Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive115

Heqwm2 reported by Kenosis (Result: 48 hrs)

Page: Employee Free Choice Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Heqwm2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rewrote article with personal POV, and thus far has followed up with 3 additional identical reverts of three separate users who returned the article to the consensus version.

• [1]
• reverted Dr.enh
• reverted Wperdue
• reverted Kenosis

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Heqwm2#November_2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

User is engaging in disruptive POV pushing and marginally abusive talk page ranting. Blatant violation of WP:CIV at other article(s), e.g., here.

Kindly issue a block of adequate duration to make clear this behavior is unacceptable participation in the project. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Rd232 ^talk 10:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:174.39.252.65 reported by Q ^{T C} (Result: 48hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Civil defense siren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 174.39.252.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 02:33, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323399300 by CardinalDan (talk)")
2. 02:40, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323399936 by Drunken Pirate (talk)")
3. 03:11, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323401515 by Ginbot86 (talk)")
4. 03:29, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323406091 by Drunken Pirate (talk)")
5. 03:55, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323407351 by Drunken Pirate (talk)")
6. 04:00, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323411036 by OverlordQ (talk) is someone pay you to keep taking this off?")
7. 04:07, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323411980 by Ginbot86 (talk) is someone pay you to take this off???")
8. 04:14, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323412756 by Ginbot86 (talk) I tell you it do's.!!!!")

• Diff of warning: here

Also related is User:Ginbot86 who however has not been warned:

1. 06:05, 1 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 174.39.208.254 (talk) to last version by Ginbot86")
2. 02:48, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323400457 by 174.39.252.65 (talk) Read WP:SPAM")
3. 04:00, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Siren manufacturer links */ You spelled 'sirens' wrong...")
4. 04:05, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 174.39.252.65 (talk) to last version by Ginbot86")
5. 04:11, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Siren manufacturer links */ Siren manufacturer? Site doesn't say so.")

- Q ^{T C} 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• User:174.39.252.65 Blocked – for a period of 48 hours (by User:Protonk); warning for User:Ginbot86 that spam-reverting isn't a WP:3RR exemption. Rd232 ^talk 09:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pe De Chinelo (Result: Page protected)

A little help here please?

[3]

The ever-changing IPs are socks of Pe De Chinelo: [4].

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has been protected. In the future, these sorts of issues can be brought to WP:RFPP. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Shamir1 reported by User:George (Result:72 hours)

Page: Washington Institute for Near East Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:39, November 1, 2009

• 1st revert: 18:39, November 1, 2009
• 2nd revert: 06:16, November 2, 2009
• 3rd revert: 00:29, November 3, 2009
• 4th revert: 01:53, November 3, 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: new warning; the user was just blocked a few days ago for 48 hours for violating 3RR using sockpuppets on the same article, so I'm sure they're aware of policy as well.

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

Comments:
First off, I'm well aware that the four reverts above are more than 24 hours apart. However, this case is a bit more complex. The user was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring using sock puppets three days ago on this very article. As soon as their block ended, they returned to the same article and began reverting again. Their edit summaries tend to indicate that they feel the sources are non-neutral. I've tried asking them to identify what in the text they specifically felt needed better sourcing, but instead they mass revert, repeatedly (including other, non-controversial changes I make, such as grammar and spelling fixes, and reference improvements), and claim that the sources I'm citing are POV. I filed a request at WP:RSN to have the sources reviewed, and they were found to be reliable for what I was citing them for. Another editor offered a third opinion, and said they weren't happy with the sourcing either, but that Shamir1 should identify what needed better sourcing instead of mass reverting, so I changed to more neutral sources (the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World), but Shamir1 ignored the other user's suggestion, and reverted those sources as well. The user has shown little interest in compromising, or even attempting to compromise, preferring to edit war, and shows definite signs of article ownership (not allowing any changes they don't approve of) and tedious editing (going right back to reverting after a block for reverting expires). ← George ^talk 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

George, it looks from a cursory glance that you're edit-warring there as well. Is that the case? IronDuke 02:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, it looks from a cursory glance that you're wikistalking me from the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Is that the case? And to answer your question, no, I've specifically requested the user to identify what they disagree with so that I can try to address their concerns, and I've gone out of my way to try to go down the dispute resolution path (filing requests at both the reliable sources noticeboard, as well as a request for a third opinion). My interest in the dispute is to come to some consensus on the issue, not edit war or promote my personal views. ← George ^talk 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should take a deeper glance, then, as I have this page watch-listed. So you haven't reverted as many times as Samir, or close to it? IronDuke 02:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd, it would appear you haven't touched this page in 5 months. What a coincidence that you jump from a content dispute we're involved in on another article to this noticeboard within hours of each other. And no, I haven't reverted as many times as Shamir1, nor do I intend to. Most of my edits have been changes, fixes, and expansion of an underdeveloped article, not reverts (as exemplified by the third opinion editor's comments). Most of Shamir1's edits, on the other hand, were mass reverts. ← George ^talk 02:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)So how many reverts did you do, then? And I have the right, arguably the duty, to point out when someone is gaming the system. As this is a page I've had watch-listed for forever, and made many edits to, I think I can safely say your claim of wikistalking is without merit. However, if you are truly bothered by my posts, I will strike them out. IronDuke 03:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets not turn this into a free-for-all. IronDuke, if you have suggestions about the article content, those are best discussed on the article talk-page. If you think George too has violated 3RR (which I don't see yet), do file another report, after hopefully discussing the issue with him. George, accusations of wiki-stalking are not helpful; please trust uninvolved admins to weigh the evidence without the need for "additional color". Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see either editor as having violated 3rr, as I said before, but I'm willing to let the matter drop, unless George would like me to strike my remarks. IronDuke 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke - I honestly couldn't care less. ← George ^talk 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare - Sorry; I've stricken my remarks regarding wikistalking behavior. This isn't the place for it anyhow. ← George ^talk 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I have blocked the user for 72 hours based mainly on:

1. Resumed edit warring soon after returning from a 48 hour 3RR block on they same page (using socks). 3RR does not give a user the right to revert 3 times.
2. Nature of reverts, which not only removed the parts Shamir1 objected to, but indiscriminately removed other useful edits.
3. Ignoring input from other users, including recent comment from User: Metromoxie who analyzed the situation and helpfully suggested, "I propose that we restore George's last edit, and Shamir1 should mark text that needs citation or (selectively) remove opinion. " The latest revert by Shamir1 was made after this input.

I'd recommend that User:Shamir1 use wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures (RFC, 30, the appropriate noticeboards) once this block ends, since continued edit-warring, even short of technical 3RR violation are likely to lead to further blocks or other sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Manufan1359 reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: Page Protection )

Page: Andy Anson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Manufan1359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

• 1st revert: 02:28, 3 November 2009
• 2nd revert: 02:30, 3 November 2009
• 3rd revert: 02:32, 3 November 2009
• 4th revert: 02:33, 3 November 2009
• 5th revert: 02:36, 3 November 2009
• 6th revert: 02:43, 3 November 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
This user has popped up out of nowhere, seemingly hell-bent on removing sourced info about Anson's involvement in Manchester United's sponsorship deal with AIG. – PeeJay 02:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page since both of you were well over 3RR. I will drop a note to Manufan1359. Please sort it out on the talkpage, using dispute resolution approaches if necessary.--Slp1 (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:RoyBoy (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning necessary.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Abortion#Objective_Definition_should_not_be_changed

Comments: The reason I've reported this user so quickly and with no warning, is they participated in the long, detailed consensus on the Abortion first paragraph. IronAngelAlice has consciously gone against that because Halfdome recklessly altered it. It has been a long time since I've used Rollback on the abortion article. - RoyBoy 02:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting against against an established consensus is not the most constructive thing to do, but keep in mind that even some ArbCom sanctions still allow users a single revert a day. No action taken. Even if she did show a habitual tendency to make these reverts weeks apart it's probably too intricate for this board. ANI would probably be a better place. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dominique R reported by User:Oda Mari (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [11]

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:
Actually, it was not I but User:Dicklyon tried to resolve the edit war. User:Dominique R first added the image to the article on October 27 [18]. Then we've been talking about the image on the talk page and the image was not supported. After the image was removed [19], User:Dominique R started the edit war. Oda Mari (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Neuromancer reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 24h)

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

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

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert: [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

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

Comments: I've tried everything to make clear that this article need fixing. I've tried redirecting it to the article it's a PoV fork of. I've tried editing it down to parts that were not-problematic, and I've tried placing 1 tag (a compond issues tag, but not a massive tagspam) at the top of the thing. Nothing has budged the article from the preferred state.

• Blocked for 24h. Black Kite 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dominique R reported by Dicklyon (talk) (Result:24 hrs )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bokeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dominique R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 17:10, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323470079 by Oda Mari (talk) The reason for this reason has not been provided.")
2. 19:11, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323515851 by Oda Mari (talk) But none gives any objective reason as to why it would supposedly be inappropriate.")
3. 06:17, 3 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323552947 by Dicklyon (talk)")
4. 11:31, 3 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323639720 by Dicklyon (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wdford reported by User:Zara1709 (Result:Protected)

Page: Medical uses of silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

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

First, Wdford proposed a version of the lead which I felt understate several elements, and then he made massive changes to the article. I've previously made massive changes to the article, too, but I have, with good reasons, avoided to bring in more sources. I've tried to explain to Wdford that at least one of the sources he has quotes would likely fall under wp:fringe (although I could probably have linked that guideline), and why I consider the article structure he proposed to be inadequate for dealing with the topic of the article. [30] If Wdford would be inclined to discuss this, we could go through he edits step-by-step, but I am currently not seeing that.

Wdford is aware of the 3rr rule, read the comment in the edit summary: [31]

- Zara1709 (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page for three days. — Jake Wartenberg 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response of Wdford:

Zara's diffs do not show the full picture. At each step of the process I attempted to compromise with various editors and to improve the content of the article. Zara on the other hand has consistently blindly mass-reverted everything, including a lot of valid additions. The material I added is notable, valid and referenced. I see no reason to avoid bringing in more sources, especially when the material in question has been criticised for being under-referenced. I don't believe any of my references is fringe, but if one of them is inadequate then fine - delete that one reference, don't mass revert everything. I did not remove anything important, merely reordered stuff to make it more logical, and eliminated a lot of duplications. This I have discussed on the talk page all along. The article's structure is essentially unchanged, except that I moved the "history" section to the top, some headings have been reworded for clarity, and a redundant section has been redistributed and deleted. I therefore don't understand the use of the word "inadequate". I have attempted to discuss and compromise, but Zara just blindly mass-reverts, and has done so 3 times now without compromise. Wdford (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, your edits to the lead introduced a bias there, and, even if you tried, you would not be able to justify the article structure you proposed based on reliable sources. I think that my revert was well within the limits of wp:brd - and this is aside the issue of the sources you used (and one of them is almost certainly 'fringe'). If you intent to discuss the content issue, I'll be expecting your comments on the article talk page. Zara1709 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

There is a problem at Brazil. Two editors, Lecen (talk · contribs) and Opinoso (talk · contribs) are bickering about changes to several sections of Brazil. I've tried to be an uninvolved party to bring them closer to consensus. Both are a little biased in regard to the subject, but I had hopes they could work it out. User:Lecen is more engaged in discussion, while User:Opinoso is having problems with staying civil. Two days ago User:Opinoso added another section to the discussion, that had also been edited by User:Lecen. Now User:Opinoso has unilaterally reverted large parts of the article. I think that was not the correct thing to do at this moment. I think this move has made the situation go out of hand, and ask for intervention. Of what sort, I leave up to you. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have informed both users about this discussion [32] [33] User:Lecen has informed me that he will be unavailable till Tuesday. [34]

I reverted the article to its original History text. A brief explaination of what is going on there: one day User:Lecen decided to erase the entire History text from article Brazil. He said he was "improving" the article because it was "wrong". However, all the informations there were well sourced. This user did not point what was wrong there and why it was wrong. He simply deleted the entire text without any justification and replaced it with his own contributions. The text he deleted was sourced, written by several users along the years. This good text was replaced by a new text, exclusively written user Lecen, with biased informations that show his own vision about the subjetive and tries to hide important facts about it.

