Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive126

User:Undefeatedcooler reported by Gun Powder Ma (talk) (Result: protected)
. : Time reported: 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 11:37, 12 March 2010  (edit summary: "Reach a consensus in talk page first, before any unnecessary removals !!!")
 * 2) 16:23, 12 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349426096 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page please !!!")
 * 3) 11:12, 13 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349495524 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Please let Mike Searson to deal with it, see talk")
 * 4) 03:10, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349696376 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) not 50%, this has been discussed before, stop messing up the article")
 * 5) 15:28, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349801919 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Look back on the history in talk page, Wing Chun section has already mentioned.")
 * 6) 16:52, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349822594 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) See Talk Page History !!!")
 * 7) 13:32, 15 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349994887 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Let Mike Searson to deal with the editing. See Talk")

Comments:

Undefeatedcooler reverts the removal of the Chinese family name template, even though other two other users (Talk:Bruce Lee and Template talk:Chinese name) also agree that it serves no purpose for "Bruce Lee", since the sequence of first and family name follows here Western convention anyway. He has been blocked for edit warring on the article in the recent past and he is a classic single-purpose account. Morover, he has thrown racist allegations at me for the second time.

—Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Single-purpose user continues his policy of mindessly reverting. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PPS: The single-purpose account reverts well-referenced material. He points to the talk page and request consensus, but at the talk page, he shows nothing which suppports his opinion, while he seems to suffer from the delusion that consensus would mean that no changes or improvements on the article can be made by other users until he agrees to them - which, of course, will never materialize. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PPPS: I made a different edit on the basis of well-sourced references, and although I warned him of edit war, he still reverts it. Just curious, but for how long do you want to allow a single-purpose account disrupting one of the most visited articles in the Wikipedia. How often can he call established editors "racists" and remove/minimize any scholarly references to Lee's substantial non-Chinese ancestry, before someone says something? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PPPPS: User continues to revert, even though I warned him of another revert in no unclear terms. The funny thing is he refuses to accept a reliably referenced statement by Bruce Lee's wife herself (!!!) that Bruce had German and Catholic ancestry. Another racist allegation (yawn).
 * Just for your information, dear admins: The article has 300.000 visitors (!!!) being one of the most wanted reads in the whole of Wikipedia - and a single user has been allowed for weeks now to disrupt it seriously. Please tell us when you wake up and are ready to act. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * for 1 week. Tim Song (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:119.161.71.12 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Stale)
. : Time reported: 05:38, 14 March 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) 01:34, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ M31")
 * 2) 01:39, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ victorianhometruths")
 * 3) 01:42, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ supwangers")
 * 4) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */")
 * 5) 01:46, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Victorian Hume Freeway upgrade projects */ 31")
 * 6) 01:49, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Views */ vicbyvics")
 * 7) 03:59, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */")
 * 8) 04:28, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ no single carriageway hume in victoria.")
 * 9) 04:45, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */")
 * 10) 05:08, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted: "although most of this section is dual carriageway rather than freeway" -Legally, a freeway designated by the governing body -VicRoads. 'most' is grade-separated 99.9% too.")
 * 11) 05:32, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 349747680 by Bidgee (talk) i didn't realise articles cannot be edited to display the facts within a short term time period.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:OpenFuture reported by User:Ghostofnemo (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Before that, the disputed content was removed by another user:

Warning: I'm sorry, you're not being reasonable. I feel this material is highly relevant to the article and it is referenced by a mainstream news source, so I'm going to reinsert the material and the references. If they are removed again, I will seek outside assistance through the proper Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. I feel OpenFuture (talk) is engaging in WP:Disruptive editing. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

We've tried to resolve this on the article talk page. OpenFuture (talk) is not engaging in a rational discussion. After a long discussion with person who originally removed the material, as to why the material is relevant and should not be removed, OpenFuture removed the material again. It is referenced with a news source, but OpenFuture claims it is not relevant to the article because: "The section is about the WTC collapse and conspiracy theories concering it. The petition did not cause the collapse nor it is a conspiracy theory. It also gives undue weight to one of many petitions." --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC). He or she is being completely unreasonable, for reasons discussed on the article talk page. The petition in question, to reopen the investigation into the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings, has been signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers, making it highly relevant to the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No recent edit-warring. Consider WP:DR if the discussion breaks down. Tim Song (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I give up then. The material has effectively been excluded. The debate has gone on for days and days, that's why there has been no recent action. There is no point in me restoring the removed text, because he will just remove it again. I give up. He achieved his objective.Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jackieboy87 reported by 24.18.156.43 (talk) (Result: Semi'd)
. : Time reported: 09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 23:57, 13 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349693861 by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) Remove unsourced episodes.")
 * 2) 01:32, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349719115 by 66.30.12.197 (talk) Unsourced")
 * 3) 01:58, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349721330 by Dropmoy (talk) Not the title of the finale.")

Comments: This has been going on forever, it was just notable that he did 3RR in the past couple hours.

24.18.156.43 (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * as the problem has resumed since the last protection, for 3 months. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Wisdompower reported by Me-123567-Me (talk) (Result: protected)
. : Time reported: 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1) 04:59, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349733798 by Abductive (talk) Don't do this. WP:BRD This list has equal rights as any other lists. No more vandalism")
 * 2) 06:30, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349753717 by Abductive (talk) You can't force us to do this. No general consensus was established.")
 * 3) 06:32, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349754373 by Abductive (talk) Just don't do anything. Leave.")
 * 4) 06:50, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* Business */ Abductive, who cares if you 'go well' or not? Who do you think you're? The ref I added for Cassaday includes not only Cassaday, but also several others. (especially the redlink ones)")
 * 5) 06:56, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* Business */")
 * 6) 07:02, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* Business */ Abductive, that's all for today. No more whining. When we say, we're gonna do it. We really mean it. Plus, none of this was fabricated. (since you're so skeptical.)")
 * 7) 08:08, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 08:23, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349768332 by Abductive (talk)")
 * 9) 08:24, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 349768049 by Abductive (talk) Is providing citations not enough for you? What's wrong with you? Are you mad?")
 * 10) 08:25, 14 March 2010  (edit summary: "/* Business */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I came back to WP after a few days off to see this edit war going on. My own take, as an infrequent contributor to the List page (and a longtime Watcher) is that User:Abductive began editing in an aggressive manner, and also violating the 3RR, despite User:Wisdompower's plea for time to make sensible changes. Moreover, Abductive quoted WP:BLP in justification, which does not seem to pertain to lists. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Diff He's still going "hog wild". Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that Wisdompower was already notified, but I also left him a request to respond here. How do we know that he's been using an IP as well as his registered account? Since an RfC is now running on the talk page of this article, his edits look pretty uncooperative and warlike to me. Opinions may differ on what evidence allows inclusion of a person in a list, but he should wait for consensus to form, and then abide by it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I dealt with this while handling an RFPP request on this article. If any admin wants to revert per WP:PREFER, feel free. Further attempts to edit war after the protection expires would be looked upon very dimly. Tim Song (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:83.39.14.222 reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24hr block)
Page:

User being reported:

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3RR warning
 * Still going. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  Jamie S93 ❤ 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:88.114.224.105 reported by User:Paralympiakos (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported


 * first edit


 * second


 * third

Have tried to reason with the IP multiple times and the IP has been told to sign up for an account by admins. IP has not done so and continues to edit across multiple IPs, whilst sockpuppeting and 3RRing. See report here.

User has been banned for incivility, 3RR and socking before. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * by . Tim Song (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Loremaster reported by User:Dintonight (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: March 14, 23:18
 * 2nd revert: March 14, 23:55
 * 3rd revert: March 15, 00:06
 * 4th revert: March 15, 00:40

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: [User:Loremaster made 4 reverts in less than 90 minutes, all in an effort to include a top 10 reasons to hate Oprah reference in an article about her magazine. I tried to explain that such contentious content is a violation of wikipedia's living person policy which states that inflamatory material must be immediately removed, especially if poorly sourced (Loremaster's source is an unknown writer on an obscure website). Further other editors have tried to convince Loremaster to remove the living person violation in the past but Loremaster not only insists on reverting them too but when they try to compromise by placing a tag citing POV concerns, he/she removes that too. It's Loremaster's way or the highway! It's also interesting to note that while Loremaster adds inflamatory material about a living person to a wikipedia article, he/she does not tolerate criticism on his/her talk page, choosing instead to immediately archive it Dintonight (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Straightforward 3RR vio, previous block for edit warring. Filer has also violated 3RR, but I'm not blocking at this time as BLP concerns are paramount and we allow editors some leeway in that. However, I do have some concerns about the filer's familiarity with WP on their first day editing here, but I'll deal with that separately. Tim Song (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Iadrian yu reported by User:Nmate (Result: 55 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

17:30, 14 March 2010
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

19:23, 14 March 2010

19:28, 14 March 2010
 * 3rd revert:

20:31, 14 March 2010
 * 4th revert:

20:58, 14 March 2010
 * 5th revert:

22:16, 14 March 2010
 * 6th revert:

16:00, 15 March 2010

familiar with 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been extensively discussed his edit on the talk page. However, he keeps attempting to force his theory on the relevance of John Hunyadi's origin into the article with ignoring 3RR. Even though there is no consensus for it and it has been removed by other users.--Nmate (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

multiple 99. anons reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: (as part of a series of edits, reverting my edit here
 * 2nd revert: (reverting most of
 * 3rd revert: removing verify credibility
 * 4th revert: restoring America
 * 5th revert: to 4th revert.
 * and ] changing off-topic? back to ISBN

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  Well, I tried, but the anon doesn't listen to reason.

Comments:

How do you warn a dynamic IP, anyway. Anon clearly has no interest in collegial editing, see, for example. As an alternative to blocking the ranges for a few months, indefinitely semiprotecting all articles related to climate change, no matter how slightly, could be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: no action)
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 related page:
 * The history of the page in question, where various users and an admin tells the user that the comment should not be struck

Comments:


 * Mbz1 was acting in good faith. She believed that by striking the comment in question, she was removing vandalism as permitted by WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Vexorg's comment does not resemble vandalism in the slightest. Factsontheground (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But the continuous reverts by you and other editors of my striking of the personal attack do. Breein1007 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, with all due respect, no, they don't. If you want to know what vandalism looks like please see WP:VANDAL. Factsontheground (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits of the user filing this report should of course as usual be examined, and upon doing so it is evident that he too perpetuated this edit war. Here are two reverts done by Daedalus969: and . Also, it is fair to mention that user Factsontheground has joined in on the edit war with these two reverts:  and . It is interesting to note that both users cited WP:TPO in their reverts, when in fact they were the ones violating this policy. The edit in question is a personal attack made by user Vexorg against Mbz1 on this AfD. The personal attack was a false claim that Mbz1 and a certain IP are the same user (ie: Mbz1 is using a sockpuppet). This comment came after a SPI was concluded and checkuser determined that Mbz1 and the IP were unrelated. Therefore, in line with WP:TPO, I struck out Vexorg's personal attack and added a note explaining why. Leaving the attack would influence other people's votes, because they would think that Mbz1 was using a sockpuppet and this would inevitably look bad and lead to counter votes. After my edit, the edit war ensued. It is also worth noting that these two users have shown a particular pattern of harassment of Mbz1 lately. They are not acting according to the WP:5P and certainly do not appear to be doing things that encourage positive collaboration and contribution on Wikipedia. I have already suggested that both of them drop this personal vendetta and find better things to do with their time. It seems that they did not take this suggestion to heart and have instead chosen to take the route of stalking Mbz1 and hounding her at any chance they can get. I hope an admin will consider this and take appropriate action. Breein1007 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional note: both Daedalus969 and Factsontheground have been warned on their talk pages by an admin to stop reverting the edits at the AfD. I sincerely hope that they will follow this advice. Breein1007 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Factsontheground was only recently warned (User:Factsontheground reported by User:Debresser (Result: Warned)) on 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC), Factsontheground made a bad attempt a few days earlier User:Mbz1 reported by User:Factsontheground (Result: no action) --Shuki (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about me Shuki. I know you love me so much that you just can't stop thinking about me and I'm very flattered, but maybe you should keep your love letters on my talk page. <3 Factsontheground (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The growing incivility demonstrated by this same group of editors is beginning to be too much. I really hope that an admin will take definitive action this time to show that such comments and editing patterns will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. This is not promoting positive collaboration or contribution to the encyclopedia, and is only leading to added hostility between editors. So far, warnings have proven to be ineffective. Maybe it is time to consider harsher consequences for personal attacks and incivility. Breein1007 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well sorry for adding a little levity to this discussion. I will try to stay po-faced and grim in the future. Factsontheground (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is definitely about you if you choose to butt in here and defend the accuser while you yourself are also showing similar editing issues. --Shuki (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Breein1007, It's interesting how you left out the fact that that same admin (Malik Shabazz) reverted Mbz1's alteration of Vexorg's comment and warned Mbz1 to stop doing it and to stop reverting in 2 separate warnings. It's almost like you were trying to put one over readers of this page by not telling them the whole truth, but I'm sure you were acting in good faith and have good reason to do so. Factsontheground (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, that is not how WP:AGF works. I note your sarcasm and hope that an admin will take these comments into consideration, because clearly your previous warning that Shuki is referring to didn't do the trick. What you fail to mention is that after the admin reverted Mbz1's edit and warned her, I alerted the admin about the policy at WP:TPO and for some reason, since then, the admin has not reverted again and has in fact requested that other editors stop reverting my striking of the edit. Breein1007 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop acting like you know the reason people do things. Sure, it's related, but you don't know for fact if it's for the reason you think it is.  Second, stop with the spouting of AGF.  If you truly followed AGF, you wouldn't be making bad-faith accusations of others.  Instead, you're giving it to the person you deserves it the least, and not anyone else.  The person who has continuously taunted and insulted others, and continues to do so with no signs of stopping.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will request that you back off and stop your offensive. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, but it is difficult to respond to comments like that. I am unaware of any comments directed at you or anyone else that have demonstrated bad faith on my part. Could you please identify them for me? Breein1007 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look in the mirror, and stop playing off Mb as the victim here. They are just as to blame.  You refuse to warn them of PAs and incivility even though it is obvious they are being so, instead you warn other users of the very things that Mb is doing, despite the fact that they have not.
 * The following list is in no particular order. It is numbered so that when you reply, if you reply, you can reply in your own post without refactoring my own.
 * Acting like I and another user don't know when to stop reverting, despite the blatant lack of reverting on my part, directly after Mal warned me to stop. It had been some minutes since the lack of reverting after that warning which you noted, contrary to the few seconds that passed between my two spoken of reversions.
 * Calling our edits pathetic and deliberate twists. Clear bad-faith accusation, that you never retracted.  Here you tell us not to comment on other people's motives, despite the fact that you just did that very thing in the previously linked diff.
 * Bad faith accusation, and insult
 * Accusation of continued harassment, despite the fact that I hadn't posted anything to the user's talk page since the ANI was filed
 * Telling me I don't understand the definition of a personal attack, again violating your own rule about guessing people's motives
 * There. All your bad-faith accusations, along with some hypocrisy, so if you could please be less offensive yourself, that would be great.  Also, please practicing what you preach.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, like I said... you are showing a failure to understand the essence of WP:AGF. These diffs show no assumptions of bad faith on my part. I'll take one example, because I really don't want to keep wasting my time on this. #5: telling you that your understanding of "personal attack" is flawed. This has nothing to do with your motives, and clearly is unrelated to assuming good or bad faith. It's a simple observation that your comments indicated that you were misunderstanding the term. What did I say that had anything to do with your motives? Nothing. I put in great effort to assume good faith with all editors that I deal with, even when it is difficult in some circumstances. The examples you have cited do not demonstrate any assumptions of bad faith on my part. With that said, I am going to find a better use of my time now. Breein1007 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how you evade number two, which is a clear bad-faith accusation. You accused us of deliberately twisting his edits.  How is that not bad faith when you don't know our motives.  Again, take your own medicine.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 00:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is only one instance in which is is acceptable to attempt to attach an IP to a user, and that's when it's done for the purpose of a sockpuppetry accusation, however, in this case since the user has already been cleared of being attached to the IP by checkuser the attempt to attach them is unfounded, and thus is simply outing (bear in mind that outing doesn't have to be correct). Mbz1 has every right to remove personal information about them-self. I suggest that the comment about the IP is removed from the AfD as outing, but that no punishments are handed out, as all the users appear to be acting in good faith. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What a pointless mess. For the record, as the situation seems to have resolved itself. Tim Song (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, practically everything that factsontheground and daedalus969 are doing is "a pointless mess". Glad somebody understood it at least :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Crusio, User:EEMIV reported by User:SerdechnyG (Result: No 3RR violation)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

The same with Calvera (Character) article. As for their reverts: Actually it's really not so important that all these people have professor titles. But, during a deletion discussion, which, by the way, was started by Crusio, his reverts looks like deleting the notalibility proofs. For example, if someone named Barry Keith Grant had described a subject of the article in his books - it means not more than such description by anonymous user in the Web. But, if we add that this Barry Keith Grant is a Doctor of Arts, professor of Brock University - this little addition changing a notability and reliance of this source in a critical way.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I warned both of them
 * User talk:Crusio
 * User talk:EEMIV

This is what Crusio eventually responded on his talk page: ... Please don't post on my talk page any more, I am done with you. --Crusio (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC) with posting the same edit-warring warning.

And this was EEMIV' respond:
 * Wikip-facepalm.jpg
 * --EEMIV (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a looong discussion of all these and other their actions in this discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but still there is no authoritative decision nor a comments.

Comments:

You see it. I had no comments.


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Miss-simworld reported by Hobit (talk) (Result: protected)
. : Time reported: 09:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 06:23, 16 March 2010  (edit summary: "Jews for Justice is an organization NOT an editorial")
 * 2) 06:52, 16 March 2010  (edit summary: "a non profit Organization dedicated to Jews expelled and persecuted from the arab world is not a realible source?")
 * 3) 08:14, 16 March 2010  (edit summary: "If you want to remove the editorial piece about coca cola then fine but most the sources are NOT editorials")

Edit war here again, I'm probably as guilty as anyone but there is now a technical 3RR violation. Discussion on the talk page has been useless. —Hobit (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of all the edit warring on the page this is the one that gets the report? Booooo. Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You deleted sourced information, you claimed the sources were not reliable which i proved false, you didnt have a response to the reasons after for your continuing to revert the edit, now this is your tatic? funny it had to be another user to inform that I had been reported not the claimant itself which is just being sneaky.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you have used are reliable and you have refused to respond to issues with the sources on the talk page. See Talk:Pan-Arabism.  nableezy  - 13:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Now Nableezy you are clearly lying because I HAVE responded on several occasions to your queries so have other editors but you respond only by stating that it is unrealible without even going into explaination yourself in why it is and getting editors and admins themsleves who have no knowledge on the topic purposely to back your corner by crying fowl, since you know the edits cannot be rationally refuted.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont see any chickens here. And you have "responded" if "respond" means posting irrelevant diatribes about how I am a brainwashed racist and not addressing the points raised. Unfortunately that is not what "respond" means.  nableezy  - 17:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully protected for 2 weeks. Tim Song (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why has the page been protected and set in aspic for two weeks, when the issue is a) rubbish content and b) a clear 3RR violation? Isn't that the worst of all solutions?  N-HH   talk / edits  01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys could've got "Miss-simworld" banned for at least 24 hrs, if only you had at least 4 reverts in 24hrs, 3 reverts doesn't violate 3RR. I knew this would not succeed, I was hoping it would since this user is extremely disruptive. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You know Qvxz9173 wikihounding and stalking is not a healthy habbit, you have to get over yourself. You tried to prove falsely that me and Lanternix were socks and were proven wrong. You went complaining about civility when when I have evidence of your VANDAL racist name calling edits on a section you keep deleting that you gone because I dont push for your racist agenda and Yes you want me banned and blocked because you can't just face REAL impartiality or different aspects of an arguement being brought back like the rest of the bias Arabists gang of wiki censors you can't refute my sources or even how I stipulate my editing, your hiding behind wikipedia. a big SHAME to you and this ridicolous compalint who did not even have the face to warn me first they had filed a report. :-)♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Alpha-ZX reported by User:Riversider2008 (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

A previous warning for the same behaviour by another user:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page is dominated by a discussion of the use of the term 'neoliberalism' to describe Labour's ideology, leading ultimately to a consensus to include the term as one 'ideological current' within the party. Multiple references to authoritative published sources are cited to ground this consensus on valid evidence. User has been invited to participate in the discussion on the talk page multiple times.

Comments:

This is not technically a violation of WP:3RR as the edits do not occur within a 24hr period. However this is clearly edit warring, as the same edit has been made persistently, without any attempt to engage with other editors on the talk page or with the published material cited, so the report is for edit warring rather than for a breach of 3RR. River sider ( talk ) 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear edit-warring. User has shown he is unwilling to discuss his changes by constantly blanking any warnings concerning his behaviour. 48h. yandman  13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Cygnis insignis reported by User:Durova (Result: None )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

User is edit warring to remove a featured picture from a featured article. Both the FA writer and the FP contributor have attempted to discuss (edit summaries and talk page).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Editor has replied at article talk page. We are attempting to work things out through discussion.  Durova 412 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No reverts after being warned. Hopefully Cygnis will stick to discussing his ideas on the talk page from now on. Please notify me of any future edit-warring. yandman  13:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Hell Hawk reported by User:Ktr101 (Result: 24h)
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: diff

Comments:

We've tried reaching out to him, but he keeps reverting our edits because of a strict interpretation of a word. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 24h for edit-warring with such an absurd argument. yandman  13:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:74.12.5.73 reported by User:Matthew R Dunn (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:


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

The IP address doesn't seem to want the change in episode list tables (which have been improved, but the IP would rather have the old version) If you look at the IP's talk page, s/he was warned no less than three times, but still choses to ignore them. Requesting temporary block. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89 reported by User:Zencv (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He has reverted 3 times within 24 hours. He had previously attempted to include the same controversial change 2 month ago here for which a discussion can be found here. This user clearly want to make controversial changes without trying to form a consensus and is apparently not keen on debating the changes before changing.  Z e n c v  Whisper 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Controversial? Multiple sources (including academic peer-reviewed sources) make it clear that he is an apologist. This is not controversial in anyway. You have made it clear that you object to the inclusion because of your personal prejudice, but I wasn't aware that that POV pushing was a legitimate reason for excluding verifiable content. --Ari (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User Ari89 has again this morning replaced the same content without any discussion after a talkpage request for discussion and to seek consensus for the disputed content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And a fifth time, no discussion at all, ignoring the two editors that are objecting to the edit, nothing at all on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Different content was added and (2) despite your claims, it is being discussed. The only reason you seem to be giving against it is that the guy is still alive and it required extraordinary evidence. Evidently, the subject is not alive and there are multiple sources from a wide spectrum backing up the non-controversial claim which makes me wonder if you have even read the article and provided citations.  --Ari (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He has reinserted it again, that is a sixth time now, desperate to insert a comment that is objected to by two other editors. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User Ari89 is not willing to discuss a controversial change which he want to insert into the lead of a semi-protected article, despite being told by 2 editors on two different occasions. Yesterday, I deliberately avoided further reverting so as to give him a chance to avoid hitting 4 RR, but he seem unwilling to listen. By the way, the biography is not a BLP is not a reason to introduce controversial labels to the lead of the article  Z e n c v  Whisper  21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been discussing the issue, but I am still waiting for an objection to the content to be made. You continually refuse to discuss your clearly POV and obstructionist editing on the talk page which is waiting for you. --Ari (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The report itself is stale, but since the edit war is still ongoing I've protected the page for a week. In addition, per WP:PREFER, I have reverted the page to a revision predating the current edit war. Tim Song (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua reported by User:Kushtrim123 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Northern Epirus: Reverts include: removal of this map, readd of and edit-war over the use of the word state vs. region.


