Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive135

User:Rypcord reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Rypcord demanded others discuss the situation, but has yet to actually take part in the discussion. He has started calling other editors vandals when reverting their edits, when in fact he is the one editing against consensus. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Not a 3RR violation as edits are over several days, but template protected and editor warned. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:tomtolkien (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Similar activity on York page and relevant talk pages of both this and York_Boarding_Schools_Group pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=York&diff=prev&oldid=369519709 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=York&diff=prev&oldid=369320439
 * 1st revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=York_Boarding_Schools_Group&diff=371562562&oldid=371551227 [POV revert]
 * 2nd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=York_Boarding_Schools_Group&diff=371533051&oldid=370074795 [uncivil and POV revert]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charlesdrakew#York_Boarding_Schools_Group

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:York_Boarding_Schools_Group#references

Comments:

A smell of tag teaming going on here. Tomtolkien (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I have no conflict of interest. I believe the long standing group of schools is notable and I'm prepared to debate that and achieve consensus. I don't appreciate accusations of conflicts of interest and promotion - this could be considered uncivil behaviour. Furthermore, the spam discussion relates to a different page. The page in question regarding this user is [York_Boarding_Schools_Group]. Please can we stick to discussing the history of this page and the user above in question. carpe diem! (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because multiple people disagree with your attempt to add this radio interview into Wikipedia articles doesn't mean they are tag teaming. You did not convince a single person at the spam discussion that this was an appropriate external link.  Your edits are exclusively tied to promotion these schools.  Using Wikipedia in areas where you have a conflict of interest is frowned upon and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes is not permitted.  --B (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Fully protected. Please get consensus on talk as to the value of this podcast as a reference for the article. Open a WP:Request for comment if necessary. Anyone who is concerned about the promotional aspects of this article might consider nominating it for deletion. Tomtolkien's editing career appears to be devoted to ensuring that the schools in this group are mentioned on Wikipedia, though he has added a bit of real content about individual schools. The tone of his comments to other editors leaves something to be desired, given that people might have reasonable suspicions about him engaging in promotional editing. If Tomtolkien knows of any coverage of the York Boarding Schools Group in reliable sources he should consider adding such references to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, FYI, just a minute before you protected it, I nominated it for deletion. If the issue comes up, would you consent to unprotection provided that the parties agree to leave the link alone?  Normally during an AFD, having it protected is not particularly great because it precludes someone from finding and adding reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --B (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See also this related report and a connected discussion. Rehevkor ✉  20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection if another admin wishes to unprotect the article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reliable sources can be added to the talk page for consideration. As the subject of the section may I point out that I have only ever edited the article twice, so why are we here? Tomtolkien's tactics are to sanitise his own talk page then claim the high moral ground while slinging mud at anyone who tries to stop his spamming.--Charles (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. Rehevkor ✉  22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User:2010Michael2010 reported by User:Kotniski (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Comments: Single-purpose account, repeatedly re-adding unsourced political claims to article. Behavior continues even after the diffs given above. Offensive edit summaries too.

--Kotniski (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --B (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User:UGAcodon reported by User:WLU (Result:Both blocked )
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:Medroxyprogesterone, most recently here but also here (a more general issue that fits into the pattern) and here.

Comments:

Edit warring on both sides. If anyone is interested, this is an extension of the dispute over bioidentical hormone replacement therapy; the source used to promote progesterone being universally better than medroxyprogesterone are by an advocate for, and seller of, bioidentical hormones and various consultations thereof when the actual facts are far more equivocal (see BHRT page). That's my reason for citing WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm...now probably stale. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * there seems to be a clear 3RR violation on both sides. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal reported by 65.92.213.24 (talk) (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user's talk page already showed that Miesianiacal is a highly experienced editor that knows the 3RR rule intimately, has filed 3RR edit warring reports themselves, and has shown a long history of engaging in contentious edit wars (those instances from the past 6 months alone, or a rate of once a month, with comments coming from 6 different editors) Additionally, Miesianiacal even had the temerity to warn the other party about 3RR while reverting them a 3rd time, and then proceeded to make a 4th revert, transparently varied just enough to skirt the 3RR rule. Miesianiacal was previously blocked for disruptive editing, accused of "explicitly gaming the 3RR", and wrote in their unblock request "I did indeed push to the 3RR limit, but respected its ceiling". On another previous block for edit warring, User:Miesianiacal/User:G2bambino's unblock request was declined with the reason: "Based on your very long block log, you know what edit warring is, or you ought to."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Miesianiacal reverted two different editors four times in order to put quotation marks around the words "British monarchy", this after I had already started a discussion on the article's talk page to try to resolve the issue with another editor. From what I have observed, Miesianiacal regularly engages in contentious, disruptive editing, continuing to do so despite a long block history for edit warring, countless talks from other editors, and a self-professed intimate knowledge of the 3RR rule, so I feel that a sanction is needed. 65.92.213.24 (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question - What's up with all the IP switching? Three different ones are certainly you. This IP instantly reverted Miesianacal's revert twice, then "essentially concurred" on the talk page before reverting again.  Do you operate any other accounts on WP? Doc9871 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. - While Miesianiacal may have technically violated 3RR with the fourth edit (restoring the quotes), it should be noted that he obviously freely admits to having been G2bambino (who was blocked a lot up til 2008: not so now). The "smearing" is a little much (perfectly formed report, BTW ;>).  This is possibly baiting from a user who had a beef with Miesianiacal and is using IP's to remain anonymous (for whatever reason). Just sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The anon user has mistaken the '' code for italics in the fourth diff with quotation marks ("). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fully protected two weeks. Any party could improve their credibility if they would open a WP:Request for comment on the issue of "British monarchy" and get it advertised. Revert warring by editors whose IPs change constantly might be considered in the future as a reason for semiprotection, since it is avoiding scrutiny. Such editors can't be addressed on their talk pages since they have a different one every day. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've opened a WP:Request for comment on the issue as suggested. 65.94.18.21 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no RfC template anywhere on the article Talk page. Consider using the RfC posting tool. See example here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The RfC is now active at Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks EdJohnston, I was just going to ask you to check it again because it was there, but you beat me to it. It's linked to the original discussion that I had started before Miesianiacal's actions, and it also appears on Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. Thanks for your help! 65.92.212.217 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To Doc9871, I do not switch IP's on purpose - it is entirely a function of my ISP and connection, and I honestly have no control over it. Editing without registering is entirely legitimate on Wikipedia as far as I have read of Wikipedia policies, but good faith IP contributors seem to be discriminated against on a regular basis, and in fact, persecuted by some. IP editors often don't get a fair shake, don't get the basic assumption of good faith, and usually end up getting told to just register instead. I don't state this so that this 3RR report can get further sideswiped into a discussion on IP editing, but to register my protest. It is unfortunate that this appeal for some help regarding Miesianiacal's demonstrated pattern of edit-warring could not have been more fully considered on its own merit just because it came from an IP contributor. 65.92.212.217 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd respond on your talk page and not here: but, seriously, which talk page? You're right that I'd tell you to register intead of using all the IP's, and you're clearly not a new editor.  There was no 3RR violation here by Miesianiacal, and the page was protected - so this report should closed and archived forthwith.  It now belongs at the RfC.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected for two weeks by EdJohnston. Further discussion should be continued here. Doc9871 (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ravensfire reported by Yworo (talk) (Result:No action )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 15:38,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 372001977 by Ganjadi (talk)Detail not needed in lead, also not totally accurate.  See "Structure" section for details")
 * 2) 15:41,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 371904962 by Ganjadi (talk)While the purpose is the same, the structure of FRS is unique")
 * 3) 15:47,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Disagree on the emphasis on the edit, and also note that the edit was wrong - dividend paid to FRB shareholders, there are NO shareholders of FRS")
 * 4) 15:50,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 372045066 by Yworo (talk)rv - cittation in lead not needed when cited in article - it's in there")
 * 5) 15:53,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 372045699 by Yworo (talk)I'll await your discussion ... this change was already reverted before")
 * 6) 15:54,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 372046184 by Yworo (talk)Disagree.")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Note: edits 1 & 2 are an unbroken sequence, as are edits 5 & 6. However, this still makes the latter edits a 4th revert. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

—Yworo (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree in principle with Yworo's characterization. Neither of us have posted on the talk page for these changes, however, which should have been done and probably stopped this.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to start a discussion topic on the talk page to discuss the changes to the lead.  Until that discussion concludes, I will not repeat my changes.  Hopefully, Yworo and others will also participate.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a clear 3RR violation there, but there was edit warring on both sides and discussion is now underway on the talk page, thus blocking wither or both parties at this time would hamper the discussion. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Thehelpinghand at Talk:Social populism (Result: Advised)
User is archiving ongoing discussions. About to WP:3RR, at 1 and 2. Please protect. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked User:Thehelpinghand to respond here and explain his thinking. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- IANVS (talk | cont) 23:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortuantely User:IANVS you didn't get what you wanted, and I did not revert the third time so this is a waste of time and is not correct to be posted here. Thank you.

-- HelpingHand  Talk  10:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No sanctions are required, since Thehelpinghand has not continued to modify the talk page. He is advised to obtain consensus before refactoring or archiving a talk page. For more details, see Talk page guidelines. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:78.146.141.188 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 12 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 02:34, July 6, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 03:34, July 6, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 04:23, July 6, 2010
 * 4th revert: 13:11, July 6, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor 78.146.141.188 (among others) has been trying to insert some unreferenced notes about games and music related to the battle. The edit war began with the addition of some music factoid, then escalated to the removal of both the music and an existing Games section. Consensus appears to favor removal. The editors who have been taking the text out are noting its lack of cites, and its possible violation of the guideline for pop culture material in military history articles, the guideline found at WP:MILPOP. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  09:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:86.150.237.144 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 12:58, 6 July 2010 (by )


 * 1) 20:37,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "WRONG! it links to the WPI page, therefore it is slanderous and suggesting that WPI is controversial, the "controversy" is about XMRV not WPI and the original study was via 3 labs not just WPI")
 * 2) 20:59,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "if your gonna make edits at least back them up with evidence, my original point stands...there were THREE labs involved in the study so linking to the WPI page is just total prejudice")
 * 3) 21:38,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "thats my point, it shouldnt link to the WPI page at all...its totally illogical,seems you have some issue with the WPI then if you seem to think it should link to it.there were 3 labs in the study")
 * 4) 22:25,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "sciencewatcher u have broken POV and BIAS rules, there were THREE labs in the study, so linking to WPI is prejudice, why not link to cancer institute while your at it lol")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:28

Apparently no one has actually done it on the talk page, only in edit summaries in the reversions.

Comments:

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  10:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:110.32.142.38 reported by User:Mattnad (Result: 24 hours)
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: and then  after editor continued to war.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Planned_Parenthood

Comments:

Over the last month or so, this user has been trolling for a reaction on the Planned Parenthood talk page in this section here Talk:Planned_Parenthood. The dialog speaks for itself. We have made several attempts to reason with him or her, and suggested dispute resolution approaches. Overtime, it became clear that the editor was most interested in getting a reaction and when we stopped engaging the editor, he escalated by threatening to make changes clearly against consensus and then starting an edit war.

One other facet to consider. This editor is experienced and likely has an actual user name but has chosen to use several IP addresses overtime and will probably do so again even if this particular one is blocked. Given that the article intersects with a controversial topic (Abortion), semi-protection for the page may be helpful. Mattnad (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  09:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:DC Fan 5 reported by User:ChaosMaster16 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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


 * Warning on talk page:
 * Removal of warning on talk page:
 * Removal of notice that I have reported him here:
 * Other user's warning on his talk page:

Comments:

When trying to improve List of Make It or Break It episodes, I notice the user DC Fan 5 kept reverting my edits. After reverting them myself, I asked why it was so. I would get responses similar to: "Too many information. The series overview is compact and standart." I explained when reverting that as long as the information was sourced correctly and not made up, it was fine (the information he reverted to was not sourced). But he insisted it was "OK".