I asked user Lecen to comment on each information he deleted from that article.[35] However, he was not able to explain the removal not even of a single information. Then, he was not deleting the article because it was "wrong", but because he just doesn't like it. From this perspective, I re-posted the original History text that he deleted without any justification.

What History text should stay there: the "old text", written by several users along the years, well sourced and neutral or the "new text", written exclusively by user Lecen, biased and selling his personal point of view of the subject? Opinoso (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stale The issue appears to have been resolved since the report was made. Black Kite 21:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What is it that makes you think so? That after reinstalling the old version Opinoso is calling it to a vote? While spicing his comments with subtle denegrating remarks about User:lecen? Debresser (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And did you notice the insinuation there, calling upon users new to the conflict not to participate in the vote? This user is acting as though he owns this article. BTW, I understand that I am no longer objective enough to mediate in this conflict. But this in itself should tell you something. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

After more reverts during the last 24 hours, I motion to protect this page. There is discussion, but the discussion is more bickering. Protection would probably force all editors to center on the discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:JakeInJoisey reported by User:Majorite (Result: Stale )

Page: New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Update which clarifies the dispute described below

Yesterday, there were numerous attempts (mostly successful) to obscure the fact that the Republican candidate had withdrawn from the race. The edit war I am trying to describe in this complaint was part of the non good faith effort.

Background: The morning's New York Times provides background on the edit war described below: Ms. Scozzafava [the Republican candidate]... stunned her party over the weekend first by withdrawing from the race and then by urging her supporters to vote for Mr. Owens, a 60-year-old lawyer from Plattsburgh. But the ballots had already been printed, and early results showed her picking up 6 percent of the vote. It was unclear how many of those were protest votes, and how many simply did not know she had left the race.[36]

The objective of the edit war was to hide or obscure the fact that Scozzafava had left the race --and that she had thrown her support to the Democrat. If these facts were unknown by some voters, it would affect the way they voted. It was a close race at the start, and such disinformation could have determined the outcome.

The lack of good faith editing is most easily seen in edit summaries, so I am presenting this in another way for the sake of clarity.

Revision as of 17:19, 3 November 2009 (edit) JakeInJoisey (Scozzafava candidacy re-inserted in election box; she is on the ballot, can garner votes & remains politically active) Diff which shows what the game is

Revision as of 17:38, 3 November 2009 (edit) (undo) JakeInJoisey (rm redundant intro fact inre Scozzafava campaign suspension; "won" nomination more aptly "designated"; "suspended her campaign" in lieu "withdrew her nomination") Another diff which shows the game that was being played. Removal of important, relevant and true information from the lead indicating that the candidate had withdrawn

Revision as of 17:43, 3 November 2009 (edit) JakeInJoisey (Undid revision 323724866 by MajoriteShe is in no position to "withdraw" her nomination...plz see discussion before rv'ing )Made up legalese - This is not a valid reason to make the page look as though the candidate was still running

Revision as of 18:42, 3 November 2009 (edit) JakeInJoisey (Undid revision 323732505 by Majorite This edit is currently under discussion. Plz participate in that discussion before any further rv) I had participated in the discussion, and JakeInJosey was unwilling to compromise or be reasonable

Revision as of 19:01, 3 November 2009 (edit) Majorite (Corrected infobox to reflect reality) My attempt at a compromise which indicated the candidate had withdrawn -- it was quickly deleted

end of update - thanks for reading!Majorite (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[37]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted][38] he says he re-inserted info, but this is the first change that he has done, as far as I am concerned

• 1st revert:[39] This is the first revert I did - I gave reasons in the edit summary
• 2nd revert: [40] This is JakeInJosey's revert

• 3rd revert:[41]

• 4th revert:[42] edit summary is incorrect - discussion did occur

• 5th revert:[43] my attempt at compromise, added word "withdrew"

I think the number of actual reverts are 4 on JakeInJosie's part, 3 on mine.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]diff 1 diff 2

diff 3

Comments:

The talk page diff explain this best.

Request prompt resolution or intervention regarding disruptive edits/reverts that amount to vandalism. User keeps adding information indicating at a candidate who has withdrawn from a political race is actually still running. The election is today. User:JakeInJoisey has not responded reasonably on the discussion page or to the edit summaries.

The facts are simple: 1. a candidate withdrew, and 2. User:JakeInJoisey wants the infobox to state otherwise.

I have tried to compromise, as you will see by an edit I made that had the withdrawn candidate in the info box, but indicated the candidate had withdrawn, but JakeInJoisey reverted. Also, JakeInJoisey's edit summaries that ask me to discuss on talk page are disingenous. I had discussed on talk page. His response was unreasonable, unwilling to compromise or follow wikipolicies -- a lot of doubletalk and pretend legalese. thanks Majorite (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Stale It's unfortunate that the report did not receive timely attention, but the real-world/wikipedia events are now stale and any blocks at this stage will not be preventive. Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari reported by User:119.173.81.176 (Result: Warned for now)

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

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]
• 5th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] the editor has previously been blocked for edit warring, so must be aware of the concept.

rather strangely considering that this editor has made five reverts within a 24 hours period, they placed a warning template on the talk page of another involved editor regarding the same article [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] there is discussion regarding the content dispute on the talk page.

Comments:

119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Warned user, but not issuing any blocks at the moment since (1) the report is a bit stale, (2) both User:Trikemike and User:Oda Mari were reverting each other without participating in the related talk page discussion, and (3) the two link removals would arguably not count as reverts. I also hope that Chrajohn's latest addition will help resolve the classification dispute. If there is continued edit-warring, please report back and I or other admins will intervene. Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Seal hunt (Result: No vio)

User:U5K0, again. He continues to remove a fully cited sentence, putting in now ludicrous personal summary of the only references he accepts. Feel free to protect the page.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is again, a fabrication. I did reword a sentence to better reflect the source material. In so doing, I may have included information, which is not relevant to the article (but which can be eliminated). I did so because the paragaraph in question is under dispute and I wanted to reflect the references as objectively as possible. The two references I deleted consisted of a link to a sign in page for premium content and a reference identical to the one I placed at the end of the reworded sentence. I have also requested admin assistance in resolving this conflict. Any third party input would be grately appreciated from my side. Thanks.--U5K0 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

99, if you really want to make a report please see the instructions on how to at the top of this page, personally I wouldn't bother, there has been a bit of tit for tat reverting, nothing really worthy of reporting, You guys need to move to the talk page and try to find a compromise, perhaps add both positions. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing the meaning of "protect"? Page protection is generally to prevent vandalism or large-scale edits by new users, where blocks are the only things that can actually keep a user or IP address from editing. There isn't a automatic event that locks our any editor from reverting an article more than 3 times (some exceptions are shown on WP:3RR) and the policy is for self-enforcement on the understanding that divergent editors may consult an administrator for comment/action. From how I see the edit history, U5K0 has made precisely 3 reverts in this sequence[53][54][55]. Other edits during the day weren't directly in response to or contrary to what you had immediately posted. If it's only left at 3 then there's no policy really shoved against. Since it's something a lot deeper than a string of reverts on a few lines you might want to look into further dispute resolution or impose a stricter standard (such as 1RR or 0RR) on yourselves that are the types of things that community discussions or administrators might hope to see later on. Oh-- and just because something is cited/sourced already doesn't by itself grant immunity from edits. Replacement text may well have citations to verify their own statements or can reflect a change of consensus over time and hopefully on the article talk page. If things still feel endless for today, it could be good to agree to both walk away for 24 hours on mutual agree. Get rid of the disputed statement for now if you'd like, even; So long as a temporary removal isn't vandalizing the total content and an edit summary explains what you're hoping to accomplish, polite editors shouldn't be changing it. Good luck to you both. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No violation The IP and U5K0 reverting each other while the talk-page discussion was underway was not ideal, but there was no clear 3RR violation, and since the editors made an attempt to discuss and arrive at compromise wording, no blocks are needed to prevent further disruption. Abecedare (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite reported by User:Neuromancer (Result: No vio)

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments:

I have expressed a concern to the user that blanking and forwarding a page is not an acceptable resolution to what he feels may be defamatory biographical content. There are ways to edit an article without blanking it and forwarding it, however, this user seems to prefer the blanking/forwarding form of editing. In addition, he has posted threats to my user talk page [62] accusing me of reverting his blank and forward in an attempt to annoy him. If an article has been in existence for a time, such as this article, which has been in existence since November of 2007, and which numerous editors have worked on, I feel that to blank and forward without even posting a note on the talk page first is irresponsible. This report follows. Neuromancer (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

By the accused Neither first nor second revert is a revert. Enforcing obvious BLP vio. "attempt to discuss" is neither an attempt to discuss nor is it before the final "revert." Take your pick. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Follow up The first link is a wipe, the second is a forward, and two subsequent reverts afterward. If nothing else, this is disruptive editing. Neuromancer (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see only two reverts therefore there was no 3RR. As to the content dispute, this board is a wrong place to try to resolve it. Ruslik_Zero 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert. - Blanking an article therefore, is "an action that reverses the actions of other editors in whole." Which means that it is a revert. Neuromancer (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic any edit is just a revert. Ruslik_Zero 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if you take the first two edits as a revert, they count as one revert as the sentence you quoted says. Therefore there was only 3 reverts at most, and not the four required as mentioned below by the admin Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Please discuss the content issue on article talk page or WP:BLPN. Abecedare (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by User:House1090 (Result:Page Protected)

Page: Template:USLargestMetros
User being reported: Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]One of more

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:This user is edit warring with me, violating the 3 revert rule and I let him know I do not want to edit war on the history page were he is reverting me, but still continued. He has already been blocked because of this, late June. Please act quickly. This is going on at: Template:USLargestMetros...Thank-You House1090 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I also told him to go to the talk page to discuss this but he just reverted me and I think he also logged off, and used his IP adress as a sockpuppet to defend him self/back him self up. House1090 (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You've both edit warred to the point that you could be blocked. There is an equal onus on each participant to stop. Since you two are the only ones active on the template at the moment, I have protected it for a week so you can discuss and pursue dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted him because he was reverting me after more users agreed with me, so logically I was doing the right thing to revert him. Also this iis not User:Polaron's first time edit warring, he should be blocked. House1090 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked here: [69]

He was also warned for 3rr in Sep. 2009 here: [70]

User:More random musing reported by User:Nemonoman (Result: Stale)

Page: Akbar the Great (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: More random musing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NOTE - amending this report: I now believe that this matter has escalated to a 3RR violation. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting contentious editing that I believe may be an edit war requiring action on the part of admins. Despite multiple requests from many editors, User:More random musing appears to believe that he has rights of WP:OWNERship of this article. He has been cautioned by an admin about his approach to editing. It is difficult to continue to improve the article along talk page consensus while deep reverts are being made.

1. 15:20, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Deep revert/ See talk")
2. 16:48, 3 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323506090 by Deepak D'Souza (talk) Vide talk")
3. 15:58, 4 November 2009 (edit summary: "Deep revert to self.")
4. 17:31, 4 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid vandalism")
5. 17:38, 4 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323922340 by SpacemanSpiff (talk) Undid vandalism. There is no consensus on the talk page.")

Please see my notification here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See these diffs, which are just for the last few days.

