Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive121

User:Realitylogger72 reported by User:Horkana (Result: Warned)

• Realitylogger72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Troy Garity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Realitylogger72 has been making the same unconstructive edits over and over on the article Troy Garity. Other editors besides me have warned him. I'm not sure what the most appropriate action is, he may just be a beginner, his lack of any edit summary makes it hard to know anything about his intention or motives (I know it wouldn't guarantee meaningful edit summaries but I do wish there was an extra warning step asking user if they are sure they don't want to include a proper summary). If that account should maybe be blocked from editing that article for a while that might help. -- Horkana (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have some sort of an agenda. Some of his edits were pushing the description "failed actress" for Simone Bent (Mrs Garity). Her article was deleted and merged with the Troy Garity article, so I restored cited details explaining a bit about who she is (with sources), he continues to delete the extra specifics. Other edits force the point Jane Fonda meddling although backed by a citation is of pretty dubious tone and low merit. -- Horkana (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Realitylogger72 seems inexperienced. This still does not justify him getting into contentious editing on WP:BLP articles. I've asked him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to respond-Simone is a party planner-a Paper magazine article referenced it and she was the manager of Mercer Bar. My source for Jane Fonda picking out the diamond ring is legit and keeps getting erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitylogger72 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay so maybe you are a beginner and just have not been seeing any of the edit summaries that appear under the History tab. Your lack of discussion and failure to provide any edit summaries for your edits makes it very hard to know what your intentions are. There is a principle called the 3 revert rule WP:3RR whereby editors are expected to discuss edits and if they do not they may be blocked after 3 edits. After many more than 3 reverts I brought this to the attention of the administrators.

The Jane Fonda edit may have a source but her meddling is still not an especially notable incident, so the source may be legit but not be an especially high quality source or a source like the New York Times that would help show this was really a very notable high profile piece of information. It might be just barely appropriate in the Jane Fonda article but it is questionable if it is really appropriate to add it at all. Another edit removed it, and I would agree it is probably better if we leave it out. If you want to argue for keeping it you should add some comments on the talk page. (You should also take a look at the older edits because when you could have gone to history section and hit undo but instead you took two edits to add back the point and you did not format the link properly.)

You made an edit referring to Simone Bent as a "failed actress" which is not very appropriate tone for an encyclopedia.

I attempted to restore details about who she is and give a more detailed description of her background since the separate article for her had been merged with the Troy Garity article but you kept reverting those edits without any explanation. Those additions had citations and provided background information that her parents were of some social prominence.

This does seem to be a bit of a minor misunderstanding and a need for explanation. If you use edit summaries and explain on talk pages why you feel certain pieces of information need to be in the article then we can probably sort this out. -- Horkana (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned inexperienced editor. From now on he is expected to participate on the article Talk page if he is tempted to revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:66.108.25.133 (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Richard Goldstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=337966630&oldid=337964342
• 2nd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=338085334&oldid=338063324
• 3rd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=338337966&oldid=338331017
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARichard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=338328730&oldid=337963640

Comments:

User Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted encyclopedic value and relevant biographical material regarding articles from credible Guardian newspaper and Mandela.org website, relating to controversy between S. African president de Klerk and Goldstone on his campaigning to achieve high UN office. This episode is demonstrably relevant for the bio of a UN fact-finder, and arguably more so than most of the article, which is dedicated to an exhaustive list of lectures delivered or awards received.

Lotus violates neutrality and WP:Soapbox by seeking to delete any material that is not excessive praise of the subject, and to block a balanced view from emerging of the subject's significant episodes.

By contrast, the material User Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted was relevant to the subject's notability, sourced to reliable secondary sources, and was presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

User Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to respond to discussion on talk page. See: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARichard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=338328730&oldid=337963640

Comment by LotLE×talk

I'm glad the anon reported this here, actually, I was about to file an edit warring report against the anon, which is the only way I stumbled across this report.

The anon is an SPA whose only edits with that account is to insert contentious WP:SOAPBOX material in the biography of Richard Goldstone. This material likely is a defamatory WP:BLP violation, but it skirts the line of outright BLP violation. In any case, the identical material inserted by the anon has been removed by four separate (long-term and named editors who have previously contributed to that article), and I am one of those.

As well, the lack of merit of these insertions has been discussed on the article talk page. The anon has claimed there that the addition has merit (which is a good effort), but no other editor has agreed whatsoever with that argument. A new editor may not understand WP:BRD, but this somehow doesn't feel like a genuinely "new" editor.

Below is just a cut-and-paste of the anon's entire contribution history on WP article namespace. I have not taken the effort to linkify all of these, but it is easy to view the anon's edit history, no filtering is needed to see the pattern. Edits by 66.108.25.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 11:31, 2010 January 17 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (Undid revision 338337966. See (talk). Lulu ignored questions on why deleted relevant UN-Guardian biogr. episode.)
• 04:23, 2010 January 17 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (→"Richard-Richard" Goldstone Controversy)
• 03:58, 2010 January 17 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (restored newsworthy, authoritative and encyclopedic-value information that was deleted without grounds by Lotus)
• 17:04, 2010 January 15 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (added citations to The Guardian)
• 05:48, 2010 January 15 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (restored deletion of relevant controversy between The Guardian, S. African President and Justice Goldstone; edited down quote as per Lotus suggestion)
• 04:41, 2010 January 15 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (restored citations to Mandela.org re dispute btwn Nobel Laureate FW de Klerk and Goldstone on "Richard-Richard" controversy; Goldstone's reference to The Guardian articles by David Beseford)
• 01:45, 2010 January 14 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (Not self-pub. Sean.hoyland misled (WP:ES). Deleted w/o disclosure Mandela.org citation to Goldstone quote, and obvious reproductions of 2 Guardian articles, referenced by Goldstone, copied in blog.)
• 05:20, 2006 September 2 (hist | diff) Albion College ‎ (→Campus Life)

As well, these many reversions seem to be by the same actual person as 64.134.242.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also only made SPA edits of exactly the same content.

All the best, LotLE×talk 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Semiprotected - A variety of IPs, some perhaps the same person, have tried to insert the 'Richard-Richard' story into the article 8 times over the last few days. The material keeps being reverted by regular editors. If a Talk consensus is reached to insert this material, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:116.71.53.73 and User:Jasepl reported by User:ArcAngel (Result: No action, take it to WP:AIRLINES )

116.71.53.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jasepl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NOTE:These two are apparently having a content dispute over "Southwest Asia now changed to Western Asia" on these articles - Pakistan International Airlines destinations, Philippine Airlines destinations‎‎. It was brought to my talk page by the IP, and so I am bringing it here, where it belongs. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some pseudo-editors are having objection to using Western Asia article name, which was changed from previous Southwest Asia mainly in airlines destinations lists, they are saying it should be listed as Southwest asia despite the article having been renamed as western asia, why this double standrad, these very editores are also asking China be listed with full name becaue PRC article carries country's full name, so then why not western asia.116.71.53.73 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is jaspel reply showing a dual standard for articles and threatening too.

"Once AGAIN: Consensus was reached in the Southwest Asia article. NOT in the aviation project (that governs the airline/airport articles). More than one established editor has reverted your edit. And you have been asked, more than once - and nicely too - to follow procedure. Do you really want to head down the path you're headed, and effectively act as an IP Vandal? Jasepl (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)"

The consensus reached at the Southwest Asia article refers to only the naming of the actual article itself. This should be taken to the WP:AIRPORTS and/or WP:AIRLINES talk pages. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If those projects only had talk pages, it could - but since this is a content dispute, there's nothing wrong with it being here. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. *Both* those projects have talk pages. Jasepi has already discussed the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#How to list the region .22Southwest_Asia.22_and_.22Western_Asia.22_in_airline_destinations.3F. I suggest that IP present his arguments there as well. Blocks may follow if editors aren't accepting a consensus reached on the appropriate WikiProject. EdJohnston (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I could have sworn that the talkpages for each of the links above were empty when I clicked on them. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 01:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:NimbusWeb reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 31h)

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

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

• 1st revert: [1] (marked revert)
• 2nd revert: [2] (reverts [3])
• 3rd revert: [4] (same as 2)
• 4th revert: [5] (marked as revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] (note: editor removes warning [7])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Biosequestration#Biosequestration_dispute_on_multiple_articles

Comments:

Article is under probation (editor has been warned of this) Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to report this, as well. It should be noted that both WMC and I have reverted NimbusWeb at this and other related articles, but that we are attempting to find a consensus for or against inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To note another specific article where NimbusWeb is also close, if not over, 3RR, see the Carbon tax article. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Biosequestration dispute in all its gory details. This is a train wreck. --TS 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 10:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tracer9999 reported by User:Flatterworld (Result: 31h each)

Page: Martha Coakley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tracer9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martha_Coakley&action=history

January 17, 17:48 - 21:05

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] Also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martha_Coakley&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tracer9999#please_read_edit_comments_in_future

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Martha_Coakley#Warning:_Removal_of_accurate_info.21.21

Comments:
Tracer9999 insists the YouTube video of the January 11 debate, on the official channel of the University of Massachusetts Boston (the host), is not a valid source and therefore insists on including incorrect quotes in the article, based on spin and quote-clipping. I looked very hard to find a transcript or official video to quote from, and Tracer9999 refuses to allow its reference. (S/he seems to confuse 'original source' with 'original research'.) The other full video, the Sean Hannity interview of John McCormick, is not available on his own website but only on YouTube. I am looking for a better source, but it does show the actual statements made and is clearly not 'doctored'. However, s/he continues to revert the corrected verbiage in the article back to false, misleading statements. That's simply incorrect and not encyclopedic. I don't care what any one of these people say, but I want them to be quoted accurately. As the election is in two days, this is important. Flatterworld (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not trying to edit war here.. this persons (flatterworld's) constant postings on my talk page is bordering harassment.. he is reverting valid well sourced by newspaper sources without attempting to gain concensus... and replacing them with media matters and youtube videos.. please help clear up this mess. I ask that you please check out the entire edit history as well as my diverse and substantial amount of editing on a wide variety of subjects.. thank you. Also, I hate to do this.. but I would also like to point out it is in fact this user making the complaint that was blocked just last month for editwarring..