Another thing worth noting: Within the last month, it appears the user was involved in about three (possibly more) edit wars.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 * Both parties in this dispute have violated the 3RR. Harry the Dog WOOF  14:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There's a touch of irony here that Chaosmaster16 reverted 6 times while DC Fan 5 only reverted 5 and Chaosmaster16 has had his own fair share of warring in recent times. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * DC Fan 5 by Toddst1. Atmoz (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ms. Black Gold reported by User:BillMasen (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

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

Comments:

I have repeatedly stated my objections to the edits on the talk page.[] These were not addressed. I reported the case at the reliable sources noticeboard, which led to about a dozen editors taking my side, and none whatsoever taking the side of the user being reported [] The editor will not process that the edits are completely against RS.

I would like someone to explain this officially, so that I and other editors don't have to keep banging our heads against walls forever. BillMasen (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add an additional comment as well. --  tariq abjotu  15:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci reported by User:mikemikev (Result: No Vio )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm not seeing 2 reverts. Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The same material was removed twice. Other material added is incidental. mikemikev (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Other scientists actively engaged in research in race and intelligence disagree with these criticisms.


 * Other scientists actively engaged in research in race and intelligence disagree with these criticisms. mikemikev (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Spartaz, if you don't see the vio here your competence is in question. mikemikev (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All new material. Mikemikev should probably look at edits more carefully and sources, etc.Mathsci (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack removed) . Check the diffs. mikemikev (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The second diff is not a revert: it contains large amounts of new sourced content. Please could you refactor the previous statement "shameless lies."Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I edited one of the above comments to remove a personal attack. Though the case is already closed, I suspect that there was a technical breach of the 1RR, and urge the editors to consider a WP:Request for comment about the disputed phrase. Since Mathsci made some complex changes, he may have overlooked that he removed one of the sentences twice in 24 hours. A revert is something which reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, and need not restore any version of the article that existed previously.  EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Lukespencer91 reported by Road Wizard (talk) (Result: 24 hours - vandalism)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:22,  5 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undo Changed made, Election is will be called on the 7th May 2015, not the 11th June 2015, Please stop changing it or you will be reported.")
 * 2) 21:10,  6 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undoing changes that where made, Please do not change this or you will be reported, note that if you google election 2015 date it is 7th May 2015, not 11th June 2015, please stop giving untrue info.")
 * 3) 20:31,  7 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 20:56,  7 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "â†Blanked the page")
 * 5) 20:59,  7 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 21:05,  7 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "the election 2015 date is 7th May 2015, source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8677133.stm")
 * 7) 21:16,  7 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8677133.stm, the election is on the 7th May 2015, they are only chaning law on how the voting system works. you have been reported.")
 * 8) 21:17,  7 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Road Wizard (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User blocked for 24 hours due to separate vandal edits. Road Wizard (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Paul_Siebert reported by User:Marknutley (Result: 24h)
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: [diff]

Comments: The article is on a 1r parole, this is the second time this user has broken it. I asked him to self revert and he has refused.


 * According to WikiBlame:
 * First "revert" was removing a see also link added in October 2009.
 * Second "revert" was removing text inserted in April 2010.
 * I don't think either can reasonably be classified as reverts and are much more in line with simple editing. -Atmoz (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 24 hours for 1RR violation. I discussed the situation with Paul Siebert elsewhere. He would not agree to self-revert, or to stay off the article for seven days. Normal edits can count as reverts if they undo the actions of previous editors. It is up to the person editing a controversial article to be sure they stay within bounds. Accidental violations are sometimes forgiven, but Paul Siebert will not concede any mistake here. He is defending three reverts in 24 hours of an article which is under a 1RR restriction.  EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:Cptnono (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

This is not a case of 3rr but more slow motion edit warring in the Israel-Palestine topic area that needs to stop. There is currently a content dispute over how to discuss aspects of Israel's tourism industry in the land it occupies. There are a couple ongoing discussions. Nableezy is adding disclaimers above every section and modifying the layout to his preferred version without consensus and simply reverting instead of waiting for a solution to be agreed upon on the talk page. This started within a day of the lifting of his topic ban and has continued with 2 more reverts today:


 * Revert of yet another editor at 00:14, 7 July 2010.
 * Revert on 19:07, 6 July 2010 for his preferred disclaimer
 * Restoration on 03:27, 5 July 2010 of a disclaimer (even with the previous version being clear: "The industry in the West Bank has been controlled by Israel since the beginning of the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967".
 * Restoration at 18:55, 2 July 2010 of his wording to a disclaimer. and his preferred layout.
 * Revert at 9:45, 21 June 2010 after being reverted by yet another editor. Edit summary again requests talk page use when it was already being used. and back to his preferred layout
 * Revert at 22:44, 19 June 2010 after being reverted. Edit summary requests that the other editor uses the talk page when Nableezy should have been following WP:BRD himself.
 * Revert at 20:43, 18 June 2010, Modification of layout to his preferred version + 3, Removal of what he considered bogus info, additional changes to layout and modification a disclaimer, another disclaimer
 * Continued partial reverting and political modifications at 21:53, 16 June 2010 after being partially reverted.
 * Revert at 21:32, 16 June 2010 after being reverted.
 * Jumping into an already ongoing revertfest with political disclaimers less than a day after coming off of a two month arbitration enforced article topic ban in the topic area at 20:18, 16 June 2010.