Comments:

Additional comments from a "semi-involved" editor: I'm not involved in the content dispute, but I have been following the article and talk page for a couple of weeks now. User:More random musing definitely has ownership issues with the article. I reverted their edit once yesterday citing the talk page consensus, and also left a note on the article talk page. Then, there were a couple of reverts and I reverted MRM once more. Their edit summaries are also very misleading - classifying changes that have been explained on the talk page as vandalism. The user refuses to understand consensus and keeps reverting to a version that they like. They've been counseled and warned many times over the past couple of weeks. I'm involved to the extent that I've reverted twice, based on my reading of the discussion on the article talk page. -SpacemanSpiff 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I was approached on my talk page by User:SBC-YPR on October 20 asking for help with disruptive editing at Akbar the Great. Looking at the article history I noticed that User:More random musing was blindly reverting any changes made to the article by other users, including unquestionable improvements, format fixes etc. (see diffs [71], [72], [73], [74]). I warned the user about edit-warring and making blind reverts, and also suggested that other interested editors be invited to help resolve any content disputes. This was done by SBC-YPR, and over the next week several editors reviewed the article and commented on its sourcing, POV issues and ideas for improvement; Nemonoman and others started implementing the suggested changes. User:More random musing did not participate in this discussion (he was not editing at all between Oct 21st and Nov 2nd), but immediately upon his return he has again started mass reverting changes to the article despite objections from Nemonoman, Deepak D'Souza, SpacemanSpiff, and me.
Not being involved with editing the article, I can probably use my admin tools to deal with this, but I would prefer if another admin could review the situation and administer the required block and are revert restriction on User:More random musing. Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Stale. I would have probably blocked User:More random musing if I had seen this report earlier, but no further edit-warring has occurred. I have watchlisted the page. Black Kite 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all I did not do 3 reverts in a 24 hour period.

1. On 3rd November at 16:48 I undid a revision [75]
2. On 4th November at 15:58 I did a deep revert [76]
3. On 4th November at 17:31 I did an Undo [77]
4. On 4th November at 17:38 I did another Undo [78]

I feel I do not have 3 reverts in a 24 hour period as in the window 3rd November from 16:48 to 4th November 16:48 I have only two reverts. It is still possible I may be making a higher math error in how the time needs to be calculated. If so pardon me for my math ignorance but but please do let me know how I have violated 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by More random musing (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief history is as under:

This was one of the first edits of User:SBC-YPR [79] to the article which was reasonably stable for almost an year.

Further on SBC made more edits and started re-arranging information which was not coherent. He was requested multiple times on his talk page and this article's talk page to please not make large edits without developing a consensus [80] and further requested to improve a section at a time instead of making lot of changes all over the article [81]. He did not agree. SBC posted this [82] and I replied [83]. Later on he posted a set of points on how to improve the article [84] and I made a response to his first point about quotations from primary sources here [85]. To his other points I responded here [86] and he did not engage in any discussion on my reply. In the meanwhile he got sysop Abecedare to intervene and this sysop started threatening me that my request for consensus were disruptive. I told him this is unfair accusation just because I did not agree with his buddy SBC. From there on it just snowballed.

Going forward in time I observed the following behavior in the editors who kept reverting my edits:

• Not understanding the importance of primary sources to an article on history and removing referenced material without giving due consideration to wikipedia policy.

• No interest in developing consensus.

Just to cite a few examples out of many Abecedare instead of approaching the subject with a sense of enquiry slams primary sources here [87]. I tried to point out multiple times that WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS make it clear:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

In response to him, User:SBC-YPR's edit [88] and Nemonoman's edit [89] I responded with: [90] , [91]. Furthermore I added references and secondary sources which quote the primary sources I had put in earlier: [92], [93], [94], [95]. These were reverted by Nemonoman [96] and then later by SpacemanSpiff [97] and by Deepak D'Souza [98] Nemonoman did add a few of my sources but missed others. So it is frustrating to deal with editors who have no regard for references and who feel their POV is better then others and that their edits are better then others as Nemonoman suggested on the talk page. In addition just to give a few more examples (and there are many!) of frivolous editing and no qualms about deleting referenced material without any discussion or consensus on the talk page incorporating rather childish comments:

• [99]"Relation with Hindus: the section is "relation with hindus" not mistreatment of Rajputs. Sheesh." This comment shows the ignorance of the editor as he does not realise that hindu sub group of India encompassed the rajputs.
• Here conveniently User:SBC-YPR removes a secondary source which was quoting a primary source [100] and then Nemonoman deletes it altogether [101] with a comment "Relation with Hindus: Relations with Hindus, not relations with Bovines. If you can't show that this action was Akbar himself relating to Hindus, it doesn't belong". The fact that a temple of hindu people was destroyed and cows which are considered sacred by the hindu people were killed in that temple and the temple defiled by their blood and this information was all sourced from the primary source of Akbar's time was obliterated without any discussion.

I can cite many more such edits.

Also these users just revert and never add any material to the article at all.

SpacemanSpiff has not added anything to the article under discussion and seems to be a friend of other editors mentioned in the list given below and helps them revert so that one single person in that list does not get close to the 3RR violation.

Deepak D'Souza just likes to revert and calls peer reviewed historians' references as fake. E.g:[102] and when he is asked to justify what is fake he remains mute. In such a situation where he removes referenced material without giving any valid reason one is left with no option but to revert his edits as they are vandalism and it was done here [103]

It seems he has a POV or an agenda to call other people's work/edits fake.

I feel that Nemonoman, Deepak D'Souza, SpacemanSpiff, Abecedare, User:SBC-YPR have ganged up against me do not understand wikipedia policy on references and sourcing peer reviewed historians. And lastly Abecedare keeps threatening me for being disruptive and never bats an eyelid when any of his friends given in the list above remove sourced material without any consensus on the talk page at all. I feel his sysop powers should be re looked at. More random musing (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) (Mathias Leudemann in real life).

User:Sayerslle reported by Road Wizard (talk) (Result: already blocked )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

1. 21:39, 5 November 2009 (edit summary: "no consensus for removal of POV tag, Falklands section needs balance")
2. 21:51, 5 November 2009 (edit summary: "Is the daily mirror not an acceptable source ? the toronto globe and mail was o.k for you..")
3. 00:33, 6 November 2009 (edit summary: "balanced falklands section - books, newspapers as sources..")
4. 01:16, 6 November 2009 (edit summary: "it is not undue, it is part of the story")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:
Discussion has started at User talk:Bastin#Falklands and Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Censorship No a difference of opinion, but it appears to be a little confrontational at this stage and neither side has got around to the point of building consensus yet. There are two users involved on the other side of the edit war but between them they have avoided breaching 3RR. Sayerslle has amended the key paragraph between reverts but continues to include text from a source disputed by the other editors and has not attempted to clarify whether the amendments are acceptable. Road Wizard (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Already blocked for 3RR vio. in response to the report below, which I saw first. Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ukbullyk reported for vandalism on Bully_Kutta (Result: No vio; page protected)

Page: Bully_Kutta
User being reported: Ukbullyk (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=Bully_Kutta&diff=322545204&oldid=322429422
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bully_Kutta&diff=322545810&oldid=322545204
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bully_Kutta&diff=322929007&oldid=322861855
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bully_Kutta&diff=323270200&oldid=323008107
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bully_Kutta&diff=323898496&oldid=323877857
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bully_Kutta&diff=324089314&oldid=324043233

3RR violation and verbal abuse.--59.92.236.91 (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There is no discussion from either sides on the talk page; so I'm protecting the article in its current state till at least an attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion is made. Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:Justin_A_Kuntz (Result:31 h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]
• 4th revert: [108]
• 5th revert: [109]
• 6th revert: [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111] Diff of NPA Warning: [112] Talk Page Personal Attacks: [113],[114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115],[116],[117] (please note second 3RR warning after 5th revert),[118]

Comments:

Editor does not seem amenable to discuss the problematic element of his edit. Has instead responded with a series of personal attacks against other editors. Latest revert has only partially restored material seems to be an attempt to avoid a 3RR sanction. Justin talk 14:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Comments:
The Runcie edit is a totally new edit - the Paul Foot edit has gone. I think there was a place for dissident voices but it got thrown out . The Runcie edit is different ,was widely reported, etc. What on earth are you on about 'not amenable to discussion' - that is a barefaced lie, Ive been discuusing like crazy.Sayerslle (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, its a partial rehash of material previously added. Not amenable to discussion as in resorting to confrontational personal attacks - as you have done here. Justin talk 14:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC) The Paul Foot material and the Runcie edit - these are quite distinct, separate, arent they. I dont see 'confrontational personal attack' in what I wrote above. I feel, on the contrary, attacked. I don't understand why the Runcie edit is now the target for your anger. It was widely reported, its sourced etc. Sayerslle (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours 3RR was breached even if we disreagrd the 6th diff listed above. Recommend following WP:BRD and establishing consensus before re-adding disputed material. Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Rogue-pilot reported by Auntie E. (Result: 72 h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Common descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rogue-pilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 15:36, 6 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 324269667 by Vsmith (talk)")
2. 16:06, 6 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 324289428 by Dawn Bard (talk)")
3. 17:12, 6 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 324303378 by Aunt Entropy (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

Also logging out to edit war as 216.54.127.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and also past 3rr on Phylogenetic tree.

—Auntie E. 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Heqwm2 reported by User:Dr.enh

• Three-revert rule violation on

Employee Free Choice Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

1. [119]
2. [120]
3. [121]

• Three-revert rule violation on

Heterosexism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

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

--Dr.enh (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, have you even bothered to read the rules? 'The "three-revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright-line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes MORE than three revert actions...' Caps mine. In addition, both of these sets of edits are responding to your REPEATED attempts to add unsourced statements. In fact, I warned you that I would seek admin action if you continued. Apparently, you decided to make a pre-emptive strike. In addition, in one of your edit summaries you referred to my edit as "vandalism" and a "lie". This is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Finally, you have not tried to resolve this at all before jumping to AN. You haven't discussed this on the article talk pages or on my talk pages. You have simply reverted my edits over and over again and then called edit warring on me.Heqwm2 (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that this editor has also just come off of a block for edit-warring (on the same article). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Since this is continuing behavior since the last block, longer in duration. I will caution Dr.enh against using "vandalism" as a description for disputed edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hail42ndlegion reported by Ledward (talk) (Result: Stale/warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Girls' Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hail42ndlegion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 01:18, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
2. 01:45, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
3. 01:48, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
4. 02:08, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
5. 03:01, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Ledward (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Stale Not blocking since the edit-war is a bit stale and the user is only intermittently active. But will add another warning to the user page. Abecedare (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Peltimikko reported by User:Ellol (Result: both 24 hours )

Page: Freedom of the press in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Peltimikko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

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

Comments:

User Peltimikko is engaged in POV-pushing, as
1) the information from the report of the European Commissioner for Human Rights is prevented from appearing in the introduction and first sections of the article.
2) A number of my points regarding the mis-use of sources with what looks to be an intention to bring a single POV to the article, are ignored by user Peltimikko.

ellol (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:92.154.68.168 reported by 86.16.54.43 (Result: No vio )

Page: [[:<British Armed Forces]] ([[Special:EditPage/<British Armed Forces|edit]] | [[Talk:<British Armed Forces|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/<British Armed Forces|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/<British Armed Forces|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/<British Armed Forces|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/<British Armed Forces|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:<British Armed Forces|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views)
User being reported: 92.154.68.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Nothing at all to see here, two ip's one has one article edit and the other has one and a revert of the other ip. No vio. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Thewtfchronicles reported by User:Bovineboy2008 (Result: 31 h )

• Three-revert rule violation on

SpongeBob's Truth or Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thewtfchronicles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 20:04, 7 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "This isn't even a movie, all this is is a double-length episode and should be treated as such.")
2. 20:31, 7 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Me being a user is irrelevant - this article does not have enough notability to be on its own - see iFight Shelby Marx,f or example, same situation, a redirect is logical")
3. 20:46, 7 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "listen to me - this is not notable for its own article")
4. 20:58, 7 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Problem is that this is not a movie")
5. 21:01, 7 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv - it's been attempted, only opposition was illogical, this is not a movie, this is a extra-length episode")
6. 21:01, 7 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv - it's been attempted, only opposition was illogical, this is not a movie, this is a extra-length episode")
7. 21:06, 7 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Christ, are you even reading my edit summaries? I've explained this to you - only one person came to oppose its redirect, and reasons given were illogical.")
8. 21:09, 7 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "The one likely to get blocked would be you, you are giving no valid reasons for this article to not be redirected, next revert will earn you a place on the Admin noticeboard")
9. 21:12, 7 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I've said this several times - this is not a movie and it's not notable enough for its own article, you have been warned, now you will be reported for vandalism")

• Diff of warning: here

—BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours (both = Thewtfchronicles (talk · contribs) and Toughdude (talk · contribs)) Abecedare (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:96.231.137.242 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result:31 hours )

Page: Bill Maher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 96.231.137.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [132]

• 1st revert: [133]
• 2nd revert: [134]
• 3rd revert: [135]
• 4th revert: [136]
• 5th revert: [137]

The editor is repeatedly inserting defamatory and false information from an opinion piece into a WP:BLP article (i.e.; Maher disbelieves germ theory and modern medicine). This rumor has made the rounds before, despite Maher continually refuting it when it pops up (at the 7 minute mark in this interview, for instance).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]

• Note, also warned for tendentious and uncivil edit summaries:

(Do NOT revert this well referenced edit again!)