23:51, 13 December 2009 Vsmith (talk | contribs) blocked Flatterworld (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring) -Tracer9999 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours Both editors feel as though they're correct, but consistently using undo to revert edits that are not blatant vandalism is disruptive. Next time use dispute resolution or request page protection when disputes get out of hand. NJA (t/c) 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Grichard56 reported by User:Fences and windows (Result:No Violation, but warned again)

Page: Marco Polo (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Grichard56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

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

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

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

Comments:

Grichard56 has only ever edited two other Wikipedia articles, so despite being an editor since September 2007 they are really a newbie. Most of their edits are to Marco Polo (game), which means that they feel ownership over it, especially as he has stated that his family invented the game in the 1960s:[18]. I edited the article to remove unsourced material at the start of December, and rewrote it using sources,[19] which he didn't like.[20] He says that "Removed references that are non-factual. references earlier than 1975 needed", which is odd reasoning. I realise that 3RR has not been breached, but this is a low-grade edit war to remove sources and in which he is not communicating. Fences&Windows 02:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Warned again. Skier Dude (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Drrll reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Media Matters for America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drrll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:12, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Funding sources */")
2. 21:57, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338429615 by Loonymonkey (talk)Other refs are opinion pieces--see #18 (Alternet)")
3. 23:12, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Funding sources */ Fix reference to opinion piece per WP:RS")
4. 23:40, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338454759 by Gamaliel (talk)Doesn't state as fact: "according to..." just as WP:RS allows")
5. 23:53, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "With reference to book by Jeff Gerth")
6. 02:21, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338477544 by Croctotheface) That discussion has one person saying that group needs to describe itself;another person mentions sources")
7. 02:34, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338480213 by Gamaliel (talk)Unexplained revert")

Comments:

Was warned about a 3RR violation on January 13 (see above) —Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see by the edit history of the article in question on Jan 13, I fully complied with the warning. These 7 changes represent 3 separate sections of the article, not a single one. In addition, 3 of these edits were not simple reverts, but major revisions to my previous edits.--Drrll (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

At least four of these are clearly plain reverts as they say "undid revision by so-and-so". Gamaliel (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours As noted just days ago here, the user was given a final warning. Dispute the warning they still don't understand that when in dispute to utilise the dispute resolution process or to request protection rather than misuse the undo tool. NJA (t/c) 11:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang reported by User:TonyTheTiger (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [diff]

User began by placing annoying templates on the article while it was on the main page this morning. He has accused me of being paid to write the article on my user page even though I disclosed at the AFD he started that I wrote the article in exchange for a free registration. The annoying thing about the edits is that they remove important content from the article while it is under a WP:AFD review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

We have been arguing on each other's talk pages and now at WP:AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

TonyTheTiger admitted to being paid to write the article. He is the only editor who has contributed to the article. The article reads like advertising and spam and I am attempting to improve it. In my view it is unethical of him to be reverting my good faith edits to the article to improve it enough not to be deleted as spam. DegenFarang (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not admit to being paid. I was given a free edition of the software. It is not the same thing. You can not remove content that is essential to understanding why you need it while it is under WP:AFD review. I have tried to ask him to leave essential content in while the article is under review. No one will understand why you need the software without it. The content at issue is not advert spam.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So there is a difference between getting $99 software for free and getting paid? Ok well each time I said paid substitute the word 'compensated' if it makes you feel better. Same thing to me. It looks like several other editors agree with me and are voting for deletion of the article as well as making their own drastic changes to the article. It read like spam man, don't know what else to tell you. Next time don't write articles that way. Be neutral. DegenFarang (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Protected. In my opinion, both parties are edit-warring. It is hard to see DegenFarang's militance as a good route to a consensus decision on this article, and TonyTheTiger's work raises questions about conflict of interest. WP:COI should advise him to edit with great care, something I am not seeing here. EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:2005 reported by User:DegenFarang (Result: No 3RR violation)

Page: Steve_Badger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 2005 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

I have made multiple efforts to change only specific pieces of the article to be careful not to remove anything that is properly sourced. User 2005 comes in each time and simply reverts everything back to the way it previously was. Google Groups cannot be used as a source. Poker-Babes.com cannot be used as an external link on poker player profiles it has been deemed as spam on multiple occasions. Nothing about his ownership of the website or his being a professional poker player is sourced. 2005 will not engage in discussion or allow anything to be removed from the article. It is likely a self published autobiographical article by User 2005 or a biography of someone who User 2005 knows very well - thus making the revisions, or any edits to the article, unethical and against the spirit of Wikipedia.:

I ask that User 2005 be blocked or warned and not permitted to make sweeping reverts to all of my edits on this article (or any other) but to analyze each of them on their merits, as I am addressing different issues with each edit. DegenFarang (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I did not violate 3RR. In addition to violating the 3RR rule as reported by TonyTheTiger above, user DegenFarang has also done three reversions of the Steve Badger article including wildly inapproiate edits including this diff. He has been reverted by three editors today on that article, including me doing so my allowed three times. His statements above are falsehoods, plus for a second time he tries to WP:OUTING me, this time as a different person! User:DegenFarang needs to be permanetly blocked from editing. 2005 (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The other editors did what you should be doing: They addressed specifics edits I made. You are just going in and undoing ALL of my edits. Quite unreasonable when I took the time to make so many of them, in an attempt to improve the article, and to make it easy for you to address each edit on its merits. And your bringing up my '3rr violation' is quite funny. Did you even look at the article? He was paid to write it. And if you are not Steve Badger than you clearly know him very well. You have the same bias TonyTheTiger had. I should be blocked, why, because I have the courage and patience to stand up to biased editors like you and TonyTheTiger? DegenFarang (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang reported by User:2005 (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [31]

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

These are four reverts of this article, in addition to his initial changes to the article... which he then put up for AFD. Apparently unsatisfied with how the Keep comments started coming in he has blantantly violated three revert... reverting three different editors. He should ahve already been blocked for violating 3RR for SitN Go Wizard above. He has an extensive history of violating polcies like here, here and [36]. He has recieved numerous "final warnings" for his editing. 2005 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am making specific changes to the article (like removing un sourced information and peacock terms) and 2005 is reverting everything I am doing back without regard for my specific edits. You can see my detailed thoughts above. I accept any disciplinary action but I ask anybody who takes it to have a close look at the article in question, 2005's history with it, and 2005's history on Wikipedia. There is clearly some self-interested editing going on here, at the least. DegenFarang (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 31 hours to DegenFarang. I'm aware that this editor argues that he is removing spam, but spam removal is not included among the exceptions to WP:3RR. The definition of particular content as spam needs consensus, and WP:BRD is a good rule to follow when you see something you think should be removed. DF has made about six reverts here in 24 hours, and it's hard to see that as a good-faith effort to clean up the article, in a way that respects the opinions of the other editors. His gutting of the article while an AfD is running surely doesn't win any prizes for helpful behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Several anonymous IP addresses in the same location reported by User:AFriedman (Result: Declined)

Page: Donmeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 81.213.106.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 88.228.233.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 85.110.0.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 78.166.14.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 88.228.235.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 88.230.97.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 88.230.96.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

• 1st revert: [38]
• Edit warring: [39]
• Edit warring: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• Edit warring: [43]
• 4th revert: [44]
• 5th revert: [45]
• Edit warring: [46]
• 6th revert: [47]

Information is repeatedly being removed from the article about the Donmeh by a POV-pusher who is attempting to de-emphasize the Donmeh's ties to Judaism. These IP addresses have also POV-pushed in other articles--according to one post at Talk:Donmeh, "Since December [2009], there's been a series of similar edits from a range of IP addresses at History of the Jews in Greece, History of the Jews of Thessaloniki, History of the Jews in Turkey and Henry Morgenthau, Sr." On Talk:Donmeh, several other editors have complained about this behavior, and there is consensus that administrator action is needed. The IP addresses seem to be coming from similar locations in Turkey, and are likely to be a single user.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: It is difficult to warn this User or users because the changes are coming from so many IP addresses.

The IP addresses in question do not seem to be participating in the discussion. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48], [49]

Comments: The problem does not seem to be limited to a single IP address, or to the Donmeh article.

• Declined More suited to a request for protection, though looking at the article the recent level of disruption is low and thus it'd likely be unwarranted. NJA (t/c) 09:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mark Osgatharp reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 3 days )

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

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert (removal of a newly placed OR tag): [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

User:Mark Osgatharp was formally warned by an admininstrator to stop edit warring just the other day. Here is that warning. The Baptist article page history indicates that he continues to edit war. Unfortuantely, he also continiues to make inappropriate comments on my talk page. In light of the fact that this editor has only edited two articles to any significant degree and those edits have largely been disruptive, I think this editor should not be blocked.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Aside from completely ignoring my prior warnings (1, 2, 3) and continuing to misuse undo by edit warring, the editor has also started to dabble in pure disruptive editing by making comments such as this and this. Further, the edits made at the talk page are generally passive aggressive and would make consensus building difficult at best. The reporting editor would be best advised to read over WP:DR to learn how to deal best with difficult editors, and they should get help from others to assist them, eg use a relevant noticeboard, seek third party help, etc. Good luck. NJA (t/c) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:PeshawarPat reported by ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb (Result: 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Same-sex marriage in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PeshawarPat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 03:27, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2004 San Francisco marriages */")
2. 04:19, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2004 San Francisco marriages */")
3. 04:20, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* See also */")
4. 04:22, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338690166 by McSly (talk)")
5. 04:40, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2004 San Francisco marriages */ It was the law at the time of the licenses, I don't there is anything apparent that he broke the law. Voters ban gay weddings anyway, so the laws have been changed")
6. 05:24, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338694136 by 98.248.32.44Are you saying he didn't violate the state law?")
7. 05:31, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338698557 by 98.248.32.44 (talk)")
8. 06:22, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338705140 by Ctjf83 (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Administrator note It would appear that he self reverted after receiving his warning. I am thinking we should hold off on taking any action unless he continues to revert war. Tiptoety ^talk 06:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I was looking at [57] (which was the subject of another report since removed by the reporter). Tiptoety ^talk 06:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Tiptoety ^talk 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Mladifilozof (Result: Protection)

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

As you can check, I am the author of featured article about Dimitrije Tucović on Serbo-croat Wikipedia. My intention is to write a good article about Dimitrije Tucović on English Wikipedia. As soon as I started to write, one user constantly removing certain aspect of Tucović's work from the article.

He did it 3 times in last 24 hours:

• 1st time: 19:41, 18 January 2010
• 2nd time: 05:29, 19 January 2010
• 3rd time: 06:06, 19 January 2010

And there is more in the history of article.

This user didn't wrote a single word in the article, he just stubbornly deleting content. When I asked him to discuss his changes, he answered me: "Please, report me." (see: Talk:Dimitrije Tucović).

I do not want to be engaged in the edit war. I just want him to follow common procedures and not to removing content without prior discussion.--Mladifilozof (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Avidius reported by User:Ptolion (Result: 24h)

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

• 1st revert: 14:24, 19 January 2010
• 2nd revert: 15:10, 19 January 2010
• 3rd revert: 15:34, 19 January 2010
• 4th revert: 15:56, 19 January 2010
• 5th revert: 16:19, 19 January 2010
• 6th revert: 18:16, 19 January 2010
• 7th revert: 18:31, 19 January 2010
• 8th revert: 18:43, 19 January 2010
• 9th revert: 19:05, 19 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptolion (talk • contribs)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:13, 3 September 2009

Comments: User is warring with the WP:UNDO function.--Ptolion (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and 31h for another editor with prior EW block history. NJA (t/c) 08:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:C.Kent87 and User:Dropmeoff reported by User:Ccrazymann (Result: Two editors warned)

Page: Mestizo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: C.Kent87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dropmeoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: These users are in a dangerous edit war [58], including personal attacks [59] and incivility eloquent. [60]. Ccrazymann (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Both parties broke WP:3RR, but they stopped reverting after being warned by User:Fastily. If either one continues to revert without waiting for a Talk page consensus, they are likely to be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Factuarius reported by User:Kostja (Result: 31h)

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

• 1st revert: [61] (Several edits leading to the same version)
• 2nd revert: [62] (Same as above)
• 3rd revert: [63] (Same as above)
• 4th revert: [64](Practically the same version)
• 5th revert: [65] (Full revert)
• 6th revert: [66] (Almost the same)
• 7th revert: [67] (Full revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments: User:Factuarius has displayed a very aggressive attitude in the dispute (including shouting in edit summaries), often resorting to personal attacks and unfounded accusations.

Kostja (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that User:Avidius is just as guilty of edit-warring on that article, if not more, and while Factuarius has cased edit-warring and joined the discussion, Avidius is still edit-warring. Athenean (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Avidius' actions do not excuse the reverts of Factuarius and Factuarius also started before him, provoking him to an extent.