It is obvious there is a content dispute and that is not the scope of this noticeboard. (What disclaimers if any are needed? How are they worded? What is the scope of the article?) However, he has been reverting 4 different editors to make the article the way he wants it. He has been borderlining by pushing the revert button a couple times in a day here and there without going over or simply waiting for other editors to go away. The talk page can be used further but continuous slow motion edit warring is not cool. I don't know what his response will be to this report and I don't know if I look like a jerk for filing it. I do know that WP:3RR is not an entitlement and that this happens too often in the topic area. Experienced users should not be doing this. Cptnono (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And while this Request for Enforcement is in progress, Nableezy decides to make these contentious edits in connection with the subject article without seeking consensus.  It’s almost as though he can’t contain himself even when he’s the subject of the enforcement action.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And not a single one of those is a revert.  nableezy  - 04:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think that is a step in the right direction. Shame it took filing a report for him to stop doing it in a way that has caused so much strife on the talk page. Of course, this is yet more info eing added to the disclaimers that several editors have already said are a problem. It just won't stop.Cptnono (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What wont stop is your repeated insistence on not recognizing these edits dont happen in a vacuum. Jiujitsuguy took a simple, short sentence about the current status of the territory and added a half-baked and POV explanation of the situation writing that the territory was captured because Jordan attacked Israel. My version does not contain any of that extraneous information, but if Jiu insists on pushing tired propaganda into an article I will insert the rest of the story. Feel free to restore the short, simple, and verifiable to a thousand reliable sources, text that had been in the article prior to Jiu's edit. And, again, that edit is not a revert. My version just said "Captured by Israel from Jordan in 1967." He added "after being attacked by the latter", which is only one side (guess which side) of the story.  nableezy  - 06:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense, a couple of users who have given no explanation for their reverts on the talk page are claiming territory outside of Israel is "in Israel". If Cptnono were truly concerned about edit warring he would have reported a friend of his, Jiujitsuguy. As with his report against RomaC he conveniently overlooks the fact that Jiujitsuguy has repeatedly reverted to reinsert blatant propaganda into articles. I have followed BRD, I opened talk page discussions and provided a number of sources. Two users have insisted, without any sources backing their claims and no policy based reason to revert, that these places are in Israel and that no other perspective should be allowed in the article, no matter how fringe the view that these places are in Israel and the fact that the sources are nearly unanimous against their preferred version. The sum total of the objections offered by the other users reverting on the talk page is that the information is either "political" (as if claiming occupied territory was in Israel is not "political") or that there is not "consensus". No single policy based reason against including the super-majority view that these places are occupied territory outside of Israel. And I know 3RR is not an entitlement, but users have been reverting without making a single comment in the talk page and refusing to provide sources backing their claims. Cptnono has yet again shown his blatant POV here by only reporting the editor on "the other side" while ignoring that other users have been reverting nonstop without even having the decency to explain their objections on the talk page. At no point have I even approached the 3RR, in fact the material I restored today that two users have tag-teamed to remove from the article had been stable for over a week with nary an objection. And even now, the users removing it have yet to say why on the talk page. Cptnono has listed a something like 13 reverts over the course of a month. And this is not "slow motion edit warring", I am not periodically returning to restore my preferred version. I have been engaging on the talk page this entire time and attempting to actually entice a reason for the reverts from the other editors besides them not liking the content.  nableezy  - 02:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone raised this. I had been editing that article, but while I have great respect for editor Nableezy, I found his slow-motion edit warring to be so off-putting and contentious that I myself left the page for a while.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that Jiujitsuguy, who has three blocks on I-P articles in six months, was also edit-warring on an article where I was involved. I made two reverts to the Jiujitsu/Brewcrewer tag-team's three reverts, then engaged the POV Warriors again a day and a half later. Cptnono immediately ran me to AN/EW for this "slow-motion edit-warring", while ignoring the editors pushing an Israeli POV. When I asked if he thought Jiujitsuguy was edit-warring, he replied "He might have been. But you were the one that pissed me off...". I've had just about enough of this. (See also the obliging admin) RomaC  TALK 03:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Roman">TALK ]] 03:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Roma--This isn't a string to discuss the blocks of anyone other than Nableezy. This holds for the block (for similar slow motion edit warring) that you just came off of, as well as those of anyone else whose block you may wish to point out. That would just serve as red herrings to deflect the focus from where it should properly lie; I recognize that your doing so was inadvertent, as you were not pleased with your block and of course it would be on your mind, but just thought I would mention it.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though it is for unblock discussions, WP:NOTTHEM has some good advice. My only excuse is that Nableezy was doing it more and that JJG's recent revert came after I started collecting the diffs. Not a good excuse if you believe I am only looking at Nableezy or you and not JJG but: JJG hasn't stressed me out. The topic of this report is Nableezy and I am not keen to see it digress into he said she said partisan bickering that typically occurs when anyone's wikbuddy crosses the line. JJG might have been edit warring so collect the diffs. Nableezy was certainly edit warring. If you want to open up a report regarding abuse of process at ANI then do it and I will defend myself there.Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no slow-motion edit warring on my part. I was not periodically returning to restore a favored version, while that is exactly what JJG was doing. And you have made a point of going after me specifically, so dont play anybody for a fool and try and pretend otherwise.  nableezy  - 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure do. You seem to be disruptive a lot. The other day I asked you to change your behavior after another editor brought it up and you said to take it somewhere else. I did. So please use this space to defend yourself instead of having it digress into bickering that will make it so no admin will be able to make any sense of what is going on. That happens too much in the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure do what? You made a bogus report on edits going back nearly a month. I already said why this report is bogus in my first response. I have not gone away and shown up to restore my preferred version of the article. When you made an edit to the content I retained what you added, but restored what you removed. Now on that page are a number of sources making an explicit connection between Israel's occupation of these territories and tourism. You know you do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to the actual content so you choose to fight your battle in another venue.  nableezy  - 04:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Epee, I understand. But policy at the top of this page clearly says "Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." I'm simply pointing out that Cptnono's reporting of editors to Admin boards may be informed by a selection bias. That of course is for an WP:UNINVOLVED admin to consider. Respectfully, RomaC  TALK 03:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Roma, I hear you. Focusing back on the subject of this complaint, I would guess that Nableezy might not perhaps be eager to have you expand this thread to an analysis of his reports, with an eye to what you refer to as "selection bias".  With the result being, that if such a bias were discovered on his part he be blocked for an amount of time commensurate with the number of his own blocks/bans in the past.  Is that what you are suggesting be done with all parties to this thread?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free, Id be happy to start with you.  nableezy  - 04:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that remark hostile--for someone whose disruptive editing is being discussed. That said, since it will apparently make you happy, feel free to lay bare both of our histories in this regard.  And the blocks of each of us (that haven't been summarily dismissed).  And the bans of each of us (that haven't been summarily dismissed).  Somehow, I seem to have some recollection of your being blocked and banned a number of times that is consistent with the above indications of further disruptive activity.  But please--just do it, rather than pepper this thread with further dialogue, which no doubt would just bore the reviewing sysops; we wouldn't want them to be led to lose interest in the above complaint of recent disruptive activity.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a habit of asserting that disruption is taking place. Given that each time you have made that assertion regarding me you were incorrect, you may want to be less sure of yourself.  nableezy  - 06:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nableezy--I will limit my response, as I fear you are creating a red herring by seeking to divert attention away from the above averred disruption. You may have forgotten, for instance, the arbs' harsh view of your editing and arguments, which they expressed here (among others, arb Vassayana who wrote:  "I, individually, consider [the editing at issue] as an unwelcome attempt to skirt the edges or jump through loopholes of the sanction. As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear").  But please, let's not distract the reviewers from the facts at hand; let's try to limit comments to the above, and what bears directly on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the last time, I was never sanctioned under the WB/JS case, a request for clarification about topic bans that were not the same as mine is wholly irrelevant and one AE thread on that topic closed with no action, another was overturned after appeal. You forget that?  nableezy  - 07:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Nableezy, I'll let readers read the arbs' comments as to your conduct/arguments, which speak for themselves. I've no interest in you turning this into a battleground--especially, on an unrelated subject.  It serves as a red herring, distracting reviewers from the above complaint as to your editing.  Excuse me if I no longer partake in this discussion on red herring issues, for that reason.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the comments speak for themselves, as does the section title which quite clearly references the case (WB/JS) for which clarification was requested. And if you dont want to discuss "red herring issues", dont bring them up.  nableezy  - 07:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop editing your comments after they have been replied to. And yes, my topic ban was perfectly clear, as the admin who placed it clarified that AfDs were to be treated as talk pages, from which I was no longer topic-banned from.  nableezy  - 08:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Seems like stating the obvious but if someone could perhaps persuade editors to stop advocating policy non-compliant content (or absence of content) on behalf of the State of Israel at the Tourism in Israel article and related articles I think it would help defuse the situation quite considerably. A bit of common sense is required here. Editors who aren't familiar with the borders of Israel or who edit on the basis of extreme minority views shouldn't be editing those articles. Filing reports against editors who try to address the advocacy issues facilitates it's continuation. I guess editors who advocate extreme minority positions at evolution related articles are also met with what could be characterised as disruptive slow motion edit warring over content to replace their material with policy compliant material but at those articles people just get on with it and enforce policy compliance in spite of the advocacy.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A patrolling admin needs to deal with this thread, and soon. Both sides accuse each other of "POV-pushing" and "slow-edit-warring" - it's about the latter only for this board, I believe. "Coming short" (barely) of actual 3RR is still edit-warring: reverting is reverting, and this looks like a slow, unending POV-pushing "edit war" among several parties who are quite familiar with each other. RfC/U is the venue, methinks - more topic bans, maybe? I've seen at least one (who shall remain "nameless") editor here on this board many, many times - things don't seem to be getting better. Was edit-warring occurring? I think so. Who's to blame? This needs to go to another place after a conclusion is (hopefully) drawn in this case... Doc9871 (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didnt "barely" come short of the 3RR, not a single day did I make more than 2 reverts and there were weeks were I made 0. There are a total of 4 reverts since 21 June listed. Many of the edits listed above are contiguous and constitute a single revert. For example, every edit listed for 18 June was in a continuous set of edits. Many of the listed edits are not even reverts. Cptnono lists an edit where I wikilink "Palestinian territories" to "Palestinian territory" as a revert, it simply is not a revert. The first edit on the 16th was also all original material, not a revert. The last two edits on the 18th were also edits, not reverts. Many of the diffs listed above are not reverts, and others are presented in a way to appear that they were separate reverts when they were part of a contiguous set of edits. The first edits 2 July followed nearly two weeks of discussion where the editos who had initially reverted me either said nothing on the talk page or raised no actual objection to the formatting, they just did not like who made the edit.  nableezy  - 07:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverting is reverting: I'm sure you know that there's technical ways around this from the above response. So does the other side, apparently.  After an admin closes this report, the problem needs to go to another venue.  Agreed? Doc9871 (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy explicitly says that continuous edits count as a single revert. It is not "gaming" to say that here. Original material added is not a revert. It is not "gaming" to say that here. If you actually looked at the history of the article instead of making a judgment based off of the misleading report above you may be in a better position to evaluate whether or not I was "barely" skirting 3RR. And anybody can take this to any venue they want, that does not need my agreement. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said you personally were "barely" skirting 3RR in this case: but you have been sanctioned for this behavior on related articles before, no? It doesn't need your agreement to take this to other venues - "You are correct, Sir!"  These accusations of "POV-pushing" hardly seem appropriate considering your history (and, yes, past and current behavior is important in determining issues such as these)... Doc9871 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have been sanctioned in this topic area, which is the reason I committed to making no more than 2 reverts, so that I could avoid such time-sucks as this, and also why I discussed this issue for almost 2 weeks prior to making another one, whereas the users who reverted me were oddly missing from the talk page. I apologize if I misread your comments, it certainly seemed like you were saying that I was barely skirting the 3RR. And it is "POV-pushing" to claim Syrian or Palestinian territory is Israeli territory, and I dont intend to apologize for saying so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 08:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No apologies to me are necessary at all, Nableezy: my comment may have certainly seemed vague as to who was "skirting" 3RR. I am neutral in the greater Arab/Israeli conflict (as an American with absolutely no heritage on either side).  Edit-warring is what I'm looking at, and I believe that there are two sides to every story (just like the actual conflict).  Should arguments continue here?  An admin needs to close this (with whatever decision deemed appropriate), and it needs to move on from this board after that.  This is not the place to keep debating it - let it quiet down until a decision is made.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim of slow-motion edit-warring is tenuous, and this discussion demonstrates that there are bigger problems beyond nableezy's edits to the article. --  tariq abjotu  09:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fine with Doc9871's suggestion. Tariqabjotu is wrong in my opinon but I can't blame him for not getting it since it is complicated and there is a possibility I am wrong. Nableezy was edit warring against 4 people. A couple of those four people might have been edit warring too. I don't think it was to the same extent but really it might just be better at RfCU or AE. Close this out if needed. I am a little concerned that Nableezy has brought up this conversation to justify his actions but I suppose I can bring up this conversation to hit revert just as much. Sucks that that is the way it is but we'll deal with it later in another board if he doesn't stop. Hopefully, the edit warring will just stop in the topic area. The end.Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tearlock reported by User:Bridies (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I posted on his talk page because the dispute involves multiple pages other than shoot 'em up.

Comments:As well as the shoot 'em up article, the user's contributions have consisted almost entirely of reverts, mostly without explanation. He deleted without comment the message I left regarding content disputes and edit warring:. He was also warned by another user regarding disruption and lack of commentary:.

3 further reverts in a 24 (ok, 25) period on a separate page:,,. bridies (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an obvious sock/sleeper of someone. From looking at, maybe it is ?  I considered blocking indefinitely, but giving him the benefit of the doubt (could be coincidence that Knovember's edits was one of the ones he reverted to), blocked 31 hours.  If the disruption continues or new accounts appear, a trip to WP:RFCU may be worthwhile. --B (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:JuanJose reported by User:Ham Pastrami (Result: Already blocked)
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: (see Talk:Unreal)

Comments:

The article talk page has already had multiple discussions about the contested edit, to which JuanJose was referred. His response was to escalate the dispute by moving the page and copy-pasting his own version into the main article. This needs to be undone as well. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Already blocked 1 week for vandalism. --B (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Cgersten reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to discussion

As a slight note, I am an uninvolved editor reporting this case.

That out of the way, appears to be trying to game the system, as per the history of the article, they are continuing to edit war, but only after 24 hours have completely passed since their last third reversion. Thus, their edits would still be a violation of policy.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 20:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor appears confused about the edit warring policy; they are conscientiously staying under WP:3RR, but I agree that they have been edit warring. There is talkpage discussion on the reverts in question and discussion at User talk:Cgersten on the policy question. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained that edit warring is more than WP:3RR, and Cgersten has agreed to avoid the article (but not talkpage) for a week. Consensus should be able to sort this one out. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:15johno reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: semi-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: [diff]

Comments:

This user's only edits have been to this article and have consisted of copy/pasting copyrighted content from. They have made no talk page edits and their response to my warning was to reinsert the content.  Tide  rolls  23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, borderline. There was a warning, but your warning was the same minute as the user's last edit.  Semi-protected the article for three days, if it's done again after that, a block would be in order. Courcelles (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:87.232.46.253 reported by User:snowded (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

WP:DUCK Single user with two IPs in operation

Previous version reverted to: here


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff above was suggestion to take to talk page. This was followed by an abusive comment here and some similar comments in the edit summary

Comments:


 * Result - Semiprotected two weeks. A dynamic IP is warring against everyone else. Whether to mention the Tomás Mac Curtain case is currently being discussed on Talk. Editors should abide by the result of that discussion, whatever it may be. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Abuse on page: Rhys (Result: Take to AIV)
It was vandalism. Now reverted. Worth keeping an eye on it though. Daicaregos (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Editor has stopped. If this continues, report at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Griswaldo (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

Comments: This is not a clear cut case so please look at it carefully. The original version I have posted is from last month when Til was edit warring over the exact same thing -- see, and. He was warned about it then (see first warning diff). I warned him again this time. You will also notice that the last example of a revert this time around is a slightly different edit. Instead of one POV tag he found another very similar one to put up. I think that's very clearly an attempt to game the system here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a "clear-cut case" because I am almost always careful not to step over the 3RR line, and I didn't here. The article need to be nominated for a POV check, and that is all my last edit did, but some are resisting the POV check process because they don;t want its POV to be checked, and want to block me instead. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you (Griswaldo) refer to this as "not a clear cut case". This is an indisputable violation of the three-revert rule. --  tariq abjotu  14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ongoing discussion of this user's behavior: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User: 68.38.56.183 reported by RG (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted


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

Comments:

This IP is not only edit warring, but has vandalized two user pages and has left uncivil remarks on his or her talk page (.) I suggest at least a 3 day block. RG (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * IP user is a troll. Do not feed. Phearson (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. Combined with the edits he made to user and user talk pages, this was probably blatant enough to go to WP:AIV. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)



User:CloversMallRat reported by User:Lil-unique1 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 6:11 8 July, 2010


 * 1st revert: (changed U.S. Dan to D/CP)
 * 2nd revert: (after I changed the chart back referring to the fact that the name of the chart had since changed, User changed U.S. Dan to U.S. DCP)
 * 3rd revert: (after point out the discussion here noting that U.S. Dan or U.S. DAN was acceptable he/she then added full name of the chart)
 * 4th revert: (then after I explained that per MOS:DISCOG that all columns in a discography should be of equal size he/she reverted back to that of the 3rd revert diff).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: His talk page, my talk page, MOS talk page.