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

Kyriakoulis Argyrokastritis: Reverts include: use of the word Argyrocastron and use of the word Turcoalbanian.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Comments:

with the latest block being about 2 weeks ago with a duration of 3 days. He has also being warned numerous times about edit warring the latest warning being about a week ago. Also in Kyriakoulis Argyrokastritis he's reverting using as a source an online forum and a timeline column of a newspaper.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though the 3RR has not been breached I am surprized how Alexikoua would make a case to bring the Turkoalbanian word three times, even wikified. The word is a pejorative one for the Albanians who worked under the Ottoman Empire Administration. Notified the user here as I noticed that Kushtrim123 hadn't done it. --sulmues (talk). 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Kushtrim123 is a disruptive, revert-only account that uses hostile edit summaries and follows his opponents around (i.e. myself and User:Alexikoua) while cynically trying to use the rules to get them into trouble. Just days ago he filed an ANI report against me that was duly ignored by the community.  Today he's at it again.  This is WP:HARASSMENT and has got to stop.  As for the report itself, no need to comment, really.  The bad faith is evident, as none are reverts to the same version.  In fact, some of these "Reverts" aren't even reverts at all.  Athenean (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They all are reverts, don't try to decept the community to "defend" him. Since we're talking about harassment maybe the admins should check this report where you were asking admins to block me without checking if I was a sockpuppet of a user you thought me to be. Of course it turned out that I had no relation to him. .--Kushtrim123 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The only one trying to "decept" is you, since there is no 3RR violation, nor are they reverts to the same version (bet you don't even know what that means). Also pretty rich of you to accuse others of edit-warring, when all you do is follow me around and revert me  .  All of you contribs consist of either reverts or filing of "reports" designed to harass others.  Athenean (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Athenean you have filed a false report of an SPI on me (here) when you thought I was Guildenrich, and endorsed Alexikoua (here) when you both were convinced that I was Sarandioti in this other false SPI report against me. And you continue to not believe in the result of the report according to this . Now you know pretty well that edit-warring is inclusive but not limited to the 3RR. I think you should calm down and be less arrogant in your own edit warring because even when I talk to you in the talk page I get only agressivity . --sulmues (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually this is another one completely bad faith report. I'd kindly advised [User talk:Kushtrim123] in his talk page to respect the basic rules, but his answer was to blank his talk page []. His short contribution period in wiki consist of reverts [] and some national advocating the last days. For the record, he had been extremely disruptive in: Vasil Bollano [], Gjin Bua Spata [] (both pages were semi-protected as result of the edit wars he actively participated), deleting sourced content using wp:idontlikeit 'arguments' on both cases [][] or using 'accidentally' irrelevant edit summaries [][]. As for Sulmues I've advised him repeatedly to respect his civility parole [] but til now it seems to be fruitless.Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

About Kyriakoulis Argyrokastritis, Kushtrim claimed [] that this is a forum ([] but it's actually a historical e-magazine in pdf form, and this is a newspaper [], but it's a book.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I see the 'reverts' claimed by Kushtrim have actually nothing to do with reverts and. About 'Argyrokastro' it is obvious that a link between the personality and its home place should be established (Argyrokastro->Argyrokastritis). Also I hadn't removed the official modern name. There should be an explanation in all this mysterious report.Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I searched about this after finding you all discussing here and it is a forum Alexikoua. It's e-magazine phorum.gr which is an online published amateur e - magazine by phorum.gr, a Greek forum. The editors are members of that forum as described on it's first page. Also it isn't a "historical e-magazine" because not only are members of phorum.gr its editors(and actually there is a disclaimer on its first page that artilces written in the magazine express the views of the members and it even says in Greek Online Community: phorum.gr, but also in this "historical e-magazine" the majority of the articles have nothing to do with history: such are Voices of Poetic Worries(the forum member publishes (his/her) poems), Greek (football) League:Where is the meter?, Why I Like Football and...What is National-Socialism(the article glorifies nazism), while the e-magazine has 10 articles all in all. About the other sources Kushtrim is probably talking about the ethnos newspaper column, written by this guy, who isn't a historian but a lawyer.


 * Let's talk about what a revert is. After being reported endlessly while having no relation as proven to anything I learned a bit about what is and what isn't a revert.

A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. As for the "it's not the same material" the rule says whether or not the same material is involved


 * Sulmues edits Alexikoua partially reverts . Sulmues again edits, and Alexikoua again reverts . Sulmues edits  and Alexikoua reverts . On Northern Epirus:

Alexikoua reverts (clear revert). Sulmues edits Alexikoua reverts. Sulmues edits and Alexikoua reverts .-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 21:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite weird for a new (6 days) user [] to have a desire to explain what's a revert. By the way the explanation is completely wrong and misleading, far from being a revert war. No wonder the conclusions of the spi reports [][] founds that we have 'possible mutpuppet activity'. Actually this mysterious and combined obsession to report me is the definition of meatpuppetry. Also, 3 of the 2 accounts ([][]) are new ones in wiki, making this possibility even more obvious.Alexikoua (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They say Unlikely so stop this! And now you're saying I'm a "meatpuppet"??-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The explanation is a copy paste from the beginning of the page!!! Is the policy misleading then? Or did I copy pasted it wrongly?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On the use of the term 'Turkoalbanian' which Sulmues, as part of his combined accusation, claimed that it is a pejorative one for the Albanians, it seems that bibliography has a different opinion, [][], it's actually about both Turks and Albanians, in general describing Ottoman forces. Quite weird to feel offended by a term which is practically obsolete since the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1923). (I've expressed my views about Sulmues' behavior here [])Alexikoua (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Zencv reported by User:ari89 (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: Talk:Ahmed_Deedat

Comments: Obstructionist user refuses to provide reasons as opposed to POV for removing reliable content. Continual efforts have been made for reasons to no avail.


 * Please see similar report regarding the same editors but the opposite way around that was not actioned or closed just above from a couple of days ago. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * see above. Tim Song (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:3bulletproof16 reported by User:Sourside21 (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version: 07:17 8 February 2010 World Wrestling Entertainment

Previous version reverted to: (....DUH see Professional wrestling)


 * 1st revert: 08:30 10 February 2010 World Wrestling Entertainment (....DUH see Professional wrestling)
 * 2nd revert: 07:39 10 February 2010 World Wrestling Entertainment (No, it should be on the Professional Wrestling article. WWE is not pro wrestling, only a company that produces pro wrestling. Its like criticizing McDonald's for "fat".. criticize junk food)
 * 3rd revert: 01:15 12 February 2010 World Wrestling Entertainment ("there had been no official response to such criticisms" LOL you make it sound like its such a big notable controversy... "Is WWE fake?' DUN DUN DUN.....)
 * 4th revert: 01:23 12 February 2010 World Wrestling Entertainment (Until you are ready to not take professional wrestling seriously... RV per WT:PW)
 * 5th revert: 01:50 12 February 2010 World Wrestling Entertainment (cleanup)
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: 02:50 15 February 2010 Professional wrestling (Straw man criticism)
 * 8th revert: 02:51 12 March 2010 Professional wrestling (rvv)
 * 9th revert: 01:27 17 March 2010 Professional wrestling (lol)
 * 10th revert: 14:34 17 March 2010 Professional wrestling (Don't act like we don't know who you are. I said you would be blocked for disruption and look what happened. Cease the use of your IP to further continue yout silly campaign.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:59 17 March 2010

Comments:

Comment by user, saying that he will fight until I "lose": Sourside21 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More comments by the user: Sourside21 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More comments by the user, saying that he will fight until he "wins": Sourside21 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added time stamps and page names, these are not 9 reverts on one page in 24 hours, rather they are simply a collection of edits from different days. This is not a 3RR report but a personal attack dressed up as a 3RR report. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP involved in on-going disruption on Professional wrestling belongs to Sourside21, WP:SOCK vio. Note Sourside21's original text from previous months   and now note the IP  This user was blocked roughly a month ago for an edit warring campaign on World Wrestling Entertainment and Professional wrestling.  It should also be noted that these edit diffs provided by Sourside21 are all more than 24 hours apart and from the time of Sourside21's block in the month of February. No WP:3RR vio. Obvious attempt at some degree of "revenge" so to speak... Jeez... -- Unquestionable Truth -- 04:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that you don't need to have 4 reverts in a day to be edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. However, as recorded on the article's history page I have not reverted the IP's disruption more than once each day. Also note Additional users reverting the IP's disruption. Finally, the majority of the diffs provided date back to the month of February, at the time of Sourside21's initial disruption. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Edited out incorrect statements. Thanks for your help. Sourside21 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't hide information, Sourside. Not only are the "versions reverted to" not within the last 24hrs, but they aren't even by 3bulletproof16. To revert back to a version it has to match the 3 reverts, the two versions you have given don't. A 3RR warning has to come after the fourth revert (start edit (1), 1RR, 2RR, 3RR), not the first revision back. There is no 'inaccuracy' to edit out, this is a mockery of a 3RR report, and you have exposed the IP24.16.74.84 as being you, and that IP did bump up against 3RR. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of hiding information. For example, let me ask, why did you not help fix the incorrect links with correct links, instead of just adding weasel words to the end of the incorrect links? That's not helping clearing up misunderstanding, that's just campaigning for 3bullet. Thanks. To everyone else besides daren: I fixed the "previous version" links. If they are still incorrect, please tell me. To daren: Please look up edit warring, not 3RR. Thanks. Sourside21 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I missed one revert. Adding that in. Sourside21 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added in some additional formatting, although the formatting may be a bit incorrect. If anyone knows how to format it better, that would be great. Thanks. Sourside21 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

w/r/t this particular user. Note that Professional wrestling has been protected by. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:124.168.179.209 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 12h)
. : Time reported: 08:24, 18 March 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) 05:41, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "It is unreliable - see its "On-time Performance" on this page.")
 * 2) 06:27, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: ""Unreliable" is a statement of fact supported by evidence presented in this same article. It does not constitute "POV".")
 * 3) 08:10, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Tiger have "...consistently lower percentage on-time arrival and... a higher percentage of service cancellations...". In other words, UNRELIABLE!")
 * 4) 08:18, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "What are you on about? The source is right here, on this page - complete with a reference citation! And it's still not "POV" by any definition in this case.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * by ; block has since expired, and I misread the timestamp :(. Tim Song (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mkativerata reported by Godfrey76 (talk) (Result: no vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Many political analysts? Source does not support this.")
 * 2) 08:25, 10 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Copyvio of ")
 * 3) 08:10, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "No explanation")

- Godfrey76 (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The compares you have given are invalid since a non-copyvio page was placed over top of it. All contribs have been deleted. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 13:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * . Reverting copyvios is outside 3RR. Oh, and filer blocked indef as an obvious sock. Tim Song (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Miss-simworld reported by User:Qvxz9173 (Result: both blocked 48 h)
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:, more specifically here: 0006 which refers to the edit where the same content mentioned below is removed.