Kostja (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: I have shown the differences between two edits of the user (showing his complete or nearly complete revert) instead of the difference between his and the edits of another user. Kostja (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation because each revert is to a different version and to different parts of the article. However, in the interest of the general peace I will refrain from further reverts from now on and I will focus even more on the discussion. --Factuarius (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually every one of these edits has completely or almost completely removed the contribution of another editor, on the same page, within 24 hours. See the definition for a 3RVT rule here. Kostja (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Kostja:You know very well that actually is the opposite: you, User:Avidius, User:Gligan and User:Laveol reverted everything I did these days but you managed only Avidius to break the 3RR (7rv). Every one can see that in the edit log. I always refrained from breaking 3RR which is the reason the article this very moment is in the condition you wanted three days now. You were four I was alone and at the end of each day it was your version in the article. Everyone can see that. --Factuarius (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Today Gligan didn't edit the page at all and Laveol had only two edits. So stop imagining some kind of cabal acting against you because it doesn't exist. Kostja (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is the possible reason Avidius did today a total of 13 reverts while yesterday and the day before had a limited participation in reverts. --Factuarius (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because so many people have been revert warring on this article (Avindus above...), perhaps the article should be protected instead of blocking people so as to allow discussions.--Ptolion (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have made a request for full page protection. Kostja (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Below is the text I post in the morning to the talk page of the article that describe the situation the 4 Bulgarian editors created the last two days:

There is a problem with an ongoing tag-teaming edit war here: Specifically, four very well known for their extreme pro Bulgarian activity in the past users User:Laveol, User:Gligan User:Kostja and User:Avidius by using either falsified references or just “don't like it policies” and edit warring in a series of articles trying to impose a clearly pro-Bulgarian POV or just to remove any to the contrary edits there. For most of the other editors, this was just a usual problem and they were trying to live with it, but recently they created an unbearable climate here, using massive edit war, false accusations and common policies in order to remove anything they don't like from the article. I believe someone must take action here before the situation goes out of hand. Below are their last actions and a detailed explanation of my position that I as the only editor not compromising with their activity became a target of their attacks and malicious treatment. These are their last actions:

User Gligan falsely accused me both in the talk page and in his edit summary for being hypocritical because according to him I removed the sentence of an author named Hall about “the significance of the Thracian front for that war”. Accordingly, he reverted the deletion of those two sentences with their refs. But as his edit was a blatant revert of my 2:42 edit he must surely have noticed that I didn't remove them, I only transferred them from the end of the chapter to the very start of that chapter, using the original expression of the source, and as the original author also had them (the first one in the page 45 as the first sentence in his "Western theatre" chapter and the second one in page 22 as the first sentence in his "Thracian" chapter) since both of those sentences are more of generalities about those fronts and thus their position is more appropriate in the lede of the chapter. Accordingly, since he surely knew from my edit summary that I didn't remove them, it is obvious that he purposely lied about the removing just to rv and thus edit warred just to edit warring without any other logical reason.

User Gligan, also, purposely lied about the number of the Bulgarian population in the Ottoman held Macedonia, in being a majority both in talk and in his edit summary. In the talk page he linked Erickson's page book 41 starting a talk chapter with the title “...and Hypocrisy”. According to him, the table of the populations in that page clearly indicates that the Bulgarian population was a majority in Macedonia. But he clearly lied because this very table was actually saying exactly the opposite, indicating that the Bulgarians were not a majority both in the total population figures as well as in every single province of the Macedonia area. Despite that, he reverted my 15:11 edit wherein I had mentioned that “the Bulgarian population was not a majority in Macedonia” by writing in his edit summary “back to NPOV version; you don't OWN the article”. Since it was he himself who introduced the table in the discussion it is sure that he had noticed that what the table said actually was the opposite of what he claimed, but he chose to lie just as an excuse to revert my edit, by falsifying the reference.

User Kostja reverted my edit about the number of the Serbian army that participated in the siege of Adrianople, saying in his edit summary that “The number of troops is important”. Since his edit was a blatant revert of my edit of 14:32 he was aware that the reason of my edit was that the number of those troops was already mentioned just some lines before, as I had explained in my edit summary, and thus it was just an unnecessary repetition. Accordingly, he purposely chose to ignore the obvious logic that we cannot repeat a number in every line here and there and thus his edit was an edit warring just for edit warring without any other logical reason. User Kostja also helped Laveol and Gligan to escape breaking the 3RR in their POV-pushing effort in falsifying Erickson's data table about the Bulgarian population in Ottoman-held Macedonia by reverting two times the article's sentence saying the opposite although by being active in the discussion (where the link of that table had been added) he had obviously noticed that the Gligan's claims were just a falsification of the mentioned table. He also helped User:Avidius in removing the sentence "to win for Bulgaria territory the acquisition of which had never been foresee by their mutual treaty" although all the paragraph was fully referenced and although the need of the addition of this sentence had been fully explained to my edit summary after Avidius' revert.

User Avidius reverted twice a sentence although it was fully referenced, and proceeded to Kostja revert in the totally unnecessary repeating about the Serbian forces that took part in the Adrianople siege although it was mentioned some lines before and thus he also reverted my edits just for reverting, without any logical reason and without any word of explanation in his summary (13:35). He also reverted other material although fully referenced, with brief summaries like “not true” or “far from a fact” while he gave no explanations about these reverts in the talk page.

User Laveol put a POV flag in the article without opening any discussion in the talk page before, and impressively enough, after that, made a series of 9 edits with the last of them starting in his summary with the words “I don't like..” which is evident of his general attitude. User Laveol has a long standing mania in putting flags without any discussion in articles where their contents are not enough pro-Bulgarian (sometimes as much as five) causing problems in many articles in the past. He removed a map from the article using as a justification the date of the map, (1877) although just days before he participated with User Kostja, User Gligan and User Todor Bozhinov in an intensive edit war in the Eastern Rumelia article for removing that same map despite the fact that in that case, this map was barely one year old at the time that state was created. Consequently I found his reasoning for the removal of the map in the current article not honest and obviously hypocritical and his general activity obviously disruptive.

From the above it is clear that all four Bulgarian editors worked in common trying to harass any possibility of editing the article with material contrary to their POV, by lying, falsifying references, removing referenced material and using hypocritical excuses, or no excuses at all and maliciously using a series of reverts to technically avoid breaking the 3RR in order to push their POV. Accordingly it is also necessary to examine the case of their last massive edits as a possible tag-teaming activity. --Factuarius (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the article is a general battleground, I would agree with Ptolion that perhaps page-protection is the best way to go. Athenean (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article requires an order and cohesion in the words and deeds, this badly written, and references harmonizes not what the text means or seeks to explain. Ccrazymann (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ptolion, Athenean & Kostja. Better to protect as a push for more discussion, mainly upon the sources. Although I am afraid that the discussion will also die. But even that is better than the current situation, it will help in relaxing the spirits. --Factuarius (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Clearly edit warred, regardless of the reasoning it's unacceptable disruption. For someone with a past block for edit warring they should have been quick to stop and turn to the talk pages and the guidance at WP:DR rather than misuse undo. NJA (t/c) 08:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As for protection, It'd be best if you all could use the colloborative editing shown above on the article's talk page to sort out your disputes before making live edits to the article. That would negate the need for lockdown, and make for a healthier editing relationship generally. I'd be willing to unblock both editors if they both agree on their talk page to use talk page for discussion rather than edit war. NJA (t/c) 08:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerzeykydd reported by User:J.R. Hercules (Result: Stale)

Page: United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:

User:Jerzeykydd was made aware that removing a dispute template is a violation, but did so anyway.

• Stale Disruption by editor has seemed to cease since the report. NJA (t/c) 08:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Nefariousski reported by User:ArnoldReinhold (Result: Protected)

Page: Creation according to Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nefariousski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert:[76]
• 3rd revert: [77]
• 4th revert: [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments:

Several other editors are involved in this edit war, I warned them earlier but User:Nefariousski then went over 3 reverts by my count. I made one content comment on the talk page (no recent edits to the article), otherwise I might have acted myself on this.--agr (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that my edits were merely trying to keep the article in tact in it's current state while a discussion which lead to an RFC came about regarding whether to change the term Creation Myth or not. Maintaining the intregity of an article in its current state while such a debate is going on is critical to reaching concensus amid controversy. Two of those edits listed were against an IP editor who was subsequently blocked for 24 hours for disruptive edits. And I'd like to invite you to take a quick look at the comments by User:Til Eulenspiegel on talk page for the article that show clear intent to edit prior to reaching consensus and questionable civility.

The text of the 3RR warning clearly states "you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." My reverts and edits were solely aimed at preventing users from making changes until consensus was reached. Nefariousski (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would note that the edit warring has stopped, however I would like to see some sign that User:Nefariousski understands that his behavior is unacceptable under 3RR, which the above comment suggests he does not.--agr (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Xavexgoem has protected the article for three days. I am glad to note per a discussion on his Talk that Nefariousski has agreed not to revert the controversial part of this article until consensus is reached. The current current RfC on the article's Talk page seems like a good idea. All editors working on that article are urged to join that discussion and abide by the result. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Drrll reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bill Moyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drrll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 11:52, 20 January 2010 (edit summary: "Criticism")
2. 14:58, 20 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338958738 by Ratel (talk)Doesn't rely just on columnist--see refs;what BLP problems?")
3. 16:53, 20 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338962255 by Ratel (talk)See talk")
4. 18:02, 20 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338982387 by Gamaliel (talk)See talk")

—Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Drrll was blocked for 48 hours two days ago for violating 3RR on a different article. His first edit on this article restored the text of a deleted section called "Hypocrisy on the influence of the wealthy" by splitting the same sentences between two new sections called "Hypocrisy on the Influence of Money in Politics" and "Profiting from Public Broadcasting". The rest are reverts of removal of this and other problematic material by User:Ravel and myself. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. As you well know, I didn't simply "split the same sentence between two new sections." I rewrote some of the material in the original edit, added additional material, and added a new reference to support it. Though you may not like it, I've included the original edit and the newer edit below. As you can see, it is not a revert:

Original edit:

===Hypocrisy on the influence of the wealthy===

Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of the wealthy, he himself is a wealthy individual who exerts influence on the public policy debate.<ref name="PBSTelevangelist"></ref> Moyers receives a salary as president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($200,000 as of 1999), receives earnings from his production company, Public Affairs Television, makes money from speeches, and receives considerable royalties from books and videos related to various PBS programs. Many of these programs received direct and indirect taxpayer funding, just as his production company does.

More recent edit:

===Hypocrisy on the Influence of Money in Politics===

Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of money in American politics, he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups, opinion publications, and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy. Moyers hands out these funds as president of the endowed Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.

===Profiting from Public Broadcasting===

Moyers receives earnings from his production company, Public Affairs Television, makes money from speeches, and receives considerable royalties from books and videos related to various PBS programs (he also receives a salary as president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy [$200,000 as of 1999] ). Many of these PBS programs received direct and indirect taxpayer funding, just as his production company receives indirect taxpayer funding for its production of PBS programs (in the past it received direct taxpayer funding from CPB).<ref name="PBSTelevangelist"></ref>

--Drrll (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You changed the sentence "Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of the wealthy, he himself is a wealthy individual who exerts influence on the public policy debate" to "Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of money he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups, opinion publications, and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy". Beyond that the text is identical. Gamaliel (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As anyone can plainly see above, the text is not "identical".--Drrll (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that sourced somewhere? Otherwise it seems like a big ol' axe-to-grind dose of original research in either form. Dayewalker (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced. See the 3 references above.--Drrll (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - 48 hours for 3RR violation. Drrll's 11:52 edit is also a revert since it restores the 'Hypocrisy' heading that was removed by others. ("..reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.") That makes four reverts altogether. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

References

User:Gantlet and User:Dewatchdog and User:Trock95 reported by User:Samaleks (Result: )

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

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

• Today 1st revert: [81]
• Today 2nd revert: [82]
• Today 3rd revert: [83]

The edits are ongoing, so couldnt count.

• Today nth revert: [84]

Older reverts:

• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]
• 3rd revert: [87]
• 4th revert: [88]
• 5th revert: [89]
• 6th revert: [90]

... and the reverts goes on and on and on....