("Not representative of his views"? It's a goddam quote, doofus!)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]

Comments:
Despite a warning on his talk page, a request on the article discussion page, and edit summaries that indicate he is violating WP:BLP, this editor persists. I am invoking the clause in BLP that instructs me to remove such content, even beyond a 3rd revert. I will self-revert if advised to do so by an Admin, but I don't anticipate that happening in this situation. Thank you.

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Xenophrenic, you are right that your edits do not violate 3RR due to the BLP exception. Speaking as an editor: There may be merit in some of the additional content/sources the IP is introducing, but the IP's presentation of the material is clearly flawed and POV. Hopefully, the issue can be discussed on the article talk page once the block ends, and a consensus reached on appropriate phrasing and sources. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:JKSarang reported by User:Ophois (Result: See report below)

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

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

I'm not sure how to do it with images, and trying to do the file history brings the images onto this page. The image is used in Characters of Smallville.

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

User talk:JKSarang

Comments: The user has continuously changed files used in articles (the actual file, not which image is being used) despite objections from the community. He has received numerous warnings in the past day (as shown in his talk page), yet continues to cause disruptive editing. The user was warned about 3RR in another page, and seemed to stop, but has continued to do so on the Smallville image. We stopped reverting to avoid an edit war, but the user persisted. He removed the warning I placed on his talk page, and then made a seventh revert to the image. Ophois (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dealt with in below report. Black Kite 11:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ophois & user:Bignole reported by User:JKSarang (Result: reporter blocked)

Page: Characters of Smallville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SmallvilleNewOpeningCredits Article
Smallville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

The image Characters of Smallville (which is 150KB) doesn't need resizing again, especially when it was resized by me from it's original format it also states in the Upload Image Policy that an image should be less than 100MB, yet this image is (187KB) and wasn't resized to 57KB (second resize by Bignole).

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

User talk:Ophois November 2009 User talk:Bignole

Comments: These users have continuously changed files without substantial reasons or with reasons that abide by Wiki and not telling me the rules eventually excluding the variations of sample images that I have submitted to them. They have also been stocking my edits. Changing my previous edits in other articles even though I've given them multiple good reasons. They either don't answer my questions like when I asked them where I could find a guideline on "Title Cards" 1, 2 C.Fred was the one to finally showed it too me 3. I am new at this editing on Wikipedia and I thought that members were allowed to change information but from what I can see each article has it's own hidden moderator/editor that doesn't like change. Now I am questioning Wikipedia because aren't people allowed to edit somewhat freely (while sticking to the rules) here? I have also seen some of Bignole's conversations with others 1 and it doesn't seem like this person wants people to change their favourite articles Example. "He removed the warning I placed on his talk page, and then made a seventh revert to the image." - the warning is still there 2 Ophois and Bignole have also committed the 3RRR rule not just myself. I have also posted a warning about it on Ophois's talk page for reverting without a Warning as well, but she/he have repeatedly deleted it. Also when I finally got Ophois to side with me on this, someone else came into my talk page and told me to that 2 out 3 is not a consensus when the issue obviously lies with Bignole, who is constantly rejecting people's edits. Even if I were to get "a good consensus" Bignole will find someway to reject it. just like when she told me that the Smallville itle card cannot go by a season when it clearly says in the description This image is the current opening titles for the series. It has been used since season 5. © 2005 Warner Brothers --JKSarang 11:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked reporter for 24h. For anyone confused, the actual edit-war is on the image - [140]. Black Kite 11:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:polentario reported by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (Result: 48 h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [141]

• 1st revert: [142]
• 2nd revert: [143]
• 3rd revert: [144]
• 4th revert: [145]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147] as well as [148]

Comments:

Attempts have been made by several parties to engage the user. Despite clear 3RR warning user has refused to self-revert. Please note the "subtle" commenting out of the disputed section in diff #2 and #3. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As this Website is about edit warring - W Connolleys last revert took place 9 minutes before Kims announcement here. [149] The part of the article in question is a clear breach of undue weight and WP:BIO. I have pointed this out on the disk. I changed the revert to a leaving out after the discussion started. Kim just tries to come back to discussion mode on the article page. I assume the revert circle was necessary to do so. To put it short, he doesnt care a dam, as long the previous -and clearly not suitable - version is reinstalled. In so far, a rervert respectively bold edit seems to be necessary again. --Polentario (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked' – for a period of 48 hours Comment: Being bold is encouraged as a first step in the bold-revert-discuss cycle; it's not a carte blanche for edit-warring. Use talk page to discuss instead and use one of the dispute resolution processes if you cannot agree amongst yourself. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:60.54.98.110 reported by User:Johnleemk (Result: No vio)

Page: Bumiputra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 60.54.98.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [150]

• 1st revert: [151]
• 2nd revert: [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]

Comments:

This isn't a violation of 3RR (and actually I've just realised I've technically misused rollback -- I haven't been editing controversial articles in a while so I forgot it's not really meant to be used in content disputes), but an anonymous user editing from a dynamic IP has been consistently violating NPOV on Bumiputra, and I would like an outside opinion on the dispute before it escalates further, lest this become a full-fledged edit war. There is some truth to what the user has been adding, but it's written from such a tendentious standpoint that it is all but impossible to rewrite from a neutral point of view. Johnleemk | Talk 19:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No violation I have however semi-protected the page, to encourage the IPs to engage in discussion, instead of revert-warring over unsourced accusations of racism etc. Other wikiproject Malaysia members hopefully will be able to provide input with respect to the content issue; or you can use the content noticeboard or WP:3O to get outside opinion. Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hpqgoog reported by User:Athenean (Result:24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Also edit-warring on Bardyllis: [161] [162] [163]. When User:Future Perfect at Sunrise brought it up on the talkpage [164], there was no response. When that same user left him a 3RR warning on his userpage, his response consisted of personal insults directed at me: [165]. Athenean (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on an Eastern Europe article, why am I not surprised? 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mybottomreallyhurts reported by User:Willbender (Result: indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [166]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [174]

Comments:

Thie user has consistently being editing the article. I've just watched the show and know who won and who got fired. The user keeps denying the fact that this is true and claims to have made a complaint. However, if I do get blocked, I want to let them know that Sam was the one who actually got fired and Eventus won the project. I also would like to make truths with this user but I don't think this may happen.

• With all that you two have been going back and forth on this one, I think it has to be block you both or block neither of you. Which should it be? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The troll account has been blocked indefinitely. Let's give the other editor a barnstar and be done with this. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I did wonder a bit with a name like that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Neuromancer reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: 48 h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [175]

• 1st revert: [176]
• 2nd revert: [177] (including use of an IP in the user's area of residence)
• 3rd revert: [178]

This user has a short but intense history of edit warring, copyright violations, and other disruptive behaviours, which have led to a previous block and a current ANI discussion. Please see discussions of edit warring by various editors (including diffs) on the user talk page, including:

• User_talk:Neuromancer#Edit-warring_and_3-revert_rule
• User_talk:Neuromancer#Blocked
• User_talk:Neuromancer#Recent_Block
• User_talk:Neuromancer#November_2009

Comments:
Neuromancer has been warned about edit warring repeatedly, but seems not to understand the policy or feels it does not apply and, with no support from any other editor, continues disruptive editing to advance an agenda with no support in reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually his block says 48hrs... JoeSmack ^Talk 21:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Page protected)

Page: List of terrorist incidents, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [179]

• 1st revert: [180]
• 2nd revert: [181]
• 3rd revert: [182]
• 4th revert: [183]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in the ongoing dispute

Comments:

• Page protected It seems that there is a consensus slowly brewing, but it's best to avoid blocks just as we are getting to the 'resolving' part. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Nifboy User:Gary King reported by User:174.3.111.148 (Result: No violation)

Page: Wikipedia:When to use tables (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:When to use tables|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Gary King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Nifboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [188]
• [189]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]

Comments:

• No violation Neither editor is even close to 3RR. The reporting IP needs to be careful not to be blocked for persistently reverting against consensus, though. Black Kite 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert against consensus. No consensus was even established. Neither editor has discussed changes. See Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus".174.3.111.148 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRNC explicitly only applies to articles. Gary King (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding another diff to the growing pile. Nifboy (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, are pulling my leg or are you serious? wp:own's first sentence says, "wikipedia content" explicitly says, this includes articles, templates, categories, and others.174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about WP:DRNC, right? I see you just added that same phrase to the page, but it was quickly reverted by an edit. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:4.231.238.160 reported by User:Drew R. Smith (Result: Stale trouted)

Page: Talk:Fort Hood shooting (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Fort Hood shooting|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 4.231.238.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [193]

• 1st revert: [194]
• 2nd revert: [195]
• 3rd revert: [196]
• 4th revert: None. I came here instead of violating 3RR myself.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [198]

Comments:

• • THIS IS THE OTHER PARTY**

A currently hot topic (Fort Hood Shooting / Massacre) is locked and the TALK page is rather larger than usual (190K or so).

Someone has come along and "archived" much of the "good" stuff, leaving only about 50K.

I'm not trying to play edit wars, since a bigger battle is pending in an hour or so, namely Battle#3 or so over Shooting vs Massacre in the article title.

It is a real concern, world wide, to say the wrong thing on this topic.

I am a registered Wiki user, but for something like this, until at least the deadly has cooled down, anon is the sane way to go.

I added the following:

FOR THE RECORD: I am not interested in an edit war. The topics you archived are still under discussion. NEWSWEEK seems to think so. They're bigger than both of us. Please let someone else decide. Thank you, and please don't take offense. You may be correct regarding archiving, but I know that taking topics out of circulation is not a good thing.

Perhaps a compromise: a new article, such as TALK-TOPIC-Fort_Hood_ (Shooting or Massacre, your call)

might take some pressure off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.238.160 (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Stale Since the edit-war is not active, no blocks are needed; but neither of you come across smelling like roses in this dispute. In future avoid such WP:LAME editwars, and if you somehow think that the issue is of vital importance, discuss it on the article talk page instead of making a series of reverts. IP, unless you edit under your real name, I don't agree that "anon is the sane way to go"; but I'll leave that issue to your judgment as long as there is no abusive socking. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Phoenix79 reported by User:Snottywong (Result: protected)

Page: Bose stereo speakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Phoenix79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [199]

• 1st revert: [200]
• 2nd revert: [201]
• 3rd revert: [202]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff Talk:Bose_stereo_speakers#Timeline_section

Comments:
User is blatantly reverting edits from multiple editors without discussion about why this content is encyclopedic. This is my first time reporting someone here, but I'm pretty sure this is edit warring. SnottyWong talk 12:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the latest installment of some particularly tendentious editing by User:Snottywong, who has been (and been warned for) canvassing on and off wiki, failure to notify involved editors when necessary (I haven't been notified of this 3RR myself, despite being one of the reverters), notifying only a selected few !voters after an AfD, warned (amongst others) for civility, and whose own repeated deletions have already been taken to WP:ANI. He has failed to have these articles deleted, failed to have them merged, and is now failing to delete their content piecemeal.

