence of the lead.

  This is a long-running issue in this article, and in related articles. It is complex, but the wiki-history of it on the relevant talk pages should make the position clearer. There are complex technical issues, there are conflicting sources, but there is a fairly well agreed consensus position (with this one editor and some IPs, possibly their socks, against) that has a neutral form of words mentioning the claims, but not making this absolute statement of primacy, and definitely not making it as the first sentence of a lead.

  This editor has a long track record, with blocks, of POV push on exactly this point. A one-week block in Decemeber is discussed at User_talk:Lsorin#Back_at_WP:AN.2FEW

  I reverted the same POV push a couple of days ago. Lsorin then raised my reversion at AN/EW here, and it was closed as "No violation"

  Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  • User talk
  • Article talk

  Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  Talk:Coanda-1910
  and archives. There are months of this, other editors apart from myself.

  Comments:
  

  This has gone beyond the boundaries of reasonable behaviour towards other editors. The price of accuracy might be eternal vigilance, but that's a price too high to ask of exhausted editors against a single-minded edit warrior. A long block is now in order, and is justified on purely protective grounds. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

    It's possible 2 weeks may be too short -- if any other admins want to increase this, you don't need to check with me first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with this result, and suggest that the next block (if it proves necessary) should be indefinite. This editor has a well-documented record of POV-pushing against consensus. Unless we want to *give* him the Coandă-1910 article to spin it however he pleases, admins have to respond. This is now his fourth block for the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  User:Shuzammy reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: blocked 24 hours)
  User being reported: Shuzammy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Previous version reverted to: [209]

  • 1st revert: [210]
  • 2nd revert: [211]
  • 3rd revert: [212]
  • 4th revert: [213]

  Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  • [214]
  • [215]

  Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [216] Hardly well received.

  Comments:
  

  This article is on either the greatest healthcare remedy ever, or yet another toxic quackery, according to taste. Shuzammy, a new single-purpose account, clearly favours one of these viewpoints and edits accordingly. Their change removes a large amount of stable, referenced content. I've reverted this twice, another editor Smartse (talk · contribs) has also reverted it once with the summary "rv obvious POV pushing.". Not wishing to run foul of 3RR, I've left the article in its "modified" state. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  Response:
  

  Shuzammy says: I apologize if this is not the proper venue to post appeal of the above frivolous complaint. I am uncertain where else to do so. AndyDingley clearly has an agenda to slant article to wholly negative aspect (see comment regarding "toxic quackery"). I am not here to sing praises or advocate remedy. One can look at edit history and easily miss context without reading actual article. A careful reading will illustrate it is a fact I have merely removed blatant bias and non-neutrality. I have removed no actual citations / references to antagonistic material. The article, in fact, remains largely antagonistic. I have added a link to a clinical study which is wholly relevant and was requested by another user but denied by an editor with same agenda. This user and others are monitoring and reverting this article to a state that illustrates blatant point of view, bias and non-neutrality. The article should remain pure to the subject. It does not matter that I am a single purpose account. I stand for the purity and neutrality of this and all WIKI articles. AndyDingley apparently does not understand the meaning of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuzammy (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I have also semi-protected the article for one week, and I am going to file an SPI concerning the MrUseful (talk · contribs) account that just showed up. Looie496 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  User:Loggerjack reported by User:Scythian77 (Result: declined)
  User being reported: Loggerjack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  
  Previous version reverted to: [217]

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

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

  Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [223]

  Comments: The is article needs some work, but simply deleting and then reverting without sensible discussion, produces nothing tangible.
  

  • I really do not like reporting 3rr violations, as it seems to lack any sense of civility, and it is always better to "work" the issue out. I can't even remember the last time I had to do it. In this case, I feel little option in the matter. In fact, I have sought wide input on potentially massive changes to the article through discussion, and edit-warring only confuses the process. The Scythian 22:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Declined New user who is unaware of the rules. Please consider dispute resolution from here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Yah, after I filed it, I came to the conclusion it is not needed. Already invited the editor to take part in the discussions on massive changes to the article. Lets see if they will. The Scythian 01:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  James Childs (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

  It appears this has been handled by an administrator blocking

  WP:RfPP. -LilHelpa (talk

  ) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  This one appears to be  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  User:Xebulon reported by User:Tuscumbia (Result: not blocked)and

  User:Aram-van

  
  User:Vandorenfm
  User:ASALA7.08.1982
  User:Oliveriki
  User:Gorzaim
  

  supported by IPs:

  User:46.70.114.79
  User:46.70.43.163
  

  as possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts of

  User:Andranikpasha
  User:Meowy
  User:Hetoum I
  User:Magotteers
  (who is the sock account of Meowy himself)

  • • The reason the above banned users are mentioned is their continued use of sock accounts