Comments:

In my own defense I've tried to be as helpful as possible trying to explain the reason as to why his/her edits were not correct. This user has accused me of being on a "high horse". Perhaps this user was not aware that I've spent the few days correcting and sourcing the information at Kelly Rowland discog. He/she has also been edit waring at which I have been personally editing to ensure that it doesn't get deleted. The page history will show that the article was incubated and only because I spent the time actually rewriting the article so it would pass notability was it moved back into the mainspace. Despite a very clear and reasonable explaination he/she has been adding a redundent list of recorded tracks to the album even though it is not required as all of the songs on the list have already been mentioned. If I am wrong my actions please inform me and it is something which I will be more careful of. However I do feel that in this case I did provide appropriate discussion areas as well as the relevant policy/guideline pages so cannot understand why the other user is assuming bad faith with edit summaries like this and comments like "get off your high horse. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I only edited the album page twice, I didn't bother adjusting it anymore because I understood your complaints with it and I chose to cease action on it. The conflict you mention with the discography page doesn't make any sense, because you told me several different things. Originally you told me that Dance Club Play became Dance Club Songs, and in that suggested that it could work as DCS rather than DCP. And you've repeatedly thrown that discussion in there for a reason to keep it as US Dan, but the discussion notes multiple variations of the Dance chart, including the US Dance and varieites of DCS that I have tried to add. Who is to say then that your way of putting it is any better than my way? If all are acceptable, then you can't argue which one is right and which one is wrong. Correcting my interpretation based on the previous name of the chart made sense, but the rest of this did not. And more importantly most of your comments directed at me on my talk page had nothing to do with the proposed "edit war" going on w/ the discography, it was over the quality of the Kelly Rowland album page, which I was only try to improve. I meant no harm in what I added to that article, and I've subsided on that particular disagreement. CloversMallRat (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My words were consult the on-going consultation which has a consensus for using a shortened version of the chart name. Additionally when i made the comment at the discussion that i prefered US DAN or US Dan comments were made that that would be acceptable. What is not acceptible is for you to make reversions saying "we dont abbreviate" without a clear explaination or reference to any supporting guideline. (who is we? where does it say don't abbreviate?) I did try and update my comments as the discussion updated (hence i struck off comments which no longer applied) The point I was making with this report is I offered a clear explaination of why we don't include recorded songs and rather than discuss that you chose to revert without even offering an explaination of your POV which addressed the issues I noted. Note that I am not a vindictive or ownership editor. Its nice to be able to collaborate on projects as well as doing things differently but this should not be done at the expense of guidelines. My actions with regards to Kelly Rowland (album) are supported by the current guidelines and policies. I do not consider it WP:good faith/practise for another editor to edit an article in a way which appears to breach those guidelines without providing a rational for doing so. This has escalated to a ridiculous argument which should not have got this far. I have left a proposal on the CloverMallRat's talk page here with a suggested compromise so that the situation can be swiftly, maturely and ammicably resolved. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We have resolved the issue. Please see the resolution here and here --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. Per the above, both editors have apologized, and are discussing the issue. Follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if further problems occur. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sweetpoet reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (reverting combined edits of User:Glenfarclas and me
 * 2nd revert: (apparently agreeing with most of my edit, but reverting me by reinserting "officially")
 * 3rd revert: (same as 2nd revert)
 * 4th revert: (reverting Glenfarclas by reinserting source and reinserting "officially")
 * 5th revert: (reverting Glenfarclas by again reinserting "officially")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He has been warned and blocked for edit warring on this article multiple times. Here is the latest warning and request that he self-revert, on the article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (same as above): Also see Talk:Separated_brethren and the section following it.

Comments:

Earlier today, Glenfarclas challenged some sourcing in the article. I thought he was right and that the related language violated WP:UNDUE. Sweetpoet objected and reinserted the language (1st revert above). I thought I could accommodate Sweetpoet's desire to highlight a particular fact (that Mormons are not considered to be separated brethren by the Roman Catholic Church) if it was placed in sufficient context at least listing other groups characterized the same way. That resolved the issue between Sweetpoet and me (after I clarified what I meant and waded through Sweetpoet's edits even after I placed an inuse template on the article for 15 minutes or so). Several hours later, Sweetpoet then added back a source that had been removed that doesn't actually support the fact he says it does (4th revert above). Glenfarclas removed it and again removed an odd use of the word "officially". Sweetpoet then reinserted this (5th revert above).

Since I am right at three reverts myself, I just noted the issue on the talk page and am now bringing it here.

Despite his recent blocks for edit warring and personal attacks, Sweetpoet is at it again as a glance at Talk:Separated brethren makes clear. He has gone so far as to opine on my gender here and on my talk page (which I have since removed).

Novaseminary (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * With this edit, Sweetpoet has self-reverted his repeated insertion of the word "official". While this is a start, he still violated the 3RR by a couple of edits and has not self-reverted his reinseretion of a disputed source or removed the sentence he reinserted. Novaseminary (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not wasting my time with this stuff anymore, with Novaseminary.   I will say this: the citation "This Rock" was a source (if you examine the Article talk page) that Nova him/herself came around to admit was a "reliable source" and was one that he/she himself put in weeks ago, and was established per the talk page that should remain.  It was a settled matter from the past, and was DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE.


 * So Nova eventually removing it was not exactly respecting the whole thing on the talk page.  Anyway, I've had it with Nova's antics and constant whining to the notice board, like every week, and not seeing how he himself is part of the problem (two to tango) and is always "edit warring" himself.    I don't care anymore.....This article is not worth this crazy stress, and Nova is DEFINITELY not worth this aggravation.


 * Again, I simply restored a citation that was already agreed upon per the Talk page, and was already established.  Nova doesn't care to respect that, but likes to make whole-sale removal of things that he/she does not seem to personally like.   Instead of expanding the article, Nova just wants to wiki-tag it to death and/or make giant deletions.   And other editors have noticed it too (in this article and in others.)


 * I undid my own revert, per the talk and per the situation, PRIOR TO EVEN KNOWING THAT NOVA WENT TO THE NOTICE BOARD, and, as I knew already, that made NO difference to Nova, as, from what you can see, he runs neurotically to the notice board page to squeal on me ANYWAY....ignoring his own edit-warring, and for the sole spiteful purpose of getting me blocked. This individual has been very demoralizing and exasperating, for some reason...and extremely discouraging. Sweetpoet (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked 1 week for edit warring. Something is not right; Sweetpoet has already been blocked five times in 2010, which is a bad pattern to get into. This does not happen by inadvertence or simple mistakes. The first two blocks were shortened after promises of better behavior, but  I think this editor has lost his credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These edit summaries certainly don't bode well with regard to Sweetpoet working well in a collaborative environment.  . --<b style="color:navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:navy;">shhh  15:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:I Run This Show reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: Indef )
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: User resorted to personal attacks

Comments:


 * Vandalism-only/disruptive account. Tiptoety  talk 20:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:122.107.175.135 reported by User: Radiopathy (Result: blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is not the only article where this user is edit warring: he's been putting flag icons into Australian television-related articles the past few days in contravention of WP:MOSFLAG; he's been reverted and notified of policy and refuses to acknowledge warnings or to stop.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  13:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've blocked this guy for 7 days. Sarah 06:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ms. Black Gold reported by User:BillMasen (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

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

Comments:

Editor has already been blocked once for edit warring on this page. BillMasen (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 week --B (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Travisharlem reported by User:Akerans (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Specific wording could not be reached by discussion, so consensus was reached to not include a sentence.

Comments:


 * - Checking. Tiptoety  talk 19:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * - Tiptoety  talk 19:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Jevansen (Result: Protected 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * --B (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Preciseaccuracy reported by User:Huey45 (Result: Not blocked, no edits after warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is how the article was before the edit war.


 * 1st revert: diff=373068375&oldid=373063018
 * 2nd revert: diff=373071843&oldid=373070107
 * 3rd revert: diff=373079941&oldid=373075744
 * 4th revert: diff=373087457&oldid=373085322

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1st attempt 2nd attempt

Comments: User:Preciseaccuracy seems to have a close affiliation with Salon.com and even used "Salon.com article" as the title of half the article Art student scam rather than a more appropriate name like "Israeli Art Student Scam" or something along those lines. He went to the user talk pages User_talk:Huey45 and User_talk:Mbz1 to cause more trouble, saying: "The article in your version has a strong bias...", "You have a blatant bias..." and even "You didn't do basic due dilligance...", all the while insisting just as strongly that Salon.com is the most brilliant news website on the net. (Huey45 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

My talk page was simply vandalized.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment by Mbz1


 * While the user's conduct is certainly not acceptable, after being informed of the three revert rule, this user did not edit the article again. We don't normally block new users who don't continue to revert after being warned.  As for the "vandalism", that looks clearly accidental.  This looks more like a teachable moment for a new user than a blocking situation. --B (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me in biting new users. The new user had no difficulties in leaving messages on at least three other users talk pages (two before, and one after my talk page was vandalized), creating their own talk page with explanation what they are doing and why, as well as they apparently had no difficulties in editing article with adding edit summaries and references, but generally I'd say I agree with your decision. Let's see, if the new user is going to learn and to improve. My post here is for the record only.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The user has resumed edit warring, blocked for 24 hours. --B (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Vecrumba reported by User:Mathsci (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff on talk page of article

Comments: I suggested that Vecrumba add the non-existent links in this edit summary - I did so myself with these edits following Vecrumba's second revert of the tags  Vecrumba was edit warring on Race and intelligence when 1RR has been imposed during the current ArbCom case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence by GWH here. Vecrumba has only become involved in the article since the ArbCom case opened. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Response HUH?? This: versus <- note, reference is no longer in quote of source this is what Mathsci purports to be talking about? I'm sorry. A tag is for marking weasel text, not for requesting that a reputable source quoted contiguously have its references, as quoted in the original, be Wikified. Mathsci's edit moves the references in the original outside the quote of the source, making them appear to no longer be explicitly part of the source I regret I did not tag my revert as undoing vandalism, as that was how I clearly perceived it, particularly with the complete absence of discussion on the part of Mathsci prior to his undoing my removal of his tags despite my starting a section in article talk, which I am sure did not pass unnoticed on the part of Mathsci. I didn't call it vandalism because I did not want to contribute to an escalation of conflict at the article. I was clearly mistaken in thinking there was such a possibility, as Mathsci chose to reinstate the tags while ignoring my discussion on the talk page. Repeated weasel-tagging of multiple internal sections of a contiguous quote from a reputable source in the middle of that quote is an act of vandalism. I have the complete original source being quoted (had to pay for it, too—but I never enter any article without the best sources). I offered Mathsci an opening to discuss his tagging, he preferred to re-vandalize the section and then attack me. This is just a cynical attempt by Mathsci to maintain the article's WP:BATTLEGROUND status and to pigeon-hole other editors as the sources of disruption at the R&I article. Since Mathsci wishes to vandalize contiguous quotes from sources and to edit war over it instead of discussing in a collegial fashion, I regret I must stand by my revert as undoing vandalism (multiple weasel-taggings in the middle) of a contiguous quote from a reputable source. Undoing vandalism is not subject to 1RR restrictions the last time I checked. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 01:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "There are differences in intelligence between races that are due in substantial part to genetically determined differences in brain structure and/or function (Rushton, 1995; Rushton & Jensen, 2005a)."
 * "There are differences in intelligence between races that are due in substantial part to genetically determined differences in brain structure and/or function"
 * was wholly inappropriate—not weasel
 * Mathsci's edit disrupts and changes a contiguous quote from a reputable source
 * Mathsci's edit summary in no manner even remotely implied a request to Wikify references in the contiguous original quote, therefore, frankly I have difficulty believing it; such a request could have been stated simply and directly, not with an edit summary stating: "restoring tags - these make no sense at all in the WP article and should be directly linked - please do so"; and if it were that easy to fix the problem, I'm gobsmacked Mathsci didn't just do it in the first place (though I would have probably reverted that too as it interrupts and changes the quote of the reputable source).
 * such simple and direct statement ("please Wikify references within the body of the quote of the reputable source") was notably absent from article talk—no comment from Mathsci, who obviously prefers to complain in an incomprehensible manner while restoring inappropriate tags while refusing to discuss in English which reasonably linguistically competent editors can understand and then attacking editors when they react appropriately to undo his vandalizing a contiguous quote with weasel-word tags.


