Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive137

User:Norcalal reported by User:Ginelli (Result: Advised Ginelli)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 08:47, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,117 bytes)
 * 2nd revert: 08:46, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,108 bytes)
 * 3rd revert: 08:49, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,072 bytes)
 * 4th revert: 00:35, 29 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs)(95,108 bytes)

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

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

Comments:

It seems that Norcalal is using intimidating or harassment tactics to discourage me from making valid edits to the San Francisco Bay Area page. He has an obvious bias toward San Francisco and for some reason seems to think that I am biased toward San Jose. I have tried communicating with Norcalal civilly by e-mail without success. Wikipedia should consider banning this individual until he or she improves their behavior.Ginelli (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ginelli (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - As a WP:CAL member, I am familar with Norcalal and have seen his edits. I consider his edits level-headed, mature and beneficial to all the articles he visits. On the other hand, I just reviewed the article in question, San Francisco Bay Area, and see that three other three other editors have reverted Ginelli for the same reasons as Norcalal has. In fact, had I seen the edits, I would have reverted Ginelli too. Ginelli's talkpage is very revealing as well. In this series of DIFFs, Norcalal chose not to template Ginelli by engaging him to discuss the matter.
 * From this next DIFF, TJRC made the same attempt to get Ginelli to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. TRJC is one of the other editors who has reverted Ginelli.
 * In the next DIFF, TJRC issued Ginelli a formal 3RR warning.
 * In this next DIFF, Binksternet notified Ginelli that his actions were being addressed at this board. Binksternet also has reverted Ginelli.
 * In the last formal warning on Ginelli's talkpage, TJRC warned him in this DIFF about no no personal attacks.
 * It's probably too late for Ginelli to rescind this section or report, I would urge him to do so and apologize to all concerned. moreno oso (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Advised Ginelli. Same closure as the previous report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:The rev av reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:20, 28 July 2010
 * 2nd revert: 18:08, 28 July 2010
 * 3rd revert: 19:24, 28 July 2010
 * 4th revert: 19:44, 28 July 2010
 * 5th revert: 11:09, 29 July 2010
 * 6th revert: 12:24, 29 July 2010
 * 7th revert: 17:02, 29 July 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User is edit warring to keep out an unsourced section template and to keep in a statement of ownership telling other editors not to touch the section. User just came off a block for edit warring to keep in copyvios on another article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - One week. The editor continued to revert on 29 July after been blocked on 27 July for edit warring and copyright violations. He shows a long-term pattern of article ownership. I hope he realizes that this is his last chance to contribute to Wikipedia. Any admin may lift the block if they think the message has been received. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:StephenBortz reported by Wuh Wuz  Dat  (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 2) 15:10, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 3) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 4) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 5) 15:16, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 6) 15:31, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 7) 15:37, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
 * 8) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * 31 hours by . --B (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Lebronfan6 reported by User:Kuyabribri (Result: indefblocked)
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: None Comments: User insists on adding the same politically biased text that is not backed up by the source given. Has been informed multiple times that these edits violate WP:SYNTH. User has also been reported as a sock of User:Tarpon1.


 * Indefblocked by . --B (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:11, 28 July 2010  (edit summary: "rvv - see policy on switching articles from BC format to "BCE"")
 * 2) 00:27, 30 July 2010  (edit summary: "rv - once again according to the policy this should be a BC article, because BC was used from the beginning.  It has changed back and forth a few times, but it started out BC. and the E is just stupid")
 * 3) 02:31, 30 July 2010  (edit summary: "I gave a valid reason. Your reason was  "reverting to original format" which is erroneous, as BC is in fact the original and stable format. Find something better to do than date edit war")
 * 4) 02:47, 30 July 2010  (edit summary: "rvv - your math is wrong on two counts. 1) the original version dates to 2002 2) this is my third and last revert in the last 24 hours. If you continue to date war steps will be taken")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: Please check the user's block log, as he's been repeatedly warned (and blocked) for edit warring on other articles. Thanks.