  Page: Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  Page: Barda, Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  Page: Shusha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  Page:

  talk | history | links | watch | logs

  )
  Page:

  talk | history | links | watch | logs

  )
  Page: Utik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  Page:

  talk | history | links | watch | logs

  )
  Page:

  talk | history | links | watch | logs

  )
  

  Users being reported:
  Xebulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

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

  )
  Vandorenfm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  Gorzaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  Oliveriki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  ASALA7.08.1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

  
  Previous version before the edit-warring began [224] (Shusha article as the basis for showcasing the type of edit warring and violation of 3RR)

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

  
  Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238],[239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246]

  Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts have been made to resolve any issues on talk pages of related articles these accounts have been reverting in [247], [248], [249], [250], [251]

  Comments:
  The accounts which are being reported have started editing in a Wiki-professional manner (i.e. it's obvious these users are not newbies and are well experienced in editing Wikipedia pages) right after infamous puppeteers

  Aram-van are quite similar on behavioral to Andranikpasha. In any case, Aram-van seems to be using sock accounts by himself (the report was filed by another editor for sockpuppet investigation

  .

  • Armenikend for example, where he added information out of nowhere, unsourced and POV. Look at this nonsense unsourced summary comment [263]. Moreover, his incivil comments ("honoured demagogue") on his page are not a sign of good faith.

  I sincerely apologize for mass-reporting but these account deserve to be looked at all at once because their activity is apparently coordinated. I have no problem discussing any problems and issues with established users, (specifically if it's content dispute) who do make efforts to discuss before adding POV or making blind reverts. Most of these users are also restricted by AA2, hence are cautious with disruptive editing. That's why I believe the accounts being reported have careless users, hence the disurptive editing. Tuscumbia (talk

  ) 19:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  ---

  User:Tuscumbia is an abusive account that apparently found a new way of edit warring: reporting his adversaries to administrators by falsely accusing them of transgressions that he himself was accused of several times recently. Sock/meatpuppetry accusations are nonsense.

  User:Tuscumbia was blocked here [264], as early as in March 2010. Here, despite the warning, User:Tuscumbia continued edit warring and was warned more severely here [265]. Shortly thereafter he was topic-banned to edit article on Armenia and Azerbaijan for as many as three months here [266]. Now, User:Tuscumbia emerged from this ban and went back to his habit of edit warring and blunt refusal to engage in civilized dialogue when invited to do so. User:Tuscumbia’s most widespread type of abuse are unreferenced reverts that he fails to address on talk pages. Here are the examples. When asked in discussions to present evidence from external sources or from stable Wikipedia articles, User:Tuscumbia evades dialogue [267].

  WP:REVERT. User:Tuscumbia

  operates in company of his favorite meatpuppets:

  User: Twilight Chill

  
  User: Quantum666
  

  User: Twilight Chill and User:Tuscumbia in their meatpupetting operations use the same language “next time you will be reported” like here [268] and here [269]

  , which raises the possibility that the two may be sockpuppets.

  I suggest to block User:Tuscumbia for 1 year, a measure applied to his "enemies" Andranikpasha et al.

  Xebulon (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  Not blocked This is the wrong forum: please head to

  WP:SPI. Magog the Ogre (talk

  ) 12:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  I understand this seems more of an SPI case, but how is this handled when several newly created accounts make articles a battleground by adding and reverting from different accounts against one or two opposing users. It is evident from the articles history that one removes the information, the other one reverts when the that information is restored. That's the point of this report filed to prevent edit-warring by several accounts. What do you suggest I do when these accounts add/remove information in controversial articles without discussing first?

  Aphrodite: Les Folies Tour 2011

  • WP:WAR and I do not want to be in violation of 3RR. I would like something done about this user please. Many thanks. JWAD ^{Communicate|Nicely}
    01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Page protected by another admin, this issue appears to be  Done, for the time being. -- Cirt (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  User:Asad112 reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: User warned, SPI case opened)
  User being reported: Asad112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  
  This report is a complaint about both general edit warring and the specific 1rr violation (one revert per 24 hour period) applicable to all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies. Violators of said 1rr rule can be reported at this noticeboard per Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Arbitrator views and discussion 2. Asad112 twice he removed content regarding the "deterioration in the security situation" in Israel.

  The two reverts are:

  1. [271]
  2. [272]

  Asad112 first came to my attention a few days ago when he was edit-warring at

  Old City (Jerusalem)

  by reverting the same exact content six times in nine days:

  1. [273]
  2. [274]
  3. [275]
  4. [276]
  5. [277]
  6. [278]

  I warned him about the 1rr rule for A-I articles (User talk:Asad112#Old City (Jerusalem)), not realizing he was already notified twice. See User talk:Asad112.