 * Comment - "Ouch!" I've heard of being bold, but this is quite BOLD!  Responding like this (in big, bold text and ALLCAPS) is not really encouraged, Vecrumba, making the report less readable from a neutral and independent POV - it makes you look very, very "angry".  It's best to calm down a little; and present your defense rationally (with diffs if possible) in the future. It's just a wiki, after all... Doc9871 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unbolded, I'm really tired of doing diffs, I did not come to the R&I article to wage conflict. Please see my response on Mathsci's talk page in response to his notifying myself of his actions here. (diff). Best, P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 04:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. - I've fixed the first diff - it was incorrect. Possible 1RR violation by Vecrumba if: a) the editor is still on that sanction for this article (is he?), and b) if the two edits were within a 24-hour period (they clearly were) ... Doc9871 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Truth be told, I wasn't thinking about the 1RR restriction on the article even though I've asked multiple times for there to be a notice posted so people don't forget. There is currently no notice at article talk. There is no 1RR restriction on myself. Unfortunately, per mine above, I do not take kindly to editors insisting on repeating inappropriate tagging (and ultimately making an inappropriate edit as what they indicate they had in mind) when I've opened a discussion and they choose edit-warring instead of discourse. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to make a unilateral decision here, but I have several misgivings about making a block here. (1) There is no banner on the talk page or page notice when you edit the page itself informing you of the 1RR restriction.  At a minimum, a template similar to Community article probation should be used to inform users of the restriction.  It is unreasonable to expect, perhaps not for this user in particular, who is an active participant in the relevant arbcom case, but for users in general, to know about the restriction and know that it is still in effect.  (2) I'm trying to figure out - and maybe there is an answer somewhere that I'm not seeing - what the authority was for the imposition of the restriction.  Is there a previous arbcom case that allows for discretionary sanctions on this article?   (3) Purely from a "we're not called to be 3RR robots" standpoint, I know nothing whatsoever about these people and almost nothing about the topic, but I quickly found most of them wikilinked elsewhere in the article.  I don't see how the who tag was beneficial in any way whatsoever. (4) 1RR here is very, very ticky tacky.  It's kinda like playing basketball against Duke - if you breathe heavy in their general direction, it's a foul.  The first revert was a technical revert - it was a partial revert of an edit from four days ago.  For 3RR, when there is actual edit warring, ok, fine, but for 1RR?  That's very, very ticky tacky to count that.  (5) Mathsci has fixed the issue by wikilinking to the authors in place, so there is no further danger of edit warring.  Blocks are preventative, not punitive.  So if another admin thinks a block here is appropriate, feel free, but I do not feel it is. --B (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved new Wikipedian I have been trying my utmost to await patiently the outcome of the current ArbCom case on the article before plunging in to do many substantive edits on the article (which badly needs editing after years of POV-pushing and edit wars). Meanwhile, I have been compiling and citation-templating an extensive  source list on related topics and sharing that with other Wikipedians, inviting their comments, with links from the article talk page and from the talk pages of other articles that cover similar issues. I have followed the talk page discussion closely, because I want to know how to work constructively with all the editors who still have editing privileges there after the ArbCom case is decided. (Topic bans are being sought against various editors, including MathSci, by various parties to the ArbCom case. I learned about this notice board complaint from reading diffs of the article talk page.)
 * MathSci has been rapid to accuse other editors and bring their often innocuous conduct before Wikipedia notice boards, while complaining in the ArbCom case of other editors escalating the search for editor sanctions too rapidly. He does not consistently collegially explain the basis for his frequent edits. His complaint against Peters here is based on an overly Wikilawyering interpretation of the temporary 1RR restriction on the article. (That temporary restriction is poorly noted to passersby. The 1RR restriction is the main current consequence of the pending ArbCom case.) In the overall context of each editor's editing behavior on that article, the complaint here is specious. Mathsci's adding the tags he added to a block of quoted text from a cited reliable source was silly and ugly and unencyclopedic. I have every assurance that Peters will continue to be responsible and communicative with other editors about that article, and look forward to working with him on the article for years. No sanction of any kind is warranted here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I have started two reports on ANI in 2010. I have been reported twice or three times on this board by Captain Occam and Mikemikev (each time no violation). Captain Occam did the same with Ramdrake. Perhaps it might be a good idea to check your facts before making statements like this. Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Comment The references that hade been copy-pasted from the pdf file of the paper of Hunt&Carlson were of no use at all to the reader. Thus "Ogbu, 2002" was unintelligible because there was no reference to Ogbu or his 2002 paper in the article. Equally well, it turned out there was a fake reference to "Cooper, 2005" that had been inserted, which did not appear in Hunt&Carlson. who queried these unintelligible unlinked names and papers. Text like that is unintelligible on wikipedia, whence the tags: most readers have no access to the cited paper of Hunt&Carlson (why should they have?) nor any idea who Ogbu or Smedley&Smedley are (why should they without a wikilink?). I added the tags quite a while ago. Vecrumba removed them recently, I restored them with the unambiguous edit summary: restoring tags - these make no sense at all in the WP article and should be directly linked - please do so. That request was to wikify the cited text by going back to the paper, adding the references given there to the article and then using harvtxt or some equivalent to make the wikilinks to references outside the quote marks. The edit summary was unambiguous. If Vecrumba had any doubt what was meant, instead of disruptively starting an edit-war, he could have raised the point on the article talk page without reverting; or equally well he could have politely asked me on my user talk page. He did not, although he left an unhelpful message after this report was made.


 * Vecrumba is not an editor in good standing: he is under a one year ArbCom topic ban EEML and further editing restriction EEML; has been blocked twice for breaching them, once in January and then more recently for three weeks during an ArbCom case in May. His edits concerning Race and intelligence only started well into the present ArbCom case, in which he inserted himself with no prior editing experience of the article or its talk page. Most of his edits at the moment concern that case. He has edited the workshop page Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop 55 times, the 3rd most frequent contributor, so he cannot reasonably claim unfamiliarity with the restriction imposed there by GWH as a temporary injunction during the ArbCom case. His two edits to Race and intelligence were unconstructive: there was no intention of improving the article—he was just making a WP:POINT.  That is precisely why GWH imposed a 1RR restriction as a temporary injunction during this ArbCom case. I believe GWH also gave a warning prior to that on WP:ANI. Topic banned from EE articles, Vecrumba has transferred the same WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude to another set of articles and another ArbCom case. here this was a fairly trivial point, which just needed a small amount of effort. This is not the first time the restriction of GWH has been reported here, so probably administrators should seek some clarification from GWH about the injunction if there is any doubt about it; or if users are arguing, as now, that they are "special cases". Adding the harvtxt links and harvnb references took me about half an hour. Vecrumba could have done it just as easily himself instead of removing tags for the second time. Here is Vecrumba's content editing history for 2010.  Here's my last lot of 500 content edits for comparison.    Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed and offended by Mathsci's diatribe above. I described in plain language why his use of tags (in the middle of a contiguous quote of a source) was inappropriate. He chose to revert my removal of the tags (with an edit summary that said nothing about harvtxt, the request could certainly have been stated better), choosing to edit-war instead of responding at talk where I had made note of my action at article talk and why, and this could have been quickly and easily cleared up. As well, I regret interpreting "clueless" and "disruptive" as personal attacks as exemplified by his action of bringing EEML into the proceedings here—a pattern at the current arbitration as well, where Mathsci derides his editorial opposition, even from other articles (conflicts) in Mathsci's past in no way germane to the discussion.
 * I am not going to sit idly by for Mathsci to attribute his WP:BATTLEGOUND mentality to me. "I am Ozymandias, behold my edits" (not a direct quote, of course) does not balance out, in some yin-yang fashion, Mathsci's continual non-collegial behavior and inveterate disparagement of other editors. I was quite glad to consider this unfortunate affair over, as it was easily avoidable by appropriate discussion at talk, which is an easy lesson to take away for all. Indeed, instead of removing the tags the first time around, I could have simply inquired; still, I was careful to open a new discussion in talk to head off any misunderstanding when I did remove the tags. Instead, Mathsci decided to edit-war, and has now chosen, here, to come out firing both barrels. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, I came to the article as it has been a life-long interest, the basis for which I have described elsewhere. I have not edited much in 2010 because my mother's health had been in serious decline, since summer 2008 but accelerating this year, including going back onto a feeding tube, and she died in the hospital in intensive care on July 4th, at 98. Mathsci's brand of lording of one's self-proclaimed intellectually superior editing über alles has no place on WP. P ЄTЄRS  J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. On the EEML findings regarding myself, IP activity addresses were no longer readily available which would have exonerated me of most of the findings of canvassing or responding to canvassing. ArbCom chose to believe their interpretation and to discount my own statements—that is, of course, their prerogative despite the proceedings being based on absconded personal Emails released with a grossly inflammatory and prejudicial description. Nevertheless, for the perhaps three times I did show up somewhere because I was informed of something before I found it myself, I have graciously accepted my one-year topic ban and at this point do not expect to appeal it, as it has afforded me the opportunity to catch up on other projects and widen my WP interests, both of which I consider positives for which I am grateful (despite how they were arrived at). I find Mathsci's description of myself as not in good standing and therefore suitable cannon fodder utterly reprehensible.


 * Whatever happened to discuss the edit, not the editor? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And while I'm here wasting time, about...
 * "  Diff on talk page of article "
 * you will note that there was *no* attempted discussion on the part of Mathsci, that is, no response to my documenting the initial removal of tags. Mathsci's evidence against me here indicts him for his own conduct. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is getting well outside the scope of this forum. Whatever issue there is here is one for the arbitration case, not for AN3.  AN3 isn't the place to fight out who is right, who is wrong, etc.  Vecrumba, this request was added at 22:34 GMT, or 6:34 PM eastern time.  Will you consent to not edit that article until after 22:34 GMT / 6:34 PM Eastern this evening (6.5 hours from now)?  If so, I think we can just close this request and everyone can be happy. --B (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, B. This could have all been avoided with a simple talk page conversation. I regret Mathsci did not choose that option when I presented it, he is not my adversary. I'm open to whatever suggestions you have to put this unfortunate ugliness behind us, so if my not editing the article today (voluntarily) is good for you, it's good for me as well. There's no train leaving the station, as they say! Best, P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Vecrumba is voluntarily not going to edit the article until after 22:34 GMT / 6:34 PM Eastern (just under 5 hours from now). There is therefore no disruption to prevent with a block. This should not be considered either an endorsement of or finding fault with anyone's actions on this page or on the article, or of the 1RR restriction itself - only a statement that there is no disruption to prevent.  I am closing the above discussion and I strongly suggest that if there are behavioral issues to be considered that they be introduced as evidence in the arbcom case, not hashed out here. --B (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:96.32.148.208 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: POV edits across several articles at the verge of edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Now the IP has broken 3RR at . — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IP was also warned a few hours ago for edit warring at, before moving on to Olbermann and Holder. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 31 hours --B (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sequal1 and User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Protected 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (somewhere around there)

Sequal1 and about 11 more reaching back til late June.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Guinea pig warrior about the same number of edits, same time frame.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and confirmation of reading it here, and an edit 5 minutes later here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: These two have been going at it for over a week now. The recent activity more than violates 3RR in 24 hours technically, but the long term pattern is a problem too. Shadowjams (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You're totally correct, as I said here, this is a totally fair call. I did get carried away, but as I said here, I am finding it very annoying that while I was trying to discuss it, Guinea pig warrior continues to edit the page. I even stated that I was going to leave it while we discussed it, even though I didn't agree with his version of the page (bottom sentence). If I get banned, I get banned, I would deserve it. Sequal1 (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --B (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:133.92.114.222 reported by User:Insert coins (Result: S-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: [diff]

Comments:

The matter in question has been discussed at length on the talk pages months and even years ago. Furthermore, the article is stuffed with references, starting with the very intro and until the last paragraph. User:133.92.114.222 is acting in very bad faith. --Insert coins (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The same reversion has been carried out twice by User:118.16.173.127, an IP which also, like 133.92.114.222, is allocated to the Japan Network Information Center in Tokyo. RolandR (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The page has been semi-protected by . --B (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Commator reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 31 hr)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Commator has been edit-warring on this and other articles, trying to insert text based on references that do not back up the claims his text makes, based on what appears to be an attempt to insert spam links into articles. After having this explained to him at the reliable sources noticeboard, Commator continues to edit war back to his preferred version. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 31 hours. --B (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Marknutley (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:The Article is on a 1R parole, i would ask the editor be requested to self revert, i have asked him but he believes he has not broken the restriciton. And in fact is now insinuating i am a sockpuppet. 