The core of the issue is a question over content: should a set of articles contain a set of lists. These lists are of fairly low importance, but I accept that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good argument and they're seen as useful by at least one editor. They are in no way "harmful" lists with a policy-based reason to not be there. There is a stalemate over any consensus as to whether they should stay or go, therefore (according to my understanding of policy) the status quo prevails and they remain.

Finally there's some light in this particular tunnel (see Talk:Bose_stereo_speakers#Timeline_of_Bose_stereo_speakers) where Phoenix79 has rewritten the list as a graphical display. This seems like an excellent solution all round: it preseves the content, it makes the content more readable, and it dispels any question (which was certainly my concern) that the lists were using WP:UNDUE space in an article for relatively little content value. That deserves praise for good work, let alone doing it in such an atmosphere.

As to the 3RR itself, then that's (again, AIUI) User:Snottywong's lack of understanding of interpretation of policy: they're not distinct and separate reversions, as per 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected There seems to be a content dispute, but in all reality, I was pretty close to blocking Snottywong (talk · contribs). It's evident that between the user's nomination of the article for both prodding and articles for deletion, and then the subsequent actions on the article after both of those had failed, that the user has a very strong viewpoint on the issues covered by the article—one that is not necessarily shared by the other editors to it. --slakr^\ talk / 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So what happens next, and does it happen here, or on the article's talk page? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Slakr, thanks for researching this & thanks Andy for speaking up for me. Slakr is there any chance that you could notify Snottywong on this. It might hold more weight if it comes personally from an admin. Thanks. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee reported by User:Alastairward (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [204]

• 1st revert: [205]
• 2nd revert: [206]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207]

Link to previous discussion on article talk page: Talk:Northern Ireland#.22Country.22 .28no doubt discussed before.29

Comments:The Northern Ireland article is under active arbritration and is subject to a 1RR restriction. The user above has made two reverts as per the diffs provided within a fairly short length of time. Alastairward (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment from the accused: This was a genuine mistake. As any admin will see, the template at the top of the NI talk page that announced this 1RR restriction's existence, is a recent innovation, created on 27 october (although it appears to have always been in existence as a remedy on the Troubles case). I have editted that article on and off for two years, and never been blocked or even warned for any infringement regarding the remedies of the Troubles case, and I barely edit any other troubles articles precisely because of the ongoing behavioural problems that surround them, inspite of the arbitration case, so I cannot have been expected to know instinctively that a 2nd revert was wrong. The one and only time I ever tried to get clarification about the consequences of that case from an admin who was there, on an unrelated matter here, I didn't exactly leave with a sense that anybody had a clue about what it prevents. And by the by, Alastairward is no impartial editor when it comes to me, this report is his first interaction with me since a prior dispute where he hardly covered himself with glory, even though he was fully aware and participating in the discussion on the talk page alongside me, seemingly just waiting for me to slip up it seems. And also by the by, if this supposed to be a report of a breach of an arbitration remedy, it should have been reported to WP:AE, not here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I should hardly have to point out how ridiculous it is that Alastairward has posted the diff of a warning, given over half an hour after the last revert. MickMacNee (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been a generally well intentioned, technically complex and detailed discussion over a considerable period of time and it is a testament to ALL contributors that there has been little ill will shown or edit warring that often exemplifies other articles. No action should be taken against Mick – he has an important part to play in developing the direction of the article. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who (partially) reverted Mick's second revert I agree that it would be better not to take any action. I still hope we can find a consensus that works for all. Hans Adler 18:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned However, given MickMacNee (talk · contribs)'s history of edit warring, I would strongly recommend that he voluntarily adhere to 1RR on all articles—regardless of the article. --slakr^\ talk / 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the warning. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This closure is very poor, and I dispute it, I request another uninvolved Administrator to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated the title. Any admin is, of course, free to comment or take a different action if they so desire. --slakr^\ talk / 19:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to this warning you are claiming to have given? Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in the room guys. MickMacNee (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mick wasn't warned of his breaching 1RR (which he should've been). Also, the report should've been made at AE. As far AEW is concerned, ya gotta breach 3RR, before warnings & blocks are considered. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AE could have been a better venue, but it is not true that, "As far AEW is concerned, ya gotta breach 3RR, before warnings & blocks are considered.". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and sanctions are applied based on the actions and the applicable rules; not based on which forum the request is "filed" at. Admins anywhere are free to enforce arbitration rulings. Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note As an uninvolved admin, I second user:Slakr's decision. Since it is reasonable to believe that MickMacNee was not aware of the 1RR restriction at Northern Ireland, I think a block will be unnecessarily punitive. However, the user should be more careful in the future particularly when dealing with articles in this area of active dispute, and ideally volunteer to stick to 1RR on all articles. Repeat edit-warring often leads to blocks even if it doesn't technically violate 3RR. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:12.232.28.3 reported by User:QueenofBattle (Result: warned)

Page: Texas Ranger Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 12.232.28.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [208]

• 1st revert: [209]
• 2nd revert: [210]
• 3rd revert: [211]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [212]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [213]

Comments:

ANON IP user appears to be edit warring at the article, but has not yet technically violated 3RR with a fourth edit. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Warned Likely a new user; I've stuck an unsourced info warning on their talk page, as well. --slakr^\ talk / 19:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ffdsajkl101 reported by User:MrOllie (Result:31 h )

Page: Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Ffdsajkl101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [214]

• 1st revert: [215]
• 2nd revert: [216]
• 3rd revert: [217]
• 4th revert: [218]
• 5th revert: [219]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [220]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [221]

Comments:

4th revert was done anonymously with IP 140.180.35.227 which is clearly the same person based on this talk page edit. [222] --Mysdaao ^talk 20:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Let me know if IP socking resumes, and I'll block the IP or semi-protect the page. Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:168.115.59.118, User:168.115.218.89, User:168.115.218.139 reported by User:Drmargi (Result: Page protected )

Page: Mad Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 168.115.59.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others above

Previous version reverted to: [223]

The editor above, using three computers that link back to the same university in Korea, persists in adding a one-episode character, Guy McKendrick, to the Mad Men article. The character appeared in one episode that included a scene where is is injured by a riding lawnmower, the end result being a major character about to be transferred to another country against his wishes is able to stay. The scene is principally designed to accomplish this end, but also illustrates the 1960s attitude toward a working man with a disability, the end result of the accident.

Multiple editors have attempted to establish that this is a minor character, to get the editor in question to discuss and reach consensus, and to understand how such determinations as notability and sources work. Aside from a few insistent comments in edit summaries, the editor refuses to engage in the process and instead, persistently reverts any attempts to remove the character. Because he is apparently using networked computers, there are multiple IP's under 168.115.xxx.xx (forgive my terminology; I'm not terribly well-versed in technical vocabulary) making the edits.

He begins by adding the non-notable character for the first time here: [224]

The addition is reverted by an editor as non-notable. The character appears in three or four scenes before being injured by a riding lawnmower, an event presumably designed to illustrate values of the period regarding disabled employees. The character is listed appropriately, as a minor (very) character in the article on Mad Men characters. From here, the reverts begin as other editors also attempt to remove the entry, with requests for discussion.

• 1st revert: [225] then [226] (he just uses this one and the next two to remove a reference and add internal links)
• 2rd revert:[227]
• 3rd revert: [228]
• 4th revert: [229]
• 5th revert: [230]

He takes a new tack here, and adds a new section for "other famous characters" Through this exchange, he is repeatedly asked to talk, and referred to a variety of Wikipedia policies covering notability and indiscriminate information, as well as consensus. There is at least one warning on one of the IP's talk pages by now.

• 6th revert: [231]
• 7th revert: [232]
• 8th revert: [233]
• 9th revert: [234]
• 10th revert: [235] (changes section heading to remove famous - see edit summary)
• 11th revert: [236]
• 12th revert: [237] (adds link to mention in Mad Men characters article
• 13th revert: [238]
• 14th revert: [239] (we're adding warnings to all his talk pages and the talk page about here)
• 15th revert: [240]

To which he responds by adding additional single-episode characters from here:

• [241]

to here:

• [242]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243] Comparable warnings are on the other two pages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [244] There is also some more informal discussion in the section above.

Comments:
As this persists, he now begun to add excessive links to the stub on internal links. This has me wondering whether he does not understand how policies govern this process, or whether he is a genuine vandal.

Drmargi (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Note I have semi-protected the Mad Men and Conrad Hilton pages for 3 days. Hopefully this will encourage the IP to discuss the edits on the talk page, instead of simply reinserting the information. I have not blocked the IP, because it is not active at present (it's 5:30am in Korea), and the user would probably have changed IPs anyway by the time it is active again. If the disruption continues or spread to other pages, feel free to mention it here and/or on my talk page. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, within a couple hours of the block being lifted, IP [[User:168.115.218.139] has resumed adding the same content to Mad Men and profusely overlinking at internal link, as well as moving on to the article for an older TV series called Buffalo Bill. Drmargi (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Malvenue reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mark Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Malvenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 19:54, 10 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 325103562 by Gamaliel (talk)")
2. 01:20, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Intent is to put the unwarrented criticism in context to maintain the NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Undid revision 325140991 by Blaxthos (talk)")
3. 05:18, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Removed spurious criticism statement in violation of WP:BLP and WP:COAT. Gamaliel (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)")
4. 05:30, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 325191911 by Gamaliel (talk)")

Comments: WP:SPA refuses to brook any criticism of the subject of the article, even a single sentence, and edit wars to remove it or to attack the critic by inserting a 2 paragraph rant from the subject of the article attacking the critic. Have worked with other editors and agreed with compromises they have forged, but this editor is not acting in good faith given his BLP-violating edit inserting that lengthy screed. Gamaliel (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No action taken. The activity in general is concerning, but it's not a 3RR violation, as he has not edited the article since his informal 3RR warning on the talk page. I've given him a formal 3RR warning, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

His response to the warning was to make false accusations against me. Splendid guy, that one. Gamaliel (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User:72.138.8.64 reported by Shadowjams (talk) (Result: No action for now)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dominic Toretto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.138.8.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 06:03, 8 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321675361 by Hbdragon88 (talk)")
2. 05:48, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 324603084 by Hbdragon88 (talk) Stop changing these. People want to know about the characters not the movie.")
3. 05:51, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 325194974 by ConCompS (talk) STATE YOUR REASONS, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE CHARACTER.")
4. 05:57, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 325195291 by Shadowjams (talk) Seriously, stop.")
5. 06:02, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 325196228 by Shadowjams (talk) I don't have a page. Why do you people keep changing this?! Just answer me!")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

No action. 3RR warning was after most recent revert. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User:92.36.239.133, User:92.36.237.152, User:92.36.138.253 reported by User:RockyMM (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Montenegrins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported: 92.36.239.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 92.36.237.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 92.36.138.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [245]

• 1st revert: [246]
• 2nd revert: [247]
• 3rd revert: [248]
• 4th revert: [249]
• 5th revert: [250]
• 6th revert: [251]
• 7th revert: [252]
• 8th revert: [253]
• 9th revert: [254]
• 10th revert: [255]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [] User is unregistered, probably a sock puppet. There's no point of warining an IP address, especialy someone with dynamic IP address.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [] There's nothing on the talk page, reasoning per paragraph above.