  Asad112 also has somewhat of a civility problem. Just from today:

  1. "The edits you just performed are absolutely absurd"
  2. “Fixed Chesdovi's mutilation of the lead”

  --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  I self-reverted the edit that was mentioned. I forgot I had made the same edit earlier. Everything else is pretty true. I was engaged in an "edit-war" between an IP user. By that it was me reverting their constant edits after I had already contacted them on one of their many and asked them to participate in a discussion and many times asked them to register their account/participate. The editor has ignored all of that. Be it fair or not, I have used the stipulation that IP editors edits are allowed reverts without penalty. But, that was not after just warning to the editor and just frustration in their editing practices.

  As far as not being civil, I guess that is one interpretation. In my opinion, Chesdovi mutilated a lead that was already being discussed on the talk page. He had made no further comments, and two weeks later shows up and edits it again. As far as brewcrewer calling what I wrote on their talkpage uncivil, I find that absurd as well. Because anyone reading the lead can see how Chesdovi's version does not factually hold up, and brewcrewer reverted it to that instead of simply changing some of the things that I had written. -asad (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  The IPs (74...) that Asad has reverted on Old City (Jerusalem) is the sockpuppets of User:Breein1007. He is pretending that he is retired in his main account while using IPs to continue edit war and other disruptive behavior. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  Please see here in relation to my "edit-war" brewcrewer said I was engaged in. -asad (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  (ec)Agree with Supreme Deliciousness. Some of the reverts offered appear to be Asad112 combating a sock. I've submitted an SPI on this matter. NickCT (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  Comment: Will warn the user about disruption, and an SPI case has already been opened in this matter. This issue appears to be  Done, at least, for the time being. -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  Please note that Asad was violating the 1RR rule on Rachel's tomb - the first two edits. These were reverts of User:Chesdovi who I hope no one is suggesting to be a sock. That means that Asad was not "combating a sock", but violating the 1RR rule, in the same way as Chesdovi who just got blocked for identical behavior. 190.144.55.146 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  Please note - The IP making this comment smells like sock. NickCT (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  Please note - the way to combat socks is to open an SPI report, not not edit war with them. And the point made above, olfactory aside, is correct. Assad was not reverting a (suspected) sock when he was violating 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  I am not a sock, and I find it rather insulting that you insinuate this. In particular as there is ultimately no way for me to prove that I am not a sock. Maybe everyone here smells like a sock - probably everyone who edits in such a small topic area anyway. Irrespective of this accusation, is there anything wrong with what I am saying? 190.144.55.146 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with above analysis by NickCT (talk · contribs) of further responses in this sect. -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  Note - SPI is open. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  User:Eddie1kanobi reported by User:Kostja (Result: 24 hours + warned of sanctions)
  User being reported: Eddie1kanobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  
  Previous version reverted to: [279]

  • 1st revert: [280]
  • 2nd revert: [281]
  • 3rd revert: [282]
  • 4th revert: [283] (re-adding a removed and groundless hoax tag)

  Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284]

  Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285]

  Comments:
  User refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page, adding instead his personal opinion in the article name space. He has also engaged in similar behavior on other pages, even removing a ^{[citation needed]} tag here. Kostja (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Also warned of sanctions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  User:Chesdovi reported by User:asad112 (Result: blocked 2 weeks)
  User being reported: Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  
  Chesdovi has made 2 reverts in the past 24 hours regarding the statement "effectively annexing it to Jerusalem". Of course, this is in violation of the 1RR set by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies.

  The two reverts:

  1. [286]
  2. [287]

  It mostly stems from a change he made a couple of weeks back. After his change was reverted, it was brought up on the talk page and it was discussed. He never finished the discussion. This was the original edit that was talked about (note: the only difference from the orginal edits being the words "defacto" and "effectively"):

  1. [288]

  As you can see, Chesdovi has also been in violation of 1RR once within the last six weeks.

  1. [289]

  -asad (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note. Asad112 is reported for edit-warring two sections above regarding the very same article. I don't understand how bringing this report furthers his argument for not being blocked for edit warring himself, but perhaps others have a different view.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note - brew was the person who "reported for edit-warring two sections above". @brew, the difference between what User:Chesdovi did and what Asad112 did is that User:Chesdovi is in blatant violation of 1RR, while Asad112 was combating an IP sock. NickCT (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: Blocked Chesdovi (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  User:Yaksar reported by Cirt (Result: Warned)

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

  Time reported: 18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 05:23, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "") - No edit summary used. Constitutes vandalism = page blanking with zero edit summary.
  2. 20:26, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "this information is already in the main article, should not be here")
  3. 17:43, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 407862202 by Cirt (talk)")
  4. 18:35, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "already written below")
  5. 18:49, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "intro is far too long and is more than a summary (note: this is only my second reversion)")

  • Diff of warning: here
    • Note: There is formal dispute resolution on this page, a
      Third opinion respondent. -- Cirt (talk
      ) 18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Please note blanked-out warnings by user in question, from account's user talk page, including: [290] [291] [292]. -- Cirt (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  —-- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  Please, just let me explain. The intro as of now is concise, and the information I removed from it is already stated below. I am not trying to be disruptive, but as of now the article is somewhat of a mess and I am trying to help clean it. As for the background information section that started this controversy, if you read it you will see it says the exact same thing as the intro, and then includes info that, while perfectly fitting for the main article, is not needed here. Thank you.

