Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive124

User:PRODUCER reported by 78.2.133.18 (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC) (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

User:PRODUCER also has a record for beeing edit warrior:7 times

As you can see by his contributions reverting is cca 90% of his activity.

This is another sock puppet of banned user Aradic-es (see Sockpuppet investigations/Aradic-es/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aradic-es) who is apparently hell-bent on keeping his Croat view into these articles. He has gone so far as to remove my requests for page protection.  ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 12:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC) The main pint is missed. His (PRODUCER'S) HOLY duty to delte all he dislikes.And no to PRODUCE anything indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.133.18 (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pages semi-protected by . - 2/0 (cont.) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:72.81.124.230 reported by User:Wikiwatcher1 (Result: Protected)
Warning by User:NJA did not help:. Because user is apparently married to someone in the family, they are taking published bio details personally.

Latest diff: --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, I added a Welcome notice along with a talk page section to hopefully avoid further edit warring. But I'd like a neutral 3rd party to oversee this since it's becoming a one-on-one debate. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NJA (t/ c)  21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Move war currently going on at Homophobia (Result:Move protected)
Started by User:Garrythefish who will not stop moving the page despite repeated reverts. Henrymrx (t&middot;c) 02:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just move-protected the article. I think that should solve the problem for the time being. If consensus emerges for a move, it can of course still be carried out by an admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Henrymrx (t&middot;c) 03:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole thing looks like a classic example of agenda pushing, though I could be mistaken. Sudden, very controversial change made without discussion followed by an aggressive edit war doesn't inspire good faith, at the very least. Zazaban (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:PrBeacon reported by User:Cetamata (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Rather than attempting to resolve the issue in the discussion page this user proceeded to begin an edit war by re-reverting back to his recent undone changes and reported me without any prior discussion or attempt at dispute resolution. Cetamata (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion about the reverts is ongoing on the talk page. This looks like an attempt to weaken one side through a block.
 * 2 reverts are of course not a 3RR violation. 2 reverts that are part of a discussion with edit summaries may not be optimal, but would not normally be considered sanctionable edit warring.
 * In PrBeacon's recent contributions there is no evidence of PrBeacon reporting Cetamata for edit warring. Apparently Cetamata is referring to a warning for edit warring on Cetamata's talk page. Hans Adler 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Disruptive dispute that needs sorted on talk page so that the article can be edited in a way that has consensus so as to avoid abuse of undo. NJA (t/ c)  08:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cetamata is misrepresenting the situation and has bypassed normal channels of dispute resolution, hereby retaliating for my warning to him (and deleting it). Over the past several months he has repeatedly changed the article to suit his pro-whaling POV, including the euphemisms "take" and "catch" and ignoring disagreements about these terms on the talk page, while paying lip service to WP policies. Notice also his links to warning & discussion above are incorrect & misleading, respectively. PrBeacon (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't misrepresented anything. PrBeacon proceeded to re-revert his edits after they were undone rather than discuss them and then continue to make more changes despite statements of objection in the discussion page. He continues to push for his POV in the article and prior to ANY discussion dropped the "you may be reported for warring" threat on my talk page - which having never been through this process before I did misinterpret as an actual report. Regardless, the dispute has not been resolved. Cetamata (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify what PrBeacon has brought to these notes - there are two disputed issues.
 * 1) Change of the subsection title "Research Whaling" (describes history behind use of science permits) to "Claims of Research" and the section title "Scientific Research" (describes science proposals/results) to "Claims of Research". I "undid" both instances and got a threat instead of a discussion. PrBeacon re-reverted and has stated his opinion that the research is not valid and therefore should be described accordingly.
 * 2) Change of the text of the article. PrBeacon stated the word "take" (eg: Japan went on to take over 200 Bryde's whales) should be replaced with the word "kill" or "killing" everywhere it appears in the article. I have not reverted any of these changes. That was done by another editor. Cetamata (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note the top of this page where it says not to continue the dispute here. This is why the article is protected, ie there's clearly a disagreement that has digressed into disruption. Use the article's talk page and the step by step mechanisms at WP:DR to sort this. Best of luck. NJA (t/ c)  21:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

86.148.18.98 breaking three revert rule at Roman Polanski sexual abuse case (Result: 31 hrs)
He was warned on his talk page. The difs listed are what he/she has done today, the same exact edits reverted previously. He refuses to discuss the changes on the talk page of the article. Account has made only one edit not related to Roman Polanski.  D r e a m Focus  10:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Reconsider the static reverts him
 * 2) Dream Focus reverts him
 * 3) Everyone Dies In the End reverts him.
 * 4) Everyone dies in the end reverts him yet again.
 * JodyBtalk 12:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Commandr Cody reported by ► Chris Nelson Holla! (Result: No action taken)
. : Time reported: 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:57, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 345942157 by Chrisjnelson (talk)Barajas did not pass physical yet")
 * 2) 21:01, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "No news sources report that Barajas passed his physical")
 * 3) 21:17, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 345953025 by Chrisjnelson (talk)The Mets have not officially made an announcement, Rotoworld is not a notable source.")
 * 4) 21:25, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 345955540 by Chrisjnelson (talk)")

User:Commandr Cody has reverted four times on Template:New York Mets roster despite verifiable evidence to the contract of his edit here.


 * RotoWorld is NOT a notable source. No other notable news sources have reported that Barajas passed his physical. Players are only added to MLB rosters when it is officially announced by the team. the same prototcol was followed during the Jason Bay signing.Commandr Cody (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All those claims are either false or without merit. There is no special protocol for editing MLB rosters, other than passing WP:VERIFY, which this does. Rotoworld is an extremely well-known, highly-trafficked website that is part of NBC Sports. Whether or not you think they are notable enough is entirely irrelevant.


 * That is neither here nor there, though. The primary issue is that you violated 3RR on a verifiable edit, which makes you undoubtedly in the wrong.► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit war seems to have stopped and both parties seem to be communicating so I see no value in a block for now. I would request that you both keep talking and try to figure something out. If there are any further reverts without agreement between you, or without the intervention of a third party, a block for the reverting party may result. TigerShark (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Primrose
I would like to report on the behavior of User:Giano (aka User:GiacomoReturned) who has twice reverted edits on the Hannah Primrose article, which, as it stands is loaded with offensive WP:POV and WP:OR and blatant salacious innuendo. For an example of the former: "Yet his Jewish wife, during her lifetime regarded as dull, overweight and lacking in beauty", and the latter: "Rosebery's possible homosexuality has been much discussed in recent times. Nothing conclusive has ever been found one way or the other, but it is possible that he had homosexual experiences while in the care of a paedophile housemaster at Eton in his youth.[46] No evidence exists that his wife was aware of these rumours against her husband, or would have understood them if she had. It is unlikely that she would have even known of the existence of homosexual men, bearing in mind her sheltered upbringing and limited education."

Neither comment is sourced. The first comment has no citation. The latter, trapped in a convoluted lengthy pseudoanalysis, may be sourced, but that does not mean it should be permitted to stand. Would anyone cite The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for a quotation? Why then this self-admittedly non-factually founded salacious garbage? User:Giano clearly believes he owns the article. His history on the talkpage is filled with abusive and gratuitously condescending language towards other editors, who gave up last December 2009 in trying in good faith to improve the article. He has not deigned to respond on the article's talk page or on my talk page regarding his drastic reverts of my attempts to make the article conform to encyclopaedic standards. He had already rv my edits twice. Once more and it becomes WP:3RR. I reverted his edit once so far, yet I suspect if I do so again I suspect that I will be blocked for violating WP:3RR. I would appreciate a disinterested admin weighing in and if necessary correcting the article as needed. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything is sourced and referenced. It has changed very little since it was FA'd and as we all know anyting not referenced that should have been would have been picked up there. I suspect this user has an agenda, and I cannot be bothered to discover it.  Giano   22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no agenda at all regarding the British peerage, my tastes are eclectic. User:Giano's unfounded accusations and contemptuous and dismissive language, are evidenced right here. It is clearly he who has the agenda and believes he owns the article. He seems to believe that no one will want to tangle with him. I hope he is proved wrong. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but a reference is a reference and a fact is a fact and a FA is a FA, and of course a troll is a troll. you removed referenced and very important fact from the article and I replaced it. you then put POV tags on the article and I removed them because it is not. Simple.  Giano   22:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * " you removed referenced and very important fact from the article and I replaced it. you then put POV tags on the article and I removed them because it is not." -- if I can decipher this rather unintelligible comment, I removed fact (1 fact?) which he believes is "very important".
 * "you then put POV tags on the article and I removed them because it is not." RESPONSE: I did not put a WP:POV tag, but rather WP:TONE and WP:LONG. Given this factual inaccuracy and his compulsive need to insult anyone he disagrees with ("a troll is a troll"), I believe this user seriously needs to be given the 411 from the only source he respects -- one with the power to block him. I am not going to play into his hands by reverting again, which will likely get me blocked, even though it would only be the second reversion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are begining to sound like a stuck gramaphone record - the page is fully referenced, so you will have to get over it. All the reference books used are highly reputable and trustworthy. I don't deal in rubbish. Finally, drive-by tagging on a FA is disruptive and speaks for itself.  Giano   22:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Yet his Jewish wife, during her lifetime regarded as dull, overweight and lacking in beauty" Hmmm. Sounds like something from 1930s Germany (Julius Streicher, anyone?)
 * "so you will have to get over it" - isn't that one of the soundbites used by ideologues on Wikipedia who, due to their own agendas must necessarily refuse to cooperate in good faith with others, usually say? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. - I hope no one here attempts to defame me pre-emptively by bringing up blocks I was dealt in 2006, four years ago because I am tired of those maneuvers and they won't work. I am only mentioning it because two editors, just to get their way on two separate WP:AFDs did just that. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not Julius Striecher (as you suggest), but Henry James - have you heard of him? He is fully quoted in the text along with others "Henry James, an occasional guest in the Roseberys' homes,  delivered one of the most unflattering condemnations of Lady Rosebery describing her as "...large, coarse, Hebrew-looking with hair of no particular colour and personally unattractive". " Furthermore, the page has over 100 more multiple footnotes. Many of them proper footnotes - explaining discrepencies and alternative views of various authors and accounts. It is fully referenced, it could not be more so - I'm sorry you don't like the content, but it is all proven fact.  Giano   23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This report is frivolous. We do not run to WP:AN when a user makes two reverts.  Hannah Primrose is a featured article, which has been very thoroughly reviewed.  I think User:Rms125a@hotmail.com's arguments are tendentious and disruptive.   The fact that I had to remove person attacks posted by Rms125a on their own user page  is further evidence that this editor might not be acting in good faith.  I recommend dropping this matter, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, disengaging from this conflict, and avoiding future behavior of a similar nature.  I also recommend changing your username so that it is not an email address.  Jehochman Brrr 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "We do not run to WP:AN when a user makes 'two reverts'." -- Yet three reverts earns an editor a block.
 * I would also note that comments such as "Rosebery only ever trusted his wife. Without her to calm and order his life he was a neurotic wreck." and "suggesting that when a choice between her children and husband was forced on her, she always chose her husband. However, the same comment also hints that she was not unaware that her choice was at the cost of her children" are WP:SYNTHESIS at best or WP:OR at worst, WP:FA or no. Also, a plurality of the edits come from one source - McKinstry. I will not change my username, as per the explanation on my talk page provided by User:Alison, which is not relevant to this page anyway. I am "disengaging", however, from this colloquy, albeit under protest, as I see I cannot prevail. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually takes four reverts to report to this board: "...more than three revert actions..." Doc9871 (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen admins give out blocks after three reverts, citing WP:3RR. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too (and edit-warring doesn't require 4 reverts), but a solid 3RR report should generally have four or more reverts for a clear case of 3RR violation on this board... Doc9871 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

O'Brien dynasty

 * Not 3RR yet, but it's an edit war I saw on recent changes. Hold on, i'll get the diffs. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These are the ones I saw from the past few days, there's a few self reverts in there and a long term edit war of a few reverts per month going back awhile it seems. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou Reversions Of Yorkshirian and Edit Summaries

 * ("see WP:OWN. you appear unwilling to accept any changes to your original text, and appear to have a limited understanding of the subject. why not swallow your pride and let me take over?")
 * ("they actually meant different things at different times")

Yorkshirian Reversions Of DinDraithou

 * ("contentious desciption of Irish aristocratic titles. Also this is the English not Gaelige Wikipedia-names like Brian Boru and Dalcassians are most common in this language.")
 * ("foreign titles". They are titles of the Kingdom of Ireland.")