 * The first edit here is not a revert; it is, indeed, my first edit to the article -ever. The second edit was a revert; and as the 1RR warning required, I accompanied it  by an explanation on the talk page. As the warning says, "Violations of 1RR, unaccompanied by discussion, may be treated as disruption".  diff of discussion.


 * I do not intend to go further; I would not have gone so far had the intial edit not been met by immediate reversion without discsussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The user who reverted you started a discussion on it Why are you saying there was no discussion? And i already told you, your first edit was a revert, your removal of text was a revert the second revert was when you reverted OpenFuture mark nutley (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As well he ought to, in his second reversion in ten hours. 13 July 05:43 and 15:40. But, no, reversion is returning to a previous state of the text; trimming is not reversion unless it reverses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry no and i did explain this to you wp:3rr is quite clear on this A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely; what action did I reverse? The second edit reversed OpenFuture - as he reversed KigK and myself; but what action did the first edit reverse? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice the large chunk of text you removed? That is a revert. mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's a WP:Blanking, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, User:Pmanderson performed a non-revert edit, and later, a single revert. One could take notice that the reporter has not produced an "original diff" showing how his first link above constitutes a "first revert". This should leave User:Pmanderson clear of any 1RR violation. In any case, the issue seems moot and I notice that User:Pmanderson has even self-reverted now. BigK HeX (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I must have missed AmateurEditor's participation. It wasn't a self-revert that was performed. BigK HeX (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As Septentrionalis had already been told on the talk page, a revert "means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." He blanked an entire section, twice, and he did not self-revert. I had to undo his most recent one. And then he added an unjustified tag to the section. And now as I write this I see he has nominated the article for deletion, despite being unfamiliar with even the most basic issues (like the meaning and relevance of "classicide"). He is editing disruptively. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is unusually amateurish: what I said was that the mere definition of the nonce-word classicide was not for Wikipedia; an actual discussion of it might be. But having proposed the useless article for deletion, I plan to have nothing more to do with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The small efforts made to attempt to enforce a legitimate policy (in this case, NOT) which the editor sees as applicable has not constituted anything that I would consider as disruptive editing. The edit is controversial, sure, but, of course, a controversial edit is not something unusual and not even discouraged here.   BigK HeX (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This should probably be on WP:AE, but, in any event, there is only one revert. As stated above, there was one (albeit controversial) edit and one revert. --  tariq abjotu  20:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, albeit for slightly different reasons. Technically, any removal is a revert, though for 1RR, we're a little bit more lenient with that than we are with 3RR.  Also, the warning infobox at the top of the page is wholly inadequate to communicate that this article is subject to 1RR.  It describes something completely different from 1RR and someone who is not a regular editor of that article could not reasonably be expected to understand that it means 1RR. --B (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Technically, any removal is a revert", which is why they are generally not considered reverts, whether for deciding 1RR or 3RR, unless a specific edit is reverted to. I don't see much evidence that Pmanderson was trying to revert back to a particular version. Rather, he/she was just removing something as his/her edit. It comes down to intent, at least from my perspective. --  tariq abjotu  20:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone removes a paragraph 4 times, we generally block them - it's clearly edit warring and disruption. If someone removes a paragraph twice?  That's not inherently disruptive.  I think we agree, we're just using different words to mean the same thing. ;)  I'm not thrilled about the way the announcement is phrased and I'm going to be bold and fix it so that it says what it means. --B (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:OpenFuture reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: not blocked, protected)
Page:

User being reported:

I make this a subsection of the section above because it is a counter-charge about the same article as the section above; it is still under a 1RR warning. The notification is easier to write this way; if somebody wants to reformat, fine.


 * 1st revert:13 July 05:43 reverting an edit of 00;40, same day.
 * 2nd revert: 15:40 reverting an edit of 14:47 and 14:57. An exact reversion.


 * What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; if OpenFuture wants to self-revert, so will I, leaving us where we were. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * mark nutley, can you please explain why you did not warn and report OpenFuture as well? If you are going to complain about edit-warring you should be even-handed, and it appears you are singling out editors you disagree with.  TFD (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, OpenFuture only has 1 revert that i saw, why would i report him for that? And had i noticed i would have asked him to self revert as i did Pm. mark nutley (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis blanked an entire section. Undoing obvious vandalism, as the "2nd revert" was doing, is specifically omitted from the definition of a revert. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTVAND. What he did was a good faith edit - not vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see from your link that it may not have technically been vandalism, but it was disruptive editing on a very contentious article. Since he was aware of the negative response on the talk page to his first blanking, the second time was out of line. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, Septentrionalis gave a plausible reason for blanking the section ... plausible, if controversial. Septentrionalis has basically cited NOT. If the reason is plausible, it would preclude anyone from receiving the exemption for obvious vandalism.  In any case, this is the first time that the reversion has been justified as removing "obvious vandalism".  BigK HeX (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not blocked for similar, though slightly different, reasons to the above. Although in this case, there was unquestionably a 1RR violation, there is no disruption to prevent by blocking this user and, in any event, the article has now been protected.  Blocks are preventative, not punitive. --B (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify the reason(s) here a bit. I can't quite tell if you're saying this person was innocent of disruption or whether the page protection made it moot.  Just my curiosity though; I don't object to whatever outcome came of this. BigK HeX (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no disruption to prevent because (1) there is no apparent intention to continue revert warring and (2) the article is protected. It is not an endorsement of any behavior, only a statement that blocks are preventative and not punitive. --B (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Martinakohl reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:48, 13 July 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 20:29, 13 July 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 20:45, 13 July 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 20:51, 13 July 2010  (edit summary: "Deleted citation of "Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law", see related discussion page")
 * 5) 21:27, 13 July 2010  (edit summary: "deleted the citation of the pro-Syrian organization")
 * 6) 22:44, 13 July 2010  (edit summary: "Jubata ez-Zeit is not a Roman village. It seems to be an Arabic settlement over a destroyed Roman village.")
 * 7) 01:21, 14 July 2010  (edit summary: "deleted the repeated vandlaism of nableezy et al.")
 * 8) 01:50, 14 July 2010  (edit summary: "deleted unreliable source")

Warnings: ,

The "pro-Syrian organization" being removed here is from the Yearbook of International Law, a peer reviewed journal published by Cambridge University Press.

<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This disruptive account continues to edit war, his latest revert, looking at the edit summary which is complete nonsense, I see it as vandalism: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jiujitsuguy I sympathize with Martinakohl. Nableezy and his tag-teaming buddy Supreme Deliciousness have worked in pairs on countless I-A articles (even the most obscure ones) and have frustrated attempts by other editors to add or expand content. The two of them (particularly Nableezy) are relentless and eventually, editors either give up or end up being baited into edit wars. It's also funny how Nableezy continuously appears on these boards either as the complainant or the respondent. If enforcement action is taken against Martinakohl then a similar sanction should be imposed on Nableezy and perhaps SD as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should any action be imposed on me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment by Jiujitsuguy
 * Examples of Nableezy's edit warring and tag-teaming
 * First revert
 * Second revert
 * Third revert
 * And just as Nableezy reaches the breaking point, SD steps in with this
 * 
 * Given Nableezy's less that stellar record, including an indef (later lifted) and lengthy topic bans, a hefty sanction is warranted against him.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A "new" account has repeatedly removed material cited to Cambridge University Press and you think action should be taken against me? Says more about you than it does me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no "tag team", User:Jeff.G also reverted Martinakolh is Jeff also a part of a "tag team"? If you have a problem with anything open up a discussion at the ANI. This account "Martinakohl" claimed that the "Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law" was unreliable, so I added another source confirming it and I explained at the talkpage:  and then this account once again removes that Neve Ativ was built on top of Jubata and says: "Jubata ez-Zeit is not a Roman village", when that has nothing to do with anything of what we are talking about and the text that he removed, and once again removes several legitimate source pushing his pov, removing sourced information and edit warring against three different editors. And you feel "sympathy" for this account. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours by <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did notice that Nableezy made two reverts soon after an edit warring report and then waited 24 hours + a few minutes to make some more. Supreme Deliciousness was in that one too. Good thing that page is locked for edit warring now. But this report isn't about Nableezy so that might have to wait. You've been a little off yourself JJG so keep an eye on it since you are getting sucked into the same bad habits Nableezy has. That sucks and it would suck to see you go down with him. Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Goodone121 reported by User:Gabbe (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User was blocked in 2008 for edit warring on another article, and was also warned in May of this year for edit warring on the same article: The content of the dispute back in May is identical (both in intention and wording) to the edit war today, and a clear violation of 3RR. Apparently, no noticeboard request was filed here, but there is a clear repeat-offense pattern emerging. Additionally, the user has been involved with other policy violations (including recently); His talk page is full of almost nothing but warnings for disruptive behavior. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 01:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 31 hours - not technically a 3RR violation, but clearly edit warring. --B (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Travisharlem reported by User:Bovineboy2008 (Result: 24 hours)
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:

Comments:

Editor reverts against established consensus on talk. BOVINEBOY 2008 01:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 24 hours by SlimVirgin. --B (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:O Fenian reported by User:The C of E (Result: blocked for a different violation)
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:

<S>The first diff is not a revert, and it is particularly not a revert to this.</S> Might actually be a revert, so I have self reverted for now. O Fenian (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The C of E is edit warring to include a fake reference that quite plainly does not source the material under dispute. If you wish to block me for three reverts go right ahead, but note that The C of E made three reverts (1, 2 and 3) before I did, so please block him as well. I am attempting to make sure material is not included with fake references, he is attempting to ignore Wikipedia content policy. O Fenian (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The references do mention it and the opening paragraph sets out the critira. I find it very interesting that he is focusing only on the Northern Irish additions and ignoring the rest. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it would seem a bit harsh to blank the entire article for being unsourced, so I settled for this edit before this report was even posted. O Fenian (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you are quite concerned about the sources so why not direct your attention to articles that truly need it such as List of stadiums by capacity which is in more dire need than this article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Options include protect the article, block both, or you could attempt dispute resolution. Do either of you have a preference? --B (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did self-revert, and will likely be starting dispute resolution over The C of E's disruptive editing tomorrow. O Fenian (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would the two of you be willing to "agree to disagree" (and not revert war) until the completion of mediation, third opinion, or some similar process? If so, I think we can simply close this request without action. --B (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just requested a third opinion, I cannot speak for another editor. O Fenian (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 24 hours for a different violation below from User:Daniel Case. --B (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:93.97.63.22 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Both blocked)
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:

I have patiently explained to the stubborn IP editor that what a person taking a phone call wrote down and what was actually said in the phone call (going by a tape transcript published in a secondary source) are two different things, yet they persist in adding an incorrect transcript of the actual warning. O Fenian (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 24 hours by User:Daniel Case. --B (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Rallytron reported by Nikkimaria (talk) (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:59, 14 July 2010   (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 16:43, 14 July 2010   (edit summary: "/* Sports */")
 * 3) 16:49, 14 July 2010   (edit summary: "/* Sports */")
 * 4) 17:16, 14 July 2010   (edit summary: "/* Sports */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

User is repeatedly adding this paragraph to both this article and Manitoba despite being asked to stop by multiple users and being directed to the article's talk page. We believe there may be a COI due to the promotional nature of the material being added, but user is not communicating very well. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just got a reply re: suggestions for improving/updating is edit. He is a new user and not likely aware of protocols such as the three-revert rule. He should be aware of the problems by now. I gave him some suggestions on my talki page on how to reword his additions to avoid promotional issues. He was amenable to this. Apparently COI is not involved. BC  <sub style="color:DarkGray;">talk to me  18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User has now agreed to abide by WP policies, so I think we can consider this matter resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. Problem appears to be resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User:UGAdawgs2010 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Blocked 72 h)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP already blocked once for 3RR,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The IP was recently blocked for edit warring here (and on other articles), returned and immediately went back to the Holder article. Registered account today and continued the edit war. As I was typing out this report, another account (UGAdawgs2011) also popped up and came straight to this article's talk page. This information may need to be added to the Holder page, but these accounts are edit warring it in first without regard to getting any kind of consensus on the talk page. Either blocks or semi-protection is probably needed to force this to the talk page. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * UPDATE Accounts blocked by while I was filing this. Dayewalker (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User: 68.167.83.210 reported by User: Carmaker1 (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

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

Comments:

By contacting a "specialist", I found out the current age of Toni Michelle Braxton, which was listed as 43 years, 9 months, 5 days on July 12, 2010. That is clearly NOT a 1967 birth year, as the records showed. I have instead used a public white pages search engine's results as the source, as I cannot use such private documents. Many professional entertainment agencies use the birth year of 1966, not 1967 or 1968.


 * When sources differ, it is necessary to find a clear reason why some should be considered more reliable than others, or all values should be reported. Please work this out at Talk:Toni Braxton, which currently has exactly one post on this issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Chambers109 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Not blocked / stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 14:40, 15 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "See discussion for details on rationale. Undid revision 373155802 by Arthur Rubin (talk)")
 * 2) 15:16, 15 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "The rationale for restoring the post is given in the discussion section. Please go there. Undid revision 373635204 by Yworo (talk)")
 * 3) 16:07, 15 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "I disagree; the grounds stated are factually unwarranted. See new comments in my discussion. Undid revision 373642222 by Dougweller (talk)")
 * 4) 17:02, 15 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: ""esoteric" is a vague identifier  /* Galactic alignment */")
 * 5) 17:04, 15 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "A documented argument is different than an "assertion" /* Galactic alignment */")


 * Diff of warning: here

Note: the last two edits list constitute a partial revert made after being warned twice (once in an edit comment by another editor) about 3RR.

—Yworo (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Though the report was submitted in a timely fashion, as of now the user hasn't edited in 24 hours, so it has grown stale. Even if someone had seen this and blocked the user in a timely fashion, they would be unblocked now anyways.  If the edit warring resumes, please open a new request or re-open this issue, as appropriate. --B (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Miami33139 (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

This is not a 3RR report, but a slow edit war. I believe it is appropriate to report it now because of previous blocks based on this exact same action. As User:Ed Fitzgerald this user was warned. He was blocked. He had it explained in no uncertain terms that hardcoding layout elements, and edit warring to keep them, was completely unacceptable. . With an extensive block log Ed Fitzgerald became H Debussy Jones. After a sockpuppet investigation (which he may have done for good reason) he became Beyond My Ken. Ed/BMK is continuing to edit war over style issues which negatively affect any reader with a browser, screen layout or disability assisting device that differs from the way Ed/BMK prefer.

His most recent edit war is on an article that was under discussion (see above link) when he was last blocked. . This slow edit war on this article has multiple reverts over several days, but does not exceed 3RR.

Previous blocks, the user knows not to edit war, and knows not to hardcode page layout and style.

Dozens of users have asked him to stop hard coding page layout, I have notified him under his previous user accounts to stop.
 * As user:Ed Fitzgerald, I asked him, and so did another user:, the extensive talk history as Ed Fitzgerald had so many people asking him to stop he wrote an essay as a form answer.
 * As user:Ed Fitzgerald, an admin blocked him and admonished him calling it stupid [
 * As user:H Debussy-Jones, I asked him again

Comments:

Hardcoding layout and style elements HAS TO STOP, it is ridiculous, actively harmful to a subset of users, and he has never, ever, attempted to discuss style issues on the style pages. This report does not need a block. A polite warning to stop hardcoding layout issues from an administrator who could enforce it will make it stop. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check complaintant's recent edits. He's been working his way methodically through my contribution history (under the name H Debussy-Jones; please see this for an explanation of the multiple account names) undoing edits of mine which, while he doesn't like them, do not violate the manual of style – all without a single word to me. When he first did this to me, under my original ID, User:Ed Fitzgerald, the inability of Wikipedia policy to deal with the situation of an editor trolling through another editor's contributions not to undo vandalism, damage or non-compliant edits, but simply to enforce their personal preferences, caused me to stop editing, and eventually to return under another name.  (After this was discovered, I was blocked for socking, but allowed to continue editing under this ID.) There really needs to be a better definition of what "Wikihounding" is, because this certainly feels, in my gut, like I'm being hounded by this editor.  Just as rollback should not be used for non-vandalism, methodically undoing an editor's work by going through their contribution list ought to be a technique that is reserved for important stuff such as undoing vandalism or other serious crimes, not for this lame kind of thing. When this editor began his current run through my contribs, I tried reverting a few of them, but he reverted back, so I decided to do my best to ignore him.  When he came to the Irvington, New York article, however, it was a different story, as I have shepharded this article for years, building it up, adding new stuff, getting it reffed, working hard to make it pleasing to the eye.  Of course, I do not own the article, but it is dear to me, and it seemed to me I had to do something.  But I did not dig in my heels, I realized that there was a way to reformat a major section of the article in a way that would answer the majority of this editor's objections, so I dug in and extensively re-did the formatting.  He acknowledged that work in an edit summary, but his response to my attempt at compromise was to take out the same old formatting that he doesn't like, and then file this report. Thanks. I am, frankly, at my wits end.  I feel helpless and under attack.  I've worked hard to contribute to Wikipedia and to improve the quality of the content and the look of the articles I've edited, and yet a person like this comes along, who contributes virtually nothing to the encyclopedia (his main thing seems to be nominating articles for deletion), but spends his time deleting the work of other editors in articles he's never edited before and doesn't give a shit about, for motivations I can't speculate about, but which do not seem kosher to me. When conflicts like this come up, people are fond of saying stuff like "This is why people are leaving Wikipedia in droves!" and so on.  I can't speak to that -- it seems to me that there are plenty of people editing here -- but I can say what effect this editor's actions have on me: I feel attacked, I feel helpless and unprotected by Wikipedia's policies, it makes me incredibly uneasy in my gut, and it makes it very difficult to concentrate on editng.  Wikipedia is not therapy, of course, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a collegial environment where colleagues work together to build and improve this incredible project. It doesn't seem to me that this editor's actions are in any way the least bit collegial at all: they seem hard, sneakily confrontational and inflexible. I work hard to contribute positively to the project, and would like to continue doing so.  The actions of this editor are actively detrimental to that. Now, I am going to go drink.  I will check in tomorrow to see what, if anything, anyone has decided to do about this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

- Whatever this is, it is not an edit warring issue. Beyond My Ken, adding arbitrary spacing is really not a very good idea. If you want to indent a quote, you can use cquote. If you're having trouble with text wrapping poorly around an image, there are ways to do that. But you can't just add an arbitrary amount of space - it messes up other browsers, mobile readers, etc. If you have arbitrary amounts of white space, that can break on very wide or very narrow monitors. If there's something specific you are trying to accomplish in terms of formatting, I may be able to help you find a better way to do it. If you need to force all text below an image, you can use or <br style="clear:both;" /> or something similar. (It wouldn't surprise me if we have a template for it.) Again, if there is something specific you are trying to do, I'd be happy to help. If there is harassment or stalking going on, this isn't really the forum for it. --B (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:93.97.63.22 reported by User:O Fenian (Result:blocked for 1 month )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (previously blocked for edit warring on this article also)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor refuses to discuss their edit, which is disputed by two editors, and tends to remove any attempt at communication from their talk page. The edit in question has been tagged as failing verification by another editor (who has also reverted the disputed edit), yet the IP editor persistently edit wars to that version without discussion. O Fenian (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * by . O Fenian (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:B-Machine reported by User:Saddhiyama (Result:Not blocked/no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

I have not warned him on his talk page, but have done so twice in the discussion on the article talk page. See below.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Discussion is ongoing, but B-Machine still keeps reverting. I have twice warned him of not reverting while discussion was ongoing to no avail.


 * 1st
 * 2nd

Comments:

User:B-Machine is edit warring by his own admission:, Quote: ''If you any of you remove it, I'll add it back. You want sources? Go look for it.''.

--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3RR was not reached or exceeded within a 24 hour period, try to find another way to deal with this disagreement. Perhaps an RfC? Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 reported by User:Justa Punk (Result:2 weeks )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments:

I do not believe it is needed to warn this user again. He has previously been blocked twice for violating the 3RR rule on this article (even though the content dispute is different to the previous two), and he has demonstrated a refusal to listen to reason. Not only do I recommend yet another block as a penalty, I also recommend a topic block for this particular article for this user. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 11:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is his third block for edit warring in as many weeks, hence the length of the block. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikemikev reported by User:Verbal (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: old

Note: A 1RR restriction is in place and the editor is aware of this
 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: User talk:Mikemikev

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

Comments:

Please note that a 1RR restriction is in place and the editor is aware of this. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a link to where this 1RR restriction is documented? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Race_and_intelligence For the duration of the ArbCom case. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Absent clear community consensus or an arbcom remedy, a 1RR restriction is outside the ability of admins to impose. Is there any discussion related to this? T. Canens (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Workshop and the current arbiter !vote at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Workshop. This is a proposed remedy, not one that has passed yet.  A single admin does not have the authority to create a discretionary sanction absent an arbcom finding otherwise. --B (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, it had been presented to me as a fact. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Doncram reported by User:Blueboar (Result:Not 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:

Talk page discussions attempting to resolve dispute: and  (see also this discussion at RSN.)