The same is the case with User:Dewatchdog

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Both the users are aware about the 3RR policy. Infact one of the user (Dewatchdog) placed the warning for the other (Gantlet). Later the warning was removed by User:Gantlet : [92]

Also, both of their userpage seems to possess many baseless claims such as Novato and Ultimate Editor badges. :)

The users are blocked earlier for edit warring the same article. : User_talk:Gantlet and User_talk:Dewatchdog Still the reverts are ongoing since weeks.. !!!

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:
Please block the users and semi-protect the article. --Samaleks (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of sixty hours I'm not sure why you think the article should be semi-protected though. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

--

I asked to semi-protect the article because of the below reasons: The reverts are still going on, even though the editors are blocked. See the reverts after the block:

• 1st : [94]
• 2nd : [95]
• 3rd : [96]

--

• 1st : [97]
• 2nd : [98]
• 3rd : [99]

-- More reverts are going on.

Trock95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of User:Gantlet. Infact, User:Gantlet used this account to award a barnstar himself : [100] Also, he admits in the article talk page that he created another account (Trock95) to award barnstar to himself : "I've added barnstars created another profile & placed posts in my profile."

Thank you, --Samaleks (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note Post disruptive sock reports at WP:SPI please. Thank you. NJA (t/c) 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont know why admins are not looking into this !! --Samaleks (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Shannon Rose reported by User:112.203.97.53 (Result: Stale)

Page: Daniel S. Razón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

• 1st revert: [102]
• 2nd revert: [103]
• 3rd revert: [104]
• 4th revert: [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]

Comments:

Shannon Rose has a history of blocks for edit warring, which he is repeating here in the Razon article. He is also resorting to personal attacks by implying I'm a sock and have involvement with a cult, and canvassing admins and other users from the AfD with a very biased message, as shown here. 112.203.97.53 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also of note: Shannon refuses to assume good faith with the other editors, amid efforts to provide good faith to him as seen in the requested move discussion in the article's talk page. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this cannot be 3RR. The second edit is not a reversion to the first edit and the purpose of the edits is to prevent two editors from dumping questionable statements and sources on a controversial article and encourage a discussion before any major change takes place. You see, all articles linked to the Members Church of God International sect (including Eli Soriano, Daniel S. Razón, Ang Dating Daan, etc.) had a long history of socks and meat puppets who regularly come here and mess things up with all sorts of unsourced edits and disruptions with the sole aim of obliterating duly-sourced negative information. This is a very notorious cult in the Philippines with it's same-sex rapist leader presently hiding in another country to escape the law. This reputation is mirrored by the actions of its members here in WP. As of date, there has been no one who edited in favor of the sect who did not turn out to be a puppeteer and became perma-blocked in the end. Please consider the following evidences: 1, 2, and 3. Given these repeated experiences, it has now become impossible to assume good faith on anyone, especially an anon, who only comes here to edit and whitewash a single article. This is not as simple as the anon editor wants you to believe. This article is, after all, about a leader of an extremely fanatical religious group, whose followers have a long history of very bad behaviour in WP. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR report has been closed, but I suggest that Shannon Rose file at WP:SPI for any socking issues. Reverting people who you believe are probably socks is not one of the exceptions listed in the WP:3RR policy. Your harsh negative comments about other editors may cause people to be less sympathetic to your position than they otherwise would be. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said that I made the above edits because I believe that they are probably socks. Howard, for one, is most definitely not a sock. He got involved in the article as a spill of his pro-keep position at the AfD. The only trouble is that the anon, who is most definitely a follower of the subject, took advantage of the heat of the situation and found an ally in Howard (but I don't know how long it will last as this Howard is a brilliant guy and would surely see thru the anon's real agenda sooner or later). Howard is, just like myself, a very passionate editor. He also wants to see his own people (Filipinos) represented in the articles. I have already instigated a number of WP:SPIs, if you would only check the links I gave above. All checkusers turned-out to be positive and were eventually perma-blocked. In my experience, linking 112.203.97.53 by way of checkuser is a very bad idea, due to the fact that the previously perma-blocked users, all of them, made their last edits many months ago. Such a check is most likely to come out stale. Thank you for your suggestions. Well noted! – 22:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon Rose (talk • contribs)

User:Coral Bay reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 4 days)

Page: List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Coral Bay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]
• 5th revert: [113]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:
This user has serious ownership issues, constantly reverting to their perferred version, usually claiming some variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale. Has started mislabeling others contributions as vandalism when others tried to correct them. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 4 days NJA (t/c) 09:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:0oToddo0 reported by User:Nemonoman (Result: 0oToddo0 blocked 48 hours, Nemonoman for 24.)

Page: Christian Conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 0oToddo0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]
• 5th :[121]
• 6th: [122]
• 7th: [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:
I regret to say that I no longer believe that this editor is acting in good faith, but has moved from disruption to vandalism to get attention. Although he is exercised that the article is full lies, it is hard to determine what he wants changed.

The need for the dispute tag is real because I know for myself, and the editor who posted in the "Irvine not the founder" section before me also found out for himself that, unless there is a tag alerting to a dispute, no one bothers to discuss anything.

--Nemonoman (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman, as I have mentioned to you, all I have done is added a disputed tag, because of a dispute that is current on the talk page, which is being contributed to by Astynax, of whom you tried to discourage from participating in the dispute, because of your apparent desire to block all efforts to discuss the article. I have no intention to modify the article content until we come to some sort of agreement on the talk page. Please join me there where I have made it quite clear what I am disputing regarding the article. Kind regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

00todd00: Your questions have been asked and answered. Twice. You say you continue to add the dispute tag to get attention to numerous flaws in the article beyond these, and have not mentioned one.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24/48 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Paratrooper73 reported by User:Rd232 (Result: 24 h)

Page: Human Rights Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Paratrooper73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Human_Rights_Foundation#Moved_from_article

Comments:

Gotta love the edit summary on the 4th revert. Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Qui! NJA (t/c) 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:94.193.135.142 reported by User:Rapido (Result: 24h)

Page: BBC Persian Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 94.193.135.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

• 1st revert: [132]
• 2nd revert: [133]
• 3rd revert: [134]
• 4th revert: [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137] - IP editor copied and pasted the whole of my talk page to the article's talk page.

Comments: IP editor has also assumed bad faith, asked Are u the Wikipedia version of Stalin? and SHOUTING in edit summaries. Rapido (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are back reverting [138] and assuming bad faith again. Rapido (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd revert: [139] Rapido (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was never banned. Please check Article history as Rapido is lying and is the one engaging in an edit war by not providing reasonings for his reverts, nor replying or discussing in the discussion page despite my numerous invitations and concerns raised placed next to my reverts. He has a prejudist attitude against I.P. editors, as he himself has demonstrated through out his history of editing, and calls me, 1 person, "they", and seem to think there is an mob involved. Unless Rapido can reply to my objections in the discussion page, I will take that as a sign of his incompetence to follow wikiepdia guidelines, and commence with reverting and propose a 3RR ban for him. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Update - I have fully protected BBC Persian Television. I believe that both Rapido and the IP are edit-warring. They are well-advised to see if they can find compromise language for the two sentences that they keep reverting back and forth. The BBC claims that its signal has been jammed, and that they believe the interference comes from Iran. We can report that they believe those things with no fear of contradiction. Wikipedia editors shouldn't need to parachute in themselves to look for the jamming transmitters. Rapido's word "confirmed" is a bit strong unless he can provide a source that comes from outside the BBC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor, WAS banned for 24 hours, however they probably didn't try to go to Wikipedia during that period, and were not aware of the ban [140]. EdJohnston, if you checked the source, you would see that Radio Netherlands reports that Eutelsat confirmed the jamming comes from Iran. Nothing to do with the BBC! The above IP editor is continuing assuming bad faith, and personal attacks against me, rather than discussing the edits on the article in question. Rapido (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston,

I see you have looked into issue fairly,

Please look at my reverts, followed by invitations and requests by Rapido (who in my view started an edit war) to engage in my discussion before continuing his reverts. He continued reverting, whilst refusing to discuss or answer my criticisms, in order to systematically ban me via the 3RR which at the time I wasn't aware of. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The page history clearly shows most reverts by Rapido to be non-annotated despite reverting my annotated reverts calling for an discussion. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also note, Rapido is using Blogs as citations, despite my numerous requests in the discussion page for him to use the original sources. We cannot ban someone for arrogance, however, Rapido has shown a non-compliance attitude and talk pages, logs and discussion show background collaboration between Rapido, and others for collective POV editing and banning of an IP user and I also suspect he is using multiple accounts. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alot of the reverts by Rapido were unjustified, tagged as "minor edits", despite my call for discussion clearly showing systematic bullying by some editors of the BBC Persian Television article. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, on Rapido's discussion page, despite him clearing it regularly, within this month, another user, Jeff300 accussed him of an edit war: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rapido&diff=338579046&oldid=337889489

This user, Rapido, seems to have a long history of edit wars, and I suggest a look at his history should be made and wikipedia logs, and past criticisms should be taken into account. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I gave explanations of the reverts in the edit summaries and on the article talk page. The "blog" is actually part of Radio Netherlands, and as such the writers are professionals working for a news organisation. Just because the website is in "blog" format, does not make it an unreliable source. As for logs and discussion show background collaboration between Rapido, and others... originally they said Rapido, Ash and others before they corrected themselves, and had a scathing attack on User:Ash [141] (including accusing Ash of lying). Now I would love to see this evidence implicating Ash... who has absolutely nothing to do with this BBC Persian Television matter, and who I do not know and have never heard of. Once again, if you look above, and elsewhere in Wikipedia, more assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are broadcast by the IP user about me. Rapido (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ash situation was an mistake as I assumed to bottom report here was continuance of ours. We need urget mediation, this is becoming to personal when the matter at hand is the content of BBC Persian Television article, I cannot grow white hairs over an arrogant user. EdJohnston has already said both me and Rapido have engaged in an edit war, and I would like matter sorted out as soon as possible. I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page, because they bare more logic than anything else. I hope to see a resolve v. soon on the issue, and would like the editor or admin viewing this case, to decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, more personal attacks from the above IP editor. Rapido (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? I'm tired of your lying, and exagerrations. Don't try to steer this from an edit war into a personal war. Stick to the topic, something which i think will help your future editing. Would you like it if I suddenly start saying "Again, a personal attack from Rapido"? when no attack is made? --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To admin and editors: Please decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia and who is guilty of sparking the edit war if not both. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The above editor called me arrogant... and now has just posted another personal attack about my lying. The vast majority of the IP users edits merely contain personal attacks or assumption of bad faith. Whereas none of my edits do. Rapido (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To Admin: Just look at the articles the two version of the edits, and quickly resolve this issue. To Rapido: Not part taking in discussions is arrogance. Please explain why you still, after all of this, haven't participated on the discussion page regarding our dispute.

I think that is what the admins and editors would like to know, as well as not answering my criticisms and annotations following reverts? You only annotated once and said "read source" which 1. is a blog 2. does not say eutelsat traced the signal to Iran 3. did not discuss or even explain your reverts 4. Did not explain why you thought my edit was wrong 5. Even when I invited you to engage in an discussion personally, despite the revert annotations, through your talk page, you still didn't take part in an discussion. What would you call that kind of behaviour Rapido? If you have a better word than arrogance please tell me. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Rapido is attempting to divert attention and is being a report troll. I bet he will call me calling him a troll, another attack. Im afraid, I will no longer assume good faith and will give up in making him understand why he is disruptive and problematic. Hope the edit war conclusion will be soon resolved. Regards --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, he often remains silent when I raise criticism with regards to his lack of participation in the discussion or ask questions as above, 1.2.3.4.5. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Infront of all editors, for the 3rd time, I am asking Rapido to take EdJohnstons advice which is :"I believe that both Rapido and the IP are edit-warring. They are well-advised to see if they can find compromise language for the two sentences that they keep reverting back and forth." and discuss with me a resolve on the discussion page where I have already participated and awaiting Rapido. Will you find a compromise language? I hope this will show what I have been going through the last week. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, more personal attacks and assumption of bad faith from the IP editor, and yet nothing is done about it. Rapido (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All of my replies assumes "good faith", I'm not sure even though infront of you, I asked him to follow EdJohnstons (Editor) advice, he still calls it personal attack and bad faith. Maybe he seems to think the "bad faith" guides are official rules or policies. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the IP editor's contributions, you will see the irony of the above assertion of good faith considering the catalogue of assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks from the above IP user which are listed both at WP:WQA and WP:ANI. Rapido (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Stuntology reported by KenWalker | Talk (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Smithers, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stuntology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:29, 21 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */")
2. 23:31, 21 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Miscellaneous */")
3. 03:20, 22 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */")
4. 06:47, 22 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */ I have removed fraudulent information from the encyclopedia.")
5. 06:58, 22 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */ Setting things straight.")