This does not belong here
Yorshirian and I have worked together in the past and this a minor interpretations dispute, which we can resolve. We seem to each be having a bad day, that's all. DinDraithou (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, not sure this actually belongs here. I have created a section on the talk of the O'Brien article, re-content. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Works for me, glad you guys could come to a common ground. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Fernandoe reported by User:Astynax (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 10:21, 23 February 2010


 * 1st revert: 10:36, 23 February 2010
 * 2nd revert: 11:29, 23 February 2010
 * 3rd revert: 13:26, 23 February 2010
 * 4th revert: 19:17, 23 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor insists on protecting his/her alteration of a direct quotation from a WP:RS, without supplying an alternate source/citation for the changed wording. The editor who originally added the quotation did so in order that readers would have access to the reference's exact wording. Changing the quoted text makes the reference say something that it simply does not say. I cannot revert his last edits without 3RR myself. &bull; Astynax talk 04:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on the quality of the reverts on either side, but I have blocked Fernandoe for 24 hours for edit warring. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki-expert-edit reported by Neil N   talk to me  (Result: 1 week)
. : Time reported: 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 14:16, 18 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ some more small clean up")
 * 2) 17:05, 18 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344817508 by NeilN (talk)")
 * 3) 17:32, 18 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344849106 by Ronz (talk)correcting errors.")
 * 4) 17:32, 18 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ minor edit.")
 * 5) 17:59, 18 February 2010  (edit summary: "Correcting information in the Article. Please discuss before undoing it.")
 * 6) 18:34, 19 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ As per the conversation on talk page, I am removing this inaccurate information. I don't even know if any allegation that's not proven should ever be in reference material.")
 * 7) 21:36, 19 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ clarifying the information based on the reference")
 * 8) 00:17, 21 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 345232240 by Ronz (talk)reverting to the facts of the situation. Please see comment I left for you.")
 * 9) 17:31, 22 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ 16(b) is simply a mechanism for profit give back and there is no way to violate it.")
 * 10) 20:29, 22 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 345712509 by Ronz (talk)Please see detailed explanation of 16(b) on your talk.")
 * 11) 21:13, 22 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 345735556 by Ronz (talk)Information you added is incorrect.")
 * 12) 21:43, 22 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ provided reference and clarified 16 (b) awkward language.")
 * 13) 23:28, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */dispute was settled by both parties and D&O insurance. the case was on behalf of the company and not by shareholders against the company.")
 * 14) 00:58, 24 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ added information from SEC filing by Infospace")
 * 15) 01:06, 24 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 345996836 by NeilN (talk)Information was correct and well sourced.")


 * Diff of warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Wiki-expert-edit

Comments:

Repeat edit warrior with probable COI issues intent on removing sourced facts of lawsuit settlement. -- Neil N   talk to me  01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki-expert-edit is a WP:SPA, editing only information about Intelius and its business practices. He has been disputing this same content since 21 August 2008. He was just recently blocked for edit-warring over this material on 18 February 2010. His first edit after the block expired was to remove this information once again . --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing -- Neil N    talk to me  04:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And again -- Neil N    talk to me  04:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not any edit war here but trying to protect few people from adding personal bias to the article instead of using the trusted source like SEC filings. I don't understand how any other source could be more reliable than the filings by a company under the penalty of perjury. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ Blocked for 1 week (second block for edit warring). OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Perhaps somebody would care to take steps in a slow edit war I ran into while doing my usual wikignoming on Category:Animal rights activists. There seems to be a valid content dispute there as well. Preferably somebody should try to find a solution to both. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:166.217.93.234 reported by Lanternix (talk) (Result: 31h )
. : Time reported: 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert
 * 5th revert
 * 6th revert
 * 7th revert
 * 8th revert
 * 9th revert

by Ronhjones.  nableezy  - 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Cleo22 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: moot)

 * Time reported: 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: Removing that Sharif was born into a Lebanese family.

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


 * 1) 21:22, 22 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:47, 22 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 00:39, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 06:38, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Omar Sharif

Comments:

I myself have reverted three times, but one of those times I added 7 reliable sources that said that Sharif was born into a Lebanese-Egyptian family. There was also one revert by an IP to the same edit here, also with no edit summary. The user refuses to answer any question or provide any type of response, just continues to blanket revert on a number of articles. See the users contribs, nearly all of their contributions are removals of "Lebanese" or "Syrian" from various articles on people who the user apparently feels are only "Egyptian".  nableezy  - 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you look at the entire editing history of user cleo22, the only thing that account is used for is to go around to biography articles and remove sourced background content. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Closed as moot. Cleo22 has since been indef-blocked for their edit-warring.  Sandstein   06:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Иван Богданов (Result: invalid report)

 * Time reported: 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Diffs


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

User:DIREKTOR is behaving very uncivil and vandalistic. He constantly revert my edits at articles wich I listed above. DIREKTOR is known for numerous WP:3RR violations; his last 48 hours blockade expired only three days ago. He had four blockades so far. This behaviour shouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia. --User:Иван Богданов (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated above, it would be helpful if you would include the actual diffs to support your statements instead of asking someone to go through the articles looking for the information. Do be careful as it appears you are also involved with him in the edit wars. Thanks. JodyBtalk 12:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to protect my edits from his vandalism. --User:Иван Богданов (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Parties are reminded that editing in this area is part of the area of conflict under WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2. Consequences of tendentious editing can be stern. Note in ARBMAC2 the discussion of page moves and naming conventions. I would strongly suggest that this discussion be taken to a talk page before any further editing. JodyBtalk 16:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Invalid 3RR report. The diffs are of different pages. Closing as moot since the reporting edior has since been blocked indefinitely.  Sandstein   06:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Torebay reported by User:Wayiran (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user is extremely disruptive, and has been removing and tempering with references, and edit-waring about it, on several other pages too. He has also been removing warnnings about it from his talk page. --Wayiran (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 h by another admin.  Sandstein   07:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DWL901 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24 h)
. : Time reported: 08:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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


 * 1) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 04:18, 22 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 06:01, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 06:04, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 06:21, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 08:18, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 08:33, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 346054460 by XLerate (talk)")
 * 8) 08:35, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 346055016 by XLerate (talk)")
 * 9) 08:40, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 08:44, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 08:49, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 346056464 by Bidgee (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:


 * is likely to be single purpose account who has an interest in sanitising the article (has been done in the past). Bidgee (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

—Bidgee (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours.  Sandstein   06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jbts11 reported by User:Gnowor (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -Commentary on User talk page by C.Fred

Comments:

First time reporting here. If my actions are not sufficient to warrant a block, so be it. It feels like this is a situation of half vandalism (not using edit summaries and removing content), and half edit warring. -- Gnowor TC 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned Jbts11. He has not edited since 24 February. If he continues to remove a section containing well-sourced info, without getting consensus on Talk, a block might be needed. The SEC and the state of Texas have taken an interest in the legal case, so this issue seems to form part of complete coverage of what reliable sources have asserted about Jeff Blake. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:24.147.62.213 reported by User:RL0919 (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (this is the stable version that the editor keeps changing in the same non-consensus fashion)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Technically the IP editor is the one who is being reverted by multiple other editors. The IP keeps deleting sourced material from the lead with no edit summary. The cut isn't always exactly the same, but it is always from the same passages. The edits are not obvious vandalism, but clearly have no consensus and the IP has ignored requests to explain made by multiple editors in their own edit summaries and at User talk:24.147.62.213. The latest edit (#6 above) was made after a very explicit request by me on the IP's user talk page to please come discuss the edits on the article talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just after I posted this report, the IP editor posted on the article talk page to give some explanation of the edits. The explanation doesn't seem to match the edits, but it is a start. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After the one talk page posting, the editor stopped responding on talk, and has now apparently migrated to a new IP address, 24.218.27.209.  has now warned that IP about edit warring. The editing pattern is the same so it is very likely the same person, although the IP editor is now at least using edit summaries. --RL0919 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Semiprotected. An editor using two different 24.* IP addresses has been repeatedly taking out information sourced to the New York Times, and not waiting to get consensus for their changes. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Epipelagic reported by User:PrBeacon (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -- Discussed my initial edits -- asked the other editor to discuss his revert -- responded to the other editor after he 2nd revert without discussion

Comments:

As I said on the talk page, Epipelagic made two reverts before he even went to the talk page. And his way of discussing the reverts seems to say, This is my turf, You're not welcome. He made no legitimate attempt to discuss my edits before the first two reverts, then proceeded to dismiss & patronize. PrBeacon (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting way out of hand. There is a relevant discussion regarding terminology at Whaling in Japan at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I brought up fishing in the discussion and now it is getting edit warred over. PrBeacon has been coming across a little rude and edit warring on two articles. I'm not saying a block is in order but a reminder that this behavior is not cool would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How am I the one edit warring? I've discussed changes on this article's talkpage all along the way of making edits. The other editor Epipelagic is the one who refused to discuss the changes and reverted 3 times. And the Whaling in Japan is tangential, the discussion there simply brought this page's issues to my attention, and the same criteria apply -- i wasnt edit warring there, either. PrBeacon (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you make a point you like on a talk page doesn't mean you can revert. People disagree with you. There isn't consensus. Sometimes it takes more than a few hours. You have made multiple reverts in short time spans on two separate pages. That is edit warring. You should stop doing it. You are also not new to this. You have been blocked before. The fact that the other editor hit three before you did does not make it OK.Cptnono (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * RETRACT. I'd like to withdraw this petition. or cancel, whatever. I searched WP without finding out how. I blanked this section but the other editor (Epipelagic) restored it, presumably to get a ruling. But shouldn't he have to submit his own report? (For the record, although Cptnono makes a decent point, he is familiar with the previous situation to which he refers but it appears here out of context. My talk page archive has further details.) Thanks. PrBeacon (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Everything appears OK (unless Epipelagic does want to open another one) so there should be no worries.Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action. I don't see a continuing disagreement, and the reverting has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gd21091993 reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (blatant sock)
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk page:

Comments:

Looks like a WP:SPA to me .http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrench_colonial_empire&action=historysubmit&diff=346517743&oldid=344821409


 * Blocked 31 hours. --John (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wexeb reported by 68.101.143.168 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

. : Time reported: 21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

Result - Declined. No reverts since 24 Feb. Wexeb has been restoring banners to the talk page of an anonymous editor. Personally I see the whois banner as traditional, and potentially helpful to new users who happen to take over an IP address that was previously used. The repeatvandal banner is not technically correct; this IP has only been blocked once. The IP is allowed to remove any notices of blocks that are now expired. EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 21:28, 24 February 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 68.101.143.168 to last revision by Dave1185 (HG)")
 * 2) 21:28, 24 February 2010  (edit summary: "Message re. User talk:68.101.143.168 (HG)")
 * 3) 21:29, 24 February 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 68.101.143.168 to last revision by Wexeb (HG)")
 * 4) 21:30, 24 February 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 68.101.143.168 to last revision by Wexeb (HG)")
 * Comment The only thing that bothers me is the use of Huggle to do so, although removed rollback. NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 07:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SamJohnston reported by User:LirazSiri (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * This was a normal edit, not a revert, thus WP:3RR was not even violated. FAIL. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No Sam. It was a revert of the inclusion of a SaaS category in the cloud computing template. This is another editorial dispute in which you chose to unilaterally impose your opinions without discussion. Also note that 3RR rule does not have to be violated for a pattern of disruptive, aggressive editing which includes edit-warring to be shown. LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fortunately the edit logs never lie. Not a revert means not a WP:3RR policy violation (which was your complaint, remember?) -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * This was not even a warning, rather a response to me warning you for particularly disruptive and tendentious editing previously. Your only warning here didn't come until a good half hour *after* you filed this complaint. DOUBLE FAIL. Furthermore, while you were on my talk page you chose to interfere with an unrelated discussion which had absolutely nothing to do with you - itself a form of WP:HARASSment and a TRIPLE FAIL. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I commented on a dispute you have with another editor that follows the exact same pattern as my dispute with you. You impose your views unilaterally without any attempt to discuss the matter with other editors. What you don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia is not your personal wiki and you do not own the cloud computing pages.LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not at all the same thing, and in any case it has nothing to do with you, your company/project and your persistent spamming/vandalism. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * This "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" was a> last year and b> between you and another editor. QUADRUPLE FAIL. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Ironically, user responds to complaints against his behavior by edit-warring criticism out of his talk page:

Note that user has ignored the discussion on the talk page for the cloud computing template. No attempt to engage other editors and build consensus has been made despite explicit requests which the user has responded to with further edit warring. The user seems to believe that a couple of sections on the cloud computing template (e.g., appliances and SaaS) are inappropriate but has yet to explain his reasoning. Attempts to reach out have been responded to with more aggressive, anti-social behavior.LirazSiri (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok so the template this user has been vandalising despite many repeated warnings (by persistently re-inserting their own company over the last 3 months, for example here here here here here and here, despite reversion and warnings by myself and other editors, in blatant violation of WP:COI) is intended to illustrate the top level taxonomy of cloud computing using the best examples available (e.g. Amazon EC2) as per the template documentation.


 * Instead of addressing or explaining your behavior you instead choose to attack your critics with baseless ad-hominem attacks. You also grossly misrepresent the facts. TurnKey is a community oriented open source project based on Ubuntu. It's not a company. That's not even relevant because our dispute is about the inclusion of the appliances category, not its contents. TurnKey is only one of the entries. The matter was discussed on the talk page a few months back when the appliances category was added. You came along a couple of months later, ignored the discussion, and deleted the category unilaterally. You edit war and call other editors names instead of explaining your reasoning.LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It does not matter that it's open source - it's still a blatant conflict of interest and you have made no attempt whatsoever to follow guidelines by, for example, suggesting edits via the talk page. Bear in mind this is an area I'm reasonably well versed in, having spent a few months patrolling WP:COIN. Regarding your "discussion", note that there are 3 regular editors of that article and *both* User:SteveLoughran and myself have reverted your edits and referred to COI policy. Consensus is against you my friend. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not intended to be a WP:COATRACK for people to advertise their own products (which are only still listed courtesy deletion review following a successful CSD A7), nor to confuse matters by introducing entire segments that are not even referenced in the article despite it having been explained by myself and other editors that this is not appropriate.


 * As if that's not enough the user has uploaded many images with problematic licensing here here here here here here here here here and here, and they have had the audacity to revert attempts to fix it (while simultaneously reinserting the offending images into *many* spammed categories). They similarly reverted templates highlighting WP:N, WP:V and WP:COI issues on their own products' article.


 * Finally, despite my good faith explanations, the user resorted to WP:HOUNDing me on my own talk page, ironically violating WP:3RR (here, here and here) while doing so. In this edit, while blatantly violating WP:HUSH, the user even explained to me that "you don't own your talk page". Note that the user had been asked on more than one occasion to stay off my talk page.