Comments:

Doncram has a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to the issue underlying his edits, and wants to WP:OWN the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick reply Blueboar prefers to delete sourcing rather than improve it, which is no way to operate in developing a well-sourced article, IMHO. I believe i reverted 3 times and made one other substantial edit that is different, which I believe is being accepted by at least one other editor, and would be part of Please see discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings and other discussions further above on the same Talk page. Actually Blueboar has opened about 30-40 discussions in forum-shopping to make various complaints on this list-article and related articles, including 3 or 4 AFDs on this and related articles. Unfortunately, i have another commitment and can't return and reply further here. Freezing the article may be a good temporary solution. Of course I prefer a version that shows the NRIS source, where NRIS was the source that I used, rather than a non-sensical version that deletes most of the article's sourcing. --doncram (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do prefer to delete flawed sourcing. A review of my edits show that I have tried several times to improve the sourcing in this article... and each time Doncram has reverted back to the flawed source that he prefers. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, both parties are as bad as each other here, but I think blocking both would be more punitive than preventative and wouldn't solve the problems that lead to this edit war. Therefore, both parties a re strongly admonished. Also, both parties have been stripped of rollback since both abused it in the edit war. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes and no. One stopped reverting, the other didn't.  The behavior is poor, but comments on the talk page for the article indicate that Doncram's position is one he takes on all articles he "works" on.  Doncram pushed for the article, refuses to allow anyone to change things despite consensus, and believes that his sourcing is correct when it is not.  The provocation is clearly on Doncram's side. MSJapan (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with MSJapan's appraisal.  --Taivo (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:99.172.180.114 reported by Steelbeard1 (Result: blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:


 * By  F ASTILY  (T ALK ). Doc9871 (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:JRHammond reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User notified

First revert 11 July @ 00:46

Second revert 11 July @ 11:25

Third revert 12 July @ 15:38

Fourth revert 13 July @ 02:04

Fifth revert 15 July @ 06:19

Sixth revert 16 July @04:09

Seventh revert 16 July @ 04:58

Eighth revert 16 July @ 15:13

Comments:

This is a single purpose account with this particular editor having made all his edits on one single article and fixated on the lede. He has indicated his intent to edit war as evidence by this statement, "I undid his undoing, and will continue to do so" He has also been warned about edit warring evidenced by  Requesting block.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional evidence of intent to edit war "I will continue to re-do my edit so long as Jiujitsuguy (or anyone else, for that matter) continue to undo it." That statement was made by JRHammond in response to a request for him to stop edit warring.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin notify JRHammond about the discretionary sanctions, thanks. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy's claim against me is spurious. The fact that all my edits are on the Six Day War article is irrelevant. He quotes me, "I undid his undoing, and will continue to do so". The person I was referring to in that remark just so happens to be -- guess who -- Jiujitsuguy! And the reason I made this statement is because he repeatedly undid a simple edit I made to make the lede comply with WP:NPOV (I also explained my reasons fully -- notice he omits the context in quoting me here). As his undoing of that edit made the lede read in violation of WP:NPOV, I appropriately undid his undoing, and, as I said, will do so again, as that is the appropriate thing to do.

Jiujitsuguy has a personal vendetta against me because he disagrees with me. But the fact is my edits have been perfectly reasonable and appropriate, have been along lines agreed to by a majority of editors on the Talk page, and were made to bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV.

Jiujitsuguy's edits, on the other hand, have been unreasonable and inappropriate, contrary to the expressed agreement of a majority of editors that the lede required revision along the lines I revised it in order to comply with WP:NPOV, and were made to revert the lede so that it remained in violation of that policy by reading in a biased manner.

It's also ironic that Jiujitsuguy would accuse anyone else of "edit warring" when he is the person most responsible for undoing edits that have been made in accordance with the majority concensus, as per the Talk page, that the lede required qualification. See the Talk Page for the full discussion.

Also, you'll notice Jiujitsuguy falsely calls some of my edits "reverts" when they were not in fact reverts. Where I did undo another's edit, it was always in the case where that editor had undid the edit that was made to make the lede comply with WP:NPOV, in accordance with the majority consensus of editors. It's Jiujitsuguy who is doing the "warring", not me. Here are my edits:

00:46, 11 July 2010 -- Removed "preemptive" since stating a subjective judgment as fact violates NPOV.

11:25, 11 July 2010 -- Undid Hertz1888 undoing of my edit, as his revert violated NPOV.

15:38, 12 July 2010 -- Undid Jiujitsuguy's undoing of my edit, as his revert violated NPOV. His explanation for his revert was that there was "no consensus" for my edit. The truth is that there is a majority agreement that an edit along the lines of the one I made is required. Moreover, if there is "no consensus" for either the one view or the other, then, obviously, it should read so as not to assert either the one or the other as fact. That is what I did. Jiujitsuguy holds a double standard. He demands a "consensus" for the article to read NEUTRALLY, but no such consensus to have it read in his pro-Israeli view. That is unreasonable and inappropriate.

02:04, 13 July 2010 -- Undid Jiujitsuguy's further undoing of my edit, for the same reason.

06:19, 15 July 2010 -- Undid Jiujitsuguy's further undoing of my edit, for the same reason.

04:09, 16 July 2010 -- Undid IP 24.23.193.232's undoing of my edit. Editor gave the following reason for the revert: "it is the majority viewpoint". In my undoing of this, I noted "You just acknowledged it's a "viewpoint", not a fact." Editor's undoing made it read as a statement of fact, with no caveat, despite his acknowledgment that it's a "viewpoint". That editor then agreed and revised it to express that it is a viewpoint.

04:58, 16 July 2010 -- I made a minor revision to IP 24.23.193.232's edit. He had written "was". I changed it to "is" as it is true today. This was not "warring", but cooperative revision.

15:13, 16 July 2010 -- Added further information to the lede. No undoing, no revert. Just more info. I stated facts, fully sourced and verifiable.

17:45, 16 July 2010 -- Undid Jiujitsuguy's undoing of my addition to the lede. He offered no valid reason for his undoing of my addition other than to claim it is "contentious". There is nothing "contentious" about my addition. I stated the facts, fully sourced, neutral, and verifiable. Here is my addition:

[BEGIN] Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces".[31]  Israel subsequently claimed it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent[24], despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community.[32]  [END]

Everything written here is absolutely factual. Jiujitsuguy offered no argument suggesting anything here is factually inaccurate. It is not. Anyone can verify the truth of what I wrote for themselves by examining my sources, which include the U.N. record of the debate in the Security Council on June 5 (in which Israel falsely claimed Egypt had attacked it first), U.S. State Department records (stating U.S. intelligence assessment), and current Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael B. Oren's "Six Days of War" (in which he acknowledges that Israel's intelligence assessment matched the U.S.'s).

Check it out for yourselves. These are verifiable facts, written in compliance with WP:NPOV. Jiujitsuguy had no legitimate reason to undo my addition, so I appropriately re-inserted it.

It's Jiujitsuguy engaging in "edit warring", not me. JRHammond (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You engaged in edit warring. That's not up for discussion here. Anyone can plainly see that by looking at the article history and all your reverts of multiple editors, not simply Jiujitsuguy.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  21:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Major edit-warring from several users here. --  tariq abjotu  23:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How can it be "edit warring" if reverts of reverts are made in order to make the article comply with WP:NPOV, in cases where the person who first reverted the article did so against the express agreement of a majority of editors and which revert causes the article to stand in violation of WP:NPOV? Shouldn't only the original reverts which are done in violation of WP:NPOV be considered "edit warring"?

There is a right and a wrong here. Does whether or not an revert improves the article by making it in compliance with policy not enter into your equation? All I want is to ensure that this article remains in compliance with WP:NPOV. That has been the purpose of every single one of my edits and reverts. JRHammond (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Request review of Amins decision. Editor continued to revert here even after this action was taken. the last revert makes 4 within 24 hours


 * first revert 16 July @04:09


 * second revert 16 July @ 04:58


 * third revert 16 July @ 15:13


 * fourth revert 16 July @ 17:45 here


 * A clear violation of 3R and he has the cheese to effectuate the fourth revert after this action was taken.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Tariqabjotu's decision to protect the article was justified. Both JRHammond and Jiujitsuguy have been pushing their luck, and both are at risk of blocking if this war continues after the protection expires. JRH should read WP:Edit warring and note that 'making the article comply with NPOV' is not one of the listed exceptions to the 3RR policy. His own opinion that something is POV does not exempt his reverts from being counted toward 3RR. Deciding whether something is actually POV requires the consensus of editors. If agreement cannot be reached on Talk, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a bright line rule that was violated here. Four reverts within 24 hours and the last revert was done after the action was filed. There's no ambiguity. It's pretty cut and dry.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:71.14.68.5 reported by User:N2e (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:. This was the version of the article that stood from February through June 2010, after rather extensive Talk page discussion. Since then, two anon editors have been reverting back to the older version; only User:71.14.68.5 has violated the three-revert-rule to date, and has declined to discuss on the Talk page. N2e (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After an extensively hashed out discussion on the Talk page in late2009-early 2010, a great deal of unsourced synthesis and orginal research was removed from the article, with the invitation to add it back in with sources. The resolution stood for four months, from February through June 2010.

Since then, two anon editors have been reverting back to the older version, adding no sources, and not engaging in discussion on the Talk page; only User:71.14.68.5 has violated the three-revert-rule to date, and he too has declined to discuss on the Talk page. N2e (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IP has reached 3RR but not exceeded it. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this. I did not realize that it took four, not three, reverts.  But thankfully, the edit war has stopped for now so I appreciate your time to evaluate the situation.  N2e (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:TJ Black reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 07:41, 14 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 373282207 by Rak-Tai (talk)(see talk page)")
 * 2) 07:42, 14 July 2010  (edit summary: "move tag")
 * 3) 04:56, 16 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 373483144 by Rak-Tai (talk)(SEE TALK PAGE)")
 * 4) 17:30, 16 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 373828156 by Rak-Tai (talk)")
 * 5) 06:26, 17 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 373844452 by Rak-Tai (talk)(final warning - you will be reported if you continue)")
 * 6) 06:35, 17 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 373935084 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk)(see talk page, removal of this photo is not justifiable)")
 * 7) 07:48, 17 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 373936791 by Rak-Tai (talk)(please engage in discussion, update caption)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

And the first thing you'll notice (well, 2nd maybe, as #2 is unrelated) is that they are all reverts of the same user. I agree that this has gotten out of hand, but why would I be accused and not them? You'll see if you look at the talk page my fruitless attempts to engage him in a discussion. I gave him sufficient warning and wanted to give him a chance to cool off and stop before putting a notice here myself. This user has a long history of tendentious editing and removal of cited material, including on List of red-light districts here, here, and here, to give just a few examples. I won't reinsert the photo until the discussion is resolved, and if my actions are being scrutinized, fine, but so should theirs. TJ Black (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I took a look at those. One was a wikilink to a section that wasn't in the article plus a link to a website that said it was no longer a redlight district, so two reasons to remove that site from the list of redlight districts, the other two were to a source that doesn't look reliable and in one of those instances he says the red light problem had been closed down. I don't think I'm missing anything, and you've clearly exceeded 3RR and are not denying that. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Declined per TJ's undertaking to stop reverting. However, should the edit warring continue, blocks will be forthcoming. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, though the same applies to Rak-Tai. Dougweller will be creating a similar notification about his actions soon. TJ Black (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Knock it off. You weren't blocked, all the edits stopped over 24 hours ago now and there is pretty clear agreement at WP:BLPN that the image you were repeatedly inserting was a BLP violation. Your posts on my talk page and here are not going to result in my making a pointless report. Two editors reverted you before I reported you. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's hardly "pretty clear agreement" at this point but that discussion is best continued there. I agree 3rr violation discussion is dead, but in the future, please don't don't report actions in such a biased manner. If 2 editors are reverting, then both should be reported. TJ Black (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You broke 3RR, no one else reverted more than 3 times thus no one else could be reported. I was concerned with stopping what I saw as a BLP violation. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty blatant BLP violation. There's a huge difference between edit warring to remove what an editor reasonably sees as a BLP violation (even if wrong), and edit warring against objections to reinstate material reasonably objected to on BLP grounds.  "The other guy didn't get blocked" is hardly a defense.  - Wikidemon (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)