Comments:
I think that look at the history of the article is a proof enough. [256] Semiprotection is best solution here because of unregistered user reverting and vandalising the article. --RockyMM (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected for two weeks. Hopefully that will encourage the IPs to engage in talk page discussion.Abecedare (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:98.218.88.246 and User:HalibutErixon reported by User:Alex 101 (Result: Protected )

Page: Sublime (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.218.88.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), HalibutErixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both users (98.218.88.246 and HalibutErixon) are persisting on removing Rome as a member of Sublime and disagree that he counts as a member, and even violating the three revert rule. He was their singer for their 2009 reunion, so does count as a member. If both or one of the users keeps removing him, please ban both or either one of them as soon as possible. Alex (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

98.218.88.246

• 1st revert: [257]
• 2nd revert: [258]
• 3rd revert: [259]
• 4th revert: [260]
• 5th revert: [261]

HalibutErixon

• 1st revert: [262]
• 2nd revert: [263]
• 3rd revert: [264]
• 4th revert: [265]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 98.218.88.246, HalibutErixon

• Page protected by User:Explicit. Abecedare (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:190.208.87.126 reported by User: Opinoso (Result:31h )

Page: Chilean people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 190.208.87.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [266]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [272]

Comments: This IP number is probably a sock puppet of User:Kusamanic. He said the informations are not sourced, but they are. This user is always removing the contributions of other users when it comes about Chile people and often uses an IP number for this purpose.[273];[274];[275]. I opened a sock puppet investigation here.
Opinoso (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Instead of running around accusing all User of vandalism and other, the worry about your actions that will detail below.

With this user have been starting had many problems that does not respect the sources (see below) and his obsession with Chile. For this and other similar reasons has been often block also being warned by his constant personal attacks on other users, as we see here[276] [277] aside has been responsible for a "public trial" against me, as we see here. [278] [279] [280] It is why I call it sabotage to my image. Also, I am accused by User:Opinoso the use of puppet accounts, apparently without knowledge of the policies of Wikipedia, which refers to "Sockpuppet", who are the users who have multiple accounts registered to engage in vandalism or to avoid Blocks. This is obviously not my case, I have never been blocked in more than 1 year working for the Wikipedia.

• Disagree: In addition, all started after a consensus achieved by the User: Likeminas and I, which after a few days the User:Opinoso again changed the information that was reversed by the User:190.46.53.155 to a previous edition of consensus. Then the User:Opinoso again changed the main information of the article Chilean people, and adding information without giving the exact page that you can confirm the information. [281]

• Brief argument about their lack of neutrality: User:Opinoso doesn't act in good faith in each case. It imposes his personal opinion for on the mentioned sources and he has an appreciation preconceived on the population from Chile according to his point of view like we can observe here. ←Of course my personal opinion is not a source, but I have been to Chile myself and there's no way that 60% are Whites. Even in the areas of "German settlement" of Southern Chile, the local population looks more Amerindian than anything else→[282] Without respecting the sources where they write of a white majority in Chile that varies from 52,7% and 90% to the population´s. [283][284] [285][286] finally remarking that Chile is amerindian-mestizo like he writes here in one of its summaries of editions saying this without any source to back it up.Chile is mostly Amerindian-mestizo.--Kusamanic (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 h Opinoso (talk · contribs) too came perilously close to a 3RR violation. Please discuss and reach talk-page consensus before re-adding the material, and use dispute resolution if necessary. The socking issue is best investigated at WP:SPI. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Geoffrey.landis reported by User:Cptnono (Result: 31h)

Page: Glenn Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Geoffrey.landis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [287]
• 2nd revert: [288]
• 3rd revert: [289]
• 4th revert: [290]
• 5th revert: [291]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page a follow-up notice on BLP noticeboard: [292] Another editor's request: [293]

Comments:
The fifth revert came just after 24 hours. Basically, there is a discussion ongoing and editors have been cautious to jump into adding this information. Instead of seeking consensus, the editor is making what they feel is a good point on the talk page and reverting. I brought this up last night at the BLP noticeboard since it looked like a BLP concern but the concern was not resolved. Consensus does not appear in his favor per the recent reverts by multiple editors and the talk page discussion but even if it was he is edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Next time don't forget to give the user timely {{Uw-3rr}} or equivalent warning; in this case the suer was made aware of the rule in relation to another dispute in Spetember, so I have gone ahead and blocked him. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Abecedare. I'll keep it in mind in the future so everyone is on the same page.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:A Sniper reported by User:Slrubenstein (Result: Protected )

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

For over six months, the Judaism article has said:

Judaism (from the Greek Ioudaïsmos, derived from the Hebrew יהודה, Yehudah, "Judah";[1] in Hebrew: יַהֲדוּת, Yahedut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethnos)[2] is a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), as later further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts.

This was true

• a month ago[294]
• two months ago[295]
• three months ago[296]
• four [297]
• five months ago [298]
• more than six months ago[299].

This is what I below refer to as the consensus version.

On November 9, Navanlos changed "set of beliefs and practices" to "religion."

On the Talk page, she provided this explanation:

• "The reason for the change was just for the sake of uniformity and matching other big religion articles such as Christianity and Islam."

I do not think this is a good enough reason to change consensus. I also do not think that discussion over the course of one day is enough to change consensus. Finally, I think a change in consensus should invluve the use of reliable sources.

I provide as complete an explanation of my pattern of consistent reverts as possible on the talk page here. The simplest reasons are:

• Judaism is unlike Christianity and Islam in that it refers both to a nationality and a religion. To understand Judaism one must understand why these two elements are inextricable. But in this regard Judaism is quite unlike Christianity or Islam
• I provide three sources. One is from a historian who says that Judaism during the Hellenic period referred to many things besides religion. Another is from a theologian who says that the observant Jew ("Halackic man," one who observes Jewish law) shoud not be characterized as the "religious man." The third is from a theologian who argues that Judaism is not a religion but a "civilization."

There is a long history of reverts. I believe that A Sniper has violated 3RR or is about to - if the latter, surely merits a warning.

I would rather not continue this revert war. I would rather have a discussion informed by sources. But Navnlos and Sniper have refused any attempt at discussion. There attitude is just that "it's obvious" and so my views doi not merit any kind of consideration.

• 06:56, November 9, 2009 Navnlos makes her change [300] Edit summary: (more in line with the Islam and Christianity article religion IS a "set of beliefs and practices" so I'm not changing the meaning)
• 12:45, November 9, 2009 I restore consensus version [301] Edit Summary: Not everyon views it as a religion
• 01:23, November 10, 2009 Navnløs restores change [302] Edit Summary: What are you talking about? Not everyone views it as a religion? Judaism IS a religion. It even says "This article is about the Jewiish religion." at the top of the article.)
• 02:29, November 10, 2009 AFreidman restores consensus version [303]
• 02:31, November 10, 2009 Navanlos restores her change [304]
• 17:40, November 10, 2009 I restore consensus version [305]
• 19:25, November 10, 2009 A Sniper restores change [306] Edit Summary: Says this has been discussed on talk page
• 20:06, November 10, 2009 I restore consensus version [307]
• 21:55, November 10, 2009 Debresser restores the change [308] Note: I believe Debresser and I have resolved the conflict between us
• 22:51 November 10, 2009 I restore the consensus version [309]
• 00:11, November 11, 2009 A Sniper restores the change [310]
• 14:28, November 11, 2009 I restore the consensus version [311]
• 22:43, November 11, 2009 A Sniper restores the change [312]
• 01:37, November 12, 2009 I restore the consensus version [313]
• 02:09, November 12, 2009 A Sniper restores the change [314]

I appreciate input from others Slrubenstein | Talk 03:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Also added a note to the article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if other experienced editors comment on the conflict in the hopes of some resolution ... can I just ask editors who watch this page? Short of an RfC, is there anywhere else (bside Wikiproject Judaism) I can post, to solicit the comments of editors experienced in dealing with such conflicts? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You can try WP:NPOVN, or WP:CNB, although a formal RFC may be useful since then you can ask an uninvolved user to close the discussion and determine consensus; else the discussants may spend 20% of the time discussing the content issue, and 80% arguing over whether there is consensus and what it is. Abecedare (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Malvenue reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: Protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mark Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Malvenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 01:20, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Intent is to put the unwarrented criticism in context to maintain the NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Undid revision 325140991 by Blaxthos (talk)")
2. 05:18, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Removed spurious criticism statement in violation of WP:BLP and WP:COAT. Gamaliel (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)")
3. 05:30, 11 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 325191911 by Gamaliel (talk)")
4. 00:05, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "Removed biased source criticism, see WP:BLP and WP:COATGamaliel (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)")

Malvenue was reported yesterday by myself for a 3RR violation on this article. Someguy1221 chose not to take action beyond a warning because he had ceased edit warring. This was merely a temporary postponement on Malvenue's part, as he has resumed edit warring and caused the article to be protected, even after Someguy's warning. The BLP claim is clearly spurious and retaliatory as shortly before this claim removing a mere sentence from the article, he inserted a two paragraph screed attacking the critic whose sentence was such an affront to him that it required removal on BLP grounds when he didn't get his way. Gamaliel (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:166.205.130.225 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result:Protected )

Page: Yesterday Was a Lie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 166.205.130.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [315] Completely prior to all of the reverts.

• 1st revert: [316]
• 2nd revert: [317]
• 3rd revert: [318]
• 4th revert: [319]
• 5th revert: [320]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [321]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [322] and in fact, the entire talk page postings.

Comments:
All of these removed key parts of content, including at some points, a {{COI}} tag, removing edits by more than one editor, and was accompanied by other IP editors, tag-teaming to revert various and any changes to the article. The other IP accounts quit after being warned. A WP:COI/N report has also been filed for other issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected by User:EdJohnston. Leaving IP unblocked so that they can participate in the discussion if they wish. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:72.241.205.19 reported by guyzero | talk (Result:31h )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dreams from My Father (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.241.205.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 16:13, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Narrative */") Add claim "terrorist Ayers" ghostwritten claim
2. 16:46, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Narrative */") RV #1
3. 16:47, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
4. 17:15, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Narrative */") RV #2
5. 17:16, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
6. 17:33, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Narrative */") RV #3
7. 17:34, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
8. 17:35, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Narrative */") section blanking
9. 17:35, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Book cover */") blanking
10. 17:36, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Book cover */")
11. 17:39, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Narrative */") RV #4
12. 17:49, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Narrative */") RV #5
13. 18:10, 12 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Narrative */") RV #6

• Diff of warning: here

—guyzero | talk 19:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming 3RR doesn't apply to reverting these edits. It's a pretty clear issue not to call Bill Ayers a "terrorist" and the ghost-writer of Obama's autobiography in the article about the book. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31h Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Иван Богданов reported by User:Hammersoft (Result: 48hr)

Page: User:FkpCascais (edit | [[Talk:User:FkpCascais|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Иван Богданов (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I can't tell what's going on, because I can't read the language in use at User talk:FkpCascais. Over the last 48 hours, User:Иван Богданов has been completely changing the content of User:FkpCascais. After the sixth time, User:A8UDI left a message at his talk page warning him of vandalism on that user page, and that he'd been reverted. Three minutes later, Иван Богданов reverted again (7th revert).