 * While I wouldn't normally bother reporting such incidents, as the user has chosen to do so, and in light of the particularly disruptive and tendentious editing, I hope that you might consider giving them a warning and/or some time off for violating a laundry list of Wikipedia policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, WP:3RR, WP:HARASS for a start), despite repeated warnings, over an extended period of many months. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 01:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is nothing more than one big glorified ad-hominem attack that does not respond to the issue at hand. You are attempting to control the cloud computing template (and other cloud computing articles) by edit warring instead of through discussion. You are in gross violation of Wikipedia policies. All of this hand waving and wikilawyering doesn't change the core issue. We have an editorial dispute. I've discussed why I think the appliances category belongs in there with other editors. The category is added. Then you come along months later and instead of explaining why you think it doesn't, you make threats on Twitter and edit-war. Your behavior needs to be sanctioned.LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's not ad hominem - a charge you have repeated at least twice now - though it may feel like it when you put such a large sample of your problematic edits in one place. Your "threat" on Twitter was in light of your scrubbing out my attempts to remediate some of the more serious problems (tens of instances of category spam and more importantly, removing critical copyright templates from your uploads), and was in any case referring to nominating your article for AfD. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Template protected one week. Editors are advised not to revert again unless a talk page consensus is obtained. Follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if no agreement can be reached.  EdJohnston (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:Nefer Tweety (Result: no action)

 * Time reported:
 * Time reported:

Previous version reverted to: Removing that Sharif was born into an Egyptian family.

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


 * 1) 21:25, 22 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 22:02, 22 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 01:46, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 20:53, 24 February 2010  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: nableezy warning his opposing editor here -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No action. Edits are not within the 24-hour period of WP:3RR. The other edit warrior is now blocked, making further action likely unnecessary. Blocks bay be made if the warring continues, though.  Sandstein   07:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Lafuzion reported by User:Sandman888 (Result: other editor blocked 24 h)
Page: FC Barcelona season 2009–10

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310&diff=prev&oldid=346225022
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310&diff=prev&oldid=346212530
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310&diff=prev&oldid=346201573
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310&diff=prev&oldid=346198165

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lafuzion & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=339955474

Comments: This user and the user he is editing are constantly warring each other and it seems to be the case that a compromise shd be enforced, as earlier suggestions of getting there themselves are ignored. Sandman888 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lafuzion has agreed to stop, but has not, so they've been blocked for 24 hours.   Sandstein   07:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Bearguardian reported by User:Verbal (Result: Page fully protected for three days)
. : Time reported: 20:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:26, 24 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 346017453 by Vary (talk)")
 * 2) 18:57, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 346263554 by Verbal (talk)")
 * 3) 19:40, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 346346965 by Verbal (talk) in order to remove unsource, libelous material in a BLP. This is an exception to the 3RR.")
 * 4) 20:10, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision, again removing unsource libelous material, not subject to the 3 revert rule.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Continued editwarring immediately following block for same. Claims exception due to BLP. Claims discussed in detail on talk, and all material in the article is reliably sourced. — <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: Page fully protected for three days. -- Please engage in discussion on the article's talk page. If necessary, please seek out third-party commentary and pursue appropriate forms of dispute resolution. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Article has now been fully protected for three days ending the reverting and these editors can and should now have the opportunity to move to discussion about this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note this is a single purpose account that is ignoring talk page consensus, has been recently blocked for this behaviour, and has made unsupported claims of sockpuppetry against the multiple established editors who have disagreed with him (see WP:BLPN). The account should be blocked to prevent further edit warring, and the page block lifted at that time. Note also the the suspected block evasion of User:Bearguardian. It is better not to protect the page if the issue can be addressed more clearly, and it is clear that this editor will resume edit warring as they have done in the past. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A good one third of this account's not-quite-thirty edits have been reversions on this article - and that's not counting those by the now indef-blocked sockpuppet that the editor created during his or her last 3RR block. How do you expect protecting this editor's preferred version of the article to encourage him or her to work with the other editors who have disagreed with his or her changes (all half dozen or so of whom Bearguardian has decided are sockpuppets of eachother)?  My primary issue with Bearguardian's edits is that they are slanted in favor of Mr. Firstenberg at the expense of the individual he is currently suing.  I feel that she should be equally protected by BLP, and I feel that protecting this disruptive account's preferred version of the article will only encourage further disruption.
 * Verbal, I would appreciate it if you would engage with Bearguardian on the talkpage, please. I'm getting a little tired of being informed that I'm biased and I'd love someone else to take a turn.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 06:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I request this is looked at again, as the page locking does not address the problem of Bearguardian's repeated editwarring, uncivil behaviour, accusations of sockpuppetry, etc etc, and is punishing our readers and editors in good standing. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Bearguardian hasn't edited recently enough to do quite all what you've just said, but it does seem to be a WP:SPA. Bearguardian appears to possibly be gaming with a slow edit war by suggesting that certain reverts  are not subject to 3RR... Doc9871 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply All of the points I've made can be backed by diffs - the sockpuppetry accusations are here, which includes bad faith. The talk page discussion is full of bad faith, unsupported accusations and other uncivil behaviour. The repeated editwarring is justified by the diffs above and teh previous block for same. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please, at least try to engage in some form of dispute resolution, at the article's talk page. I would suggest WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been taken to WP:BLPN and discussed extensively on the talk page. By not blocking for clear 3RR violation, and protection the page at the "wrongversion" (naturally) we are in fact enabling this disruptive behaviour. There was no slow edit war, it is continued fast edit warring, gaming, and disruptive behaviour by one editor against 5 others who they proceeded to attack, while dismissing RS as non-applicable as it was non American, etc. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, halfway through the three day protection, Bearguardian has contributed all of nine words to the discussion. Protecting a disruptive edtitor's preferred version of a page does not give them incentive to work with other editors, it just gives them a break from edit warring.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 12:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:95.68.34.127 reported by Mosmof (talk) (Result: Semi)
. : Time reported: 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Also adding:, which appears to be the same user, from a Latvian ISP, making identical edit, similar command of English.

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


 * 1) 18:36, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "there are plenty of ronaldos.")
 * 2) 18:37, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 18:37, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 18:39, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 19:03, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "reverted previous edit. There is plenty of ronaldo's - 8. There is no reason to exluce 1 playa.")
 * 6) 19:09, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "Then Ronaldo (name) would be useless. Prominent or not but c. ronaldo is only 1 of 8. So I am objective.")
 * 7) 19:17, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "that  and ehh gordo was not my edit. Undid to my last OBJECTIVE revision.")
 * 8) 19:29, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "feel free to dispute it, dude.")
 * 9) 19:41, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "your edit was landing here for a few days when I was in training camp. Long standing base was changed so your edit is on catching role.")
 * 10) 20:34, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "restored long standing edit, wait for consensus in dispute and then push your button.")
 * 11) 20:38, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 346360902 by Connormah (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Please consider a range block on 95.68.3x.xxx - 95.68.5x.xxx, as this is a dynamic IP and has jumped between IP addresses to evade 3RR in the past, and is currently using IPs to evade the indefinite block on.

—Mosmof (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. A dynamic IP made 11 reverts on 25 February, which breaks 3RR, and this seems to be part of a continuing struggle. The IP named in this report may be using socks as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:121.102.47.215 reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

Not sure if this is the right place, but the above anon added a nonsense comment at the Trains Wikiproject talk page that violated talk page guidelines (namely the idea that talk pages are not a general discussion forum). I reverted the addition, and followed through by checking the users contributions (I've found that if an anon violates that one place, they often have done it elsewhere, and I wanted to point that out to the anon in a gentle reminder.) To my great disappointment, the anon had placed the same comment in the actual broad gauge article, and as such violated WP:NOT, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. I reverted there as well, along with some previous nonsense edits.

In the case of all reversions, I made sure to put edit summaries explaining the issue (though I will admit I started loosing my temper and may have breached WP:CIVIL.) In my defense, however, by this time, after my first reversion, the anon apparently started taking it poorly, as they added the same passage (not a question about why it was inappropriate, but the exact same inappropriate passage) to my talk page. As I didn't want it there (being the passage is patent nonsense, and violates numerous wikipolicies), I removed it. As one can see from, the anon has repeatedly restored the passage, even after I have removed it and asked them to stop via edit summary. I find this to be a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, and blatant vandalism of my talk page.oknazevad (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Support User:Oknazevad, with caveat.
 * User:121.102.47.215 seems a classic case of soapboxing, where they're pushing a somewhat controversial viewpoint in a thoroughly non-encylopedic manner. Their non-encyc. behaviour should stop. They've been warned for this on their talk, and I'd ask other editors to watch out and assist. Guidance towards NPOV & V policies might be more helpful than edit warring.
 * That said, they raise a few reasonable points, albeit some of them pretty tenuous. These deserve coverage, if that coverage can be NPOV with sourcing.
 * I'd ask User:Oknazevad to please calm down a bit (which I'm sure they have done). Mainspace POV pushing deserves removal, talk pages don't (usually) and off-topics should be noted and discouraged, rather than reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll just back up Oknazevad in his complaint regarding this user. This user reverted the edits in List of rail gauges and Broad gauge once again to include what I shall describe politely as a novel point of view, and when I requested in the Talk:Broad gauge page that he/she do not do so again without citing references, he/she responded by suggesting I am stupid. The user simply cuts and pastes the same dubious "fact" into the user page of anyone who reverts his/her edit. It is of concern that this user is actively modifying a large number of articles, because if their edits are as apparently uninformed and baseless as their edits to articles on rail gauge, it's likely that these articles are severly diminished in quality and veracity.


 * I note that during the time I have been adding this comment, the user has yet again reverted their edit to List of rail gauges. - Zzrbiker (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 31 hours for long-term edit warring at List of rail gauges. The content he is trying to add to these articles is amazing and seems unlikely to be true.  EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SkyBon reported by User:Alex Smotrov (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 18:09, 25 February 2010


 * 1st revert: 1
 * 2nd revert: 2
 * 3rd revert: 3
 * 4th revert: 4

The user was inserting his own unsourced opinion, left only one vague message on the article talk page, implying that the original source + his own interpretation is sufficient to be in the article.

The user has 3K+ edits in Russian Wikipedia and was blocked there for both for edit warring and for 3RR, so he was already well aware of 3RR rule.

The page is protected at the moment, but the user will definitely continue edit warring as soon as protection expires.

— AlexSm 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. There is currently an RfC at Talk:Russian Wikipedia. Unless SkyBon gains consensus for his material, he may be blocked if he continues to restore it when protection expires. On 26 February, before the protection, he exceeded 3RR on the Russian Wikipedia article. I share the submitter's opinion that no WP:RS has been offered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:89.31.155.253/User:89.31.155.252 reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: /

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Have not been involved in the dispute substantially (only offered a compromise version and reverted obvious sockpuppet 3RR evasion), but no resolution has been attempted so far. Bonus: personal attack

Comments:

---

Todor→Bozhinov 13:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. Edit warring by dynamic IPs, evidently all the same person, who (when all their edits are combined) have clearly exceeded 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by User talk:Drork (Result: Drork is on 1RR for six months in the I/P area)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (adding another revert. Noon (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC))
 * As Tiamut noted, the 1st and the 2nd reversions are consecutive. While true they are still two separate reverts of the editing of two different users, thus should be counted as two distinct reverts. I'll let the closing admin of this report to decide how to handle this situation. Noon (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Comments: (1) Tiamut's request to be unblocked after a long edit-war related block has been recently granted: User talk:Tiamut (2) Explanations why Tiamut's version is problematic and has to be changed were given in the article's talk page: Talk:State of Palestine