Comments:

In the above reverts, this user is constantly reverting the restoration of the sourced paragraph "At the March 1936 Congress of the Coast and Four Districts..." (and other sourced content in these and other edits) --Qvxz9173 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL nice try but I didnt use the undo/revert button even once.It's you who keeps turning that page into an edit war due to your own bitterness, which is very sad. first of all this user continues to vandalise section i wrote in the article due their own bias I can post the links where they violated wiki rules by writing inflamotory comments towards a large section people IN AN ARTICLE and then had a nerve to warrant me on civility. This user continues to wikihound, stalk and agressively vandalise a page. He has a long history in trying to do whatever he can to get me block. I am the one who should be filing a complaint against harrasment from this person. Merely because he cannot accept the idea although their are Christians who use the Arab label there are many who dont. I said this before this person clearly holds a deep racist grudge against those who dont serve his agenda of forcing ARabisms on to everyone and before anyone dares excuse me of Soapboxing I will post the edits (HE WROTE IN AN ARTICLE) not on a talk page. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything this user says above is baseless and false. What this user does is writes a paragraph of unsourced content, then finds random sources which do not back up their controversial claims. When the random source is checked and it is paraphrased correctly, this user deletes the correctly paraphrased paragraph and the source. I was told to avoid calling this user dishonest, but this is the honest truth. This user is extremely dishonest. It's definately not me, because many other editors have issues with this specific user. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You tried to get me block on numerous occasions on false claims and continue to harras me. You tried to prove I was sock but Failed, You tried to complain about civilty when you were the one to use inflamatory in the article, you tried to get me blocked on numerous for baseless reasons but failed. all beacause you are bitter the article got added the arabic speaking christians for those who dont accept the label Arab. a fair concession which refuse to accept. You keep wanting to drag a needless edit war because your own self-denial about a people you know nothing about and block out information.Unsourced? what a liar you are, the section I wrote is perhaps the only part that has sources you didnt parapharase nothing only attempted to undermine, mis-use and block out valued information from the section. Why does the truth scare you so much? Why do you cringe at the Phoenician heritage of Lebanon? or deny that there are many Chrisians who reject the Arab label for vlid reasons? Yes controversial claims? do these edits of vandalism and name calling meet wiki rules   --♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both editors blocked for 48 h. Both have been engaged in a longterm editwar in this article, which has been protected once already because of this.  Sandstein   05:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Barneystimpleton reported by User:ttonyb1 (Result: 24h block))
Page:

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:

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

Comments:

Also edit warring at 1994, November 18, Justin Bieber, and Matt Bennett. Sock: user:NavalExpanse


 * by . --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:67.180.84.52 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No action, IP has not edited since the 3RR warning.  Sandstein   05:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Yonoson3 reported by User:Debresser (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

User:Yonoson3 and User:Winchester2313 are edit warring on Elazar Shach about external links. I have warned both user to stop edit warring and make no further edits until they discuss the issue on the talk page. Winchester2313 has shown himself willing to participate in discussion at Talk:Elazar_Shach, but Yonoson3 has disregarded the warning and consensus seeking process, and has continued with contested editing.

Diffs of warning: Yonoson3, Winchester2313.

This article was previously protected because of an edit war between these same editors, but clearly if only two editors are making the trouble that was inappropriate, and sanctions should involve those editors only. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Yonoson3 of this post. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not disregarded anything. Since the warning, I have made a very minor edit which there should be no issue with at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=350513889&oldid=350415188 Yonoson3 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And what about this edit? Debresser (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That (15:41, 17 March 2010) came before the warning (16:16, 17 March 2010). Yonoson3 (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. It is probably because I live at UCT+2 that on my computer that edit is dated 17:41. In that case I withdraw this post, and extend my apologies to Yonoson3. Debresser (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to admins: Firstly this is probably the wrong venue to sort this matter out. The first stop for all the parties here, and where Debresser should have guided them was to go to WP:TALKJUDAISM where experienced Judaic editors, some who are also admins, could help with the issues and restore a semblance of order. Secondly, user is an involved party in this dispute and he should not be "reporting" in an artificially "neutral" manner on anyone's behavior here, particularly since his own situation regarding any topics relating to Chabad Hasidism is less than stellar, given his record of violating WP:POV in that department, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, in particular Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Thirdly, this particular Rabbi Elazar Shach article having being noted as being a hot topic, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop, because in the current Chabad credo, Rabbi Elazar Shach is one of their top bogey men. Fourthly, the ArbCom has warned that it is ready to review and reopen the case involving Debresser should things get out of hand again, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision: "...if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed..." and clearly User:Debresser is inflaming the problem here, especially when using derogatory language in his edit summary of 8 March 2010 and then expect to be taken seriously as an impartial outside reporter. Finally, all parties are requested to step back from the brink and User:Debresser in particular should be requested to stay clear of this topic that is sure to ignite more controversy and WP:WAR. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am suprised by IZAK's post. I was not aware that an involved editor is not allowed to post here. Also, I never said I was indifferent to this article, although I am definitely indifferent to the specific issue I raised here. In short, please judge this post on its merits alone. Debresser (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Involved users are very much allowed to comment here; stating

involvement is nice, but close involvement will be obvious when investigating a report anyway. A neutral statement of the history is vastly preferred to transparent attempts to poison the well. That said, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism looks like a good next step in Dispute resolution if the article talk page fails to reach consensus. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:No More Mr Nice Guy reported by User:RolandR (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of warning: here

RolandR (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not notified of this report against me.
 * I have been editing here for over a year, this is my first time to be reported on this board. I have never been blocked.
 * I encourage any admin who decides to pursue this, to have a look at the last 10 edits or so to the article. You will see that I repeatedly asked both user:Tiamut and her tag-team buddy user:RolandR (who initiated this report) to go to the talk page and explain why Tiamut's bold edit should stand, citing BRD. They both ignored my repeated requests.
 * I might have gotten a little carried away. I think anyone who has been in this situation knows it's easy to lose count when dealing with a tag-team. If I need to be blocked, then so be it. But as the cliche goes, it takes two to tango, and in this case I was tangoing with a team. I think it would be beneficial to the project if someone at least warned them to not do this sort of thing again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not an isolated incident. NMMNG regularly reverts to restore his preferred version of an article without participating in discussions. He was doing it Arab citizens of Israel concurrent with the edits listed above in this report, and he's doing it now at Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War .  T i a m u t talk 11:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He's also filed reports aginst other editors in the past, so he knows what 3RR is.  T i a m u t talk 11:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I encourage any admin who pursues this to compare Tiamut's block record (as well as report filing record) with mine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My past mistakes (and RolandR's) don't justify your current ones. It was nice of you to join the discussion at the "Killings" page after I pointed out your total lack of participation here, but your attempts to continually attempt deflect responsibility for your 3RR violation and your continued edit-warring aren't evidence that you will refrain from doing it again. Perhaps a warning or block will drive that message home.  T i a m u t talk 13:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) NB. He has already been warned for his edit-warring at State of Palestine on February 15, 2010 by User:NJA.  T i a m u t talk 13:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not continue to edit the article I'm accused of edit warring at and am in fact participating in a discussion on the talk page (Tiamut knows this as she is also participating in that discussion). Also, I did not edit war on any other article, contrary to the impression Tiamut is trying to give in her comment above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Not edit-warring anywhere else? Well, let's let the admins decide, shall we?  T i a m u t talk 13:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, lets. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue does look a bit stale, especially since NMMNG has admitted his mistake and promised to try avoiding getting bit by the heat of the moment. In addition, the background here is sort of laughable. The typical tag-team hook and liner. Tiamut maxes out with her three reverts, suddenly RonaldR comes out of the blue for revert 4. NMMNG reverts and viola! we got ourselves a 3rr violation! Off we run to the noticeboard. Excuse my language here, but its sort of despicable to call for the block of another editor when you yourself clearly edit-warred but were more careful to avoid the dreaded 4th revert. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, both were edit warring, but one side was slightly cleverer about it. What do you think about a temporary WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction for both No More Mr Nice Guy and Tiamut as the principal edit warriors here?  Sandstein   20:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I made two reverts and I opened the discussion on the talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy made four reverts in less than four hours. That's a clear 3RR violation and he is the subject of this report. You want to restrict me to 1RR for 2 reverts? Go ahead. I don't think that's in the least fair, but I've seen worse examples of double standards around here.  T i a m u t talk 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You opened a discussion on the talk page only after RolandR filed this report, despite the fact I continuously asked you to go to talk and explain your bold edits. Also, the last time you were here (which was only a few weeks ago and only a week or so after you were blocked for edit warring) you were told you're very close to getting restricted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The warning I got, said that if I violated 3RR again, a sanction under ARPBIA would be possible. I did not violate 3RR. You did. The obligation to open a discussion fell equally on you, per Acoterion's comment here . But you didn't open the discussion. I did, both here and at the other article where warring was taking place. The fact is that you violated 3RR here. I don't expect you will get a sanction, given that you've managed to kick up enough dust to obscure the facts. But that's the fact in question here.  T i a m u t talk 12:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This ia ridiculous. I have made two edits on this article, and I totally reject any charges of edit-warring. Brewcrewer also turned up "out of the blue", after NMMNG's fourth revert, to repeat this reversion -- and then has the effrontery to accuse me of tag-team edit warring. That is despicable, if anything is . (And the issue was not stale when I reported it; do admins no longer look at this page?) RolandR (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer. It was Tiamut's behavior that I was referring to as most troubling. She made three reverts before waiting for the reinforcements. You only made two reverts. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, she made one edit, and then two reversions to that. RolandR (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I try to abide by 1rr without such restriction, and can't imagine anyone would have a problem with that, even permanently.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will accept any decision made here, but I want to point out once again that this is the first time I've had a complaint filed against me while Tiamut is a regular on this (and other) boards. She was blocked for a week a month ago and warned she's close to getting restricted under WP:ARBPIA a week later . I think it's a bit much that I get the same treatment as a hardened edit warrior, even if she was a little cleverer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To Sandstein: I agree with the 1RR restriction, especially on Tiamut, because this user was blocked 5 times for edit warring. I'm opposing it on No More Mr Nice Guy because this is the first incident he's come across, and he has a clean block log too. Minima  c  ( talk ) 06:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To No More Mr Nice Guy: ..this is really, really rich. Mr., would you care to tell us who you were before you became No More Mr Nice Guy? Hmmmm?   ...or who you are when you are *not* "a nice guy"?  Put it this way; a guy who reports a 3RR violation within their 50 first edits (like No More Mr Nice Guy did: ) are.......awfully fast learners. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The endless sparring on this page between the same group of people is ridiculous. Someone broke 3RR, ok. It was their first offense so can someone please give them the standard 24-48 hour slap on the wrist and close this case? Please? Zerotalk 11:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick search of the archives will show that I have not been "endless[ly] sparring on this page" by any stretch of the imagination. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still edit-warring though. At Dalal al-Mughrabi you have made three reverts   in less than 10 hours. The undo function seems to be one of your favourites.  T i a m u t talk 19:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that RolandR is just as involved here as Tiamut, and his block history is not much prettier. He has been blocked multiple times, including several for edit warring/3RR violations, the most recent being less than 2 months ago. I do not see the sense in issuing both NMMNG and Tiamut with an equal 1RR restriction, because NMMNG does not have the same history that Tiamut does. However, I do think something more along the lines of a warning (and maybe a short (1 week?) 1RR restriction if the admin feels a stronger message is needed) to NMMNG and a longer 1RR restriction to Tiamut and RolandR (6 months each?) would be appropriate under ARBPIA. Breein1007 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To repeat: I was not edit-warring here; NMMNG was, with four reverts in under four hours. Breein appears to be suggesting that I be sanctioned here for previous acts, a proposal which has no justification or precedent at all. Since I submitted this report four days ago, and no action has been taken, I assume that NMMNG has managed to avoid a block. Which means that next time he is reported, he will again be able to point to his "clean" record as a reason not to be sanctioned. RolandR (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Was I edit warring with myself? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To Mr No More Mr Nice Guy ..you have not faced my question above...who are you when you are are "No More Mr Nice Guy"?..and who were you before you were "No More Mr Nice Guy"?  ..and thank you, for showing that wikipedia is a joke ;D Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not and have never edited with any other account. We can discuss this further at SPI if you have anything other than baseless accusations. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:96.234.82.92 reported by User:William S. Saturn (Result: 12h block)
Page: Good article nominations

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: The above anonymous user is making a mockery of the GA process by causing disruption for editors trying to nominate articles.