• 1st revert: [323]
• 2nd revert: [324]
• 3rd revert: [325]
• 4th revert: [326]
• 5th revert: [327]
• 6th revert: [328]
• 7th revert: [329]
• 8th revert: [330]

Comments:

In an unrelated incident with this user, I was asked by the user not to edit his talk page again. So, I have not been able to address this with the user in question. This is an unusual case, in part because the language barrier. Would someone please step in? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48h by User:Rettetast. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Norum reported by User:4wajzkd02 (Result: Warned)

Page: Talk:Barack Obama (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Barack Obama|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Norum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [331]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [336], [337], [338], [339], [340], [341]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [342],[343]

Comments:

WP:HEAR User_talk:Norum#November.2C_2009 --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I request to have this report removed as my reverts were based on a reliable source, for which I provided a link. It was Obama's interview with ABC and I think that is a pretty reliable source. I was trying to officially request the move and the removal of the incorrect info, but Wikidemon kept reverting my official request. I even left a message on his talk wall asking why did he kept reverting my input even after I provided the link, and all he did was just to ignore my completely and remove my message once again. So why should I be punished for something that he is ignoring on purpose? Norum (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. Your talk page edits was properly removed to prevent further disruption. As stated previously, the article is on probation; "to avoid being subject to remedies":

* Do not edit-war;
* Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article;
* Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;

Finally, readWP:3RR - your four reversions were in no way justified for any article, let alone one on probation. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) As I noted on the editor's talk page, this seems to be part of a pattern of some edits that are questionable as far as being anti-Muslim. I've urged the editor to reconsider their approach vis-a-vis edit warring and incivility, politely at first but more sternly now that he/she has become so tendentious about this. The warnings are not getting through, and I think it's questionable whether the editor is here to improve the encyclopedia versus advancing some fringe racial views. Unless we address that, a temporary block will only solve the problem temporarily. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Update - the editor is engaging other editors now and talking about things at least. Best to be as gentle and understanding as possible, but this one will take more patience than I can offer right now. If anyone is ready to counsel rather than block that would be super! - Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see where you come up with the anti-muslim thing. Maybe you are referring to my comment I made the prophet Muhammad. I don't know if that is it, but yes, by today's standards he would be classified as a pedophile because his wife was only 9 years old when they "consumed" their marriage. Anyways, the bottom line is, that the link I provided was a reliable source as it was ABC and you and the others kept ignoring it. And Obama was "corrected" after he said it the second time, which can create a lot of questions itself. Can you explain the thing with the article being on probation? Perhaps I missed something? I also expect an apology for being called anti-Muslim and a racist. Also mind you all, the 4 edits were in regards two different things. One was about the official change that i requested, the other one being baout the actual removal of the religion info. I apologize if all this has caused so much problems for you all. Norum (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, accepted. I address the Muslim thing on your talk page - some of your comments could offend people. Note that I've left a comment above urging administrators to talk to you and not to be too fast to block the account. Really, as long as you don't keep reverting people and accusing them of things, you're welcome to your views even if they don't represent the majority / consensus decision in the end, and most of us do want to get along. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"not to be too fast to block the account" - I am not inclined to share your lenient view, given that 3 reversions in one day is a bright line and the user was adequately warned (and responded to the first warning with "Whatever. And please stop spying on me. Norum (talk) 2:24 pm, Today (UTC−7)"). Moreover, it is clear to me that the user's comments "I apologize if all this has caused so much problems for you all" and "Also mind you all, the 4 edits were [justified]" are indicative of his continued misunderstanding of the WP:3RR rules and exceptions, as well as the intent of the Obama articles' probation. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought we settled this yesterday? Norum (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so did I, until I read your missive, above (where you continue to justify your 4 reverts, and demand an apology), posted after you posted on your talk page that "you didn't understand many things" (which I graciously took as meaning that you understood things now). While blocks are not meant to be punitive, they are mean to be preventative. If you felt the need to "get the last word in" and continue to justify your edit warring, then I can only assume you'll violate WP:3RR again, with continued impunity, if you feel self-justified. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to defend myself in the light of being accused of racism. And I did not say my reverts were justified. That was inserted here. I said they were in "regards to two different things". But anyways, the reason I am here is to promise to stay away from discussing Obama's religion. Norum 17:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• "I was just trying to defend myself". The old saying is something like "When you're in up to your neck, stop digging".
• "I did not say my reverts were justified". You said "Also mind you all, the 4 edits were in regards two different things.". It still reads like you were justifying your actions. You've not yet stated you now understand (after much Sturm und Drang) that your edits were in violation of WP:3RR.
• "the reason I am here is to promise to stay away from discussing Obama's religion". Where is a promise to not edit war on any article again?

Read WP:HEAR after you read WP:3RR (again?) --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result -- Warned. I asked Norum to stay away from discussing Obama's alleged Muslim faith on the talk page, warning of possible consequences. A few minutes later he posted the above assurance that he will refrain. We are hoping that this is now settled, so I am closing the report with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User EdJohnston has asked me to promise not to discuss Obamas religion and to leave this issue alone. Which I did. I also promise not to continue with the edit war on any article. I have read WP:HEAR and WP:3RR and have understood it all. Norum 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Best wishes, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

William Hart (disambiguation) (Result: Indef block)

User:Billyshym keeps adding himself to this page - has been reverted about five times. Also created an article on a book he wrote; this has been speedy deleted twice within a day because it was recreated. I am loath to rv latest edition myself, as I don't want to put myself beyond 3rr. I think the latest edition should be reverted and possible protection of page/temp ban on editor. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Billy has shown no interest in ever talking to other users, and just recreates material over and over, I've indef blocked him. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

YellowFives (Result: No violation)

User:YellowFives is edit warring with me at Anwar al-Awlaki.

[344] [345] [346] [347]

He claims language he is deleting is based on a book that is not RS. I posted the book at the RS talk page, and got feedback for including it, as I told him. He claims the language is defamatory, but there is nothing defamatory in it that is not already stated in the article by other RSs and reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am acting in accordance with WP:BLP. See the full discussion at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki#Extremist sources which received input from WP:BLPN#Anwar al-Awlaki. ~YellowFives 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that Epeefleche ignored the discussion on the article talk page where a third party had already objected to the WorldNetDaily book. ~YellowFives 19:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The issue here is that YellowFive continually uses BLP as a justification to end discussion and remove content, even if the content is sourced to a reliable source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

An example of William S. Saturn's complaint, relating directly to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:William S. Saturn reported by User:O Fenian .28Result: Page protected.29

• WP:BLP: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. ... Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or in "Further reading" or "External links" sections, or any other section in the article ... Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; ... or that relies upon ... sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator."
• WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source ... Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist ... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties."
• WP:RS: "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[4] or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals."
• Talk:Anwar_al-Awlaki#Extremist_sources: "WND has consistantly been determined to be an unreliable source on WP:RSN. If it is the sole source for a questionable fact, that fact should be removed. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)"

I am acting as WP:BLP requires me to act. The policy insists that removing defamatory claims against living people is one of the most important tasks at Wikipedia. I have asked for discussion on the talk page and at WP:BLPN, but according to policy, the defamatory content must be removed first and then discussion takes place about possibly putting it back in. ~YellowFives 20:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment uninvolved, except I agree that this reversion is WP:BLP 3rr exemption compliant - it is unreliably sourced defamatory information about a living person. WP:RS has stated many times that worldnetdaily and it's publishing imprints do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it is Epeefleche who is edit-warring. Grsz¹¹ 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina wrote the forward for the book, and it has spurred a request by four members of the House of Representatives for an investigation. Furthermore (repeating myself), I ran this by the RS talk page and received positive feedback to use it.

Finally (repeating myself) there is nothing that could be construed as defamatory in the sentence that is not already in the article from other RSs. The article already says the following, with citations to RSs: “the US Treasury Department identified Zindani as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist", he is on the UN 1267 Committee's list of individuals associated with the Taliban or al-Qaeda”, a former FBI agent identifies Awlaki as a known "senior recruiter for al Qaeda", and a spiritual motivator, his sermons were extremely anti-Israel and pro-jihad, “The FBI learned he may have been contacted by a possible "procurement agent" for Osama bin Laden, “He is often noted for targeting young US-based Muslims with his lectures, “Evan Kohlmann calls Awlaki "one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists. His fluency with English, his unabashed advocacy of jihad and mujahideen organizations, and his Web-savvy approach are a powerful combination." He calls Awlaki's lecture "Constants on the Path of Jihad", which was based on a similar document written by the founder of Al Qaeda, the "virtual bible for lone-wolf Muslim extremists." Awlaki's "44 Ways to Support Jihad" is described by the NEFA Foundation as a pro-Al-Qaeda document that incites English-speaking Muslims., Author Jarret Brachman said that Nidal Malik Hasan's contacts with Awlaki should have raised "huge red flags". According to Brachman, Awlaki is a major influence on radical English-speaking jihadis internationally.”

--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You went to the policy talk page, not to the noticeboard. The noticeboard is at WP:RSN, where you'll find "worldnet" is responded to with "not reliable." Hipocrite (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. On both counts. What you don't mention, however, is that while you respond to it that way, there was certainly not consensus on that point as a general matter. (You Hipocrite ... sorry, just had to say that .. :) Also, I see no references to WND Books, only to the magazine.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is still in terrible shape, completely unacceptable, which is why I made the WP:BLPN note. There are other unsourced and defamatory statements in there, like "Awlaki has been accused by numerous official and unofficial sources of Islamic fundamentalism and support for terrorism." It needs to be removed. WP:BLP makes it clear that I must remove it, but there are chilling effects. I don't feel safe removing it, when here I am being accused of breaking the rules.

Regardless, I don't see anything in WP:RS that says "go ahead and use bad sources if other sources imply something similar." ~YellowFives 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No its not. And there is no BLP violation if the info is true (as reflected in sourcing to RSs...which it is). The best defense against libel is the truth of the matter asserted. I know that you just joined Wikipedia very recently, but that's a basic concept even outside of Wikipedia. The reason it is relevant to state it is that he made the statement before the Fort Hood incident (the other parallel statements were after).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question is utterly unsourced, which is why I mentioned it. Anyway, BLP is not primarily about legal liability for Wikipedia and its editors (though that is relevant). The primary issue is the subject's well-being. I know Awlaki isn't exactly a sympathetic figure, but you still can't use WorldNetDaily to attack him. ~YellowFives 21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If enough Most Interested Wikipedians want to badly enough, they can create an entire attack coatrack dressed up like a BLP -- despite opposition from quite a few other Wikipedians.

Plenty of Wikipedians know how to make it sound like their wrongdoing is reasonable and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (that aren't worth the disks they're stored on).

Did you mean, "Epeefleche may not use WorldNetDaily to attack Awlaki"?

The reality on Wikipedia is quite different from the theory.

What it really boils down to is how many people want to attack Awlaki, how interested they are in that, how many editors want to stop the attackers, and how interested in they are in that.

The Most Interested Persons can keep coming and wear you down.

Wikipedia is a mobocracy masquerading as a respectable encyclopedia project.

If you think you're going to stop Epeefleche from using not very good sources to attack a living person just because Wikipedia's rules prohibit that, you'd better start looking at the reality of the situation.

Look at the sources in this "BLP".

If "Awlaki isn't exactly a sympathetic figure," then you need to take stock right now of how many people want to use Wikipedia to attack him, how interested they are in doing this, how many people want BLP followed, and how interested they are in that.

I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, and I'll tell you right now, the reality is not found in the rules.

Epeefleche absolutely can use WorldNetDaily to attack Awlaki, as long as s/he's got enough Most Interested allies.

You can quote Wikipedia's policies and guidelines until you're blue in the face.