DrorK (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tiamut made three reverts in a 30-hour period. Not exactly a WP:3RR violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 08:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been known to block people for edit-warring in the past Malik in the absence of 3RR violations. Drork didn't claim that she broke 3RR. Breein1007 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This show needs a "spin-off"... maybe "DrorK, Tiamut and Friends?" The cessation of warring between this group of editors looks about as promising as an immediate and total end to all greater Arab-Israeli conflicts in general, worldwide, in perpetuity. In this humble non-administrating editor's POV; if certain articles can't be edited in a WP:NPOV fashion, maybe certain editors not willing (or able) to follow this policy shouldn't be editing particular articles (a crazy concept, I know). This is the third or fourth report I've seen in my short time watching this board from this particular group of "friends", with the same exact issues. I don't see any successful resolution coming from this page's forum, before or now. Just my unsolicited opinion, and I'm glad I'm free to give it. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I made two reverts in 24 hours. I've also participted in the discussion on the talk page and I've explained in detail my rationale for the reverts. Drork insists on making changes to the introduction of this article tht incorporate primary source material and OR, as well as fallling afoul of WP:LEAD (in that they are not even mentioned in the body of the article). He is also deleting sources, claiming they are unreliable, even though he has been asked more than once to take his concerns to RSN instead of making unilateral decision. Attempts to reason with him had led nowhere. He claims he has consensus for his edits, given that only three people disagree with him.
 * I would ask that the page be protected, even in the wrong version, but I don't think that will solve the problem. I also think dispute resolution will lead nowhere. IMHO, Drork should be banned from editing that page and other pages related to Palestine. He has done nothing but edit war there (whereas I have at least introduced much content sourced to reliable secondary sources hich makes up the bulk of the article). He has tried to merge State of Palestine into Proposals for a Palestinian state. Its clear he has a problem with the existence of Palestine. If a Palestinian editor spent all their time trying to downplay the legitimacy of the Israeli state, I'm quite sure they would be prohibited from editing Israeli related articles. I don't see why this should be any different.  T i a m u t talk 10:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tiamut consistently made tendentious edits to Middle East related articles. Whenever he doesn't like edits of other users, she reverts them, disregarding any explanation. This problem was acknowledged and she was blocked for a long period of time. She asked to be unblocked, and the first thing she does is engaging in another edit war in a ME related article. Apparently her unblock was a bad idea. I demand that Tiamut's reverts would be discarded and the page be protected. DrorK (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Drork, the articles Sharafat, East Jerusalem and Mujir al-Din al-'Ulaymi (both of which I wrote from scratch since returning from my block) are what I like to do most here. Unlike you, edit-warring is not the be all and end all of what I do here at Wikipedia. I tried to avoid State of Palestine altogether, but letting you it use as private playground for your OR theories just didn't work out. I would accept a ban from editing that page if you were banned, simply so that it could be protected from your OR edits, and left to other less disruptive editors to work out.  T i a m u t talk 10:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that Drork be cautioned that this page is not intended as a place to pursue his persistent edit warring. Actually Tiamut is a far more restrained and reasonable editor than Drork is. Zerotalk 10:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tiamut should be blocked, especially as she misused her unblock courtesy. Her reverts should be discarded because she removed legitimate edits and corrections. Her claim that his recent contributions focused on Sharafat, East Jerusalem and Mujir al-Din al-'Ulaymi is untrue, which is quite evident from her contribution page. Her accusations that I try to introduce personal views and OR are slander, as all my edits are explained elaborately on the article's talk page. Her very remarks here seems to indicate that she regards the whole issue as a political fight rather than a true attempt to convey genuine information. DrorK (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Drork, I would find it much easier to sympathise with you regarding accusations if you weren't so fond of doing it yourself. "you insist on misleading everyone here" "deliberately trying to obscure..these are politically motivated edits" "You keep bringing irrelevant information in order to drag this discussion forever" and so on.  These are all personal accusations that are not even on Admin pages (where editors are allowed to speak their minds more than elsewhere).  Zerotalk 13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that a sockpuppet investigation is carried out on Drork to check whether the account is not the latest in the lsarig-nocal100-canadian_monkey chain being used to harass Tiamut. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard one argument in favor of Tiamut. No one suggested that I am wrong and that he should not be blocked. What I did see here is an attempt to direct the blame at me. This is a very poor tactic for handling the situation. Tiamut has friends here, no doubt. This is probably why he was unblocked so quickly. Tiamut's campaign is nearing the edge of illegitimacy. DrorK (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You might also want to consider this thread User talk:Tiamut. It seems to me like an illegitimate campaign. DrorK (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely getting out of control, some restraint is needed, I suggest the community come up with a cease and desist with respect to these destruptions of the project. We are here to create not to get into endless arguments and harrasing others. Taprobanus (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is why there are currently sanctions on the topic. AE might be more appropriate. Unfortunately, I suspect that any AE will deflect on to the editor that makes the request (also an edit warrior, wikihounding, whatever else comes up). Drork may need to be discussed but this here is about Tiamut. Has she edit warred again? Is another block appropriate? I personally see her staying under 3rr but that doesn't mean her edits are fostering consensus. Cptnono (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why the finger is directed at me here. I have long ago warned of a political coalition that exists here. It's Tiamut, Nableezy and Harlan. These three practically "hijack" articles related to the Middle-East conflict, and use them for political purposes. Whenever someone dares to confront them, they work to crush him by edit wars, endless discussions, misquotes of sources, personal attacks etc. This is not paranoia, just look at their edits. Tiamut went way too far with her recent reverts in the article State of Palestine and her campaign on her talk page while she was blocked. She was unblocked very graciously, but continued her misconduct. Nableezy was blocked indefinitely due to personal attacks, and then unblocked, and yet he continues this practice of tendentious edits and personal attacks. Harlan is cautious enough not to be too much involved in misconduct, but he has a history of forcing his political opinions by edit wars, and he often misquote sources in order to mislead other users to accept his edits. Things are getting out of control, indeed, but the finger should be pointed at the right place. WP is about knowledge, not about politics, and I think there are three users here who need some clarifications about this principle, to say the least. DrorK (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The finger is pointed at you because you are a big part of the problem. It's not that the others are perfect, far from it, but you are as much of a warrior as Nableezy or Harlan is, and lots more than Tiamut is. Anything you disagree with is "tendentious" according to you, and two or more editors you disagree with are an evil plot.  Verbiage like "Tiamut's campaign is nearing the edge of illegitimacy" makes you sound completely ridiculous.  Stop it. Zerotalk 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A concrete suggestion to the admins reading this: I propose that (1) this report be dismissed with no action; (2) from now on, no reports by any of Nableezy, Tiamut, Harlan or Drork against each other be allowed either on this page or on AN/I, no exceptions. Serious breaches of the rules can be reported by someone else. Zerotalk 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Zero000 - your cooperation with Tiamut is evident from your talk page, e.g. here. While I am not suggesting it is illegitimate, it puts you in a very bad position to make such suggestions. You are obviously under conflict of interest here, and you have irrelevant motives to attack me and protect Tiamut. DrorK (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My suggestion lists Tiamut as well as you and so is as balanced as I can make it. Zerotalk 12:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut's account was blocked for one week, but was lifted after less than 3 days. The unblocking admin rationale was: "Block has served its purpose, will assume good faith that the user will avoid further edit wars." It's quite difficult to see any change in the editing pattern of this user, therefore the least would be to resume the full week sanction. Noon (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Noon, I've already said that I would accept a page ban from State of Palestine, if it resulted in a page ban for Drork as well. I'm not edit-warring by myself. Yes, I made 2 reverts in 24 hours. Yes, that is not good. Yes, I should have avoided doing so. So should Drork. I've asked repeatedly that he discuss to gain consensus for his edit on the talk page. While he discusses, he doesn't respect that the consensus is that his edits are not improvements.
 * I'd also note that you are not a disinterested party here. Your drive-by reverting to restore Drork's version without participating in the discussion at all is very unhelpful. And your "2nd revert" is a misrepresentation of my actions, as I said to you on your talk page here.  T i a m u t talk 14:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you would like the current version of the page protected and unedited. It it YOUR version, and it includes tendentious edits of yours. You suggestion is a reward to the culprit, when the culprit is you. DrorK (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Drork, I'm aware of your strong dislike of me, but please do not misrepresent what I have said. The only mention I made of page protection above was when I said, "I would ask that the page be protected, even in the wrong version, but I don't think that will solve the problem." And indeed it will not. It was you who said, "I demand that Tiamut's reverts would be discarded and the page be protected." Perhaps you are confusing my statements with your own?  T i a m u t talk 15:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I second "a concrete suggestion". The kinds of edits Tiamut makes to these I/P articles makes him susceptible to "edit warring" allegations. This notice seems to be simple partisan bickering. NickCT (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, since is turning to be a field trial against me, I have to remind you the facts at hand:
 * Tiamut was involved in numerous war edits and banned for a week
 * While she was blocked she asked other editors to act on his behalf and makes edits to articles on I/P issues
 * Tiamut asked to be unblocked. Her request was granted. When she came back she almost immediately got involved in war edits again.
 * Her excuse is the fact that she reverted 3 times within 30 hours rather than within 24 hours
 * She could not explain why she insisted on her reverts, apart from the general claim that edits I made were "tendentious". She could not explain what makes these edits "tendentious".
 * Some editors who are in close contact with her (as evident from her talk page) came here to protect her and turn the accusations to the person who filed the complaint (that's me). DrorK (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Drork - A review of your talk page makes you appear like a slightly fractious editor. Perhaps a quick of Civility might be in order? NickCT (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Both Zero000 and NickCT suggested here that the problem was not Tiamut but me. Both seem to be quite affiliate with Tiamut. I've already brought a link Zero000 talk page above, and here are some evidence about NickCT's relations with Tiamut: User talk:NickCT User talk:Tiamut. Again, I am not suggesting that these contacts are wrong per se, but I do suspect that the attacks against me and the overwhelming protection of Tiamut result from serious conflict of interests. DrorK (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for ZScarpia's remark above, see this conversation with Tiamut on his talk page where I am mentioned. You may call me a paranoid, but it does not mean there is no conspiracy here. DrorK (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of conspiracy do you think might be taking place?   -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is rich. DrorK was blocked earlier this week for edit-warring at State of Palestine and he returned from his block to continue his edit war. Yet here he is, arguing with a straight face that Tiamut deserves extra punishment because, he says, she returned from her block (last week) to edit war. Pot, meet kettle. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Drork himself has edited the State of Palestine article to say that 3 dozen countries have recognized the State of Palestine. Nonetheless, he complains about "a trend of initiating articles or modifying existing articles in a way suggesting the existence of a Palestinian state."


 * Wikipedia policy on Content Forks specifically provides for Articles whose subject is a POV. Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.


 * 1) The State of Palestine article represents the published viewpoint that the existence of a state of Palestine, although controversial, is nonetheless a reality in the opinions of the many states that have established bilateral diplomatic relations. It also cites officials and scholars who say the State of Palestine does NOT exist, and cross-references Proposals for a Palestinian state.
 * 2) According to a number of sources, statehood is a legal status; states are "persons" of law;[] and determinations regarding the existence of a state are ordinarily made by other states.
 * 3) The term 'recognition' or 'non-recognition' usually expresses the manifestation of the recognizing government's opinion on the legal status of the government in question. Dr Talmon explains "It must be emphasized that recognition does not objectively establish the legal status of a government, but that it simply constitutes a subjective (relative) statement on that status." See Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 29
 * 4) Recognized experts in international law, such as Professor Alain Pellet of the University of Paris-Nanterre, and former president of the International Law Commission, have written that it is not absurd to think that Palestine is a State within the general and usual meaning of the term. (French)
 * 5) Drork has frequently stated that he does not have to comply with the policy outlined in Verifiability and dismisses objections from other editors by claiming that the "discussion is over". When his unsourced editorials are reverted per WP:BRD, he claims the article is being "hijacked". harlan (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan, how do you explain this warning recently published on your talk page? Furthermore, all your claims regarded the content of the aforementioned article have been systematically refuted. You chose to ignore sources which you didn't like, and edit-warred your way until you violently imposed your version. Tiamut and Nableezy helped you in doing so. DrorK (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore a source I didn't like. I discussed the matter in several posts on the talk page; your user page; and started a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. You are citing a legal opinion written by a layman on his self-published website. WP:IRS says these types of sources are largely not acceptable. harlan (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: While both editors were blocked in the not overly distant past, I tend to see a main concern that this forum should deal with. An editor should not make any reverts in a period which was part of an original sanction. That much should be clear, or made clear, to any established editor.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Tiamut has proposed that she and Drork agree not to edit State of Palestine, as a solution to the long-term war. I'm waiting for a response from Drork. Such an agreement would change how I would close the case, if I'm the one to do it.  In the absence of an agreement, I think there may need to be sanctions under WP:ARBPIA, and the domain of the sanctions would be larger than just this article.  EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Drork needs to be officially notified of the sanctions by an admin before any AE decisions if he as not been already.Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DrorK was notified more than 8 months ago. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then lets enforce it. Taprobanus (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are playing into the culprit's hands here. To this point Tiamut could not explain her problematic behavior. She summarized her stubbornness by the political statement "Palestine exists". She can allow herself withdraw from edits because she trusts her friends to keep her problematic edits. As you can see on her talk page, she consistently campaigning and enlisting friends for her campaign, including Malik Shabazz, who often acts on her behalf despite his obligation as an admin to be impartial. I am not to blame here. Tiamut, on the other hand, proved she is a politician, not a Wikipedia editor. I therefore reject her suggestion completely and urge you to take the right action, rather than the convenient one. DrorK (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Screw it then. You provide the diffs and we'll open up another AE on Tiamut. Honestly, I am not that confident that she would not seek assistance on this particular page if taking a voluntary block since she couldn't stop using her talk page while blocked last week. Drork will more than likely be blocked at AE but it really boils down to blocking editors who won't stop edit warring. So Drork says nuts to the deal and both get blocked at AE. Does that hurt anyone's feelings? I dont vcare how much Tiamut plays around at DYK: Edit warrign is edit warring and SPA is SPA.Cptnono (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Drork, I've made over 26,000 contributions to this encyclopedia. Some articles I've made from scratch have very little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see for example Qedarite). Yet in every interaction with me you have insuinated or flat out accused me of being here for reasons other than improving the content of this encyclopedia. I've tried not to respond in kind, though admittedly lately I have succumbed to this lower level of discourse.
 * I won't bother discussing the content issue here at all. Its not relevant. Frankly, its not up to you or I to determine if Palestine exists. Only to report how reliable sources write about its existence or non-existence. And while you think you know what my personal position is, you most surely do not.
 * Notwithstanding the fact that I've made well over 200 edits to State of Palestine, I've offered to voluntarily remove myself (i.e. be page banned) from the editing of that page, on the condition that you do/are too, so as to free it from the war of attrition in which we seem to be stuck. This offer was made in response to EdJohnston's suggestion that the page be protected for 6 months. I want to avoid that outcome, because during that time, no one would be able to improve, add to, or edit it. I think its a good offer and one you should accept, given that you are edit-warring with me, also fresh off a block. True, you did not violate 3RR, but neither did I. Its quite presumptious of you to think you can come here, report me for edit-warring when you are too, demand action be taken against my trangressions, with no thought to your own.
 * I hope you will reconsider the offer that is being made. I know that no matter what the outcome here, I will not be editing State of Palestine for the next long while. Its not worth it. Despite your belief, there is no political battle that can be won there Drork. Documenting the opinion of scholars that Palestine does or doesn't exist changes absolutely nothing on the ground, nad bringing that ground battle here is futile.  T i a m u t talk 11:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Drork can accept or not. Tiamut is obviously in violation. So an admin can decide here if a block would make the project better but Tiamut has been warned. I'll chill for the night and see if I am being overly pricky but come tomorrow AE is the only appropriate venue unless someone has a magical way to fix this.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to make another concrete suggestion. All editors who have argued at length (definition to be decided here) on the State of Palestine article and its talk page should be banned from that article permanently. Zerotalk 12:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I object. I pointed out to specific and crucial errors in this article. I want them fixed. DrorK (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Drork is placed under a 1RR restriction for six months on all articles subject to WP:ARBPIA. He may not revert more than once per day, but he is still free to contribute on talk pages. The restriction ends at 19:00 (UTC) on 28 August, 2010. I am logging this under the restrictions in WP:ARBPIA. Per usual, the action may be appealed at WP:Arbitration Enforcement. I take note that Drork turned down the offer of a milder restriction, keeping him from editing the State of Palestine article for six months, with Tiamut doing the same. His refusal of this offer affected my decision here.