 * by . --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, the IP was banned user, easily recognisable by his IP range and editing pattern. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ghostofnemo reported by User:Cptnono (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

This has not escalated to full-on edit warring because editors refuse to do so. Unfortunately, Ghotofnemo continues to add edits that equate a prisoner taken at sea coming ashore with a windbreaker on his head (more than likely for privacy as in a nicer Perp walk with hooding in an attempt to force sensory deprivation. He has removed the wikiling equating it to sensory depravation but it still leads the reader to believe that it is to be linked with terrorism. At the neutral point of view noticeboard, there was little feedback (more than likely due to the volume of back and forth) but one editor has made it clear that he disagrees with the edit. Three other editors disagree with the edit as seen on the talk page. So I can edit war with the guy but would prefer not to. Consensus is clearly against the edit. So the next step is to remove it. I will be edit warring if I do it even though it is within 3rr. I have also asked if he would revert and it appears that he is adamant about the edit so more reverts are likely. I would prefer that no one is blocked but he refuses to abide by the guidelines in place to seek neutrality while disregarding consensus.

Talk page discussion with three editors disagreeing with inclusion per Wikipeida not being a tabloid or scandal mongering along with general confusion as to the purpose of the hood: Talk:Ady Gil

Neutral point of view noticeboard with one editor not previously involved disagreeing with inclusion: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Diffs: It appears he will not budge after I asked I would be happy to edit war if it will get more attention.
 * (after nonrevets) First edit equate what appears to be adherence regulations calling for the privacy of the prisoner with more malicious actions seen at Abu Ghraib
 * He has admitted to being this IP.
 * Reinserting hooding
 * Reinserting the info without a wikilink bit still implies it
 * Again
 * Continued use of Youtube when violation of copyrights are assumed.

I can revert without passing 3rr but it would still be edit warring. Any thoughts from an admin on the next step? And to clarify, a block would suck since we are all trying and no one is perfectly unbiased. I can revert him once or twice a day over and over but it is not appropriate. Feel free to block him for not following consensus and neutrality but I would be against it.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that neutral description of our discussion. Actually, I've modified the material in dispute several times in response to repeated removals and the ongoing discussion. The current edit is simply a statement of the facts about the scene of Bethune's arrest, supported by reliable, mainstream news sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears Cptnono's only acceptable outcome is total removal, but I don't understand the basis for this. The edit seems to be a factual statement of events, and the events seem to be notable in regards to the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked Cptnono if he suspected a copyright violation regarding the video. I received no response. I polled the editors involved to see if anyone had a WP:COI and only I responded at length. Cptnono simply responded "no". None of the other editors have responded. I've asked several times. It seems rather odd. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop using these discussions to debate. It is about finding consensus. No, I do not have a COI. Yes, Youtube links are frequently in violation of copyright laws. The concern here is your edit. Don't change the subject. We can talk all we want, but you continuing to assert your edit while playing high school debate has resulted in the other noticeboard and talk page getting stuffed with irreverent garbage. Your edit is problematic. Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that the discussion has continued right up to this point. It has taken place on the article discussion page, at the Neutrality Noticeboard and now here. To follow the discussion, you have to jump back and forth between the article discussion page and the Neutrality Noticeboard. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you can read it as GoN repeatedly making arguments that everyone else disagrees with. I am taking down the edit right now. I am well within 3rr. And I will continue to do so until an Admin asks me to stop. We have tried to follow DR and it has been ignored.Cptnono (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like censorship to me. I object. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed the AP news video reference that supports the "eco-terrorist" line, too. Do you have reason to believe that's a copyright violation? Apparently AP has not asked for its removal. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Your objection (especially if based on censorship) is something I completely respect. However, until we get the whole story your edit is problematic. I promise you I will be the first to say I am wrong if coverage comes out saying that they treated him like an GB Arab terrorist. For me to not do so would be horrible and you got my commitment on thatCptnono (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, anything on Youtube is subject to extra scrutiny. Was AP the poster?Cptnono (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to tag your removal edit for you. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ES#How_to_summarise Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The AP video was posted by the Sea Shepherd Society. Either they got permission or they don't have a lawyer. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the removed video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gkzjNoOxPQ Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reason to believe there is a copyright violation? If not, I think you should reinsert the reference. It supports the "eco-terrorism" line preceding the line you removed. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One more point I'd like to make. The line that was just removed, regarding the hooding of Bethune, did not imply why he was hooded. It just stated the fact that he was hooded when he was taken into custody. Cptnono is giving his PERSONAL OPINION that this hooding was entirely benign, without supplying any references. On the other hand, his objection seems to have no basis. If the line said, "Bethune was tortured and abused by the Japanese Coast Guard during his arrest," I could understand his objection. But the line just noted the fact that he was hooded, and this was supported in writing by one mainstream media reference and visually by two videos from mainstream media sources. So he's removing referenced material based on his personal opinion that the JCG's motivations were benign. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the removed line and the supporting references. The only reference removed seems to be the Associated Press video posted by the Sea Shepherd Society: "His head was covered with a black hood when he was taken into custody."
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gkzjNoOxPQ
 * http://www.3news.co.nz/Pete-Bethunes-wife-shocked-at-arrest-/tabid/417/articleID/146204/Default.aspx
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One more point. Some of the edits I did were necessary because one of the referenced sources was being misquoted to say Bethune's wife was shocked by his ARREST, when the article clearly says she was shocked by the IMAGES of his arrest (i.e. the protesters and the hood). Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

CAPS LOCK!!!! We are better than that dude.Cptnono (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that this can happen in any article Ghostofnemo has an interest in. It happened in Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination and Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories. These pages are now filled with repetitive and circular discussions, leading nowhere and wasting the editor's time. It seems several editors found Ghostofnemo to be disruptive. Maybe he needs a tutor or an introduction to constructive wikiediting. 78.55.62.254 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, just maybe, people need to find better things to do with their time, like ADDING material to articles, instead of removing relevant, reliably sourced contributions of other editors. Or insulting and harassing people like your comment above. Are you stalking me or something? Please see WP:Hound Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, 78.55.62.254 (talk) doesn't seem to be an editor on any of the pages mentioned. Do you have other user names? Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From the top of the page: "Do not continue a dispute on this page. " --OpenFuture (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So two more reverts today:
 * I did remove it per consensus last night since this wasn't going anywhere. He has now reinserted it. Yes it is slightly reworded but that doesn't make it better and is still against what 4 other editors have agreed on. This revert also included the removal of another editor's edit. It was questionable but more discussion would be better than making an argument without allowing sufficient time for a response and reverting.
 * He has also re-included previously removed Youtube video. It appears to violate ABC's (I mistakenly said AP earlier) copyright. The uploader has attempted to justify it but it does not appear to be inline with Wikipedia's standards. Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghostofnemo just insists the arrest-related facts are important and has never explained their importance and why they should be mentioned in the article to other users. Oda Mari (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He never listens to arguments or participates in debates constructively, but this is not the right place to discuss that. Possibly it could be taken to WP:AN/I or something, but as far as I'm aware, not listening to others isn't actually against wikipedia policy. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ANI might be fine but for now I want him to stop edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We aren't supposed to be continuing the debate here, so I will respond on the article discussion page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action. I have left notes for both editors explaining that a long period of full protection may be the result if people continue to revert without waiting for consensus to form.  The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you.  The various arguments about copyright, BLP, COI etc. are not too convincing and if it's being reported as an edit war it's rather slow. If it's just a question  of undue weight about the circumstances of the arrest in Japan there may be no alternative to a talk discussion to see which version gets the most support. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis
Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not actionable. This page is only for reporting edit-warring (see the information at the top of this page). What you report does not appear to be an edit-warring problem. See WP:DR for advice on how to proceed.  Sandstein   06:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Free Belarus reported by User:Stephen G. Brown (Result: already blocked)
Page:

6 5 4 3 2 1

Page:

4 3 2 1


 * Already indef-blocked per username.  Sandstein   06:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Emet the voice of truth reported by User:Woogee (Result: stale)
'''Page:

User:Emet the voice of truth has only edited the Dalal Mughrabi article, to revert several other editors to insert their POV, NOR claims concerning this person. I never heard of her till coming upon this edit war, so I have no dog in this hunt. Woogee (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No action, edit warring has stopped after the warning.  Sandstein   06:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no, he stopped after several warnings. Woogee (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

EATC reported by User:98.206.138.33 (Result: Reporting IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [351012789]


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I tried to resolve this numerous times, but user removes discussion from talk page and fails to defend vandalism:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EATC&oldid=349886274 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EATC&oldid=350229412 Comments:

I'd just have to urge admins to take a look at the page in question (Jerry Wainwright). I've explained my rationale in my edit summaries. Additionally, I'd urge you to look at all of the edits the IP user made to my talk page...they consist of "Welcome To Wikipedia" messages (although I've been editing here for several years) and odd and undefended charges that I've violated verifiability and neutrality. I disagree with both of these charges, and again, please refer to my edit summaries of the page in question to see why. I think my work on this site speaks for itself, and I believe the "work" of the IP user above speaks for itself as well. I'd be happy to discuss this further with any admins if it is deemed necessary. EATC (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * blocked for a month. IP has edit-warred to include unverifiable information (that the subject is no longer a coach) in this WP:BLP.  Sandstein   06:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Barneystimpleton reported by User:Cunard (Result: 72 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 02:32, 19 March 2010
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 02:47, 19 March 2010
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 02:50, 19 March 2010
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 02:52, 19 March 2010
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 04:12, 20 March 2010
 * 6th revert: Revision as of 08:59, 20 March 2010
 * 7th revert: Revision as of 21:42, 20 March 2010
 * 8th revert: Revision as of 22:32, 20 March 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Diff – warned by ttonyb1 on 22:16, 20 March 2010
 * 2) Diff – warned by C.Fred on 22:35, 20 March 2010

User was previously blocked on 04:02, 19 March 2010 by for edit warring. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 h.  Sandstein   06:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Karunyan reported by User:Collectonian (Result: both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and admin warning

Comments:

On March 9th, Karunyan went on a revert spree of my edits in retaliation for one of his edits to the Inuyasha character list being reverted. He then filed a falsified report here after I reverted his continued reverts at this article. It was agreed he was, in fake, wikihounding and administrator EdJohnston asked him to revoke the report and cease the behavior.[] Karunyan instead went offline and has not edited since, until tonight except for one edit yesterday. Upon his return, he has again began reverting on this same article and has now reverted 4 times (as he reverted back to the March 9th version). I left him a note asking him to stop, then left him a 3RR warning noting again that he was warned to stop this and that I knew he did not really care about the wording, so much as he was reverting just to revert. He later removed that note claiming "I DO care NOW!!!", which I take to mean he cares only because its a way to continue his reverting. As this is a continuation of the previous case, and he is clearly continuing to wikihound and clearly is doing this purely to continue his random revenge from before, I have invoked IAR and made a fourth revert myself. Will await administrative handling from this point forward, however, if he reverts again, which he did as I was preparing this report with an edit summary of "Sorry, clicked the wrong one, NO good faith exists." -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As before, he is now continuing his hounding on other articles, reverting my edits at List of Blood+ characters under his new "claim" of "caring" about this extremely pointless issue (comprised of is grammatically correct, except to User:Giraffedata whose only edits are pretty much to push this POV, per his own user page). It seems highly unlikely that Karunyan is suddenly a staunch supporter when he is still primarily reverting just to revert me. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both editors blocked. They are both edit warring intensely over grammatical trivia at List of The Clique series characters and now also . Collectonian's block is 48h because this is not his first block for edit-warring; Karunyan's block is 72h because his conduct is particularly problematic here in view of his apparent previous stalking of Collectonian (see Karunyan's contributions of 8/9 March).  Sandstein   08:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:JJJ999 (and IP's of User:121.45.216.232 & User:121.45.196.175) reported by User:Codf1977 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

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: &  &

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various sections of the Talk Page

Comments:

I am AGF and think this is a case of the user forgetting to login rather than an attempt to avoid the policy, however he has been blocked 5 times for Edit warring. Codf1977 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have ignored the talk page and not tried to get consensus, as well as being warned yourself about edit warring recently, and have been pursuing a vendetta against all debating pages recently (again, see your warnings on a now blanked talk page). I have rewritten the material, and it is now not in violation of copyright under any argument, and likewise you need consensus for tagging and removal of sources.  Not a bold one line assertion in an edit to the effect of "not notable".JJJ999 (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Verbal reported by User:Mitsube (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:


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

See below for explanations. I have notified him of this report:.