  WP:3RR, see block log

  .

• It is indisputable that Yaksar (talk · contribs) page-blanked-out an entire sourced subsection in his first edit to the page, with zero edit summary whatsoever, a common form of vandalism.
• Third Opinion process
  that went against this behavior pattern.
• There is clear evidence above of disruption that is repeated and sustained by Yaksar (talk · contribs), in violation of multiple site policies.

-- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Warned User is warned that any further removals before discussion is finished will result in a block. Feel free to report here or on my talk page if I'm active at the moment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: Yaksar (talk · contribs) has continued with further removals before discussion is finished, [293], therefore per above warning by Magog the Ogre ("any further removals before discussion is finished will result in a block") - this should result in a block. -- Cirt (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Not blocked Per the discussion on my talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Drahcirr41 reported by User:2005 (Result: Warned)

User being reported:

single purpose account that has made no edits on any other article, and seems certain to have a COI. Most of the edits are reverting about 12 other editors now regarding the lead. Other edits have removed references and links to any other webpages besides the official site. 2005 (talk

) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Please take the time to fill out a report next time. The instructions are clear, and we don't have time to chase down the diffs for you. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 01:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't actually see the need for diffs here -- it is easier to figure out the situation by looking at the page history than to examine a bunch of diffs. However, I agree with the outcome, because the editor had never received a clear and final warning. I have reverted the editor's most recent contribs to the article in order to spare anybody else from having to do it. Looie496 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, here are the diffs:

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

1. 10:49, 8 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 22:23, 10 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
3. 23:50, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 17:06, 13 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
5. 01:22, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
6. 10:34, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
7. 15:59, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
8. 16:01, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
9. 16:05, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
10. 19:54, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
11. 01:15, 15 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* External links */")

Editor is (a) stubbornly restoring his preferred version of the lead, which is less informative than the one previously there, (b) reverting a specific external link. I agree with the above decision, but suggest that any further revert should lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC) —EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:98.249.235.126 reported by User:Reyk (Result: 48h)
User being reported: 98.249.235.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [294], a series of edits that promote a non-notable Florida DJ.

• 1st revert: [295]
• 2nd revert: [296]
• 3rd revert: [297]
• 4th revert: [298]
• 5th revert: [299]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [300]

Blocked – for a period of 48 h Blocked for both the advertising (which could have gone to AIV) and the 3RR vio. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Niallo301 reported by User:Erikeltic (Result: 24h)

User being reported: Niallo301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has a history of edit warring on this article [301]. I have encouraged the user to provide reliable sources, but the editor continues to ignore these requests and is now in violation of 3RR. I placed two warnings on his/her talk page [302] and even offered to help, but those warnings and the offer for assistance have thus far been ignored. The edit warring over this particular article has been ongoing for some time.

• 1st revert: [303]
• 2nd revert: [304]
• 3rd revert: [305]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Verygentle1969 reported by User:Elockid (Result: Out of scope)
User being reported: Verygentle1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [306]

• 1st revert: [307]
• 2nt revert: [308]
• 3rd revert: [309]
• 4th revert: [310]
• 5th revert: [311]
• 6th revert: [312]
• 7th revert: [313]
• 8th revert: [314]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [315]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Chicago#Unsourced trivia in intro about Chicago being inland

Comments:
Not a 3RR violation but a user edit warring with multiple editors. Verygentle1969 made the first edit at Dec 29 and since then has been persistently adding the same bit of information despite multiple editors reverting him/her and several editors asking him/her to discuss the matter with the talk page. Even though requests were made for them to discuss their edit, they have made no effort to discuss the issue and obtain consensus. Per the discussion on the talk page, the consensus seems to not add the information they kept adding for the past 2 weeks. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined Sorry, but it's not an EW/3RR issue. The information may be unsourced, but they've only made three edits in total this week and those were to two different articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Further Comment:

This new user has made 26 edits, all similar, to 4 articles in the two weeks since the account was created. We have been trying to engage the user both on the user talk page and the article talk pages, to no avail. Elockid may have been a tiny bit premature, but this may be back here in very short order. Jd2718 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User:B694kp8d reported by User:HXL49 (Result: 24h)
User being reported: B694kp8d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [316]

• 1st revert: [317]
• 2nd revert: [318]
• 3rd revert: [319]
• 4th revert: [320]
• 5th revert: [321]
• 6th revert: [322]
• 7th revert: [323]

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

On his talk: [325]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [326]

Comments:

He never uses an edit summary for his removals, and the last time he has responded to concerns on any talk page (that would be his) was when he was addressing a different issue. --

's Roundtable, and Record

22:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24h HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:84.59.184.224 and User:88.69.17.138 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Protected)
User being reported:

1. 84.59.184.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 88.69.17.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 22:20, January 12, 2011 (by another IP)

• 1st revert: 18:47, January 14, 2011
• 2nd revert: 20:07, January 14, 2011
• 3rd revert: 12:06, January 15, 2011
• 4th revert: 16:50, January 15, 2011
• 5th revert: 18:16, January 15, 2011 (as 2nd IP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:45, January 15, 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't, but others have discussed the massive revert, including questionable interpretations.