• Diff of warning: [142]

Comments:
Note that User:Stuntology may be a sock puppet of a recently blocked user User:Webley455

—KenWalker | Talk 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Declined With no comment on the sockpuppetry allegations, the edit-warring does not appear to be particularly serious at this point. Also, note that consecutive edits do not count as separate reverts (e.g. the 23:29 and 23:31 edits). -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:94.193.23.189 reported by User:Ash (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Chris Sarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 94.193.23.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff

• Note that three different editors have had their contributions reverted by this anonymous IP account.—Ash (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk page notices

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -- tariqabjotu 23:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Surtsicna reported by Bosnipedian (Result: No action)

Page: List of rulers of Bosnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [143]

• 1st revert: [144]
• 2nd revert: [145]
• 3rd revert: [146]
• 4th revert: [147]

etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

< !-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

Comments: He is hasty, changis posts quickly, same post 5 times per minute creating edit conflicts, nominates new pages for deletion 10 minutes after they were up, calls names (liar, idiot,e tc.), is clueless about history (mixes primary and secondary/tertiary historical sources), will not listen to any reason, solicits outside users with same nationalist Serb agenda, wants to control all pages that talk about Bosnia history, totally not willing to coopearate, dodges issues of conflict between his-chosen references and Wiki pages on Ottoman conquest (dates) based on Ottoman military records (primary historic documents), and so on.

Bosnipedian (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. See the result of another report below, in which Bosnipedian was blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:GSP-Rush reported by User:Bubba73 (Result: )

An edit war is starting at Samuel Sevian, by User:GSP-Rush. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 19:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bosnipedian reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [150]

• 1st revert: [151]
• 2nd revert: [152]
• 3rd revert: [153] and [154], reverted in two steps
• 4th revert: [155]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments:

User:Bosnipedian (a likely sock master of another account who boke the 3 reverts rule, User:Regionlegion), himself broke the 3 reverts rule. Please read the investigation for the list of personal attacks this user has made. Anyway, this user denies every proposed compromise. When I decided not to remove the unsourced and highly dubious claims he made and instead move those claims to another section, he reverted that too. He started making changes, without achieving any consensus (in fact, he was opposed by me and others), without respecting the status quo. I proposed several compromises and opened several discussions, to no avail. I do not call names; he was warned for insulting me and the others here by Wikipedia administrators. Regarding the nationalism accusations, please see this comment. This is when it all started; a person agreed with me and was immediately attacked by this user and was called a Serbian nationalist. Like Serbian nationalist do this. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - 1 week to Bosnipedian for edit warring, personal attacks and abuse of multiple accounts. Regionlegion, a new account created in January, appears to be a sock of Bosnipedian, and is blocked indef. See sample attack in edit summary: "You are a lying Serb, as is your friend PRODUCER, as just exposed. Your Serb nationalist agenda to freak-control Bosnia articles will not be tolerated." EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Theremes reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 36 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [158]

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]
• 5th revert: [163]
• 6th revert: [164]
• 7th revert: [165]
• 8th revert: [166]
• 9th revert: [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning from TheRealFennShysa: [168]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning from Doniago: [169]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning from DrNegative: [170]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [171]

Comments:
Theremes is a new user (registered today) who is determined to insert his version (now shown to be synthesis and original research based on false references that don't claim what the editor claims they do) into the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours -- tariqabjotu 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the editor is new I suggest maybe just a one hour ban and a few stern words from an admin, just so he gets the message such aggressive editing won't be tolerated. I don't think we should stick the boot in straight away, he needs to learn how things work. Betty Logan (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Routerone reported by User:John_Foxe (Result: 16 hours)

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

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

1. 21:00, 22 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Skeptical criticism of the Testimonies */ make the tone more neutral, remove POV pushing by article manipulator")
2. 21:05, 22 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339413198 by John Foxe (talk) regardless it is appearing too negative a tone, doesn't have to be directly copied")
3. 21:14, 22 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339413899 by John Foxe (talk) cut out the threats, it might be you worthy of the violation not me.")
4. 21:34, 22 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339418103 by John Foxe (talk) that doesn't qualify as a crticism, unrelated point = WP:SYNTHESIS")

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [172]

Comments: I apologize for the clumsy way I've reported this. I did leave a message on his talk page and on the article discussion page. Routerone was recently suspended for a week for using a sock puppet.--John Foxe (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another side to the coin

All I was trying to do was make the article more neutral when it clearly came across as very negative, and change what I felt was necessary. However John Foxe himself was repeatedly reverting my edits on the basis that he didn't agree, and he himself was removing content from the article that he didn't agree with in a hope that nobody would notice [173]. He bares highly skeptical views of the the Latter Day Saint church[174][175], and as a result he intentionally manipulates content and sources to give a uneasy impression of the organisation and its history. He has a constant habit of reverting any edits he doesn't agree with to any latter day saint related article without even dicussing it, and he has an entire editing history of doing spanning back to 2007. Hence meaning its virtually impossible to reach an agreement with this editor. It's as if he aims to "control" these articles, and anyone who defies his opinion and style of editing is shot down in flames. Here I am attempting to solve the article (I tried using the talk page) and I am being accused of edit warring in a tedious manner when he is equally (and perhaps worse) in line for any problems that is being caused here. Routerone (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

May I also point out that those stated edits are actually legitimate enough. If you look at the history of the article, he's actually simply just stirred things up by reverting them repeatedly himself in his own disagreement, thus fuelling the edit war meaning as a result he is the one who should actually be reported not me. If we look firstly here we can see that yesterday, Foxe reverted a synthesis tag on the basis that he didn't agree, despite these points being evaluated clearly on the talk page. Also in this supposed "edit war", he actually reverted two of my edits threatening to report me to this very page, meaning he wasn't willing to debate this at all. Rather his tactic was simply to revert and threaten. [176][177]. Now for me, that is not how you deal with an editing dispute on a legitimate grounds, is it? Routerone (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 16 hours regardless. -- tariqabjotu 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:PeshawarPat reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Warned)

Page: Same-sex marriage in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PeshawarPat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same-sex marriage in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to: [178]

• 1st revert: [179]
• 2nd revert: [180]
• 3rd revert: [181]

Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to: [182]

• 1st revert: [183]
• 2nd revert: [184]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185] (previous block)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, editor previously warned.

Comments:
This editor was just blocked for edit warring on the Same-sex marriage in California article for repeatedly adding a link to the Homosexual Agenda without consensus. Upon returning from his block tonight, he immediately returned to readd the link to the page, as well as several other pages. He's been reverted, and has reverted again. Dayewalker (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: The user is also now at 3RR for the same link on Same-sex marriage in Vermont, Same-sex marriage, and 2RR on Same-sex marriage in the United States (where his first edit was to undo his prior reversion he made to try and avoid his previous 3RR block). He has finally begun to comment on talk pages, but hasn't stopped edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the first paragraph of Homosexual Agenda you will see same sex marriage is listed and is very relevant to the article. I feel that some editors have some kind of protectionism of the SSM pages, and do not welcome negative SSM aspects of the issue. TO label it vandalism is totally uncalled for. PeshawarPat (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is stated quite clearly that gay agenda, on the relevant page, is an anti-homosexual term that is used by others as derogatory. This is a POV term, and it is POV to place it on this article. Do not add it again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It very well could be derogatory, but is commonly used and was coined for a reason. SSM is a major goal of the gay agenda, and the editors of all these SSM pages don't like the notion of it. In fact, I would argue that it is POV not to have it. It is no secret that there are many gays and sypathizers on these pages. PeshawarPat (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the proper venue to discuss the term. Use article talk pages. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How would you like it if I went around adding Traditional agenda to marriage articles?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Like it or not, agenda is a POV term used to push a specific POV; in this case, it pushes the views that a group of people all have an axe to grind/agenda. Like it or not, the term is derogatory, and it has no place in the article as it clearly violates WP:NPOV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the proper venue to discuss the term. Use article talk pages. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I heard you the first time, stop repeating yourself like I can't read.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The goal of this editor to insert this term into this article has spilled over into other articles. I wish someone would do something. They were blocked for this before, and right off the bat they continue where they left off. Methinks they need another block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SO now you are denying the actual existance of the gay agenda? It would be like not including one of the "pillars of Islam" because someone decided they didn't like that particular pillar brought up. This is similar to how the whole discussion is called "same-sex" versus homosexual or gay, as it has a very vanilla resonance. If the term is so POV, why is there a decent sized article on it, directly referencing SSM on it? PeshawarPat (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your OPINION. There is no gay agenda.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the 60's, they just wanted to be able to have a bar to go to, and not be arrested. In the 70's, to dress up in drag. 80's/90's, civil unions and domestic partners. Now- "marriage". Tell me that is not an agenda? BTW, I support all those rights up to marriage. Also, for you to say there is not an agenda is POV. PeshawarPat (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And it is your opinion that it DOESN'T exist!!!! If it doesn't exist, why the article? You just don't like it as it shine a bad like on SSM- and just that a bad light- not derogatory, not POV. Just a bad light —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeshawarPat (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Peshawar. You are missing the point entirely. This is not the forum to debate whether or not your edits are valid. Your name is here because you are not discussing your edits to gain consensus and/or ignoring the obvious consensus among other editors that disagrees with you. This is against Wikipedia policy. You need to stop. And, for that matter, I wholly support another "break" consideration of an indefinite ban for this editor after this recent fiasco. I submitted him to 3RR maybe 2 days ago for the exact same issue and he apparently has learned nothing from this. Viewing his contributions, posts on talk pages, etc., it is clear this editor is here for no purpose but to push his POV without any regard for consensus. Perhaps this is overly harsh (I have a feeling someone may say it is) but the editor is nothing if not consistent. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not my opinion that it exists. It doesn't exist, period. The article? That's on the POV term used by opposition. Not the existence of any such agenda. Get your facts straight.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PeshawarPat, sure there exists an agenda, and the only thing on that agenda is equal rights. Why shouldn't someone be able to go to a bar and not get arrested, why shouldn't someone dress up how they want, and what do drag queens and SSM have in common? You're just trolling and vandalizing every article, you're the one with an agenda. Perhaps if you put less emotion into your edits and more intellectual thinking you'd see you aren't always right. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice

This has, in a way, moved to ANI at this thread. Thank you all for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PeshawarPat warned here. Edits and reversions have ceased for now. Resumption of the same activity should result in swift action if the editor doesn't try to achieve consensus first. Franamax (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

Given this editor's past behavior, which led to their first block, and their recent behavior right after the block, I hereby request that this discussion remain open for a bit, in case the editor returns to edit warring 24 hours after this report.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will still be watching 24 hours from now, and 24 hours after that too, but I've changed the header to show "still open". If a bot nukes it, add it back please. Franamax (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Warned and closed for now due to end of disruption. Should the editor resume their disruption a new report should be filed here, or simply report the renewed disruption to an admin who's aware of the situation (but otherwise uninvolved) for blocking and/or other measures. NJA (t/c) 09:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy Dick

Andy Dick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to: [186]

• 1st revert: [187]
• 2nd revert: [188]
• 3rd revert: [189]
• 4th revert: [190]

• Diff of warning: [191]

A promise not to edit war, and to discuss.. and what do you know, a few days later and they're right back to edit warring, not to mention copyright violating.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JzG reported by User:Pfainuk (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Version reverted to: 16:42, 22 January 2010 (edit summary: "there being no source for self-governance and a very reliable source for the opposite, this counts as contentious material and should be removed pending discussion")

1. 22:55, 22 January 2010 (edit summary: "I did discuss. I made a new section break on the talk page, FFS. Please just stop the WP:PANTO and leave out what is, after all, a largely redundant factoid")
2. 09:39, 23 January 2010 (edit summary: "no, read the talk page discussion, There is no pressing need to include self government, with ewither POV, in the lede during this discussion, it absolutely does not impoverish the article in any way.")
3. 09:51, 23 January 2010 (edit summary: "STOP IT. We have equally credible sources to support non self-governing and colony. The default for contentious material is to be EXCLUDED until consensus is reached, I am starting the RfC now.")
4. 11:47, 23 January 2010 (edit summary: "no mess made, see RfC on talk. We do not support one POV or another, resolve the dispute don't edit-war to enforce one side of it.")