Comments:

Verbal is engaged in a solo edit-war against consensus at reincarnation research, where he is also using out-of-place cleanup tags which seem to substitute for reverts. The user has also made 3 reverts at Reincarnation; there he is edit-warring with a different group of editors.

Here is the full explanation:

Revert: Accuses me of “blanking” when I had made copy-edits and carefully explained changes, and removes new RS content with no explanation. I asked him to explain what he meant on the talk page, but he has not done so.

Revert: two more (consecutive) reverts, he again didn’t respond to my reasoning behind removing the phrase “anecdotal evidence”.

Out-of-place cleanup tag: After I removed some unsourced, and long-tagged opinions about the research, he put up a tag showing that the factual accuracy was disputed. I repeatedly reasoned on the talk page that this did not make sense. He gave a short and vague justification, but he gave no specific qualms about the section’s presentation of the facts. He also deleted my request for his reasoning behind the tag from his talk page.

He also deleted requests from two other editors that he change his behavior. One of these was a request to stop edit-warring at the Reincarnation article and use the talk page there.

Out-of-place cleanup tags: He then added two new tags to the article, but did not respond to my request on the talk page asking for his reasoning. The OR tag doesn’t make any sense at all, as every statement is sourced. Another editor removed it.

Revert: That editor removed the “factual accuracy disputed” tag, after having listed the criteria from the page about that tag, and showing that none of them made sense here. Verbal ignored this discussion,   and reverted the tag back in.

On the talk page, his most significant contribution to the discussion has been to falsely accuse three editors of personal attacks (search within the page for NPA).

At the reincarnation article, he also is up to three reverts, edit-warring alone with three other editors, including an admin. He has falsely claimed to be reverting an IP, and put an inappropriate and deprecatory statement about belief in reincarnation in the intro. I won’t clutter up this section with any more diffs; they are clear in the article history.

He violated the 3RR a few months ago, and I filed a report. He was repeatedly engaging in “delete by redirect” of a well-sourced article against consensus, and edit-warring with two editors. I left a note about the report on his talk page. He blamed me for not alerting him about his number of reverts before he got to four, claimed that he had not intended to violate the 3RR (I doubt any of the users reported on this page actually set out to violate it), then apologized to the reporting admin who forgave him at that time.

Verbal's interactions with other editors seem to always be the same: get to three reverts and ignore questions or obfuscate on talk pages. If he is not blocked he will likely frustrate another group (or other groups) of editors tomorrow with the same disruptive behavior. Mitsube (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi-involved comment - Mitsube has been arguing for quite some time now that Reincarnation research should treat reports of people remembering details and languages from past lives more credulously. A well-formed RfC would probably be more useful than sanctioning either editor at this board. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2/0 has supported Verbal in situations like this before. I have not argued that any subject be treated credulously and suggesting that I have is needlessly condescending. It seems that this is being floated to distract attention from Verbal's edit-warring. This isn't about a content dispute, it's about edit-warring. Mitsube (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This might also be worthy of note, here [] he has accused edds of making false accusation of personal attacks and assuming bad faith (when all that was done was to ask why a deletion had been made), on the same discussion he is objecting to the inclusion of material (he has previously re-inserted [] apparently for no reason other then to be confrontational.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He has also objected to the insertion of material from an "unreliable" source that he previously found, declared to be reliable, and inserted material from in his dealings on reincarnaton research related articles. The story is here. Mitsube (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever is going at the article, it's not straightforward edit-warring and is going to need a more complex investigation than can be offered by a bit of back-and-forth at this board. Consider, WP:ANI or WP:FTN so that the underlying POV-pushing can be better examined. CIreland (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsontheground reported by User:Breein1007 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 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: This edit war is over a NPOV tag. I linked to the talk page itself in the section above because there are several discussions ongoing on the talk page that have yet to be resolved, which is why the NPOV tag was put up on the article in the first place. Factsontheground is continuously removing the tag even though the disputes on the talk page have not ended. He was careful not to violate 3RR (he reverted once, waited a few days, then he made 3 reverts in 24 hours, then took a break for a day and came back again today to revert for the 5th time), but this is a clear edit war. When another user attempted to discuss the issues on the talk page, he was unwilling to cooperate, and responded very inappropriately: |"are you going to rape this article too?". After that, he continued with his pattern of reverting. I will not be reverting him and continuing this edit war. Hopefully part of the resolution of this case will be him self-reverting. Breein1007 (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I did say I was going to rape another article that was not very good. I was admonished for it but that is why he even said that. However, "None of these issues have anything to do with NPOV. I am going to keep removing the tag until you come up with some actual neutrality issues." was not cool. WP:AVOID is just one thing mentioned and that guideline discusses neutrality plenty.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And slight error on this report. The correct diff for an attempt to use the talk page is Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, here is the diff of Factsontheground being notified of the discretionary sanctions at ARBPIA about 2 weeks ago. Breein1007 (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Factsontheground has been warned in the past for edit warring, and he has even been blocked twice for it. Breein1007 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And he is still doing it . It does not need to be 3rr to be edit warring. There are several fixable notes provided (some editors actually already started).Cptnono (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable! Even after seeing this report and commenting on it, he is continuing to revert with the same edit summary. He is ignoring the talk page discussion and simply edit warring carefully to avoid violating 3RR. What are all the admins waiting for? Why is this case being skipped over? Your silence is sending the wrong message here; he is effectively being told that he is behaving appropriately and should continue edit warring instead of contributing with editors to reach consensus. Breein1007 (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am behaving appropriately. Why don't you stop wasting everyone's time and stop making these false reports to noticeboards? Factsontheground (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Factsontheground has now begun edit warring at Baruch Marzel ,Ofir Rahum, Jewish fundamentalism, Defamation_(film), Assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, Qedarite, Dalal Mughrabi, Yoav Shamir. He has not violated 3RR in any of these cases, but has reverted edits with no edit summaries and without joining the discussion going on at the talk pages. I'm growing more and more worried that the silence by admins here is an indication that no action will be taken, and that Factsontheground will take that as a message that what he is doing is OK. Please do not let this case go stale. Breein1007 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A look here will show that Factsontheground seems to be following around user PlotSpoiler and simply reverting every edit he makes with no explanation or discussion. Breein1007 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Factsontheground was just blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at Defamation_(film). A report was filed by another editor here but it seems that an admin blocked him before even seeing it. Breein1007 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Response by Factsontheground
Breein1007 and Shuki have behaved extremely inappropriately in regard to this article (Israeli settler violence). They have continually edit warred to reinsert an NPOV warning tag despite refusing to list the actual issues they have on the talk page, which is accepted Wikipedia policy if you tag an article as non-neutral. If anybody is to be warned for edit warring it is those two.

When I have asked Breein1007 to describe the POV issues on the article's talk page so they can be fixed, he uncivilly deleted my message on his talk page. This has left me no choice but to remove the tag, because both Shuki and Breein1007 have refused to list their actual issues on the talk page. What else can I do? I'm not psychic; I can't figure out their problems with this article if they refuse to tell me. This is Wikipedia policy regarding tagging:


 *  Especially in the case of a tag such as, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed. It may help to refer to applicable content policies, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, though WikiLawyering is discouraged. 

After my reverts of the NPOV tag, CptNono inserted a rambling list of issues, most of which have nothing to do with neutrality, many of which are vague and completely invalid (e.g. that the article should list Palestinian violence whilst there are many, many articles dedicated to that subject that don't mention Israeli violence, he complains that the article doesn't list numbers (it does!), formatting errors that have nothing to do with neutrality) and nothing that is directly actionable (which he himself notes in places "This is another tone issue that is hard to fix and I am just saying without offering a fix"). The rant gives the impression that he hasn't really read the article and does not know much about the subject area and is hardly in a position to judge its neutrality. What makes it even more difficult is that he makes lots of random, subjective suggestions as to what he thinks might improve the article but does not focus on neutrality issues. If he condensed the rant into a bullet point list of actionable neutrality issues then something could be done; as it stands it's a wish list that could never be properly satisfied.

CptNono has been extremely incivil to me in the past and has Wikihounded me; my comment to him referred to an earlier threat by him to "rape" one of the articles I contributed to, a slur that he refuses to apologize for; he has Wikihounded me around Wikipedia and this is another example of him hounding me to articles that he has no real interest in simply to intimidate me. He has never shown an interest in the article in the past. He himself knows he is Wikihounding, and he made a bizarre, nonsensical defense mentioning a video game ("Raiden"). Interestingly Nableezy has had similar problems with CptNono wikistalking him.