 * In my opinion, Tiamut is getting near a point of being restricted under WP:ARBPIA, but has not quite reached it. Tiamut gives the impression of being willing to join in negotiations, while Drork is close to being a Single Purpose Account. Events and new information don't seem to affect Drork's views on any of the contested topics. Drork seems to be an example of WP:BATTLE editing. Up till now, Drork has three previous blocks for edit warring, two of them in February 2010, one of them by me. Tiamut has five previous blocks for edit warring, most of them old, one of them in February 2010, and has been unblocked four times. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever looked at yourself in the mirror? Why are you here? I know why Tiamut is here. She wants to propagate in favor of the Palestinian national movement and against Israel. She probably also signs petitions to boycott Israel and come to lecture halls to shout when the Israeli ambassador comes to deliver a speech. I know why Harlan is here. He is bored and and find no good use for his knowledge but to conduct endless political discussions and feel righteous and powerful. Malik became an admin and he enjoys this wonderful power to support his friends who fight for the Palestinian cause on WP. He feels very important doing so. I'm here mainly because I'm bored, but also because I've been editing WP and volunteering in Wikimedia for more than four years, and saw it gradually decline. At some point, I stopped editing, and heard from other people how this project declines. I decided to get back into the system and try to see how it works and what can be done, but it is way too rotten. What I've seen here is politically-motivated gangs who act violently to push their opinions, admins who fell in love with their extra power, cumbersome bureaucracy which resembles an army of a third-world country, field trials which resembles circus maximus in ancient Rome, people who introduce embarrassing errors to articles per "sources" and violently prevent any objection to this trend. What I've seen in this discussion is a an absurd that would have been funny (it is Purim today in fact), unless it indicated the decline of this project. The funny thing is that I have to bend my head before a person whose name I don't know, who treat me like a little boy, and without getting to the bottom of the problem here, decides how many times I should edit. I wish Franz Kafka were alive, he would have found this scene inspiring. DrorK (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:88.109.169.136 reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 18:00, 26 February 2010


 * 1st revert: 09:41, 27 February 2010
 * 2nd revert: 10:27, 27 February 2010
 * 3rd revert: 10:38, 27 February 2010
 * 4th revert: 10:54, 27 February 2010
 * 5th revert: 13:20, 27 February 2010
 * 6th revert: 13:37, 27 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:07, 27 February 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I gave the offending user a 3RR warning, but only after their 6th revert. However, I do not believe that this should make any difference, since the user appears to have enough knowledge of Wikipedia policy to report me for rollback abuse (see here). – PeeJay 14:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be pointed out that PeeJay2K3 did perform three reversions on this article and performed another three on the 2009–10 UEFA Champions League knockout stage article against the same user. So although he hasn't strictly contravened the letter of the three revert rule on either article, he has gone against the spirit by edit warring against a single user on multiple articles. I therefore suggest his actions be scrutinised and action taken. --88.109.133.47 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As you have noted, making three reversions in 24 hours is not a violation of 3RR, so there's no reason for my conduct to be examined. This anonymous user, however, made SIX reversions in the space of less than four hours. By the way, who are you? Consider this my intention of investigating you as a sockpuppet of the IP being investigated here. – PeeJay 18:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For somebody who's been blocked four times for edit warring you would expect them to have a good grasp of the policy by now. To quote "3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR." Therefore your actions even though not against the letter of the law still constitue edit warring and you could face a block yourself. Good luck with the SPI. --88.109.132.169 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that another editor (User:Harrias) also reverted you more than once on this particular article, I think it is clear that your edits were in the wrong in this case. I find it unlikely that an admin would find my edits to be controversial when another editor supported the contribution I made. – PeeJay 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That user has now said he agreed with the IP's edits, so I agree it's clear who is in the wrong here. It should also be noted that you abused your rollback privilege by reverting three edits to this page even though they were a style change and nothing close to vandalism. I find it likely that an admin would be interested in your edits. --88.109.128.63 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Harrias agreed with the content of your edits, but not with your methods; there is a big difference. If you don't like the way something is done here, the proper course of action is discussion, not simply reverting and re-reverting. It's fine that you were bold about your original edits, but this is beyond the Pale. – PeeJay 22:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...says the person who has been blocked four times before for edit warring and is nearing a fifth. When I want your take on Wikipedia's rules I'll ask for it, OK? --88.109.128.63 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You think you're pretty smart, don't you? As you well know, my past indiscretions are no excuse for yours. If it is found that I've done something wrong, I would expect for myself to be punished just the same as you. I, at least, have mitigating circumstances for my actions; what's your excuse? – PeeJay 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I was that smart but having spoken to you today I do feel more intelligent yes. You consider arrogance a mitigating circumstance? --88.109.128.63 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay has now performed five reversions in 24 hours on the 2009–10 UEFA Champions League knockout stage article, don't think I need to start a new thread. --88.109.128.63 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was restoring the status quo, as is standard practice when content is disputed. If you have a problem with the content at 2009–10 UEFA Champions League knockout stage, you should contribute to the discussion at WT:FOOTY. – PeeJay 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If restoring the status quo is standard practice why haven't you done so on the England cricket team against Pakistan in UAE in 2009–10 article? Can you direct me to the policy link for this 'standard practice', because it sounds like you're making rules up just to try and dig yourself out of trouble. --88.109.128.63 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about that article. I'll go fix it now. – PeeJay 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No policy link was provided so I've reverted your edits. --88.109.128.63 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're only making things worse for yourself by continuing to revert. – PeeJay 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, see WP:STATUSQUO. – PeeJay 23:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If after five years of being here you still don't know the difference between a policy and an essay I'd give up mate. --88.109.128.63 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about policy? I was talking about standard practice, which is explained in that essay. Don't play the semantics game with me, you will lose. – PeeJay 23:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I said something about policy if you can read. I asked for a policy link and you provided an essay link. Nothing to do with semantics, policy actually mean something, essays mean jackshit. --88.109.128.63 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because an essay hasn't become policy yet doesn't mean it's not a good idea. You're just avoiding the issue by belittling others' opinions. WP:STATUSQUO is perfectly valid and you should respect it. – PeeJay 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been around longer than you and is still an essay, so fair to say it has only minimal support. I wouldn't have bothered to revert if that's all I had to support my position. --88.109.128.63 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you keep debunking guidelines and essays just because they don't support your position, we'll never get anywhere. – PeeJay 00:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What guideline? And have I ever picked an essay to support my position? --79.71.131.20 (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are you? – PeeJay 12:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Article semiprotected. Issues like this should be settled at WT:FOOTY. Any admin who believes that PeeJay2K3 should also be sanctioned is welcome to study the history and take any necessary action. Though PeeJay2K3 is well-intentioned he sometimes gets carried away. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed. I think you hit the nail on the head there. I recognise that I can be quite overzealous sometimes, and I am now making a concerted effort not to get so carried away with regard to edit-warring. My problem with the system is that IPs don't often care about our rules, so while well-meaning editors will stop at three reverts for fear of falling foul of 3RR, the IPs will continue and the page will often end up being left in an unsatisfactory state until the dispute resolution process is complete. I hope I'm not the only one who recognises this flaw in our policy. – PeeJay 21:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 13 reverts on two articles against a single editor and still no block, well done Ed on such a complete whitewash. PeeJay in his response above has once again shown his ignorance with regard the edit warring policy, his name is sure to be appearing on this page in the very near future and maybe then he won't be so lucky. --88.109.179.211 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Thome66 reported by User:Paine Ellsworth (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of vandalism warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor continues to add a spam site as a reference citation for the changed material. When this editor came to the Talk page, there was no sig and the post was at the top section rather than at the bottom. This is probably a new editor who does not understand policy. So please, if you can, refrain from blocking this editor, and let us continue to try to reason with him/her. &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  21:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Result - 48 hours. An account whose first edit was on 24 January is warring to insert a link that is on the spam blacklist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. I wonder how this editor is able to add this SPAM link to the France article? I tried to add it on the Talk:France page and the SPAMLIST alarm went off disallowing my attempted edit.


 * Thank you, Ed, and sorry it had to come to this. Any thoughts on how editor Thome66 was able to add the spamlink to the France article and not receive the usual warning that disallows the edit?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  02:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kostja reported by User:Athenean (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

The dispute here revolves around the 1st paragraph of the lead of this article. In each instance above, User:Kostja reverted to the version of the paragraph from Feb 13th. He is particularly adamant against the usage of the word "Turkic". In his 4th revert, he removed it, even though User:Alexikoua only re-added that word, having left the rest of Kostja's reverts untouched in an attempt at compromise. In each instance he reverted to the same version, so this is a very clear 3RR violation. I also note Kostja is edit-warring over at Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. User is a sterile-revert warrior, using hostile edit summaries and generally avoids discussion. Experienced user with a history of edit-warring, treat with severity. Athenean (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No need to warn, user has years of experience.
 * The first edit was not a revert as it wasn't a return to the version before Athenean's edits (see the differences between my version and the one before Athenean's edits: ), so it doesn't fit the definition of reverting another users contribution. My first edits only involved changes for which there was a general consensus on the talk page and did not involve reinsertion of the material introduced by the banned user Monshuai and removed by Athenean.
 * As can be seen from the talk page of this article, I have my explained multiple times reasoning against this wording, so the accusation that I avoid discussion is not really accurate. I should note that Athenean has himself frequently participated in edit warring and has been blocked twice for this already. He's also seems to be following me around. In light of Athenean's own history of edit warring and the fact that he's a party to the dispute his attempt to look neutral in this case and present himself as an authority (especially the rather inappropriate advise how I should be punished) should not be necessarily taken at face value.
 * And I don't exactly have years of experience, Athenean must confuse me with someone else. Kostja (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your first edit is revert, because you reverted the first paragraph to this version here from Feb 13th .  Your first revert and your edit from Feb 13th restored the same version of the 1st paragraph, and are thus identical in effect.  Though you didn't undo the remainder of my edits, it's a partial revert, therefore a revert.  And I am not following you around:  I saw that you were edit-warring on First Bulgarian Empire, and then I looked at your contribs log where I saw more edit-warring.  Don't play innocent victim here.  If you don't want to be accused of edit-warring, then don't edit-war. Athenean (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reversion means reverting another users contribution, not reverting to a particular version. Also, my edit concerned only those parts which generally conformed to the preliminary version being discussed on the talk page, quite different from the edits by Monshuai which were not under consideration any longer, so it wasn't really a revert, more an attempt to return to a compromise version while the discussion was still lasting.
 * The dispute on the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization was in no way similar to the current dispute. It was a case of an anonymous user avoiding the 3RR rule by a dynamic IP. In this case multiple users were trying to stop his disruptive edits and at no point did I do more than two reverts. Kostja (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can WP:LAWYER all you want, but WP:3RR is pretty clear ("more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period").  You could of course reduce your chances of getting blocked by adopting a more conciliatory stance or reverting yourself, but I just seen more of the usual defiance.  Suit yourself. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 24 hours for 3RR violation. A revert is '..an action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.' Whenever you get near the limit, you should slow down.  You've been systematically removing the word Turkic. That is a revert. And I'd be surprised if you can argue that your first edit above is not a revert, since the edit summary was 'Do not introduce passages which are against the consensus'. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mosmof reported by User:95.68.46.22 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

. : Time reported: 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Original version before war: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronaldo&action=edit&oldid=338361292

Currently active dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#End_dates_on_international_careers

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:
 * 16th revert:
 * 17th revert:
 * 18th revert:

i have warned him, but he has ignored my warning. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: User:mosmof did plenty of reverts to it's unoriginal version which was not before dispute in discussion was started, he did it even when dispute about that was in action on wikiproject soccer. Article Ronaldo is currently on dispute's unoriginal version, so please someone undo it(it is currently semi-protected)

Please someone else check it, not him, who's been in this situation closing down article. Interest conflict.95.68.46.22 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Declined. Per WP:SOCK, socks may not file complaints at admin noticeboards. You have almost no editing record except here at this noticeboard, yet you have not explained what your own role in the dispute may have been. If you will list all the IPs or accounts under which you've edited Wikipedia in the last three days, then we'll talk. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interest conflict? Doubtful.  Are you requesting a WP:Checkuser?... Doc9871 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, LOL! Check this user not me, I have been punished and sentenced already. This case is about him not me so be generous. 95.68.33.89 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:65.205.49.165 reported by User:5 albert square (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I came across this page quite by accident whilst reverting using Huggle and noticed that an edit war was brewing so decided to try and take decisive action and try and stop this happening by opening up a discussion on the talk page. Whilst the editor is talking on the talk page, they are refusing to accept any compromise on the article. We have tried to compromise with this person by editing the infobox to include more information on what is happening over this persons criminal charges but the editor has refused to accept this. I feel that I am left with no other option than to request administrator intervention.