Comments: Note the timeline. The editor reverted 4 times within 24 hours, was warned, and then switched to a new IP. Note also 1-4 and 2-5 are both within 24 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:70.136.74.193 reported by User:Moni3 (Result: 48h)
User being reported: 70.136.74.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

This is not a content dispute. IP is inserting information into the article (See also John Newton) that is factually and blatantly false, cited to the contrary by sources and explained clearly in the prose. Article is an FA.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [332]

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Rosinante2001 reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: 24h)
User being reported: Rosinante2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [337]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [338]

Comments:4 Reverts within a 24 hour period

WP:SPA, spamming. JoeSperrazza (talk

) 02:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Bali ultimate

(Result: Indef)
User being reported:

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

)

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

• 1st revert: [339]
• 2nd revert: [340]
• 3rd revert: [341]
• 4th revert: [342]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] The warning came i think shortly after the fourth revert, here [343]. However, the user was blocked last April for edit warring and more recently for a week for "disruptive behavior" which included lots of reverts, but also other problems. [344]. He received warnings about edit warring last april [345], and on December 16 both on his userpage (about edits at the same article) [346] and shortly before on the article talk page [347] which he acknowleged having read. I see that he's been blocked for edit warring on my talk page while i filed this. But since I'm almost done, and this spate of edit warring is part of a broader problematic pattern, i figure i'll finish doing this and press save (filing these things seems to take me 15 minutes at minimum. I feel old).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[348]] (same as the link above about the talk page "edit" warring warning. He's had ample warnings from other users, about other pages, if you troll through his talk page.

Comments:

An addtional recent warning about his overall battleground behavior can be found here [349].

talk

) 03:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fellytone was already blocked about 15 minutes ago for 72 hours for edit warring. AniMate 04:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you've acknowledged the block already. I'm not sure what else can be done here, though a topic ban may be in order. AniMate 04:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

He was blocked for edit warring on my talk page. I was reporting edit warring on an article in mainspace while that happened (the edit warring on my talk page i hadn't complained about). His behavior in article space is the big problem and needs to be dealt with.

talk

) 04:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

He's blocked for 72 hours, courtesy of AniMate. I can't block him a second time for the second edit war (if I could, I'd be tempted, but I'd have to be a time lord!). There's no further action that can be taken at this board, though a topic or article ban might be in order (I say this without giving a monkey's about who's "right" in the dispute), but the proper venue for that is

WP:AN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

04:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(

WP:AN because a topic ban is definitely something I can get behind. AniMate

04:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I changed the block to an indef. I think they've made it pretty clear that they aren't going to play nicely unless they're forced to. I've laid out some possible conditions under which I think an unblock would be reasonable on their talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User:96.229.227.63 reported by User:71.130.207.52 (Result: No vio)

User being reported: 96.229.227.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello,

Inexperienced editor here. Found a concern on the "Manhattan Beach, California" article where a user known by IP address has been adding a nonsensical section relating to "East Manhattan" (the citizens really don't designate a directional part of town; it's a small city!). This section is filled with unsourced and possibly inflammatory information. The person has added this to the article despite several warnings by other reverting editors -- now they're up to about the sixth time. Am here looking for someone to maybe take a look and finally clog this person up? They don't seem to respond to the warnings nor offer a justification for the edit; it seems to be deliberate vandalism. I don't know how to post the "diffs" or anything; just hoping someone can take a look and take a bit of the wind out of this person. Thank you. 71.130.207.52 (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2011 (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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Doniago reported by User:86.178.13.15

(Result: Decline)
User being reported: Doniago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: My IP address changes every time I log in (this is down to the ISP not me).

Previous version reverted to: [350]

• 1st revert: [351]
• 2nd revert: [352]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [353]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [354]

Comments:

A review of Doniago's edit history will show that he makes an average of over 50 edits per day. Practically all of his (or maybe her?) edits involve disruptive editing in that he regards himself free to delte any material contributed by others. His excuse is that the material is 'unsourced'. In practice much of what he deletes that is unsourced is in fact established knowledge and often has been in article for some time (with an implied acceptance by consencus). A parallel is demanding a citation for the statemet, 'bananas are yellow'. A trawl of his editing history reveals that Doniago has made no encyclopeadic contribution to any article (though I accept that this isn't in itself a crime).