The point at issue is the words "self-governing" in the lead. The user in question is an admin who has many years' experience on Wikipedia and should not need warning about 3RR. Pfainuk talk 12:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And is using so rather provocative and intemperate language in the headers describing his changes to the existing consensus wording on the page. --Gibnews (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is a POV war. There are two competing versions, "Gibraltar is self-governing (source BBC)" and "Giobraltar is not self-governing (source United Nations)". The POV warriors on both sides have used intemperate language, what I've done is to remove the text (so we do not assert either POV as fact), discuss it on Talk and start an RfC. But of course it's much more important to ensure that we reflect the right POV than to actually engage in the discussions. I am disgusted with the lot of you, and anyone reviewing this is quite likely to spot one or two things like tag-teaming, agenda-driven editing, accounts which focus excessively on nationalist conflicts and the like. Now feel free to go and discuss the issue like a grown up rather than asserting your own POV as the sole sourced and supportable POV when it clearly isn't. That's what the RfC is about. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's no excuse for edit-warring. You've broken the rules and are unashamed about it. This attitude doesn't strike me as particularly conducive to reaching a consensus and is wholly unbecoming of an admin. Moreover, please don't misrepresent your case. The United Nations itself is not the source in question but a list maintained by a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly and the only reason why Gibraltar is on the list in the first place is because the UK put it there prior to its effective decolonisation. Claiming "Giobraltar [sic] is not self-governing (source United Nations)" is thus untrue and may come across as tendentious. RedCoat10 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The excuses JzG made are not valid; they can be made in any revert war, and they don't help. -- tariqabjotu 17:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:95.95.63.9 reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )

Page: Stranded (Haiti Mon Amour) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 95.95.63.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [192]

• 1st revert: [193]
• 2nd revert: [194]
• 3rd revert: [195]
• 4th revert: [196]
• 5th revert: [197]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Full conversation can be found here. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: The IP seems insistent on making a series of pointless edits as to who performs the song, and judging by the article's history I am not the only one who seems to think that they are serving no purpose. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Christina Mendez reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: Warned)

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

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

• 1st revert: [199]
• 2nd revert: [200]
• 3rd revert: [201]
• 4th revert: [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk [203]

User is unexperienced editor. Creates wikilinks using full web address postings. Uses copyright photos without permission. Reverts constructive edits. Refuses to compromise or abide by site guidelines. Refuses to reference material. I have added sources and he has removed them. He has been warned by others about photos and unconstructive edits. --XLR8TION (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Warned. I assume that the target of this complaint is the article subject, since they requested a rename of Carlos5053 -> Christina Mendez back in October 2008, and the rename was supposedly granted, but it seems not to have worked. This may have caused some of the warning messages about the edit war to go to the wrong place. The reverts that were submitted as part of this report are shown as the edits of User:Carlos5053, who should not exist any more if the rename had worked. I will ask at WP:Bureaucrat's noticeboard how to fix this, and meanwhile the 3RR case is closed as Warned. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A bureaucrat has indicated that the renaming of Carlos5053 was correctly done, but he is editing using a *new* Carlos5053 account, independent of the original one. Until we get his or her attention we will probably have to leave edit warring reminders at *both* User talk:Carlos5053 and User talk:Christina Mendez. And ask them to stop using the redundant User:Carlos5053 account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:59.101.146.142 reported by User:yoganate79 (Result: Decline)

Page United Kingdom – United States relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported Userlinks:User:59.101.146.142

User keeps making unconstructive edits to War of 1812 section article listed above without proper citations. After 4 reverts, the user keeps changing it back to the initial and first edit which the user made. Yoganate79 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits are constructive improvements to the text, partly for style and balance, and including the addition of relevant facts. User:yoganate79 keeps reverting me for no specific reason, even though what I've added is uncontroversial and not subject to wide variations of interpretation, so specific references shouldn't be required, but can easily be added if he wants to query specific changes. I asked him to take it to the talk page repeatedly so he can make specific objections clear, but he won't, presumably because he can't substantiate his claims. He is very antagonistic and misclassifies what I'm doing as vandalism and seems to be abusing procedure to try to intimidate me, and I wish to make a counter complaint about him, but I'm not sure about the correct procedure. Can somebody please assist? Help me please. 59.101.146.142 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Independent Opinion - This is a simple content dispute, meant to go to the talk page of the article. This "3RR" is clearly not vandalism, and neither the new entry nor the original version is cited at all. Doesn't belong on this board; should be worked out on talk page... Doc9871 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, an editor reporting another editor must inform on the user's talk page that the report was made, and this doesn't seem to have been done here... Doc9871 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Not a clear violation of 3RR or edit warring generally in my opinion. Essentially there was a minor content dispute, and instead of using the talk pages both editors went along and continued to misuse the undo function. Parties advised to utilise talk pages rather than revert continually in the future to avoid escalation minor disputes. NJA (t/c) 13:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tom Reedy reported by User:Ssilvers (Result: Final warnings)

Page: Shakespeare authorship question (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tom Reedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: - 15:14, 23 January 2010
• 2nd revert: - 19:04, 23 January 2010
• 3rd revert: - 19:56, 23 January 2010
• 4th revert: - 21:19, 23 January 2010

More reverts:

• - 10:22, 24 January 2010
• - 10:38, 24 January 2010
• - 10:53, 24 January 2010
• - 12:03, 24 January 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [204]

Comments: I've never made a 3rr report before, so please let me know if I need to amend this. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Both User:Tom Reedy and User:Smatprt warned to stop. Any further reverting by either should result in an edit warring block, particularly for the latter user as they should know better (several 3RR blocks). NJA (t/c) 13:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cexycy reported by User:Rapido (Result: Warned)

Page: Living Next Door to Alice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Cexycy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [205]

• Slow edit war see: [206]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [208]

Comments: Most of the information added by Cexycy is original research, opinion/editorialising, and unnecessary intricate details. I don't think it's appropriate for the article. I verified some details and left them in, but removed much of the remainder, however nonetheless the whole thing gets reverted back. Tried discussing on the talk page, however Cexycy seems to be upset about me on an unrelated matter and reverts regardless.

Rapido (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Warned User warned on this issue. If they ignore my advice and continue to revert then re-report and cite this close case. NJA (t/c) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Goethean reported by User: Chutesandladders (Result: 24h)

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

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

1. 00:33, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 337902649 by 76.217.119.250 (talk)")
2. 00:41, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "move news item from intro")
3. 15:47, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "undo per WP:DENY")
4. 15:53, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "dummy edit: my last edit removed text per WP:BLP which was cited soley to a NYT editor's note (primary source), an op-ed piece, and blog entries. falls under WP:OR")
5. 15:10, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339715788 by Tubestennovel (talk) no news stories = no story. rm text cited to blogs and correction BLP")
6. 22:30, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339801306 by Chutesandladders (talk)")
7. 22:49, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339809342 by Chutesandladders (talk)")

—Chutesandladders (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of hours NJA (t/c) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Seoulight reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ulsan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Daejeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Gwangju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Incheon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Busan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Seoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

3RR warning: User talk:Seoulight (multiple)

Comments:

Somebody look at this (history of all articles above), I don't even know how to file this mess correctly. The guy just keeps going... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked NJA (t/c) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tonyesparsa reported by User:Marty Rockatansky (Result: Indef)

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

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

• 1st revert: [209]
• 2nd revert: [210]
• 3rd revert: [211]
• 4th revert: [212]
• 5th revert: [213]

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

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

Comments: I don't really know what's his problem, just keeps reverting the same thing over and over again. I asked him once and no response. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Please notify User:Tonyesparsa of the 3RR rule, e.g. with a {{uw-3rr}} warning. You've made no effort to discuss this with him, and you've left nothing on the article's talk page. The two of you are disputing the venue and opponent of a future match, to be held in March 2010, and neither of you has provided any reference for your knowledge. Per WP:CRYSTAL it seems doubtful that a future match should be mentioned at all, unless widely discussed. (If so you should easily be able to find a reference). Note that you've made as many reverts as he has, so if he were blocked due to this report, you probably would be too. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the reference. According to WP:MMA future events are ok to add after being officially announced. Its not like he disputes the opponent, the name he adds there's no fighter by that name. i got about 10,000 edits here on kickboxing and martial arts.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Update - It seems there is no boxer named Jeffrey Helfer. Tonesparsa did not reply to my challenge on that subject, and has continued to revert the article to show Jeffrey Helfer as the March 2010 opponent of John Wayne Parr. This editor had previously created the unsourced article Jeffrey Helfer which looks to me to be a hoax, and was speedied by another admin as a G3 (blatant and obvious misinformation). I'm blocking Tonyesparsa indef as a vandal-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thx for adding a temp protection, seems like the guy doesnt wanna give upMarty Rockatansky (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian reported by User:RepublicanJacobite (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [214], not all reverts are to this version so details are in full in the comments section

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been blocked before for edit warring, including an arbitration finding of fact that they have edit warred.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in the edit war, unless you count reverting the apparently erroneous removal of a request for a quotation as "edit warring".

Comments:

Revert #1 is a revert of this series of edits, which removed apparently non-policy compliant information about Dewsbury. Revert #2 is adding back "frontpage headlines of Masked mob stone police followed in the Mail on Sunday" which is a revert of this edit which removed "frontpage headlines of Masked mob stone police in The Mail followed". Revert #3 is an obvious revert of this edit. Revert #4 is a revert of this edit and this edit. Revert #5 is adding back the term "intransigent" removed in this edit. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Stale NJA (t/c) 10:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729 reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: Restriction)

Page: Angel Penna, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Hubschrauber729 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [220]

• 1st revert: [221]
• 2nd revert: [222]
• 3rd revert: [223]

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

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

Comments:

This user has a history of deleting the "Italian-Argentine" category from hundreds of articles, and has been previously advised not to do so by Alexf (here), so this has been discussed with Hubschrauber ad nauseum. User claims to care about "unsupported categories," but only attacks those in this group, while pushing an unsupported category on Michael Klukowski. All the articles he objects to being categorized as Italian-Argentine have unquestionably Italian surnames. Many are also cited as such, though this is silly because, short of a blood test, none of the ethnicity claims on any of the thousands of bios in Wikipedia can be proven. This is a matter of patent fact, and common sense. This is more than I can say about Hubschrauber's contention that Michael Klukowski is Austrian, and with no sources or consensus (just like with this problem). He was, by the way, overriden, and has attempted pettifogging articles to death with others on Wikipedia, such as the Turkish community of editors.