You won't be able to stop them. -- Rico 00:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• You say "The sentence in question is utterly unsourced". That makes no sense. It is the source that you are edit warring with regard to, by deleting it. As far as WP policy and its underpinnings -- I know you've only been on WP for less than 3 weeks. What in your experience do you base that on? In any event, as already said and detailed, his well being won't be jostled one jot beyond what it will already be jostled by the other statements that are in the article (w/RSs supporting them). Really, this isn't something to edit war about.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, "the sentence in question" refers to "Awlaki has been accused by numerous official and unofficial sources of Islamic fundamentalism and support for terrorism." That is completely unsourced, undoubtedly defamatory, and WP:BLP requires that it be removed. It's an example of the terrible and unacceptable current state of the article. Also, I have no doubt that upon closer inspection, several of the sources will not actually support what they're used to say in the article, like how you can't see that your WorldNetDaily writer doesn't even believe Awlaki was born in Yemen (and in fact there is literally no controversy over his birthplace in New Mexico). And what experience do I base my understanding of Wikipedia policy on? I just read the policy. It's pretty clear: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." ~YellowFives 15:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin Dougweller has responded from WP:BLPN and presumably watchlisted Anwar al-Awlaki. If others reviewing this have time to do the same, that would be a most welcome improvement. ~YellowFives 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The information you edit warred over and deleted continuously is clearly accurate, as now reflected in additional sources that others have added. If in the future you believe something is not an RS, but have no evidence that it is not in fact an RS, I would suggest that you consider raising the question at the RS noticeboard, rather than deleting completely accurate information and edit warring as you have done here. I've already discussed why this was not defamatory (nothing new that could be called defamatory stated), etc. There really is no excuse for your edit warring here -- matters like this should be addressed by talk, and if that does not work, by appealing to the appropriate talk pages or noticeboards.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Closed. User:YellowFives was correct to originally remove the statement per WP:BLP, as WND-published books are considered extremely dubious as reliable sources; however there are now reliable sources for it. The article talkpage should be the venue for any further discussion. Black Kite 23:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:93.149.194.161 reported by User:Lil-unique1 (Result: 1 week )

Page: Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 93.149.194.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original Version

• 1st revert: 22:07 10 Nov 2009 (undid revision without justification)
• 2nd revert: 13:04 11 Nov 2009 (undid revision without justification)
• 3rd revert: 16:36 11 Nov 2009 (undid edit which corrected the information with more appropriate sources)
• 4th revert: 13:16 13 Nov 2009 (undid revision without explaination)
• 5th revert: 13:20 13 Nov 2009 (undid revision even though edit summary clearly explained faults/flaws in the editing)
• 6th revert: 20:14 13 Nov 2009 (undid revision even though it was pointed out to user that they were displaying WP:IDHT and going against community consensus)
• 7th revert: 20:25 13 Nov 2009 (undid reversion without explaination to satisfy doubts of majority of editors)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [348]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [349]

Comments:
I would just like to end by stating if you look at the user's history of editing here, the user has been involved in changing the genre of mariah carey recordings over a wide-array of related articles and a number of other experienced users have tried to reason with him/her but said user has continued to keep reverting edits even though the community is ready to discuss and provides justifications for why said user's edits are incorrect. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Also, the user is supposed sockpuppet with past history of vandalizing Mariah Carey articles. If the user continues, let's block he/she again. Charmed36 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week This IP is a sockpuppet. Tiptoety ^talk 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:SkagitRiverqueen reported by User:JoyDiamond (Result:No vio )

Page: John Tran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SkagitRiverQueen [350]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tran&oldid=324146094

Previous version reverted to: [351]

• 1st revert: [352]
• 2nd revert: [353]
• 3rd revert: [354]
• 4th revert: [355]
• 5th revert [356]

Historically speaking, it is important to show they were sponsored by an American family to get out "communist-controlled" Viet Nam. Most edits are nit-picking harassment. Citations did need to be added although none were asked for until I began my editing of this article.

User removes all warning immediately Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I have tried to resolve this long standing edit war on Charles Karel Bouley's discussion page. Any further discussion would be repetitive and futile.

Comments:

Skagitriverqueen has proven she will not stop harassing and following me around until further action is taken by Wiki. Please someone do so! JoyDiamond (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• No violation The edits at John Tran are part of regular editing process and are not reverts. If you have issues with the substance of those edits, you needs to discuss them at Talk:John Tran, and use dispute resolution if necessary. If you think the user is stalking you etc, you can report it at WP:ANI, although at this stage I would recommend that you assume good faith and try to talk with the user instead. Abecedare (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ott jeff reported by User:Slp1 (Result:31h)

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

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

1. 18:45, 14 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 325828809 by Piano non troppo (talk)")
2. 21:53, 14 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 325861036 by FisherQueen (talk)")
3. 22:20, 14 November 2009 (edit summary: "See Introduction on Talkpage")
4. 22:42, 14 November 2009 (edit summary: "Please reframe from vandalizing this page. I have reset to this edit as it follows that of the Amway page.")
5. 23:09, 14 November 2009 (edit summary: "Please review the amway as a template for wrting this page. You will find that this edit is very similar. I have yet to see any reason as to why the MonaVie and the amway are different")
6. 23:14, 14 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 325879091 by Dawn Bard (talk)")

And another [357] just in

Warned by 3 separate editors [358]

Discussion on talkpage too.[359] —Slp1 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked for 31h. Black Kite 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

Any chance somebody could deal User: 68.171.234.73, and the obvious sockpuppet evasion?[360]?--Slp1 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

BlackKite was on the job. Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr. enh reported by User:Heqwm2 (Result: no vio)

Page:Employee Free Choice Act [[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page:Heterosexism [[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Dr. enh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EFCA: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Employee_Free_Choice_Act&action=historysubmit&diff=324377365&oldid=324375340 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Employee_Free_Choice_Act&action=historysubmit&diff=324306865&oldid=324218042 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Employee_Free_Choice_Act&action=historysubmit&diff=323405115&oldid=323401205

Heterosexim: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heterosexism&action=historysubmit&diff=324376651&oldid=324371341

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] I have been trying to fix unsourced and blatantly POV statements in the Employee Free Choice Act article, but Dr. enh, along with others, have been insisting on re-adding them. They have absolutely refused to participate in any discussion on the talk page other than simply asserting that I am wrong. When I presented an edit that I thought should be made, explained on the talk page why it should be made, and then made it, they simply reverted it without any discussion on the talk page, and then, when I unreverted, had me blocked for "edit warring". In addition, Dr. enh has insisted on reverting to a false statement unsupported with any cite on the Heterosexism page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Comments:

Heqwm2 (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This board is to report recent (read: last day or two) edit warring, usually involving more than three reverts by the same editor in the same day to the same article. None of that has happened here. Please seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So I am prevented from creating a report because I am blocked, then my report is ignored because it is not recent? That's bullshit. I am really tired of this constant wikilawyering.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this board is to request that an editor be blocked for edit warring, which is not required for this dispute, because it is not recent. If you want more opinions on the dispute, seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mosmof reported by User:InkHeart (talk) (Result: no vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lee Jun Ki‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). InkHeart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [361]

• 1st revert: [362]
• 2nd revert: [363]
• 3rd revert: [364]
• 4th revert: [365]
• Revert history of user Mosmof: [366]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [367] But they had removed it. [368]

Comments: I replied to Mosmof in discussing it in the talk page [369]. The editor has also claimed that :::You have had multiple issues with image copyright/non-free content criteria. It's not stalking to see whether the user has repeated a mistake. What is problematic is your labeling good faith edits as "vandalism" when it is not, and baselessly accusing another user of stalking is not civil. --Mosmof (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC) [370] yes I have made mistakes but that doesn't mean you should completely go through out my previous edits and tag them unnecessarily. I would have reported him/her earlier but they I chose to give them a chance, so I think we should both be blocked because yes I have committed the 3RRR rule, but only due to Mosmof. InkHeart 07:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

While Mosmof went over 3RR, it is not a violation when the reverts are to remove copyright violations, including removing blatant violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC). I do agree with Mosmof to the extent that at the very least, there is no obvious rationale for including the image on the article under the NFCC. When a user is reverting an addition of an image that's included under even a questionable copyright status, it is highly recommended to pursue some form of dispute resoultion, either at the article or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. This message will be copied to your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:InkHeart reported by Mosmof (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lee Jun Ki‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). InkHeart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [371]

• 1st revert: [372]
• 2nd revert: [373]
• 3rd revert: [374]
• 4th revert: [375]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [376]

Comments: I realize I haven't tried to discuss the issue on the article talk page, but I did try to discuss via edit summaries and user talk page. Also note that the user has also blindly removed deletion template and FFD discussions, calling them "vandalism". Finally, the user has also used the account Colleen16 (talk · contribs) interchangeably, but I don't think this was an attempt to circumvent 3RR.

Both accounts blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:117.242.12.7, User:117.242.12.54,User:117.242.12.90,User117.242.12.203 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Avatar (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 117.242.12.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 117.242.12.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 117.242.12.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 117.242.12.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [377]

• 1st revert: [378]
• 2nd revert: [379]
• 3rd revert: [380]
• 4th revert: [381]

3RR warning: [382], [383]

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

Comments:
I directed the editor to the discussion page through the article revert history and also through the first warning I gave him so he's had plenty of chances to respond. His IP changes everytime so we're going to need his range banned for 24 hours.

Page semi-protected by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Иван Богданов (Result: No violation)

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

I want to report an incident that occured on 11 November. On that day User:FkpCascais posted a very insulting note on User:Avala's talk page. That note was in Serbian, but I translated it on English. This is that note:

Talk page comment about Serbian monarchism

Fuck the King who never learned to speak Serbian (I live abroad for 30 years, all my life, and I didn't forgot to speak Serbian), and monarchic family wich instead of Greater Serbia made some shit of Yugoslavia, only because they (House of Karadjordjevic) can said that they are Kings of Serbs and also of Croats and of Slovenes. They shall not be my Kings anymore. I studied in Spain, so if you want I can reply to you... FkpCascais (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

I was extremely provoked after I saw this uncivil and rude message, and I entered into some form of edit war with User:FkpCascais, and for my part in that, I was blocked from editing for 48h by User:Rettetast. I aknowledge that it was my mistake to enter into edit war instead to report User:FkpCascais in the first place, so I am doing that now. I think that he also should be blocked from editing for his part in this issue. With many thanks, yours truly --Иван Богданов (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result - No violation. You're talking about a series of events which took place at User talk:Atama. FkpCascais made a post (in Serbian) using strong language, which may possibly have been critical of Serbian monarchism. Then, he removed his own post two minutes later. Following that, you restored his post! It is bizarre that you would restore his post if you considered it offensive, especially after he seemed to be correcting his own mistake. If you still want that comment removed from the talk page, you can revert your own edit. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Melop reported by NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} (Result: Move protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Canton (Guangzhou) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Melop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 22:29, 15 November 2009 (edit summary: "moved Guangzhou to Canton (Guangzhou): Because the origin of the name "Canton" in English as well as other European languages can be traced back to the 16th century, well preceded any formal romanization methods for Chinese, and due to its wide us")
2. 22:57, 15 November 2009 (edit summary: "moved Guangzhou to Canton (Guangzhou) over redirect: Moving to this title is a balance between two parties of views. Both names should appear in the title.")
3. 22:58, 15 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 23:46, 15 November 2009 (edit summary: "moved Guangzhou to Canton (Guangzhou) over redirect: Listed both names is a balance between the two parties of views.")
5. 23:53, 15 November 2009 (edit summary: "moved Guangzhou to Canton (Guangzhou) over redirect: Listing both names is a balance between the two parties of views.")
6. 00:24, 16 November 2009 (edit summary: "moved Guangzhou to Canton (Guangzhou) over redirect: Listing both names maintains a neutral stance.")
7. 01:18, 16 November 2009 (edit summary: "moved Guangzhou to Canton (Guangzhou) over redirect: Canton and Guangzhou had different etymologies, making its situation different from Daren, Pekin, Nankin etc.. The latter's Pinyin versions are merely results from new romanization schemes of th")

• Diff of warning: here

—NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

Page move-protected by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) Someguy1221 (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:69.125.77.106 and User:Archibald_Leitch reported by User:Tim1357 (Result: Both warned)

Page: List of Chelsea F.C. records and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported:

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

• Archibald Leitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First Edit in the Edit War: [385]

User:69.125.77.106

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

and 12 more!

User:Archibald_Leitch

• 1st revert diff

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

and 12 more!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Archibald Leitch

• 69.125.77.106

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: see discussion

Comments:
This is my first time reporting this kind of thing, so it might not be all good. Their "discussion" is nothing more then a fight, and neither participant seems to be stopping their reversions. Tim1357 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Archibald Leitch has not reverted since the 3RR warning, but the IP has continued. I have left a further warning for the IP, and hope that he responds here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Both warned. The IP has shown interest in the WP:RM process for getting the name of the player's article changed. If the war breaks out again, sanctions may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)