--5 albert square (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/5 Albert's observations. I would add that a SPA was created today, making the same revisions as this IP (in great number), with similar edit summaries.  It has been blocked, w/the observation by the blocking admin that it was a likely sock.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add before that I have requested full temporary protection of this page at WP:RFPP until we reach some sort of resolution on the talk page, but I've yet to hear back about this request. Even if the page is locked, I would really appreciate some administrator intervention on the talk page to try and get this issue resolved as soon as possible for the sake of the article.  Also, observation made by me today regarding the edits made by this user, I really wouldn't be surprised if they were a sockpuppet already, or, if they were banned, that they turned into a sockpuppet --5 albert square (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Article has been fully protected by User:Fastily. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:66.25.93.158 reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: first addition


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the IP has not once moved to discussion even after two last warnings on his talkpage. Comments:

Repeated reverting and replacing uncited content. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left the editor a note here linking to this report. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is the IP editor's first attempt at an edit: nothing in the article to which he added the uncited content is cited, but he was repeatedly reverted for being factually incorrect when his edits were in fact factually correct. (I've tweaked his language and provided cites.)  No one welcomed the editor; he was templated immediately and accused of vandalism, so he might be excused if he is now being unfriendly.  I further note that he hasn't yet violated 3RR: his most recent reversion was the third in the last 24 hours.  Of course, if he reverts a fourth time after I've reached out to him, block away. THF (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy to let this rest for to see what happens and THF appears to be taking him under his wing, but at the end of the day, this IP has not even added a singe word to a talkpage and imo he is not going to suddenly jump up and start anytime soon, but it is a minor issue and the wheels will not drop off over this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, to be fair, it takes two to edit war, and no one else has tried to talk about this on the talk page, either. A newbie who makes a factually correct addition that improves the article, and is (1) told that it is factually incorrect when it isn't, (2) told that it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards when it is indistinguishable from anything else in the article, (3) told that he is a "vandal" for adding it, and then (4) repeatedly reverted on these questionable grounds, is going to come away without understanding the WP:NOT and WP:EW rules when he is initiated so without any good example to guide him.  The editor might be beyond help at this point (my attempts to reach out to him on his talk page are buried in a sea of red hands and angry templating), which would be a shame, but I hope not. THF (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Update. OK, now he's made a fourth revert to add the paragraph (which is already in the article in a revised version), though he tried to justify it with a comment on Off2riorob's talk page, showing that the issue is newbie-ness. I've asked the anon to undo his edit, but don't have a lot of faith that that will happen. THF (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected. This is a good enough example of a BLP violation for now. If this editor adds inappropriate material to any other articles, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps different approaches could've been used to communicate with him initially, but the fact remains that communication attempts were made. When a normal, reasonable person sees red warnings, said normal reasonable person takes a step back to try to figure out what's wrong; not plowing ahead and blindly re-introducing the same material. Besides, I may not be a regular editor here anymore, but I do believe WP still needs to be very careful about allowing potentially libelous material to exist in BLP's; which is exactly what this editor's edits were, since they were without sources. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? This IP is editing solely for disruptive purposes. Now that he has violated 3RR, time to block, please. --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The anon's behavior technically qualifies him for a block at this point. That said, there was an extreme violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF here: editors essentially baselessly accused the anon of making up the information he added to the article, and whatever the flaws of the added paragraph, it was not "vandalism." THF (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:68.105.68.230 reported by avs5221 (talk) (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Original version, first diff:

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


 * 1) 23:05, 20 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 23:06, 20 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 06:31, 21 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 03:39, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 03:57, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 04:04, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 03:34, 24 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 04:49, 25 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 04:57, 27 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 08:04, 28 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 00:09,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

I'm an uninvolved third party. This has been discussed on 68.105.68.230 talk page between those involved. The IP user keeps changing the country of origin to Japan, which is being reverted as unsourced, unverifiable content. The original diff above shows the page referencing to the character as Chinese. The IP user keeps changing his nationality to Japanese, which is shown in the above diffs. Sorry, the IP user is not reverting to a diff in the traditional sense, he keeps reverting the "good" page to the page he sees fit, ie the character is Japanese instead of Chinese.

Two other notes: the IP user uses article space to argue with other editors on two instances: and. Also, the IP user has NOT broken the 3RR rule (his edits do not fit the time criteria), but I wanted to report what is clearly edit warring in spirit, if not explicitly in rule. He has continued to make the same revision over and again since November and misses the time criteria sometimes by as much as a few hours.

avs5221 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. This anon editor has been trying to insert the same unsourced information for the last six weeks, claiming that the game has a Japanese connection. If he will join the discussion on Talk and offer evidence, the protection could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IP addresses 95.68.3x.xxx-95.68.5x.xxx reported by User:Mosmof (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported::

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 07:01, February 28, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 09:27, February 28, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 10:27, February 28, 2010
 * 4th revert: 20:30, February 28, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:10, February 28, 2010

Attempted discussion on user talk page: 18:13, February 28, 2010

Comments:

This is a recurrence of the dynamic IP editor already blocked above: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Same issues - sockpuppets of blocked user using IP addresses to circumvent the block. I've tried discussing issues with this user, but I've had trouble, either because of the user's unwillingness to consider Wikipedia policies or difficulty with English. Mosmof (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. These IPs seem to be the same person as in the earlier case, about the Ronaldo article. If this activity is all from User:Gigsons, and if he extends his revert war to more articles, you should consider filing a case at WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Anupam reported by User:Shshshsh (Result: Both warned)

 * Pages::


 * User being reported:

Most of Anupam's edits have been adding Urdu scripts to Bollywood related film articles while the language of the films is officially Hindi. There was never a clear consensus on adding the scripts but he was still adding Urdu scripts to articles about Hindi films. He cited some old 2006 discussion claiming there was a consensus on this one while there clearly was not. He also cavassed several editors to participate in the discussion and used the fact that a beaurocrat supported his view. I clearly proved why there was no consensus previously. He evaded this discussion and does not reply to the section.

Despite warnings, he kept edit warring on the Dil To Pagal Hai page and on other pages. I took one step back. I warned him but in return I received an insulting vandalism warning. You can see the articles' history pages. The user deviously made his fourth revert after 24 hours had already passed as though it was OK to edit war. But now he made clear violations of WP:3RR on the other three pages. The user is stalking me in every step so he will probably come here as well. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  06:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear administrators, allow me to kindly expand on this situation. Previous consensuses (poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3), affirmed that two scripts (Devanagari & Nastaliq/Perso-Arabic) used to transcribe Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani) were appropriate for Bollywood related film articles. The validity of these consensuses was, in fact, very recently confirmed by Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Taxman twice: here and here. User:Taxman, in his latter comment warned User:Shshshsh (Shahid) about how he misrepresents facts and is uncivil in his behavior, as demonstrated by his false warnings on my talk page and in the Bollywood talk page. I had kindly ask him to stop removing Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles until a new consensuses was enacted in the current discussion involving the inclusion of both Hindi & Urdu (Hindustani) scripts in Bollywood related film articles (by the way, in the current discussion, there is still an overwhelming consensus against the removal of Nastaliq (Urdu) scripts from Bollywood related film articles). I too, told User:Shshshsh (Shahid), that I would kindly not add Hindustani scripts to Bollywood related film articles until the current discussion was resolved (click here). Despite these kind pleas, from both Wikipedia Bureacrat User:Taxman and I, User:Shshshsh (Shahid) took matters into his own hands and recently started removing Nasta'liq (Urdu) scripts from Bollywood related film articles, sometimes with fake edit summaries, such as "Cleanup", thus violating WP:EDSUM. Moreover, Shahid deleted requests to kindly stop starting edit wars from his talk page, violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which discourages the deletion of comments from talk pages. The only reason I even reverted User:Shshshsh (Shahid) on Dil To Pagal Hai is because there was an understanding that neither of us would take any action until a new consensus at the current discussion supported or refuted the previous valid consensuses. Since User:Shshshsh (Shahid) initially started removing Nastaliq (Urdu/Hindustani) scripts from Bollywood related film articles, he is the one that started edit warring, additionally violating the principal of Consensus, which he was reminded of in the start of the discussion by Wikipedia Bureacrat, User:Taxman. By the way, User:Taxman stated in disagreement with User:Shshshsh (Shahid's) position that his argument "doesn't hold water. And Bollywood being "formally referred to as Hindi cinema", even if there were such a thing that could formally make that designation, doesn't change the fact that Bollywood films are produced in a register of the Hindi/Urdu language continuum that is far from the shudda Hindi side of the spectrum." User:Shshshsh (Shahid) accuses me of canvassing when I have openly posted the fact that all users should participate in the current discussion in two major places, the Noticeboard for India-related topics and the Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. Moreover, it was evident that some users I requested to participate in the discussion are actively involved in the production and maintenance of Bollywood related articles or were experts in linguistics, both parties who specialize in the topic in question in the current discussion. It is interesting that User:Shshshsh (Shahid) accuses me of canvassing, when he, himself, violates the main principle of canvassing by spamming non-neutral messages on talk pages regarding the current discussion. My requests were sent to editors whom I had never contacted and were neutral in nature. Please see an example on my talk page here. Moreover, User:Shshshsh (Shahid) accuses me of not replying to his messages in the current discussion (even though I have addressed his points throughout the discussion), yet, he leaves sarcastic responses to concerned editors participating in the current discussion and even deletes the comments of those who disagree with him in order to make it appear that his position is the most supported one. One example is this difference. In this difference, User:Shshshsh (Shahid) even uses a sneaky edit summary to hide his action! An example of another difference is this one. In this difference, Shahid has been accused by another editor for excising a quote in order to support his position, even though it supported that of the previous consensuses. From this post, it is clear that User:Shshshsh (Shahid) has overstepped Wikipedia policy and has acted out of boundaries, even though he has been warned by the Wikipedia administration repeatedly. Despite the fact that a current discussion is going on, he states that he proves his point and therefore takes action. Once again, the only reason I reverted him was because he is violating consensuses and ignoring the wishes of the Wikipedia community. In fact, I have email evidence from two Wikipedia administrators who encouraged me to revert User:Shshshsh (Shahid) and if he does not comply, to file a "RfC on user behavior" on User:Shshshsh (Shahid). If needed, I can forward these emails to the administrator handling this situation. In the mean time, I would like to encourage the Wikipedia administrator handling this situation to remind User:Shshshsh (Shahid) that he should respect Consensus as decided by the Wikipedia community and not to remove Hindustani scripts from Bollywood related film articles until a new consensus at the current discussion determines that it is acceptable/unacceptable. Moreover, he should be reminded that the previous consensuses (poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3) hold ground until a new one is established. Once again, User:Shshshsh (Shahid) was first told this by Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Taxman here. Thanks for your time and understanding in this matter. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 08:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There weren't any consensuses and I finally proved it here. Taxman also misinterpreted the discussions but he has no right to take decisions of any form about whether there was or wasn't a consensus. This last section I wrote on Talk:Bollywood was ignored by you. These discussions they died a premature death. You have to reach consensus before you add Urdu scripts to Bollywood, which is the Hindi-language film industry. When I cited this link to User:Taxman, he left the discussion as it clearly proved him wrong. "Shahid has overstepped Wikipedia policy and has acted out of boundaries, even though he has been warned by the Wikipedia administration repeatedly." - this is a complete lie. Additionally, nothing justifies your cavassing, wikilawyering, wikistalking and most importantly - edit warring. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Do not continue a dispute on this page." Please carefully see how to correctly file a report here.  This is not a properly filed report, and overly long sections defending an editor's actions are usually not well-received on this page... Doc9871 (talk)


 * Note - this user is now massively reverting all my edits as you can see. This is unbelievable. I'm starting an ANI. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes! I see your point.  He'll probably be blocked for this behavior sooner rather than later... Doc9871 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I'm out of this now. I'm not going to revert him again. See this on Dillagi:
 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th
 * The same violations of WP:3RR were made by Anupam on Kal Ho Naa Ho (Diff) and Awaara (Diff). All within half an hour and that too after he was warned in my edit summaries. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Doc9871, please kindly read my statement. Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Taxman stated that removal of the scripts was a violation of consensus: Additionally there was indeed in the past a consensus for including both scripts in the conversations that have been linked. Longstanding Wikipedia tradition is that consensus stands until a different one is clearly established, time doesn't invalidate a past consensus it just means it has stood the test of time longer. Since a consensus to change the practice hasn't been established yet, removing the scripts is not proper until such consensus has been established. --Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Taxman.
 * Previous consensuses established this precedent and now User:Shshshsh (Shahid) is violating this consensus and starting edit wars by removing Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles. Once again, I was encouraged by administrators to revert his edits. Thanks for your understanding, `AnupamTalk