Obviously, this is an inconsequesntial issue, and I hate wasting time on this. It's gotten so that my "Wikitime" has been pissed away on this, instead of on translating and copyediting articles or adding new ones – my preferred activities on Wikipedia. I am only trying to nip this one in the bud, becuase my experience has been that, if you let it slide, the disruptions snowball. If you doubt this, ask Marek69, to whom I alerted of a serial disruptive user (Marek had him banned). As with anything, some people only log on to bother others for kicks.

Thanks for your trouble, Sherlock4000 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed action; please comment - I perceive there have been a vast number of reverts about Italian surnames across a range of articles. (Likely to be at least 50 articles per wikistalk). It appears that Hubschrauber729, Sherlock4000 and 76.91.189.163 are the main participants in the war. The IP just mentioned was blocked for 31 hours per an ANI thread. After his block expired, the IP resumed adding the categories, by systematically undoing Hubschrauber729's edits. This edit war ought to stop. One possibility is an editing restriction stopping these three editors from changing any Italian surname categories in either direction for 90 days, unless a consensus is found. I ask for comments by other editors on this plan. Would especially be interested to know if other admins think it's a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Heck, I'm no admin, but I think it's a great idea! Temporary "topic-specific" bans have a way of quelling edit wars (at least until the 90 days are up, right?) Doc9871 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am removing categories from articles that do not source their Italian heritage. The category cannont be added just because a name sounds Italian. That does not prove anything. I have asked Sherlock why he keeps adding these unsourced categories, I get no response other than a 3RR warning on my page. I have not removed the category from articles which Italian heritage is sourced (I did from one article, it was a mistake). I am guilty of edit warring, but nothing else. I have nothing against Italian people, as may be perceived, you can see I have also removed categories such as "Argentines of Spanish descent" and "....German descent". I aslo disagree with the way Sherlock is going about this. His edit summaries say "Category removed without consensus". What does that mean? Do editors need consensus before removing unsourced, and possibly untrue additions? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Hubschrauber729 already agreed to stop warring. I would request 76.91.189.163 and Sherlock4000 to (i) provide reliable sources for their claims; (ii) immediately stop adding categories or/and unreferenced information on this topic "Italian-Argentine" heritage to mainframe articles. Materialscientist (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the vandal in question has agreed to stop (I see he snuck in a deletion on the Sergio Massa artcle), the idea sounds reasonable and fair, in the interest of being able to spend more time editing and less time dealing with disruptions. The categories stay as they are, and any future additions need sources: a standard which should be applied to all bios, not just those of people from Argentina.

This, by the way, is why I consider Hubschrauber a vandal: he devotes inordinate amounts of time attacking Argentine-related articles, when it's no secret that the nationality of bios on Wikipedia with unreferenced claims (including those of descent) run the gamut. A quick glance at Mexican, Brazilian, and Chilean bios, as well as others, will show that many of those suffer from the same problem (categories inferred from surnames, alone, not to mention embellishments). That this user focuses all his energies on one nationality, and that he was such a pest about adding an Austrian category to the Michael Klukowski article without sources (or even, as with my edits, a good reason) is therefore proof positive of malice.

His claims of impartiality are likewise just more chicanery. A case in point, among others similar, is his deletion of referenced material on the bio I wrote on late tango composer Juan de Dios Filiberto. The user deleted the Italian-Argentine category, of course, and then quietly pulled out half a sentence from the text (you read right, half, and all referenced): the half that states his father was Italian, while graciously leaving the half about his Spanish mother. Good to see chivalry still exists!

I've had my disputes on Wikipedia with others, sure, but I've never started them. By comprarison, Hubschrauber has decided to pick these stupid fights by selectively attacking articles on grounds that fly in the face of common sense (whatever happened to that, right?). That and the many other inane disputes he took up with others is what convinced me that bad faith lurked behind the user's protestations of "unverifiable" this and that. A common enough tale on Wikipedia, as you know.

So, thanks again for your time and trounle. God knows we were all a little happier before this individual declared these wars (as if we didn;t have enough of those in the world).

Take care everyone, Sherlock4000 (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - All three parties are restricted for one month from adding or removing ethnic categories on articles that were placed solely due to the person's surname. Sherlock4000 is reminded not to attack other editors on noticeboards. The IP is warned that a sanction for abuse of multiple accounts may be applied if he participates in any more edit wars. This restriction expires early if an a consensus is reached in some appropriate forum, and it can be appealed at WP:AN. I am glad that some assurances have been made above, which if they are followed, may mean that these editors have already agreed to do what the restriction is calling for. Admins should comment further if they would prefer a different result. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Lordvolton reported by LotLE×talk (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Barney Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lordvolton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 22:43, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ added section relating to the ethical issues regarding Frank's relationship with a Fannie Mae executive.")
2. 22:45, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ minor grammatical fix.")
3. 04:55, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ reverted back to original. The material is relevant -- please go to the discussion section if you want to debate the merits.")
4. 14:51, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ SEE DISCUSSION BEFORE REVERTING WITHOUT DISCUSSION. THIS IS MY SECOND REQUEST.")
5. 15:10, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339933519 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)See discussion section. Please read edit histories.")
6. 15:25, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "added two additional cites.")
7. 15:49, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ added 5th cite.")
8. 15:51, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Minor grammatical fix.")
9. 17:36, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339953466 by Abrazame (talk)See my comments in the discussion section.")
10. [225]

User was warned at:

• [226]; and at
• [227]

Additional reversions followed, including after user responded (below) to this report.

—

Contentious edit warring to insert material in probably violation of WP:BLP. Poorly worded and long addition making claims of corruption against a political figure, single sourced to an editorial. In any case, Lordvolton restores the material against the removal up it by numerous editors. LotLE×talk 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Material similar to that inserted by Lordvolton was in the article back last summer, and was removed after detailed discussion on the article talk page. I don't think the wording was ever example the same, so that probably doesn't per se count as a reversion the first time LV inserted this new round of WP:SOAPBOXing. LotLE×talk 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lulu has made reverts without joining our discussion on the talk page -- I've invited Lulu to participate (see my revert notes and the discussion page). Unilateral reverts absent any dialogue after repeated attempts to begin a discussion are evidence of POV editing in my opinion. Lordvolton (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite my best efforts to create a dialogue an "anonymous" editor just reverted again. The ip address is 149.77.52.78 I've left a note on Lulu's page asking them to please participate in the dialogue which doesn't seem to be an option being embraced by the editors.

Please advise. =-)

Lordvolton (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, accusing each other of POV violations isn't going to make anyone any happier. I think it's safe to say that how to treat Barney Frank's relationship with a bank executive affects the POV of the article, whether that's what people are setting out to do or not. That's a content question for the article talk page. I think there are four reverts in there but I'm not sure and I don't think it's really worth trying to figure it out if everyone's okay now. Since it's too late to self-revert I'd suggest you pledge not to make further reverts today and be more careful in the future, that way nobody has to get blocked. Other editors seem to be edit warring too, they just haven't crossed 3RR. Everyone really needs to go to the talk page on this and not worry about which is the "right version" for now, although I think it's been talked about before. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are six actual reverts by Lordvolton in there, and s/he has given no indication of any willingness to stop edit warring at any point. Nor, FWIW, any willingness to respect WP:BLP. An appropriate sanction is the only way to convince the editor that this is not appropriate editing behavior. Given the egregiousness of the behavior, I think the sanction should be rather longer than shorter. LotLE×talk 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad block. Punitive and uncivil. There was no ongoing issue as the material was already reverted several hours prior and there was no indication that further reversions would be forthcoming. There was also no warning or collegial discussion. Please try to be more cooperative in the future Ed. Also, it would be helpful if you made suggestions for on how to resolve issues raised by editors working in good faith, instead of just ignoring comments and pushing buttons. Pretty disappointing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:78.3.252.238 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Blocked)

Page: Marin Čilić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 78.3.252.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [228]

Still ongoing

[229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237]

Then another day or so's worth of edits from other IPs.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [238]

Comments:Way too many to list comprehensively. This has been going on for a while now, from multiple IPs. This IP has been the most recent.
Page probably also should get some page protection, at least temporarially. I won't file a separate report from that, but I'll let the deciding admin make that call. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The revert war there was indeed over top. Some kind of silly nationalism, claiming that a sportsman belongs to some entity (which is not a country) .. Semiprotected the article for a week, but not sure this will stop the parties, thus better watch this and other relevant articles. Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked NJA (t/c) 10:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:67.249.106.3 reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 67.249.106.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Previous version reverted to: [239]

• 1st revert: [240]
• 2nd revert: [241]
• 3rd revert: [242]
• 4th revert: [243]
• 5th revert: [244]
• 6th revert: [245]
• 7th revert: [246]
• 8th revert: [247]
• 9th revert: [248]
• 10th revert: [249]
• 11th revert: [250]
• 12th revert: [251]
• 13th revert: [252]
• 14th revert: [253]
• 15th revert:[254]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [255] (also [256] [257])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [258]

Comments:
Keeps re-adding the same essay about the pronunciation of 2010 even though several editors have noted that it is way to long for this article. There are in fact many more reverts than the four listed above. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: While this report was being created, I compiled over a dozen revert diffs from the reported user, and I've gone ahead and added the remainder of them to the initial four. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: It would seem that the IP has acquired a name: Zebyoolar (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just came here to post that. Admin intervention ASAP would be helpful. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See [259] for continued inclusion of edits. ttonyb (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours At least 27 reverts in just a few hours through the IP and the account, despite clear opposition to the text from multiple editors. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:King of Mercia reported by CTJF83 chat (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Heather Trott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). King of Mercia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 04:07, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Just quoting what Bushell has said.")
2. 04:12, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339860452 by Frickative (talk)")
3. 23:01, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
4. 00:28, 26 January 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted unnecessary criticism of character, as discussed earlier.")

• Diff of warning: here

—CTJF83 chat 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. There have been no reverts in the last 24 hours, and there is evidence of a compromise on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, it took 24 hours for an admin to get to this, ridiculous. CTJF83 chat 05:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Although in the interim I've blocked him for BLP violations. I wasn't aware of this report, but next time, I'm leaning towards indef since this editor seems to want to have it all his own way. Rodhullandemu 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Haskanik reported by User: Alan Cox (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338870224

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338870224
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340227960
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340229366
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340230698

Unfortunately this is a mass revert of every change anyone or thing (even robots) make to the users version of the page (which itself has serious bias problems and contains probably defamatory claims).

The reverts affected material added by Alan Cox only, not other contributors. Please check the history. Haskanik (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually untrue - you reverted corrections from bots too (you may not have intended to but you did Alan Cox (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haskanik&oldid=340234187

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

Comments:

Tried discussion, generated a long long set of threads, user continuously reverts to his own personal version. Not attached a diff therefore as it covers many issues (including one or two where the other editor had a point and I fixed them but even while I was fixing them he kept reverting all the changes - including reverting to old spelling errors while complaining about new ones !

PS: I'd be happy for a neutral third point of view to also review the changes being made and look for a constructive process.