In the subject case

S-video Doniago keeps deleting information that is well established, in this case the existence of 7 pin and 9 pin S-video connectors on computer graphic systems. It's restoration was from an earlier version of the article where that information stood for over 2 years unchallenged. A trawl of the editing history of that article reveals that he has deleted much other established information including on one occasion the entire introductory section. (Diff: [355]

)

WP:VERIFY

states that, "... in practice not everything need actually be attributed.". This is clearly common sense where something is commonly known or patently obvious.

In addition Doniago has embarked on a tag bombing exercise where he places additional citation tags at the head of well established articles that lack citations or references for well established or weel known material. I have observed these popping up all over wikipedia with no apparent justification.

This editing activity taken as a whole is disruptive, unnecessary and basically shows a lack of respect for other editors.

• Doniagos Contribution's: [356]

You may note a block of 10 consecutive reverts on the 15/16th Jan. 86.178.13.15 (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: The response to the notification of this complaint has staved off another reversion but has resulted in yet another unnecessary tag being applied Diff:[357] 86.176.69.42 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined This appears to be a content dispute. There's no 3RR violation and the edits appear to be unsourced. Try discussing it on the article talk page or your respective user talk pages.

User:Noisetier reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness

(Result: 48h)
User being reported:

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

)

I am filing this report as a violation of the 1rr (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) present at all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:[358]

"All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. Reports of editors going over 1RR should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards."

Previous version reverted to: [359]

• 1st revert: [360]
• 2nd revert: [361]

User has been warned as a warning messages is shown when he edits the article: [362]

Comments:

I don't know if I proceeded to two reverts or not, but reading this now, I can understand I would have done so... When I proceeded to the revert [363], I was convinced it was not one because there had been not edit on this article for more than 24 hours and I considered my first intervention as an edit and not a revert *but* it is true that this edit 'reverted' what Sean.hayland had done *2 days* before.
That is a "complex" issue because with the interpretation that is suggested, if I do an edit in the article I would have to look for in the whole history to see if this had never been reverted in the past but "that's it" if the rule is as such because there is no difference between '2 days' or '10 months'
I don't know. Please, proceed according to the rules.

Noisetier (talk

) 16:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You made two reverts within six hours that you are fully aware of were reverts considering that you had made the same edit two days before [364].--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, did I write the contrary ?

Given you reverted me based on 'content', I would have preferred to see you explaining on my talk page why I was wrong on the 'content'. You didn't take care of this. Nobody took care of this. But you have come two times already here to ask for a punition to me... I think that you have been heard (and understood...).

If what I did is against policy, then I must be blocked even if at the moment, I was not aware I had done so. Maybe it is not against policy given the 2 days ? I don't know. — Preceding

WP:ARBPIA. Editor is being notified of the Arbcom sanctions. See WP:Edit warring for the definition of a revert: 'A revert means undoing the actions of another editor.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125 reported by User:Aleenf1

(Result: Page protected)
User being reported: Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [365]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [370]

Comments:
I dunno why this user just simply hit "undo" button without reviewing and discussing. Mostly i tidying outdated information and article, nothing wrong. I have to yield this one until things sort. --Aleenf1 16:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Ok I understand Aleenf1's frustrations but this is ridiculous. First of all Aleenf1 is not following the standard formatting of the multi sporting events. For example, he decided to remove the pictograms from the sporting icons and also decided to remove the countries participating and the number of athletes from these nations competeing, which never happens on other multi sporting event articles. Moreover, I everted all of his edits, because I could not undo his removal of the above until I reverted those edits. However, I did in return go back and take all the information he had posted and put it back in the article that belonged. Some of the information, however did not make sense and was removed. Moreover, the article was left as is for about 5-10 hours before an administator blocked the editing, but that was unnecessary as the war had stopped. However, Aleenf1 decided to instigate it again by editing recklessly. Finally, Aleenf1 has failed to notify me on my talk page about him "reporting" me here and something should be done about that and decided to call me a troll on an administrators talk page!.

WP:REF

on how to citing sources.

-I understand these issue, but to revert his bad edits I had to revert it back.