— Jesstalk edits 02:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have many important things to do on wikipedia, but it is very sad to see that Mann Jess has nothing better to do than follow my contibs around and provoke date format wars etc.. The original format of the article is BC and has been for most of its history, and there is no consensus to keep changing it, and attempts to change it are supposed to be reverted. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of engaging in any disruption here, so I'll leave my reply at this: The date format was apparently stable since at least 2006, until it was changed this year without discussion. Secondly, I was not the first to revert, Wilson44691 was. But most pertinently, you have been repeatedly warned for edit warring on numerous articles, and in fact have been blocked 3 times for just that. I warned you myself, twice, which you saw and ignored prior to your final revert on the article, amounting to 4 in 30 hours. Based on your history, I can only gather you were well aware this was a violation of policy, so I'm really not sure what action you expected on my part. If you have any issues with me or the content of the article in question, please bring them to the article talk page, my talk page, or ANI, as this noticeboard isn't really the place. Thanks. Jesstalk edits 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Til's comment in the edit summary 'the e is just stupid' certainly suggests a pov edit. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule not technically violated, and this edit war is extremely stupid. --  tariq abjotu  10:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both users were equally culpable in this lame edit-war. Mann's response to my initial decision to decline demonstrates an unsettling and puzzling approach toward edit-warring. For example:
 * "As a result, at this point I'm left with two options. One is to allow him to make the change without establishing consensus (and against policy on date formats), or two, I can engage in an edit war."
 * "I wasn't the initial revert, nor was I asked to discuss on talk."
 * --  tariq abjotu  16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Windyhead reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24h per ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st needless tag: (started adding unnecessary tags here)
 * 2nd needless tag:
 * 3rd needless tag:
 * 4th needless tag:
 * 5th needless tag:
 * 6th needless tag:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , Editor has also been told multiple times by multiple editors that until he actually reads the sources I have cited, he has no basis for placing these tags or complaining:, ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (last half of that discussion)

Other editors telling user how to proceed: ,

User stubbornly unwilling to check sources:

User forum shopped to find someone to agree with him (unsuccessfully):, , and now

Comments:

This editor is unwilling to check reliable scholarly sources on his own because they are books rather than websites. Instead he is engaged in a slow-motion edit war adding unnecessary and malicious tags to the paragraph he doesn't like. The paragraph is completely NPOV since it cites both points of view (and well-sourced with both citations and quotations), but based on his own nationalistic POV, he objects to one of the described points of view. Rather than citing his own sources or checking the printed sources, he is simply adding repetitive tags to the article while forum shopping for a willing ear. Multiple editors and administrators have told him that the paragraph is NPOV and that he needs to actually read the books that I have cited, but he continues to tag this paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it was actually the reporter who performed numerous reverts for the last few days.

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: or
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: (version reverted to:  )

The reporter occupied the page being discussed and reverted every my single edit for the last few days. He is also acting against Assume good faith by posting everywhere (and here) that his opponent "has not read the sources", degraded to uncivil personal arguments like "his nationalistic POV" (and other personal epithets which I will not report on Edit Warring board), and harassed his opponent by various empty accusations like "forum shopping" and posting an "edit warring" report which contains no single revert diff. Is this how things get moving here? --windyhead (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * None of my reverts violate the 3RR rule. Indeed, the issue is not about me removing malicious tagging without supporting evidence, but about Windyhead wasting time with repetitive, baseless tagging of verifiable, reliably sourced material written in a NPOV way.  He is POV pushing without bothering to check sources.  --Taivo (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise per this ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:AhMeD BoSS reported by User:Sandman888 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: The diff's are completely equivalent. He reverts to the same version each time.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments: This is not the first time he does this, see his talkpage for more. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:92.32.33.49 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I find it funny that the IP actually suggested that we discuss the issue in one of the summaries of his/her reversions. However, he/she never turned up on the talk page where four users (including me) agreed that a large part of the list needed to be removed. From then on, he/she never said anything in the summaries, not even after I warned him/her. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action. It seems that the IP may now be accepting the consensus at List of Serbian monarchs. The IP's last revert was at 20:58 on 29 July. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another IP just reverted again. I am quite sure that it's the same person. Surtsicna (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected, since the dynamic IP continues to revert. (He was already past 3RR with his other identity). EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:OX in the BOX reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:49, 29 July 2010
 * 2nd revert: 18:08, 28 July 2010
 * 3rd revert: 19:00, 29 July 2010
 * 4th revert: 19:09, 29 July 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Whitewashing and Deleting well sourced content about homeopathic doctor. (malpractice case, pulled medical license). - MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the article has now been semi protected and the user given a short block due to sock puppetry. - MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - User has been indef blocked per the SPI case. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:76.246.156.86 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Apparent single purpose account, making changes to Jason Leopold against consensus. User is not willing to discuss the matter civilly, and has claimed to be Leopold's lawyer. Issue goes back this far. Some sort of admin assistance would be appreciated. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption is ongoing and repeated today, IP has a huge COI and simply wants to write his own BLP and is desire less to discuss with experienced users, laughable really. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy has been asking and asking for a block and instead we protect the article, protect it again, and then add reviewed changes? I say take a look at all the last warnings on his talk page and block him accordingly. Yworo (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you muchly! 'Course, with his history, he'll likely have to be blocked again as soon as that expires, but we'll cross that bridge, and all that. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