Alan Cox (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've provided a detailed analysis of some of the changes made by Mr Cox on the Talk page. Note that significant references have been removed by him. Haskanik (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to work with you if you would stop reverting the page and would provide references to the views espoused. I note you've just stopped reverting it all blindly again however including undisputable typo fixes, and introducing unreferenced probably defamatory statements. Can we now move to discussion and a 3rd opinion ?. Alan Cox (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this the Alan Cox, i.e. the one who works on the Linux kernel? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be AlanCox (talk · contribs) - as previously disclosed - Alison ^❤ 07:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Consistent reverts by Haskanik to a version that removes cited facts and re-adds obvious typos is vandalism, that should be rightfully reverted. NJA (t/c) 08:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Simpleterms reported by Tbsdy (Result: Protected)

Page: David Tweed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Simpleterms (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=David_Tweed&action=historysubmit&diff=336096680&oldid=335612250
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Tweed&diff=337485161&oldid=336401636
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Tweed&diff=337861642&oldid=337547287
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Tweed&diff=339009864&oldid=337874019
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Tweed&diff=339224723&oldid=339042560
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Tweed&diff=340213294&oldid=339242322
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Tweed&diff=340272738&oldid=340254077

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simpleterms&diff=340254293&oldid=337547686
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simpleterms&diff=339043631&oldid=338915184
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simpleterms&diff=340254293&oldid=339043631

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

Comments:
Editor has been asked a number of times on their talk page and in the edit history to please discuss his changes to the David Tweed article on the talk page. Both myself, Lankiveil and Gillyweed have posted to the talk page asking what the issue is, but editor has not responded. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Toddst1: It appears that the reporting admin, Tbsdy has violated WP:EW on that page too:

• [260]
• [261]
• [262]
• [263]

While not a 3RR violation the admin is clearly engaged in an inappropriate edit war. Note that those are not admin actions. Toddst1 (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Neither have committed a clear 3RR, though the dispute has gone on for long enough now. The removal of cited text, and major changes to an article is a serious issue, and I do not blame the admin acting in a non-admin capacity from reverting without proper talk page discussions taking place. I've fully protected the article for a month to encourage talk page discussion to reach consensus. Editors are recommended to review the helpful structure found at WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:216.234.144.40 and related, reported by User:Rjanag (Result: 24h)

Page: The Elements of Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported:

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

Previous version reverted to: [264]

• 1st revert (also personal attacks in mainspace)
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert (slightly different IP, behavior and Geolocate suggests it's the same person)
• 5th revert
• 6th revert

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [265] (first IP)
• [266] (second IP)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [267]

Comments: Someone from these two related IPs has been repeatedly adding a reference to a blog post to this article (the various diffs are all slightly differently-worded additions of essentially the same paragraph; I have also excluded from the report one instance of section blanking that was not technically a revert but was disruptive). His edits have been reverted by myself, User:Zhang He, and User:Skomorokh (although Sk. only reverted his section blanking and thus should not be seen as taking a side in the content dispute).

I should point out, though, that the user has not reverted since I issued the second warning a few minutes ago. I will be gone for most of the day soon, though, and unable to report him if he does revert again, so I'm just leaving this report as a precaution. If someone sees him revert again you can consider it a real edit-warring report; if he doesn't revert and starts to engage in the discussion, feel free to close the report. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I just checked back and the IP editor has continued reverting (see the 6th revert above, after I filed this report). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:201.192.6.114 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: Stale)

Page: Template:Star Wars (edit | [[Talk:Template:Star Wars|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 201.192.6.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [268]

• 1st revert: [269]
• 2nd revert: [270]
• 3rd revert: [271]
• 4th revert: [272]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [273]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [274]

Comments:
Anon IP continually disregards consensus about the inclusion of a link. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jcmenal reported by User:HJ Mitchell (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [275]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [276]

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

Comments: I am uninvolved in the edit war, it was brought to my attention by another, uninvolved, editor. I haven't linked to diffs because the edit war is obvious to anybody reviewing the history of Mexicali. Jcmenal was warned about the 3RR violation and reverted after the warning, hence the report. It should be noted that the editor has previous warnings and blocks for edit warring. They have been notified of this report HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the changes that user Talpis done without any talk/discussion, apparently the account was created to make such changes in English and Spanish wiki, please check the user contributions, I already sent a message in the Spanish wiki, still waiting for user response.Jcmenal (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that you violated the 3RR, were warned about it and continued to revert rather than bring this to one of the noticeboards where your concerns, if true, could be addressed. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User Talps created the account to made vandalism in the article, and according to Wikipedia is not an edit war.--Jcmenal (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am now extending this report to cover User:Talpis who was also warned and has since performed another reversion. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours NW (Talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Avidius reported by User:NJA (Result: Both blocked 48h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [277]

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Very recent edit war block, so they know the rules.

Comments:

• Both Avidius and Factuarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 48 h for editwarring. Also warned of WP:ARBMAC sanctions.  Sandstein  21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Atmapuri reported by User:Fatehji (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: First time, on Jan 18th, reverted initial edit to this: [278]

Basically from Jan 18th until today, and ongoing...

• Original revert: [279]
• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]
• 4th revert: [283]
• 5th revert: [284]
• 6th revert: [285]
• 7th revert: [286]
• 8th revert: [287]
• 9th revert: [288]
• 10th revert: [289]
• 11th revert: [290]

(And there were probably a few more I missed.)

Oh yes, even as I wrote this he changed it back again. (see 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11th reverts). I believe that's 5 in one day or 24 hour period.

Please see some of the more recent discussion exchanges and comments made by this person as reasons for reverts. He does not "get" what editing is, nor does he understand what a "reference" is. On top of his this primary sources and repeated reverts, his logic in general is flawed and is based on very tenuous grounds in the discussion tables. See my comments below for specific details.

Have created a dispute resolution request. Was advised his behavior was "wrong!" by an editor, yet was advised, based on his prior reverts and non-compromising activities that only an administrator could help. Posted up an Admin Request, but now that posting seems to have strangely disappeared. Have tried to reach consensus on discussion board. I have repeatedly mentioned on the discussions and postings that he is breaking rules of editing. Article is now semi-protected, but he's still reverting. Will gladly post up the edit warring and 3RR warning on his page... It's not the first time at all he's been warned, actually. Apparently he DELETED such reference from his talk page, when he was previously given a free pass for 3RR'ing his first time.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [291] There's a lot of back and forth here at first. Much of it is admittedly my frustration with his lack of logic and outlandish claims, but later on, it gets a little more clear. Eventually I identify specific points within his posts and reverts they are non-consensual and that make little sense to enhancing the article, and link to weak internal and external sources. The last few posts from me I think, clearly get to the heart of the dispute, yet, he continues to revert and his responses are neither addressing my points, nor attempting to reach a consensus.

Comments:

The main frustrations I have now is the same one I had at his first reverts. He uses a weak primary source to propose the negative and harmful effects of this yoga, based on the beliefs of one teacher that "practice... can lead to permanent mental damage", which:

1. Is not backed up scientifically by this primary source 2. Actually the source's book is 99% about the positive effects of Kundalini Yoga, so the warning seems strangely cherry-picked (See: Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda).

He then links to a so called "Kundalini syndrome" page, which:

1. Itself is flagged for lack of professionalism (needed professional verification), and 2: Itself does not directly mention "Kundalini yoga" (or any specific form/branch of yoga) as a reason for "symptoms".

His mission seems to create and maintain a negative correlation between "Kundalini yoga" and "Kundalini syndrome", which actually isn't directly related - only in name, "Kundalini" because they both refer to changes in a spiritual energy source called "Kundalini energy". To be clear, the "kundalini syndrome" page refers to "kundalini energy" and NOT "kundalini yoga". Thereby, he makes this very thin leap in "logic", which he maintains at top page prominence in the article, which basically implies that practicing kundalini yoga without a "master" teacher leads to "kundalini syndrome". I have made motions to strike this based on very thin referenced material, and not particular to this form of yoga at all, but when mentioned, refers to more general, indefinite forms of spiritual practice. This is highly refutable and illogical connection to be made directly, as I have shown in numerous postings, over a dozen different cited and referenced edits, and also on the discussion pages.
--Fatehji (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Note that this will hopefully force discussion on the talk page to develop consensus. Should you get stuck, refer to the helpful structure found at WP:DR. This is better than a block as it's an obvious on-going dispute, and honestly you both got carried away. NJA (t/c) 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cshay reported by User:Bob K31416 (Result: Blocked 24 hours )

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

Previous version reverted to: [292]

• 1st revert: [293]
• 2nd revert: [294]
• 3rd revert: [295]
• 4th revert: [296]
• 5th revert: [297]
• 6th revert: [298]
• 7th revert: [299]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion by other editors with Cshay, Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Fixing_the_inflation_adjusted_issue, especially near what is currently the end of the section.

Comments:

Cshay and Theremes may be the same editor, I'm not sure. In addition to the material that Cshay was edit warring over, Cshay tried to include in one edit the same material that Theremes was trying to include by edit warring previously. Theremes was recently blocked for edit warring but returned and continued edit warring. Then Cshay came. As of now, I haven't reverted any of Cshay's edits, so I haven't been involved. I reverted one of Theremes edits before when that editor was edit warring. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User appears to be claiming ownership of article per diff [301]. Telling another editor not to revert. SpigotMap 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Smashville^talk 22:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Theremes reported by TheRealFennShysa (Result: Blocked 55 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [302]

• 1st revert: [303]
• 2nd revert: [304]
• 3rd revert: [305]
• 4th revert: [306]
• 5th revert: [307]
• 6th revert: [308]
• 7th revert: [309]
• 8th revert: [310]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [311]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [312]

Comments:
Theremes is a relatively new user who is determined to insert his preferred text (now shown to be synthesis and original research) into the Avatar article - problem is, his text is based on false references that don't claim what the editor claims they do. Previously blocked on January 22 for trying the same thing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This is literally the exact same issue in this editor's short existence here. He created himself, went right to the article with his unbelievably objectionable and unsourced claims, and has done nothing but reinsert the same content over and over again. His first short block did zilch... Doc9871 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

While I feel your pain and recently got caught up in a similar edit war (trying to maintain the integrity of the article during an ongoing dispute) the text of the 3RR Policy states that "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting."

I would suggest an apology for the reverts and a request for protection if the BRD process isn't working while the discussion and attempt to reach concensus on the edits in question takes place. Nefariousski (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this editor's inclusion of this material. Every editor participating on this article agrees the content cannot stay as it is. The editor does not seem interested in apologies or mediation, only in constantly reinserting the material. I do agree with what you're saying about reverting and edit war participation, but this is an unusual case... Doc9871 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - we have tried discussing it with him - the consensus was that it didn't belong, and this was the only attempt at discussion he made, outside of edit summaries. He has to kow the policy on edit-warring - he's consistently removed every warning he's been given on his talk page. The bigger problem, however, is that he simply refuses to accept anything but his preferred version, and his references don't match up with what he's trying to insert. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you in concept, WP:3RR is a brightline policy (no grey area). The policy doesn't give a whole lot of room for interpretation. Disruptive editing should be dealt with via Page Protection or user blocks instead of reverting the edits. Rollbacks exist for this exact reason. I unfortunately learned this the hard way after being dragged into a very similar edit war and was thankfully only warned. In light of repeat offenses and further digging around in diffs, comments and history I do agree that in this case blocking is more appropriate than warning and request for apology as I previously stated (mea culpa for not doing more research before commenting). Nefariousski (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Repeat offender.[313] Theremes was blocked for the same behavior, on the same topic, in the same article, 5 days ago.[314] Also, see my comments re possible connection between Cshay and Theremes.[315] --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This could be something for SPI... Doc9871 (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it almost seems too coincidental. DrNegative (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• 7th revert [316] DrNegative (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 55 hours by Ohnoitsjamie Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cexycy reported by User:Rapido (Result: 12h)

Page: Living Next Door to Alice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Cexycy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See: [317]

• Despite the discussion here: [318]
• And warnings: [319]
• And above edit warring report: [320]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [322]

Comments:

Don't think we're getting anywhere. I reported Cexycy last time 3 days ago, and there was discussion on the article talk page. Despite this, he has reverted back to his version (no sources added or anything - just the same version as before) with the edit summary "Remember the discussion please". This isn't consensus building, just a continuation of the edit war. So I think we are not getting anywhere! He keeps trying to steer the conversation to the fact I nominated some articles he started for AFD some weeks ago... but little or no discussion on improving the article. Rapido (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours NJA (t/c) 13:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)