WP:MOS

-

This is how all or most multi sporting events are formatted! Intoronto1125 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion, reverting Aleenf1's edits are justifiable. Intoronto1125 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by IP 68.171.231.17 (location) and IP 68.171.234.30 (location), probably is done by same user. --Aleenf1 00:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(^) That is not me, my Ip Address is, 70.50.182.72. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

While the two ip addresses provided are from Waterloo which is a good 2.5 hours from where I live and Thornhill which is about an hour away. Clearly not me. Secondly my Ip address is 70.50.182.72 not 68 and change. Thus I have striked Aleenf1's comment. Intoronto1125 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Page has been protected by HJ Mitchell, so no blocks are currently necessary. However, if the two of you keep bickering this way, you're headed that direction at a high rate of speed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

talk

) (Result: 10 days)

User being reported: 70.82.96.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 01:59, 15 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 15:08, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 15:35, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408211715 by Nortmannus (talk)")
4. 17:42, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408229804 by Nortmannus (talk)")
5. 21:29, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

Blocked 12 days ago for edit warring on the same article. —

talk

) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 10 days by HJ Mitchell. Hopefully that gets the point across. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

chat

(Result: Page protected, user warned)

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

Time reported: 23:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 00:44, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 01:06, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 407760088 by 5 albert square (talk)")
3. 01:29, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 19:53, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 407816468 by Gran2 (talk)vandalism")
5. 21:47, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408273950 by Gran2 (talk)")
6. 22:10, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408278567 by Morten Haan (talk)it is sourced, please check my conversation page")
7. 22:16, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408280979 by 5 albert square (talk)It plays just fine, try another browser maybe?")
8. 23:15, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408290249 by 5 albert square (talk)")
9. 23:18, 16 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408291376 by
   chat
   23:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   The page has been protected and the editor warned, so nothing for the moment is required. I have warned the editor that this type of conduct in the future will lead to a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

   User:190.105.51.116 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: Declined)
   User being reported: 190.105.51.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

   I am filing this report as a violation of the 1rr (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) present at all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:[371]

   "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. Reports of editors going over 1RR should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards."

   
   1st edit: [372] removes map of Syria and ads that its located in Israel.

   • 1 rv revert: [373] removes map of Syria and replaces it with map of Israel. Ads that its located in Israel.

   • 2nd rv revert: [374] removes map of Syria and replaces it with map of Israel. Ads that its located in Israel.

   The issue has been discussed several times at the talkpage, Mount Hermon is not located in Israel, this is clearly pov pushing and he inserts clearly false information into the article, would appreciate a lockdown from IPs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   
   Comments:
   

   Declined They haven't been notified of the 1RR restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   It says: "may be blocked without warning" [375] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   What it doesn't say is that users can be blocked for violating a restriction they know nothing about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

   I notified the IP:[376] and he has once again violated the restriction: [377]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

   User:Anna O'Leary reported by User:Thivierr (Result: 48h)

10. User being reported: Anna O'Leary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1st revert: [378]
• 2nd revert: [379]
• 3rd revert: [380]
• 4th revert: [381]

This is one of numerous single (or nearly single) purpose accounts that have edited this article and/or partook in a recent AFD. So, there's a good chance the same person has done even more reverts than what's listed. User was warned on talk page after 3rd revert. --Rob (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours by HJ Mitchell for 3RR.
  nn123645 (talk
  ) (Result: Warning)

  User being reported: 6k7de3x4v (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Time reported: 01:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:02, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
  2. 23:08, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
  3. 23:13, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
  4. 23:21, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408483071 by
     talk
     )")
  5. 23:22, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408483015 by
     talk
     )")
  6. 23:32, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "Names should not be added.")
  7. 23:35, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "Names should not be added.")
  8. 23:46, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "Do not list other SEZ on Shenzen, other places are fine.")
  9. 23:48, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408487585 by
     talk
     )")
  10. 23:54, 17 January 2011 (edit summary: "Name is removed because of ethnic issues. Visit other cities and learn.")
  11. 00:01, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "Other SEZ not allowed to be listed on Shenzhen. Shenzhen is special.")
  12. 00:14, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "Shenzhen is not the place to link other SEZ and other COUNTRIES.")
  13. 01:12, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "YES, there are other COUNTRIES there!!!!")
  14. 01:26, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "Cannot link the success of Shenzhen to others. Work for your own success.")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Commment: Please note that the editor in question almost certainly did not see that warning, because it was immediately removed when
    nn123645 (talk
    ) 01:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

    I've listed a sockpuppetry case between User:6k7de3x4v and User:B694kp8d. They have both violated

    own the article. Therefore, this account should be blocked indefinitely. Minimac (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

    User did stop after the successful warning, and is making at least an attempt to talk, so no block for now. I've warned the user that any more instances of making the disputed edit will lead to an immediate block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Feargal Sharkey (Result: Both sides warned)

1. Let's make a deal. If anyone is Catholic, it's Derry, if Protestant it's Londonderry. These cats are from
   thataway. I'd advise making use of it before both sides wind up blocked here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}
   20:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

   Seraph is right on this, Rms. Move for closure.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

   Agree w/Yacht.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   • Result: Both parties are warned, per Seraphimblade. If dynamic IPs continue to revert without participating on the talk page, semiprotection may be needed. This is not a comment on who is right about the underlying issue, which needs to be settled by WP:Dispute resolution. If nobody can find any sources for how Feargal Sharkey identifies himself, consider omitting the 'Irish/Northern Irish' bit and just have him be a singer who was born in Derry. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   User:Dugnad reported by User:Nymf (Result: Declined)
   User being reported: Dugnad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