24.224.195.28 reported by Modernist (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:


 * Warning:
 * Warning:
 * Warning:
 * Warning:
 * Warning:
 * Warning:

Talk page: - This is a clear indication that the IP does not understand wikipedia. I came on this edit war rather late, but this diff indicates the IPs lack of understanding...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: IP clearly does not respond to any warning, except to continue the edit war...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 72 hours. Long-term edit warring across a range of articles. He systematically takes out the link to Nouvelle vague from articles since he doesn't like use of the French term. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Phoenix79 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: – First time THX Commercial certification sentence appears in article.


 * 1st revert: 05:32, July 23, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 19:29, July 23, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 10:44, July 27, 2010
 * 4th revert: 11:07, July 27, 2010
 * 5th revert: 22:06, July 27, 2010
 * 6th revert: 05:11, July 29, 2010
 * 7th revert: 10:50, July 29, 2010
 * 8th revert: 07:58, July 31, 2010
 * 9th revert: 08:50, July 31, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bose_Corporation, three entries from me, no response from Phoenix79.

Comments:

Slow but sure edit war involving this URL:


 * http://www.thx.com/professional/sound-engineer/approved-equipment-lists/

Phoenix79 continually removes the URL which establishes that Bose Commercial audio products are not THX certified. It is not a positive statement but it is a true one, so it is neutral and accurate. This is a specific THX "Commercial" webpage where people can look up all commercial audio products which are certified, and there is no Bose. (Note that there is a separate "Home Entertainment" webpage published by THX that has been allowed to stay in the article.) The latest removal of this reference follows three attempts by me to engage Phoenix79 in discussion about the THX bit, but he has not taken part. Even though the above diffs do not include four reverts in any one 24 hour period, I believe they demonstrate a willingness by Phoenix79 to engage in edit warring each time it appears, and a refusal to discuss on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I will point out that I didnt realize the last one was a revert as like I said I was giving this one last shot. I thought I save it twice. My intention was to take this to the WP:RS/Noticeboard if reverted again and allow them to resolve this. The problem is we are both culpable. I have previously stated that the opions section also holds this chritism and it is not needed here. But you have also revered other cited sections from reliable sources
 * 23:18, 21 July 2010
 * 22:20, 22 July 2010
 * 15:11, 23 July 2010
 * 21:35, 23 July 2010
 * 15:08, 27 July 2010
 * 02:40, 29 July 2010
 * 10:11, 29 July 2010
 * 22:29, 29 July 2010
 * 08:35, 31 July 2010
 * I still hope that this can be taken up by 3rd parties. Last time I did that my record will show that I waited until the converation ended before making any edits ot the page Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 71. If I wont be allowed, can someone take this to them to get this silly disagreement over? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not characterize the dispute as silly. Not being THX certified is a serious factor in the world of commercial audio. Your removal of this unflattering fact and its reference is a violation of neutral point of view. My insistence that it be in the article is neutral and accurate. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:MakmoudHassan 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:

Comments: Unsourced assertions repeatedly added. I'm surprised no-one gave any WP:OR-warnings... User reverts both vandalism and 3rr warnigs, as well as advice from his talk page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User vandalized this report twice. Reported at AIV Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointless slander by the above users, if you see my edits you will have seen no cases of vandalism whatsoever. This is case of slander on the part of the above users. My history speaks for itself! MakmoudHassan talk —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC).
 * This board is not for vandalism, it is for cases of edit-warring. Your vandalism (to this board) has been reported separately at WP:AIV (by Jusdafax). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted the page once or twice via Huggle and thus am kind of involved. As I told the user via my talk page, replacing promotional wording with wording that makes the school looks subpar is just a violation of WP:NPOV, especially if those assertions are unsourced. 23:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a suspected sockpuppet of ProfessorJane.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 00:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89 reported by User:Noloop (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:



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


 * 1st revert: Revert lead to “The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians”
 * 2nd revert: Revert lead to: “The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians”
 * 3rd revert: Revert lead to: “The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.
 * 4th revert: Revert lead to: “The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. Notable proponents include Bruno Bauer in the 19th century, Arthur Drews in the early 20th century, and G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty more recently. The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians
 * 5th revert: Revert led to “The history of the Christ myth theory can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. Notable proponents include Bruno Bauer in the 19th century, Arthur Drews in the early 20th century, and more recently G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty. The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historian”
 * 6th revert: Revert lead to “The history of the Christ myth theory can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. Notable proponents include Bruno Bauer in the 19th century, Arthur Drews in the early 20th century, and more recently G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty. While historians largely affirm the existence of Jesus the idea has become popularised ...”

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

None of the above breaches 3RR and all edits were a result of extensive discussions on the talk page. (1) They were over a period of three days and (2) they were not all reverts. For example, the final so-called revert was the fusion of the consensus version and a bold version by another editor. This is part of the consensus building process. It should also be noted that this is not the first time that user:Noloop has made a dubious 3RR report of myself. On the last occasion, user:Noloop was actually blocked. --Ari (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result:Blocked for 2 weeks )
Page:

User reported:

I added the following before seeing someone else had already reported it; see above. I'll leave this here anyway for background.

I'd appreciate some help with serial reverting at the above, which has been going on for many months. Ari89 is avoiding 3RR by engaging in partial reverts, and stopping short of the 24-hour deadline. He otherwise does nothing to contribute to the article, and the reverting is making article development close to impossible. Ari has a strong religious POV, and has been blocked five times this year for edit warring on articles related to religion, the last time in May for one week. I offered him the opportunity to self-revert before reporting this, but he engaged in a partial self-revert that made the edit even worse. 

The following is just a snapshot of his reverting at that article. As far back as you look in the history for many months, it's the same story, combined with no actual contributions to the article.


 * Version reverted to: 20:04, July 29, 2010, I removed from the lead that the Christ myth theory has no support among classical historians, after multiple objections to it on talk.


 * 1st revert: 03:15, July 30, 2010, Ari restored classical historians


 * 2nd revert: 23:22, July 30, 2010, Ari restored classical historians


 * 3rd revert: 23:59, July 30, 2010, Ari restored classical historians


 * Version reverted to: 18:56, July 31, 2010, I removed "classical historians" and added material from a Swedish scholar, Alvar Ellegård


 * 4th revert: 23:41, July 31, 2010, Ari restored "classical historians" and removed Ellegård


 * 5th revert: 23:53, July 31, 2010, Ari restored "classical historians" and removed Ellegard


 * 6th revert: 00:50, August 1, 2010, Ari restored "classical historians" and removed Ellegard

I asked him on his talk page to self-revert. He said in the edit summary that he was partially self-reverting by removing "classical historians," but he made the edit even more inaccurate by removing "classical" but retaining "historians," and he did not restore Ellegard. 

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked into this and believe that a block of Ari89 for edit-warring is necessary. However, I am not going to block him myself because I have been unable to come a satisfactory decision regarding the most appropriate duration for a block and so prefer to leave this to another admin. CIreland (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a single-purpose account, maybe something topic-related is in order. Noloop (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A singe-purpose account that edits articles from every conceivable area? --Ari (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, I went back a year and saw mostly edits about Christianity. Noloop (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no breach of 3RR, and my reverts were on the basis of extensive discussions. This report sounds much more like a misleading attack. For example, there are claims that I have a strong religious POV yet this is not demonstrated. There are claims that I have not contributed to the article, oddly missing out facts that I have written entire sections of the article and am always contributing to the talk page discussions. Furthermore, the so-called reverts from today were not reverts but the fusion of a consensus version and SlimVirgin's non-consensus bold version. This was done to build consensus, implementing both SlimVirgin's bold edits and the consensus version. Abusing the 3RR reporting because SV has a content dispute is not appropriate behaviour, especially from an administrator. --Ari (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It takes two to tango. Someone had to be restoring the material that Ari was removing. Looking at the page history, looks like SlimVirgin was doing at least 2 reverts. I'd say block them both, and/or protect the page. There is no excuse for edit warring. None. If you don't like that someone reverted you, SlimVirgin, don't restore the content, but discuss it. If you don't like new content, Ari, don't keep removing it. Both of you should know better. -Andrew c [talk] 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ari89 has a warring approach to things, as is seen on Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, for a long time. Noloop (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean those articles where much of the talk page content is me discussing many issues? Noloop, your personal distaste for me was noted on the various noticeboards that rejected your allegations against myself and other users. --Ari (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to block SlimVirgin, because she didn't toe the 3RR line. To Ari; avoiding the 3RR by a matter of minutes is not a defence to edit warring, and your edits, while not classical undos, clearly meet the relevant definition of reverting, "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."  Courcelles (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