 * Comment - If you (meaning any and all of you) are comfortable that your reverts are appropriate, then the closing admin will note this, I'm sure. Reverting each other is generally not a great idea (excepting vandalism, copyright and BLP issues), and can lead to blocks and worse; but if dispute resolution isn't your "cup of tea", I suppose you can pursue this malformed edit war report here.  A properly filed report saves admins from sorting through the often voluminous extraneous "muck", and makes closing cases a whole lot easier.  But, again, continue here if you must until the case is adjudicated... Doc9871 (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion User:Doc9871. Once again, the only reason I even reverted User:Shshshsh (Shahid) is because there was an understanding that neither of us would take any action until a new consensus at the current discussion supported or refuted the previous valid consensuses. Since User:Shshshsh (Shahid) initially started removing Nastaliq (Urdu/Hindustani) scripts from Bollywood related film articles, he is the one that started edit warring, additionally violating the principal of Consensus, which he was reminded of in the start of the discussion by Wikipedia Bureacrat, User:Taxman. I too, told User:Shshshsh (Shahid), that I would kindly not add Hindustani scripts to Bollywood related film articles until the current discussion was resolved and I have kept true to this gratuity, despite the fact that previous consensus would allow me to add scripts (click here). I hope this helps, AnupamTalk 10:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Anupam, the fact that Taxman said there was consensus does not mean there was really consensus. See WP:BUREAUCRAT. When I showed Taxman the link in which the discussion was declared as dead, he did not continue to object. Additionally, yesterday I clearly proved why there was no consensus. Even if there was, it does not jusify edit warring and violations of WP:3RR. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not true. It doesn't matter who declares the discussion "dead", nor does time passing make a consensus irrelevant. I realize the consensus is against you so you don't want to see that there has been one, but your actions are innapropriate. A consensus was established that both scripts were acceptable and there has not been a changed consensus established. Until there is, it is improper to act against the consensus and edit war to remove the scripts. It's also improper to post two different reports, here and here. - Taxman Talk 12:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't matter when someone declares a discussion dead but it does matter when you say it's still relevant? There was no consensus, Mr Taxman. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also do not think edit wars should have occurred which is why I kindly told you that neither of us should alter current Bollywood related film articles until a new consensus is reached at the current discussion. You however, ignored this discussion and started unilaterally removing scripts against the consent of the Wikipedia community. I on the other hand, stayed loyal to my kind promise and did not add a single Urdu script to a Bollywood related film article because I respected the fact that you disagreed with the current consensus and wanted to discuss the script's relevance. Moreover, the current discussion delineates the fact that most of the users who commented therein feel that both Hindi and Urdu scripts are relevant to Bollywood related film articles. Also, more evidence has supported this position as demonstrated by Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Taxman's quote: Now to the more general point, I would like to give an overview of my observations of the situation as it stands. One is that somewhat more and better sources have been given to support the inclusion of Urdu scripts. -Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Taxman
 * I hope this clears things up, AnupamTalk 10:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. At least three people, myself included see little point in adding Urdu script to every article abouta Hindi film. I feel your time would be better spent with something which will actually help english readers. Adding Urdu to every Hindi film article unless it is of MAJOR importance to the film is just spamming. This is ENGLISH wikipedia. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 11:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are a couple people that don't feel both scripts are needed. But that doesn't make a consensus and the short version is that Shahid is acting in violation of the consensus and is edit warring. - Taxman Talk 12:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't you Indian Taxman? ‡ Himalayan ‡  ΨMonastery 13:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was there for the first rumblings of this issue, back in 2005. After some discussion, we settled on a policy of: if you want to add Devanagari script, OK. If you want to add Nastaliq, OK. Once they're there, don't remove them. They are different alphabets used to write the same language (colloquial Hindi-Urdu, or Hindustani) -- though Shahid, against all linguistic evidence, denies this. Shahid is distorting matters to say that there was no consensus, and he is behaving shamefully in removing the Nastaliq contributed by other editors. He's been unopposed, apparently because the community that used to work on Bollywood movies, when I was an active editor, has died, and the articles are defenseless against determined attack by one editor with an agenda. Anupam has been trying to stop the attack.

This struggle may seem senseless to editors who don't know anything about Indian politics, but it makes complete sense in that context. Hindus generally read and write Hindustani with the Devanagari alphabet, and call it Hindi; Muslims often read and write Hindustani with the Nastaliq alphabet (or another Arabo-Persic script) and call it Urdu. Shahid swears up and down that he's removing the Nastaliq because it's Urdu, and inappropriate; whatever his motivations, the EFFECT of his campaign is to send a message to India's 50-million-strong Urdu-identified community that they're second-class citizens and that the alphabet they use is unacceptable.

The Bollywood film industry itself is an island of Hindu-Muslim friendship in a country frequently riven by communal passions (to the point of bloody riots and massacres). Bollywood films are often (but not always) released with film titles and posters in both Devanagari and Nastaliq. Sometimes they evade the whole issue by using Roman script. If the film industry were polled, I believe that a majority would insist on keeping the Nastaliq.

I was once an extremely active and high-count editor, and left because I was worn out by dealing with editors who brought their religious and political passions to WP, determined to use the articles to propagandize for their positions. If you censure Anupam and let Shahid proceed unchecked, then you're consenting to the further destruction of encyclopedic neutrality. I can't say whether or not Anupam stepped over the line in trying to stop Shahid; I haven't looked at all the diffs. Censure him if you must, but also stop the ethnic-cleansing campaign. Zora (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Shahid objects to Anupam adding script just because of religious and political passions. If so he ought to be ashamed of himself. I personally don't think Shahid would stoop that low. In my experience he has always done his best to leave race or politics out of it and see things as they are. Admittedly I think the discussion about scripts has gone on way too long and got nowhere and I don't think it is worth it when so much work actually needs doing on article writing. But what you are saying is basically Shahid is disrupting progression with scripts being added because he believes Urdu speaking peoples are trash and unwelcome? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to see an admin's decision on this. This will make many things clear and will convince me about the state of Wikipedia and policy. There was no consensus on the issue, these scripts should not have been added in the first place, and User:Anupam violated WP:3RR and is still convinced that he did the right thing. What is the outcome? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for reviewing admin: The recent edit-warring is a culmination of a minor content dispute (concerning inclusion of Nastaliq script in Bollywood film articles) that has been ongoing for almost two months at Talk:Bollywood and has recently become quite heated. Both and   (Shahid) have edit-warred recently and broken 3rr on multiple articles, and are liable to be blocked. But I don't think that would be very useful, particularly given that both are very productive editors outside this dispute. Instead I suggest that both be barred from adding or removing Nastiliq script from any Bollywood related article, till clear consensus is achieved either way (say, with the help of WP:MEDCAB). (Note: I personally don't care whether the script is included or not, and think this whole discussion and especially the edit-warring is pretty lame; however I did post a comment at Talk:Bollywood page in early Jan, and so am not going to involve myself as an admin in this case). Abecedare (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - I did not violate WP:3RR. I did not cross the three reverts. Anupam did. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not violate 3RR as there are exceptions to the rule, such as when edits become disruptive. You clearly knew that there was an ongoing discussion on the Bollywood talk page regarding the issue and that previous consensuses (poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3) established the precedent to include both Hindi and Urdu scripts. Instead of discussing the issue, you took matters into your own hands and decided to unilaterally remove scripts from Bollywood related film articles. You began the edit wars my friend. I have not added a single new Urdu script to a Bollywood related film article since the discussion began out of respect for you. You were told by a Wikipedia Bureaucrat/Administrator to not take any action either until a new consensus was reached. You disrespected all the editors' opinions involved in the current discussion by taking your own decision without the establishment of a community consensus. You still continue to edit war despite the fact that a new consensus has not been reached. By, the way, a Wikipedia Administrator requested me to personally add the Hindi and Urdu scripts on that article, which you just reverted, starting another edit war. Res ipsa loquitur, AnupamTalk 23:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - I believe that both User:Anupam and User:Shshshsh are edit warring, and could be blocked. I have asked both of them to agree to stop adding or removing Urdu script from film articles until 31 March, or until a full consensus is reached in the current discussion. If they agree, this would allow the present 3RR case to be closed with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear EdJohnston, I agree with your request, which was in line with my logic as well, not to add or remove Hindustani scripts until a new consensus has been reached at the current discussion. Thanks for peacefully trying to resolve the report. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally think that removing your "31 March" clause would be a good idea. I think your suggestion would be better if you stated "until a consensus is reached at the new discussion." The current discussion has been going on for quite some time and it is unlikely that it will be resolved by 31 March. I would appreicate if you could think about this. Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing from you soon, AnupamTalk 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anupam, there are no exceptions to the rule. A consensus never was and will never be, and no, what User:Taxman said is not correct. You are yet to prove that Bollywood is not Hindi cinema. I started removing scripts as I found out you were canvassing editors to participate in the discussion. Removing scripts is not edit warring, reverting scripts is. And you are the one who violated 3RR. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Taxman is a Wikipedia Bureaucrat who was not a primary party to the issue and objectively assessed that there was a previous consensus on the issue (even before I was an editor here). Please do not accuse me of canvassing. From the beginning, I encouraged everyone to participate in the discussion so we could have the voice of the Wikipedia Community to neutrally determine what should be the outcome of the current discussion. I even posted the discussion at two noticeboards: here and here so that we could get as many views as possible on the issue. The editor whom I invited never had contact with me before and even gave your party a warning for making a personal attack against me. 99% of the Wikipedia Community, including the Wikipedia Bureaucracy/Administration acknowledges that there was a previous consensus on the issue; you decided to ignore the current discussion as well as the previous consensuses and this is not right. You recently removed the Urdu script from My Name Is Khan even though the film itself presents both in its opening credits. I respectfully asked you to stop removing Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles. I, in turn, stated that I would not add Urdu to any untouched Bollywood related film article and I kept true to this commitment. Even here, the reviewing administrator asked for the exact same thing that I politely requested in the beginning, to not add/remove scripts from Bollywood film articles until a new consensus is reached. My reverts simply restored the articles to their neutral condition before the discussion started. I hope this clears things up. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not only violated WP:CANVASS and WP:EDIT WAR, you have also been wikilawyering. 99% of the editors agreed that there was consensus? Except for you and Taxman, no one ever said that there was consensus. Please do read WP:BUREAUCRAT before putting too much authority on a bureaucrat's hand. And if you think there was consensus, I kindly request you to read my last post here. The discussions you have repeatedly cited had no consensus at all. Still, you conveniently violated WP:3RR, and nothing justifies that, particularly when the existence of a previous consensus is debatable. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus was indeed established here: "That seemed to be the consensus among the editors here and people have been adding Devanagari titles to movies (or Arabic/Urdu script, if they can do that). If you know Hindi and Devanagari, feel free to start adding the titles. Zora 05:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)";here "'It appears that there's a pretty good consensus to leave Urdu script' gren グレン 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)." By the way, the latter comment is from User:Grenavitar, another Wikipedia Administrator who was not a party to the debate and objectively declared this statement. Also, in response to your accusation, "the short version is that Shahid is acting in violation of the consensus and is edit warring." This statement was made by a Wikipedia Bureaucrat, who also was not a primary party in the debate but one who objectively looked at the situation and drew a conclusion. Res ipsa loquitur, AnupamTalk 19:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But why do you ignore the last message "There is no consensus reached on this page." - which no one replied to? When the existence of a consensus is debatable, then there's no consensus. See WP:WHATISCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. And do not forget Zora's message one year later in which she declared the poll and the discussions as dead.
 * BTW, consensus is not one of the exceptions to 3RR, which you violated and used the non-existent "consensus" as an excuse. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Both editors warned. If either party adds or removes Urdu script from any film articles before the discussion has closed, they may be blocked. Anupam was willing to agree to a standstill but Shshshsh was not. Even so, if either party continues to revert, they will face consequences. I caution Shshshsh that if he expecting his arguments above to convince administrators, he is an optimist. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Crohnie reported by User:SkagitRiverQueen (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert by Crohnie:
 * I then corrected some, but not all of her reverts. The corrected version is here:
 * 2nd revert by Crohnie:
 * I then reverted back to the corrections I made here (with a plea to not edit war in the edit summary):
 * 3rd revert by Crohnie (with the following edit summary: "Bull, your edits are to change what I spent an hour doing. You stop, please. I' really don't want to fight with you"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I tried to reason with her here and received this response here. I then tried to reason with her here: and received this response:

Comments:

I am not happy to report Crohnie, but have tried reasoning with her over and over without an acceptible result. In fact, she has become increasingly unreasonable and out of control with her accusations, personal attacks, edit warring, and incivility. I take no joy in doing this, but see no other option at this point. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * SkagitRiverQueen, I thought you had been advised to avoid Crohnie? If I am misremembering, it might be a good idea to start. Please? Or just getting along and discussing with civility would work. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "SkagitRiverQueen, I thought you had been advised to avoid Crohnie?"  Nope.  " If I am misremembering, it might be a good idea to start."  Kinda hard to do that when she is following me to articles I have been editing for some time and out-of-theblue starts making edits that seem to be designed just to stir the pot, you know.  "Or just getting along and discussing with civility would work"  Been there, have been attempting just that ad nauseum with no positive results - just more false accusations, combative edit summaries, and incivility on her part. Sorry, but I'm not going to leave articles I've been editing for quite some time just because she suddenly appears there.  Honestly, I don't know what else I can do to try and make things better between her and I.  I've bent over backwards with no positive results whatsoever. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "she is following me to articles" SkagitRiverQueen doesn't seem to have a problem with doing that herself. --Tuudder (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

67.240.88.250 reported by User:Pollinosisss (Result: 72 hrs)
Page:

User being reported: 67.240.88.250

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:

Talk:Poutine

Comments:

Repeted removal of a section without explanation. User has also removed comments on talk page. -Pollinosisss (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 hours. In the future, situations of similarly trivial disruption can be brought to AIV for generally quicker action. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you -Pollinosisss (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:183.87.81.54 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: 48 hrs)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and


 * Blocked for 48 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jake Corey reported by User:Rezter (Result: 31 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has displayed a clear disregard for Wikipedia Policies and continued to revert my edits regardless of my attempts to explain the importance of discussion and policies in place. He has also posted comments on my talk page  REZTER   TALK   &oslash;  14:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sh33p2010 reported by User:Niteshift36 (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

His responses to warnings:

Comments:

User is restoring information that was removed from an article by unopposed consensus. Editor was invited to discuss the reverts and has refused to, instead choosing to attack on user pages. Now trying to nitpick the diff between US-UK spelling.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An admin has issued a 1-week block. I would argue for indef since the user is nothing but contention, and especially because he re-posted a screenful of the "N-word" on user Woogee's page (before reverting it). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently also a sock or copycat of the already-indefed user J1000, who had originally posted the screen's worth of N-word, and made other obscene comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Inuit18 reported by User:Ahmed shahi (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The following editor (Inuit18) reverts my edits every day and I wish it ends.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Both warned. These editors have shown their ability to discuss sources patiently on Talk, and I see no reason why they should continue to revert while consensus is not yet clear. Neither party went over 3RR. Blocks are possible if reverts continue in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have warned User:Ahmad Shahi many times to use the talkpage before making major changes to the article. he has ignored my request and I have warned him a few times. He is falsely putting sources which their existence has not been proven yet. User:Ahmah Shahi's edits are very similar to User:Abasin (especially the edits done in Ahmad Shah Durrani's article) who got banned recently from wikipedia and the interesting thing is that User:Ahmad Shahi appeared on wikipedia just after User:Abasin got banned. I will revert the article to an earlier state so Ahmad Shahi can discuss his sources and claims on the talkpage before adding it to the article. Thank you --Inuit18 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed shahi (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The user (Inuit18) is not telling the truth. Every reference I provided in the article can very easily be verified by anyone via google book search. See Talk:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani
 * 2) Inuit18 keeps removing everything I add into articles Durrani and Ahmad Shah Durrani.
 * 3) Inuit18 keeps removing from the article of Ahmad Shah Durrani this very important information:Other important Persian source Dr Ganda Singh had used include Mahmud-ul-Musanna's Tarikh-i-Ahmad Shahi 1753. It deals with the first three invasions of Ahmad Shah. Imam-uddin al-Hussaini's Tarikh-i-Hussain Shahi 1798, is a history of the Durranis from the time of Ahmad Shah to 1798.
 * 4) Inuit18 keeps using Encyclopaedia Britannica for Multan when really Britannica itself is not sure of the birth city. Britannica states: born 1722?, Multān, Punjab [now in Pakistan], or Herāt [now in Afghanistan]. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/10162/Ahmad-Shah-Durrani

Inuit18 began calling me ignorant Ahmed shahi (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Stevezimmy reported by User:duffbeerforme (Result: stale)
Page: Phatchance

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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

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

Comments:

- 2/0 (cont.) 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

== User:Nonahxxx reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result:72 hour block for edit/warring and sockpuppetry, SOFTDREAMxxx blocked indefinitely as a sock of Nonahxxx ) ==

. : Time reported: 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 17:25, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
 * 2) 17:36, 23 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
 * 3) 02:09, 26 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
 * 4) 20:20, 27 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
 * 5) 20:40, 28 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
 * 6) 21:47, 28 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
 * 7) 07:37,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
 * 8) 16:09,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
 * 9) 16:15,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* History of research */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh, this board is really backlogged I guess. Identical edits are being made by - 2 identical reversions, no other edits. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sanam001 reported by Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:02,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "â†Created page with '{{Infobox Ethnic group |group     = MalayÄla SÅ©dra |popplace   = Kerala |languages = Malayalam |religions = Hinduism |related   = NÄyar, [[K...'")
 * 2) 16:06,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "Correcting references")
 * 3) 16:07,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* Sat-sudra */ .correcting references")
 * 4) 16:07,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* Customs and practices */ .correcting references")
 * 5) 16:15,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* Sat-sudra */ reverting vandalism of article-discussion encouraged")
 * 6) 16:26,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* Classification */ -reverting vandalism by Anandks007")
 * 7) 16:29,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 347112864 by Suresh.Varma.123 (talk)-Discussions encouraged")
 * 8) 16:34,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "Restoring original article by primary creator")
 * 9) 16:38,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 347114140 by Suresh.Varma.123 (talk)-discussion encouraged before reverting")
 * 10) 16:57,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "restoring original article by primary creator - Users Suresh Varma 123 and Anandks007 are encouraged to participate in discussion")
 * 11) 17:01,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 347118562 by Suresh.Varma.123 (talk)-discussions encouraged before vandalising")
 * 12) 20:13,  1 March 2010  (edit summary: "This was the original article and this version has more research articles cited and lacks peacock terms")
 * 13) 00:57,  2 March 2010  (edit summary: "This was the original article and this version has more research articles cited and lacks peacock terms-dispute resolution encouraged")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Comments - Started the article and filled it with POV to further vandalize Nair related articles. This user has been indulging in propagating racial hatred for the past 3 months, by calling people from other castes as concubines and dogs. He was warned earlier to engage in talk rather than edit war, but ignored them all. A dispute ongoing in Nair talk page, but he is refraining from talking it out and is calling for arbitration, even as around 5-6 users have voiced against his POV pushing. —Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * {{AN3|p}} - This is a duplicate of the report below on this page. --  At am a  頭 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Caleb Murdock reported by User:2over0 (Result: Topic ban)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Edit warring warning (2010-02-25T16:28)
 * Notification of this request

There has been no technical 3RR violation, but the following seems to fall under edit warring; I have not actually edited this particular article, but should be considered WP:INVOLVED. Between the 6th and the 20th of this month the article was quiet, though looking at the older history may be instructive. The following are reverts by User:Caleb Murdock over the last week:


 * There was nothing about my revisions that were not neutral. Verbal, it has already been established that you know nothing of the subject matter. Back off. 2010-02-20T08:28 (revert; this is the first edit by anyone to that article in two weeks)
 * Verbal has made no edits. He just doesn't like the edits that I made. Before you reverse all of my revisions, this needs to be discussed on the Discussion page. I can also call in MY friends! 2010-02-24T23:27
 * Please see the Discussion page. The changes that I have been making are MORE NEUTRAL than the language that was there. 2010-02-25T19:59
 * First, "claim" and "claimed" are on the list of words to avoid. Please see that page. Secondly, you have removed perfectly valid portions of the article for no good reason. 2010-02-25T21:16
 * Verbal, for you to put a tag on this article after I spent hours making changes to satisfy you is simply provocative. Furthermore, you have made no new entry on the Discussion page to justify the tag. 2010-02-26T20:11
 * I do not agree to the deletion of these portions. They are perfectly good portions of the article. 2010-02-26T23:05
 * It takes a lot of research to come up with cites. In the mean time, the text can remain in situ. YOU need to explain why you want the information removed ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE. 2010-02-27T18:29
 * It is only your opinion that the article needs to be trimmed. If you want certain sections to be removed, please state your case on the Discussion page. 2010-02-27T23:56
 * If it makes you happy, you are welcome to add back your tags, but I will NOT allow you to remove all my edits. It takes time to come up with those references. 2010-02-28T09:28

There is plenty of discussion at Talk:Seth Material and Talk:Seth Material/GA1, but also a fairly serious case of edit warring in support of apparent article ownership. Several editors have expressed concerns with CM's edits, which is why I am here instead of RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am clearly involved in this matter, but would like to add a few things I think are helpful (any admin can remove this if they feel it is in some way unnecessary or unhelpful, inc. 2/0). If you review Caleb's recent contributions to user talk pages, there is clear evidence of canvassing, as threatened above (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Please also note the explicit threat of edit warring and disruptive behaviour posted to my talk page "If you want an all-out editing war, then that can be arranged" (I want no such thing). Other editors have commented on this and supported my position on the talk page. I have asked for review, in a hopefully neutrally worded statement at the appropriate noticeboard. Two valid tags have also been removed again by Caleb (last of 2/0s diffs), and I will not restore them for now as I do not wish to be involved in this edit warring, despite them being fully justified. Caleb may be a good editor, but he seems too attached to this subject and his own text to contribute usefully at present. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where am I supposed to defend myself? I'm not familiar with this procedure, so I'll do it here.


 * The person who is engaging in edit warring is Verbal, and he is using the cloak of Wikipedia's rules to do it. For approximately three years (perhaps four, I'm not sure), Verbal has been attacking the article in various ways, and his attacks resulted in an enormous edit war about three years ago (perhaps two years, I'm not sure).  Verbal is not a knowledgeable editor -- i.e., knowledgeable of the subject matter.  When he first started editing the article several years ago, he made it clear that he was a skeptic, that he considered the article un-noteworthy, and that he wanted to cut it down or, preferably, eliminate it altogether.  Thus his edits have always been in the direction of cutting out portions of the article.  At that time, he used various Wiki rules to disparage the article -- un-noteworthy, in-universe, not neutral, unsourced, and others that I can't remember.  He didn't prevail in any of those arguments except for the one about sources.  He also put a slew of tags on the article which were eventually removed, the same tags that he has been putting on the article recently.  Let me add that at that time, when the previous edit war occurred, Verbal did plenty of canvassing, and he called in a bunch of his skeptic friends.  At that time, references were added at his insistence, and the article is now well sourced -- yet he continues to demand that more references be added.  The result of that edit war was that someone nominated the article for deletion, and the ruling was Speedy Keep.


 * So the article languished for a couple years. Everyone was exhausted from the edit war, and people (including me) were afraid to touch the article for fear another edit war would erupt.  Recently, however, I decided to start working on it again.  With an eye toward the skeptics, I decided to change some terminology which I felt would make the article MORE neutral.  Verbal noticed what I was doing, and he rolled back ALL my edits without discussion -- even though they were edits which should have suited him.  That was what started the current round of warring.  Finally, I inserted terminology, at the behest of another editor, which apparently satisfied Verbal, since he didn't roll those edits back.  But then he slapped tags on the article, the same tags he had slapped on it years ago and which had been satisfied.  Then Verbal started to cut out portions of the article, and that wasn't acceptable to me, so I reverted his cuts.  In the process of reverting his cuts, his tags got reverted also.  Again, in an effort to satisfy Verbal, I started to add more references to the article, but Verbal wasn't satisfied by them because they were primary as opposed to third-party references, and he rolled back my references and restored his cuts.  Verbal's current position seems to be that (1) the article should be cut down, (2) no further additions can be made, and (3) changes must be approved by him.  When does one editor dictate to other editors how they should edit?


 * Let me add that Verbal has never been willing to discuss issues on the Discussion page. I am far more willing to discuss matters than he is.  He will make short, general comments about his wishes, but he won't discuss the specific language.  For example, he wouldn't tell me what was wrong with my original edits, and now he won't explain why he wants certain passages cut out of the article, and he won't explain why he thinks no more primary references should be added.


 * In my opinion, Verbal is a disruptive editor who is using the rules for cover. It appears to me that he is trying to block all future development of the article.  But don't articles on Wikipedia usually grow with new information over time?  Isn't that the way that Wikipedia works?


 * My interest is in preventing Verbal from decimating the article. Having won a ruling of Speedy Keep, it isn't proper for Verbal to try to kill the article with a thousand cuts.  The language that he is trying to cut out now is approximately the same language that was there when that ruling was made.  Apparently, Verbal's excuse for making those cuts was because certain passages had sat with Citation Needed tags for a long time.  But when I got to work dredging up those citations, Verbal rolled them back because he wasn't satisfied with them, and because I added a bit of new information to the article.


 * Let me address the ownership issue: Wikipedia depends on knowledgeable editors to write the articles.  Thus, most good articles have been developed by one or two knowledgeable people.  If we didn't have knowledgeable editors on Wikipedia, many of the articles would be a jumble of information without clear organization.  If those editors who make the lion's share of contributions feel a sense of ownership, that's only natural.  The question is whether they block other editors' input.  In my case, it varies.  Some edits that others have made have remained, but others haven't.  There is text in the article now that was inserted by other editors that I kept though I would have preferred to eliminate it.  On the other hand, some editors have inserted information that I researched and found was erroneous, so I removed it.  My interest is in having the best article possible.


 * As the rules on Wikipedia have flourished, a bad situation has developed. The rules have given ammunition to some editors with controlling personalities whose interest is in restricting the encyclopedia instead of developing it.  Armed with the rules, those editors go to various  articles and attempt to dictate how the articles can be edited and developed.  But a situation in which one editor can dictate how other editors edit is completely absurd.  It is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, and it is not good for the encyclopedia as a whole.  In the case of Verbal, I believe he has a clear agenda:  to truncate or delete the Seth Material article because it conflicts with his skeptical world view.  As I stated above, my opinion is that he is a disruptive editor.  He is not communicative on the specifics, and his actions -- rolling back edits, cutting portions of the article, inserting tags that were previously resolved -- are extremely inflammatory.


 * Let me add one thing that should be obvious: Verbal is free to educate himself on the subject matter and make additions to the article himself.  For example, if he feels that the article needs more third-party cites, then let him do the research and add the cites himself.  It is the cuts that I won't go along with.  I'm happy to let his tags remain atop the article, but I object to his cuts.  The article is not particularly long, and there is very little fat in it.


 * A side note: The Seth Material article was originally part of the Jane Roberts article, and some of the edit warring occurred before the article was spun off.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While I haven't been directly involved in this editing dispute, I have advised and warned Caleb for his combative attitudes. He has taken it to my talk page, where I have finally had to terminate the discussion with the following:


 * "I doubt you are crazy. You have just misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, and after all this time, that's a serious matter and indicates you don't belong here. We're writing an encyclopedia. Truth is secondary to verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.") You are using Wikipedia as a webhost to advocate for your understanding of "the truth". That's called "advocacy", and it's forbidden here. I think it's time for you to go elsewhere. Write whatever you want on your own website, just not here. End of discussion."


 * I hope that Caleb will follow that advice because nothing else has worked. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - I'm imposing a topic ban of User:Caleb Murdock from editing the Seth Material article. His recent offer to accept a 1RR falls short of the improvement in his compliance with policy that would be needed, since he says "If verbal will not collaborate, then I may indeed use that one revert a day to protect the article from his hatchet." This seems to be a declaration of intention to continue an edit war. I'm not optimistic that Murdock will eventually agree to collaborate in the normal way, but if he does so, a lifting of the topic ban could be considered. I'm offering this topic ban for review at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good solution. Let's hope that he will gain some experience from editing other articles - ones to which he isn't so emotionally attached - and comes to understand our policies better. I am banning him from my talk page, something which I very rarely do. He just doesn't know when to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * He needs to have a notice of this topic ban placed on his talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)