   
   Previous version reverted to: [382]

   • 1st revert: [383]
   • 2nd revert: [384]
   • 3rd revert: [385]
   • 4th revert: [386]

   
   Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [387]

   Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [388] [389]

   Comments:
   

   While technically a violation of 3RR, the user acted in good faith, believing they were acting in accordance with

   WP:LP. See [390] and [391]. Finn Rindahl (talk

   ) 16:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   • - note - User:Dugnad has also posted a request for comment regarding the issue at the BLPN here which presently only I have responded to. I also see a degree of good faith newish user issues that imo a block would not be beneficial to the contributor or to the project, a note to discuss more and to be open to advice will likely suffice in this case.
     Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   I didn't specifically say so in my previous comment, but I agree with Off2riorob that a block would not be beneficial. Finn Rindahl (talk

   ) 17:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined 1) the edit war ended 24 hours ago, so this report is long stale, 2) the respondent was applying

User:Off2riorob

(Result: Warned)
User being reported: NickCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [392]
• 2nd revert: [393]
• 3rd revert: [394]
• 4th revert: [395]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [396]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here some discussion between the parties occurred on the talkpage. When challenged about one of his reverts he replies - (chuckling) "The editor who inserted this" was me. But a quick correction. I didn't insert it, I restored it after Soxwon removed it without explanation. Personally, I'm for keeping it in"...

Comments:
User claimed he was reverting to consensus version. There is no clause that says edit warring is ok if you claim it is a consensus version. He also made other reverts that are no related to this specific content - A revert to a header title with the summary "prefer this section heading" - All told, seven actual edits to the article in just over a day, all of them reverting others editors contributions.

Off2riorob (talk

) 13:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not involved in editing the Park51 article but began watching it after working to resolve a dispute on a highly connected BLP

Off2riorob (talk

) 13:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by NickCT: Alright, couple points.

1) AlBaraa, the user I was "edit warring" with, was a new user, apparently unfamiliar w/ WP policies. He was attempting to make major revisions to a lead that had been discussed in multiple talk page discussions (see here and here). It should be noted that I ended up having a productive conversation with this new user, and got him to discuss his proposed change on the appropriate talk page.

2)

Off2riorob against hounding and substituting content discussion with arbitration. NickCT (talk

) 14:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Seems like you have said nothing to explain your own actions and reverting and again after a 3RR warning, I assume you then accept you were edit warring. As I said above, there is no get out clause for revert warring by saying - revert to consensus version - this is fine once but then you move to discussion as it can easily be claimed that the additions were improvements. You were not only reverting the new user, your last revert after the 3RR warning on your talkpage that you commented that you would ignore it, was a revert of a user with over seven thousand edits
  Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC) -

User:Hauskalainen wasn't making the same edit. Your difference 4 doesn't really belong up there. NickCT (talk

) 14:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The diff is close enough to be considered a connected revert, not an exact duplication but similar attempt to update the lede, reverted again out of hand by you.

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well... I think "close enough" is a mis characterization. But regardless

Off2riorob and we're off to ANI. Cheers, NickCT (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Warned Will leave a note. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:TFighterPilot reported by User:Malik Shabazz

(Result: 24h)
User being reported: TFighterPilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [397]

• 1st revert: [398] 20:07, 18 January -- Undid revision 408482349 by Supreme Deliciousness
• 2nd revert: [399] 17:17, 19 January -- Undid revision 408647166 by Malik Shabazz

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

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

Comments:

WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction for additional information. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

20:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to criticize, but this looks like it is just barely within 24hr, and the user looks pretty new. Can't we just give a warning here? NickCT (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The editor has been registered since 2006, and I recommended a self-revert two hours ago. If TFighterPilot self-reverts, I'm willing to withdraw the complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Woops.... I reverted. You want me to self-revert so he has a chance to self-revert? NickCT (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I suppose I should note for the record that this is an AE block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Bluesatellite reported by Wrapped in Grey (talk) (Result: Stale)

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

Time reported: 07:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 06:11, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "??")
2. 06:31, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408542896 by
   WP:OR
   ?? All figures are supported with reliable sources")
3. 13:33, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408573753 by Wrapped in Grey (talk) For 2nd time, no OR here!! all figures are verifiable")
4. 03:46, 19 January 2011 (edit summary: "This is how this page works!! If you do it, you should do the same for
   List of best-selling singles worldwide")

• Diff of warning: here

(which was also reverted)

Diff of talk page discussion attempt: here

—Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Stale Most recent revert was 19 hours ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason the reverting stopped was because one of the editors thought it might be better to try to seek resolution via alternative means, i.e. this noticeboard (isn't that usual?). Oh well, back to the war. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive148&oldid=1151039393"