Breein1007 has become extremely incivil to me; in response to a civil warning regarding him continually reinserting an invalid "terrorism" category on Yasser Arafat (an example of his blatant agenda pushing) he deleted my message, saying "get out of my talk page and stay out" .Factsontheground (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 seems to have some kind of a vendetta against me and is trying to get me blocked at any cost. Here is a recent attempt in which he pleaded, unsuccessfully, for an admin to block me for no apparent reason. This is in retaliation for succesfully stopping his attempt to insert false information in Sheikh Jarrah. Compare the article now with the outright falsehoods that he was warring to add! Factsontheground (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note. Although the issue of Sheikh Jarrah is unrelated and it is highly inappropriate for Factsontheground to be announcing my intentions and assuming bad faith about my reasons for reporting edit warring, as well as labeling my contributions as an "attempt to insert false information... outright falsehoods"... it does add some value to this report. You can see that in that case, Factsontheground was also inappropriately reverting multiple times. He had an issue with one part of my edit (it came from a controversial source that was taken to WP:RSN after. But there was another part of the edit that was very valid and he continuously reverted my entire edit including that part. This was even after I made a note asking him not to do so. If you look at the article history, you will see that the edit I made was kept in place, contrary to his edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I never refused to apologize. In fact I made it clear that it was not OK for me to say and promised to not do so again. And you need to stop assuming the worse. Me and a buddy were talking about settlers and I just watched a documentary on it. However, I have become more interested in the subject after seeing so many problematic edits here. There is no stalking about it. You also are good at responding with all these accusations against me and another editor but when it all comes down to it, you were simply edit warring and it is inexcusable.Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing an NPOV tag when the people who keep adding it refuse to list actionable neutrality issues is not edit warring, it's called following policy. You should try it some time. Factsontheground (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "You should try it some time." was that necessary? Several editors see neutrality problems. You ignored it and you edit warred. Cptnono (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore anything. I asked those editors what the neutrality problems were, and they simply deleted my messages to them. What else could I do? I'm not psychic. Factsontheground (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The issues are discussed on the talk page. They have yet to be resolved. I indicated this to you in my edit summaries. You reverted 5 times, each time using an identical edit summary that ignored the fact that the issues are mentioned on the talk page. As far as your message to me on my talk page, I have every right to delete whatever the hell I want, and when you are going to leave me a warning based on inaccuracies, I'm certainly going to delete it. Your warning falsely claimed that I "continuously" inserted something to the article after I was repeatedly told by an admin not to. On the contrary, I inserted information to the article once. You reverted it with NO explanation (more edit warring by you), so I rereverted asking you to discuss your issues on the talk page. Then an admin came to my talk page to explain to me that he believes the information does not belong on the article, and after that, I didn't make any further edits. You THEN proceeded to give me the warning. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the issue of this report. I'm going to stick to discussing the edit warring that you are doing on the Israeli settler violence page, which is unacceptable. In terms of the other unrelated topics you have attempted to drag into this report in your wild rant, I'm just going to ignore them. They have nothing to do with your edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring over an NPOV tag probably belongs at WP:LAME. Factsontheground hasn't violated 3RR, but she's been engaged in a slow edit war. Breein1007 has been making opposite reverts. Perhaps the page should be protected for a few days so the editors involved can discuss specific changes to make the article NPOV. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The first diff is not a revert. Breein1007 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying your edit summary ("this tag was removed without discussing or solving the issues. the problems are still outlined on the talk page.") was a mistake, and you were placing the tag on the article for the first time? That you weren't restoring the tag Factsontheground had deleted almost two weeks earlier? Please. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, Factsontheground was the one who originally deleted the NPOV tag too? Great, that certainly helps his case! And he didn't even mention it in the edit summary; it was hidden within a larger edit. Your snide remarks are not appreciated, Malik. We aren't all master detectives like you. I noticed that the tag was missing because I had been on the article page in the past and saw it there. Upon examination of the talk page, I could see that the NPOV issues had not been resolved. Therefore, I reinserted it. According to WP:3RR, this action does not constitute a revert. As an added note, I find it worth noting that you are quick to jump on everything I say and analyze it detail by detail to ensure honesty, and yet when Factsontheground mistakenly claims that I went against your warning about Yasser Arafat above (something that NEVER happened), you remain silent. Please. Breein1007 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think either one of you has violated 3RR. As I wrote above, I think Factsontheground is engaged in a slow edit-war; you've been on the opposite side of that war, although you've made fewer reverts. Finally, I was only commenting about this article, not unrelated issues like who deleted whose messages, etc. That stuff is irrelevant to the issue at hand. But for the record, I didn't "warn" you about Arafat; we had a discussion about categorizing people on Wikipedia, and that discussion took place after you and Factsontheground reverted one another at Yasser Arafat. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Malik, there needs to be a proper discussion of NPOV issues on the talk page. What is currently on there has either been fixed or is irrelevant. The problem is that Breein1007 and Shuki are refusing to list the actionable neutrality problems on the talk page. As I said, CptNono's "list" is vague, inaccurate and does not contain neutrality issues. I don't think protecting the page is a good idea, since other editors are improving unrelated sections at the moment. I would be willing to stop removing the tag if Breein1007 and Shuki listed their actionable issues with the page per policy on the talk page. How does that sound? Factsontheground (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous. There are plenty of tone issues listed for you. Others shouldn't have to jump through hoops because you don't WP:HEAR it. If clarification is needed ask for it. 6 editors telling you it is biased and another accusing you of OWN means you are doing something wrong. You should be blocked for edit warring or you should start using the talk page where at least a start is there to work with. I have now clarified the list. Next time ask for clarification instead of dismissing it. There is no excuse for you to continue reverting now.Cptnono (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally! Cptnono I have been asking for clarification since you wrote that addled rant. Lets see if you have really clarified it or not... And who are these 6 editors you are talking about? Factsontheground (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not see that actually. I saw you dismiss it. And read the talk page and history for all of the editors. So since clarification is now provided I will be adding the tag.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Shuki
This violence article was created by FoG and since then he has failed to 'release it' to the public and treats is as his WP:OWN. For instance, he insists on reinserting a section about army mutinies that has no relevancy to the article at all. In fact, a new WP editor has recently joined to back him up on this issue specifically. The information in this article serves to merely paint the entire settler population in one shade of black and uses sources that are clearly anti-settler rather than trying to build a good article. --Shuki (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche
Coupled with the further violations by FoG policy discussed just a bit below on this page, for which FoG has just been blocked, this is a disturbing pattern of ignoring WP policies. It should be addressed, so that FoG does not further disrupt the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:79.177.170.41 reported by User:Stephen G. Brown (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:


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

Page:


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

This IP, who reverted Poles and Tadeusz Kościuszko‎ so many times yesterday, is. —Stephen (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur; formal notice was applied to IP's account, therefore IP knows existing rules, but still edit warring.M.K. (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User continues unabaited. Again as (a.k.a.  after renaming). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * , :
 * I actualy tried to explaine you the case on your talk page, but you rudley deleted it. Free Belarus (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * you are edit-warring. Period. no discussion needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actualy, there is an edit war because someone keeps on deleting references, keeps on adding unreferenced information, and keeps on ignoring discussion page. "Period". Free Belarus (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I remind you that I was the one who complained first about that situation on the admons page (and no one did anything), and I completely support the idea of an admin protecting the page temporary and forcing everybody to vring their positions and arguments (+references and everything) on the discussion pages, and then the admin (it's better if those will be few admins) will decide who is right. I completely support that and hope that's what will be done! Right now... so there are two Poles reverting me, and it's like not important who says what? All that is important is the 3RR? Common, you can be more intelligent then that! I'm not the one having this war, I am the one bringing references and asking for referances and discussion on the discussion page. Free Belarus (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I added real references and categories that come along showing Kościuszko was of Belarusian ethnicity, someone keeps on deleting it ignoring my request to use the discussion page and use references. in the article of Kościuszko someone else keeps puting into the entrance of the article as if Kościuszko was of Polish and Lithuenian ethnicity, now I told that person that he didn't bring reference to that, and that Kościuszko really was of Polish-Lithuenian nationality, but there is a diffrence between nationality and ethnicity. Now that argument goes on to fronts. In the Poles article, which is an ethnic group article, he keeps on puting Kościuszko in the collage, thought, as I said, no links were given showing Kościuszko was of Polish ethnicity, which I tried to explaine here, but he ignored once he saw he has no arguments against it:. So I am not the one having this edit war, I try to protect the NPOV. I am not the one deliting references and ignoring discussion pages. Free Belarus (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like you recreated the original username (User:Free Belarus) after you were renamed (not a good idea, given the reason for the rename), so I've reblocked User:Free Belarus as a sock. I left your new username (User:Mogilev82) alone. Feel free to use it, but you need to stop edit warring. Excuses such as "But mommy! They were edit warring, too!" aren't going to cut it. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: Now IP-socking as (geolocates to Tel Aviv, Israel) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:76.229.211.37 and User:68.249.1.198 reported by User:Codrdan (Result: )
Page:

Users being reported:

The format of this template navbox is somewhat unusual: Due to an extra layer of headings and long, unbroken text in both headings and links, it has a minimum width of 100 characters.


 * |original format before my edits (two header columns, no line breaks in headers)

The WP text area of my browser only holds 90 characters as I usually view it (and I would guess some other people do), so I tried several alternative formats to make the box fit.


 * |new format 1: headings on separate lines, one heading column (edit summary: "deleted "Series by actor" (need more space, and Maslennikov & Rathbone/Bruce are already by actor(s)); added Wontner & The Sign of Four")
 * reversion by 76.229.211.37 03:17, 19 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
 * reversion by 76.229.211.37 22:33, 19 March 2010 (edit summary: "this looks better")


 * |new format 2: two header columns w/line breaks (edit summary: "made space w/linebreaks; titles in chronological order; added early Wontner films")
 * reversion by 76.229.211.37 16:27, 20 March 2010 (edit summary: "There is nothing wrong with this one")


 * |new format 3: I gave up on fighting over format, abbreviated titles consistently (edit summary: "abbreviated "Sherlock Holmes and..." titles to match "Voice of Terror" & "Secret Weapon"")
 * reversion by 76.229.211.37 14:58, 21 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
 * reversion by 76.229.211.37 15:31, 21 March 2010 (edit summary: "Sorry, the films should be placed by order in the series, not chronologically")
 * reversion by 68.249.1.198 16:03, 21 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 351174418 by Codrdan (talk) That means the order in which they films were released")
 * reversion by 68.249.1.198 21:33, 21 March 2010 (edit summary: "")

Comments

The recent behavior of these two IPs has been essentially identical: reversion of any and all changes with no substantive explanation (film order has nothing to do w/format). I started two sections in the talk page, Format is too wide and Message to 76.229.211.37, with no reply. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to expedite this process? Some content changes were made to the template in between format reversions, so most of the reversions are not simple "undo"s. The common feature of the reversions is to restore the original format, including two header levels, one-line headers, and inconsistent title abbreviation. The last three reversions by 76.229.211.37 are a clear-cut violation of 3RR. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Gaius Octavius Princeps reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Editor has been informed of WP:EW in the past, and his edit summary of 'please stop your revert warring' means he is obviously aware of it, and also received an actual 3RR warning (second diff in the section above) which he removed so was aware of it, before making his sixth revert. O Fenian (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He is clearly edit warring. User:139.184.30.132 is jumping in it as well.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP is definitely edit warring, and Gaius Octavius Princeps is still edit warring, I have just added yet another revert. O Fenian (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Article protected five days. I counted 30 edits so far on 22 March by all parties including many reverts. There is nowhere near enough Talk discussion to reach consensus on this many changes. Any admin may lift the protection if they believe it is no longer needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:92.23.132.113 reported by Ian Dalziel (talk) (Result: block for 55 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 13:59, 21 March 2010  (edit summary: "Just adding Kevin's middle name 'Pierre' which he revealed on a recent episode of 'Eggheads'. Thanks")
 * 2) 17:18, 21 March 2010  (edit summary: "His middle name 'Pierre' was revealed on a recent episode of Eggheads, so don't change it back you idiots!")
 * 3) 19:36, 21 March 2010  (edit summary: "His middle name 'Pierre' has been added. If you remove it again, I'll just put it back again...and again, and again, and again...")
 * 4) 21:13, 21 March 2010  (edit summary: "How is adding a fake middle name of French origin controversial?")
 * 5) 21:15, 21 March 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 12:30, 22 March 2010  (edit summary: "I am intentionally inserting a middle name of French origin for comedic purposes. Thank you xx")

—Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * by User:Ged UK.  Bettia  (talk)  15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:174.97.4.238 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )
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:

Anonymous user has pursued a disruptive course of reverts to remove information from this article. The University of South Carolina has an official seal and an official logo, and for apparent reasons of personal taste, this anonymous user insists on deleting the official logo from the article's infobox without seeking any consensus for such an edit. The user was notified on more than one occasion that the removal of useful information is vandalism and not constructive. User proceded to ignore these warnings and continued to revert even after being warned of edit-warring/3RR policies, going so far as to boldly proclaim in edit comments that such warnings were being "ignored" and demonstrating this belligerent attitude by reverting once more after being warned about 3RR policy. Please help protect this article from this disruptive user. Thank you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. I would note however GarnetAndBlack that you have been doing quite a bit of edit warring yourself on the page and I would urge you to stop. Labeling another editors edit as vandalism when it isn't is also a big no no.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that removing informative material from an article with no other reason given except "I don't like the way it looks" is in fact vandalism, and reversions of such do not fall afoul of 3RR no matter how many must be made. My reversions of this user's edits were made in good faith with this understanding in mind. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsontheground reported by User:Stellarkid (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

   

Comments:

Although I am not involved in this edit dispute at this time, User:Factsontheground is edit-warring in a controversial paragraph, referring to the others' reverts as "vandalism" and "blanking" despite their attempts to discuss first, as in this edit summary, and by templating the other users' talk page, here:. While this is technically not a 3X violation, I think it clearly qualifies as edit-warring. Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also removes other editor comment with the edit summary " Remove personal attack".
 * Also templates me at my talk page:
 * Also wikihounding me, and opposes my FP nomination (the very first vote ever on FPC) so bluntly that the other user noticed that . Those are not considered to be edit warring, but those show the user methods in dealing  with unwanted editors.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The incivility coupled with the edit warring were not acceptable, although you're correct that there was no 3RR violation. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Insider201283 reported by User:Financeguy222 (Result: protected)
Page:

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]

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

Comments:

FinanceGuy222, currently a single issue editor, has been mass deleting sourced material on this article. I attempted to engage him on talk, he persisted in deleting the sourced material without discussion. My reverts have simply been of his mass deletions. Another user has warned him for edit warring on his talk page. FG222 has now engaged on Talk:Network_TwentyOne, 3rd party opinions there would be appreciated.--Insider201283 (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above statement was by User:Insider201283 (Unsigned) I believe. I warned FinanceGuy and contacted Insider201283 on his / her talk page when I noticed that editing appeared to be unconstructive.  Insider had tried to take the issue to the talk page of the article, but it appeared FinanceGuy was refusing to give any ground and was continuing to revert to their version.  In my opinion, Insider201283 appeared to be acting in good faith, and did attempt to resolve the impasse, FinanceGuy did not seem to operating in good faith. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * oops, forgot to sign, done now, thanks for the reminder--Insider201283 (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded in the TALK page several times, my comments/recommendations were ignored. Of the several diputed statements and citations I edited for the "sourced material" I removed because either there were no sources at all(business system section), the source does not confirm the fact (the World Vision reference did not sufficiently confirm these charities are part of the business operations of N21), or poor souces (reference to a publication that cannot be confirmed, and a magazine scan of a publication on a POV blog). I attempted to find other sources, but could find nothing sufficient to back up Insider201283's statements.

The main point of contention is that, according to the references provided, the philanthropic section relates to Jim Dornan's private philanthropic acts, not those of Network 21 corporation.

A large majority of the article points to references of Jim Dornan's business interests/philanthropic interests, and Amway IBOs (Independent Business Owners), who by legal established definition are Independent of Amway and the Network 21 corporation, and as such these businesses/charities (neither Network of Caring or Fernando Foundation) are not part of the Network 21 corporation as a part of their business.

Of the references supplied for these sections neither of their official pages, nor the Network 21 official page directly states they are directly part of the same business, only that Jim and Nancy Dornan are involved in the operation/publicity. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article as a whole would be much more credible and less like a PR/promotion for N21 if more facts were backed up by independent references. Instead, all but a minor few references are from the N21 official homepage, Network of Caring homepage, and official pages of charities cited as being part of the N21 business according to Insider201283 (who I understand has a business interest in these network marketing organisations)

The majority of the article does not appear to be independently verifiable by any other sources except the PR pages of these companies. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FG222, you did not participate in talk until you had mass deleted numerous time. You are now, which is good. Your comments there have not been ignored at all, they've been replied to several times. The sources re philanthropy clearly support the article as written. These are a variety of different sources - some directly attributed to the topic of the article (which is fine) and others independent, such as World Vision and The Christian Businessman, neither of which are "part of the N21 business". So frankly I don't know what you're talking about. However, I agree that the article could perhaps be clearer in differentiating between Network 21 Inc (or whatever it's business form is) and the organisation of affiliated business people. Looking at other similar types of organisations, such as Lions Clubs International or Rotary International or Scouts, where a similar mixing of terminology exists there seems to be no such controversy. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you replied, but failed to address the issues sufficiently. Ok, Take the Microsoft wiki article for example, there is no mention of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as it is independent of microsoft, the same as these philanthropic Dornan business interests, The reference you gave for FF http://www.fernandofoundation.org/history.asp mentions nothing of N21, only the Dornans. Another of your refs for Network of Caring http://www.n21corp.com/PressRel.asp?PRName=PR_2006_09_05 states Jim Dornan accepted an award on "behalf of the Network of Caring", not "Network 21". Another of your references http://www.networkofcaring.org/aboutus.php states NOC is "the Dornan's creation", and only briefly mentions on that homepage that the Dornans are also founders of Network Twentyone. The World Vision citation does not clearly support the material as presented in the article. Surely if these were part of N21 they would be mentioned explicitly in several verifiable sources. The Christian Businessman reference cannot be verified. The "Network 21 System for Success" reference cannot be verified.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Also, the majority of references on the N21 article page are official PR pages for these business interests, promotional in nature, which are defined as questionable sources, which does not necessarily make any of the statements/facts untrue, but this article appears to be heavily biased by your editing, and read like a promotional article, and the references lead to a large proportion of PR/promotional material.

Where are all the independently verifiable facts, newspaper article etc? Independent sources that do not have a business interest? The independent references on the article page point to critical aspects of the business, such as the Australian parliament.

Even though the references are dubious and promotional, they still do not explicitly state NOC and FF are officially part of N21, of all the sources the majority state that the Dornans have a vested interest. Financeguy222 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FG222 has again deleted large swathes of this article, including material that is well sourced, from third parties, and verifiable. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", you should first address my issues above before adding all that unverified material back again and again. As mentioned by Will in the N21 talk page, the notability of the whole article is in question. Financeguy222 (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clear Insider201283 has WP:CONFLICT Financeguy222 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Financeguy222 is now repeatedly adding the WP:CORP tag to the article. The tag explicitly states it should not be deleted if there are objections and should note re-added. I am concerned he is deliberately trying to provoke me into a third revert so he can claim 3RR against me again, however I am now going to do so. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor is now re-adding non-RS/V claims that were removed long ago after discussion. I've already reverted twice, he keeps putting it back. WP:V explictly states Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page. I'd not however WP:3RR only refers to WP:BLP as a waiver for 3RR? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * - 2/0 (cont.) 18:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Domaleixo reported by User:J. Patrick Fischer (Result:1 week)
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:

Main problem is, that Domaleixo don't want to accept, that CoA and flag are not in use anymore and are not a legal symbol. He is asking for a source, which confirms the NON-existance, without confirming a use after 1975. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * He's started again. And, he's also canvassing for more opinion. It's been going for 24 hours now. --Merbabu (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Domaleixo is still re-editing as IP everywhere, don't accept the "third opinion" and is offending everyone who has another opinion. His editings are not clean done. He is blind editing and doesn't care about the result. Check the gallery in the article at this version. This is not the first time. He is doing the same thing in every Wikipedia language, he can reach. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked one week. Went over 3RR, used an IP sock to participate in reverting the article, and has widely canvassed other editors. The editor has been blocked seven times before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a possibility to make it global? Please check the articles, where this image is used! --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that the Díli article has already been fully protected on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Let me know if you see Domaleixo using IPs here to evade his block. EdJohnston (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Outback the koala reported by User:Middayexpress (Result:Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1


 * 1st revert: diff (user re-added the Somaliland region of Somalia to list of countries that I removed in this previous edit

Previous version reverted to: 2


 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff (user re-added the Somaliland region of Somalia to list of countries, but added a few words in parentheses to circumvent 3RR)

Previous version reverted to: 2


 * 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: diff1, diff2

Comments:

The dispute is over Somaliland, a secessionist region in northern Somalia that declared independence a while back but which the international community as a whole (including the Somali government) only recognizes as a part of Somalia (1, 2). The user above is an advocate of this secessionist movement, and proudly indicates as much on his user page. He has been adding material to all sorts of articles attempting to insinuate that Somaliland is an independent country of its own. This usually takes the form of listing the region alongside and on par with Somalia itself wherever and whenever possible. We have discussed this issue to death on numerous different talk pages (see the links above), but to no avail. Two other editors just yesterday to exception to his adding untruths to articles (1, 2, 3, 4), but that does not seem to have had an effect either. He still keeps pushing his POV -- his multiple reverts on the article listed above is just an extension of this same dispute. Middayexpress (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Before any decisions are made here, I'd recommend notifying the users involved in this discussion, as they'll be the most familiar with the topic. This is an old debate, and Outback appears to be attempting to uphold a consensus that was reached (without the assent of Middayexpress) by the majority on that talk page. Night w (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. As clearly indicated elsewhere on this page, this is not the place to pursue a dispute or attempt to parlay whatever happened months ago on another article onto this page (even if you were contacted for support). It is strictly for reporting recent violations of the three-revert rule on the article linked to above. Middayexpress (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * hello, pot, meet kettle. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to break it to you, but those are not all reverts. Adding sources only to have them promptly reverted is not a revert; quite the opposite actually. Middayexpress (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, these four are fairly unambiguous: 1 2 3 4 reverting this initial edit. Four reverts of the word "Somaliland" within the space of just over an hour. Pfainuk talk 21:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan reported by User:HighKing (Result:Both editors blocked)
Page:

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:

This editor is aware of the Wikipedia Talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples page for discussing edits related to "British Isles" usage. This editor reverted a number of article with no reasons, and when questioned about it, gave the reason that the edits were performed by a blocked user. When I queried this on his Talk page, it appear this was an opinion only. I'll only list the diffs for one article here, but there are 7 articles where 3RR has been breached.

Comments:

I recently identifed some edits which may well have been carried out by a blocked user, but which were, in any case examples of POV edits with no other purpose than to remove British Isles from the text. Arguably each of my reverts was a case of WP:BRD. The edits were all reverted by User:HighKing, who also stated WP:BRD in the edit summaries. HighKing then proceeded to carry on with the edit warring on six articles. I acknowledge my four reverts on some or all of these articles but I was goaded into it by the actions of HighKing, who I can only assume has been monitoring my edits. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected - both of MidnightBlueMan and HighKing were edit warring on the page. In all fairness to MidnightBlueMan, he was merely undoing the last edit on the page which to me would suggest a correct application of WP:BRD - the next edit was reinserting the new material (yes, I realise the edit was a month old, but it was still the last edit to the page). The warning came after the 4th revert to the page and I'm not going to block a user who hasn't reverted after a warning. The page is protected for 3 days; take that time to discuss the edit in question.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking over this set of edits from HighKing and this set of edits from MidnightBlueMan, I see they were both blind reverting each other across multiple pages so I've blocked them both for 24 hours.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the last 3 edits of the IP User:84.19.169.231 here it looks as though User:HighKing is attempting to evade the 24 block for edit warring. Keith D (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith for spotting that. I've blocked the IP for a week and I've reset HighKing's block and extended it to 3 days for socking whilst blocked.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The continuing fighting over British Isles usage/non-usage is getting pathetic. Block evading? jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:<94.7.69.243 reported by User:Nograviti (Result: No block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [23:27, 22 March 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nigerian]


 * 1st revert: [00:13, 17 March 2010]
 * 2nd revert: [01:07, 19 March 2010]
 * 3rd revert: [18:51, 21 March 2010]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:

->

 Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:67.180.84.52 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (IP user deleted the warning, and reverted the restoration of it by another user  with the edit summary "one is permitted to remove BS from their own talk page")

Comment:

Except for one edit in 2007, this IP popped up on March 16th, with apparently strong knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikpedia. A SPI request was turned down because of stale accounts. This editor has done some good vandalism reversion work, but they also seem overly fond of deleting articles, and their judgement doesn't seem to me to be too good in that area. The editor has a history of deleting multiple notices from the talk page, so a look through the talkpage history will be necessary to see the extent of concern expressed by various editors about the IPs contributions.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst he did break the 3RR, I'm not going to block as he hasn't edited post receiving a warning.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually not the case. My 3RR warning is timestamped at 00:12. The IP reverted at 00:13.  Another editor re-instated it at 00:13, and the IP reverted the warning for the second time at 00:14.  His last reversion on the article itself was at 00:20, 6 minutes after he had reverted the warning for the second time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)