user:195.50.69.30 reported by User:mbz1 (Result: Warning, ARBPIA notification)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] There's no use.

Comments: The user is engaged in slow motion edit warring on every article they edit. They add POV, slanderous information, and vandalism. They just got back from a week long block, and again edit warring.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User advised of the 3-revert rule, as no warning was previously issued and notified of WP:ARBPIA. CIreland (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The warning did not work ;.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Momento reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:27,  1 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* This sentence in the article appears to be unbalanced and incorrect */ removed PatW's fabrication")
 * 2) 00:05,  2 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376669870 by Will Beback (talk)Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges")
 * 3) 00:44,  2 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* This sentence in the article appears to be unbalanced and incorrect */ As per WP:TPG")


 * Diff of warning: here

There are only two reverts, excluding the original deletion, but this editor seems intent on edit warring to remove another editor's comment. His user talk page comments make it clear that he will continue to revert. He has been blocked for edit warring and disruption in the past, and a one-year topic ban expired only recently.  Will Beback   talk    00:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 01:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ventura488 reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 02:55,  2 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376692209 by Jayjg (talk)")
 * 2) 03:06,  2 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376693903 by Jayjg (talk)")
 * 3) 03:26,  2 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376695278 by Jayjg (talk)")
 * 4) 03:44,  2 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376698291 by Nyttend (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Looking back over the recent history of the article, it seems this editor has been edit-warring for a couple of days with User:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth, and before that was edit-warring as an IP, which eventually got the page semi-protected, forcing him to login to his account. Attempts to get him to discuss issues on the article Talk: page, by several editors, have been fruitless. He seems to be able to find User:Talk pages, and make repeated reports on WP:AIV and even AN/I, but has apparently never made an edit to an article Talk: page. —Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AgadaUrbanit reported by User:Nableezy (Result: article 1RR 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Each rv explained


 * 1) 01:04, 31 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376224881 by Cryptonio (talk) Ooops") --labeled a rv
 * 2) 02:16, 31 July 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 376358512 by Cryptonio (talk) Per Talk:Gaza_War") --labeled a rv
 * 3) 03:12, 31 July 2010  (edit summary: "Since the dispute was not resolved it is inappropriate to remove the tag. Removing the tag will not cause the dispute to disappear. Some article are special, no shame about it.") --reinserts pov tag as before
 * 4) 00:43,  1 August 2010  (edit summary: "per Nableezy, avoid WP:WEASEL. Still without solid evidence we can not state is as fact. Sometimes reliable source claim.") --reinserts "commentators claim" as in this edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

 nableezy  - 01:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess this is reaction to wacky discussion. Cryptonio was clearly wacky warring. Changes with Nableezy are incremental improvement effort with phrasing coined via discussion and balancing his remarks. It is sad that Nableezy prefers notice board festival to sources discussion on article talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick review:, recently banned 5 weeks (editwarring and POV pushing) from all the Israeli and Arab city articles a second time this year (See: ARBPIA), has made 3 reverts himself (00:37, 31 July -- 00:32, 1 August) and is playing the electric fence game. I see two very long bans this year and also 2 editwarring blocks (all in 2010). AgadaUrbanit, blocked once for editwarring in September 2009, on Gaza War (of all articles) and, on the face of it, has made 4 reverts. AgadaUrbanit should be again reminded that repeated reverting can easily turn into a sanction. He has a fairly clean log for almost a year, but his one block was in relation to the same article. As such, I would suggest a one week ban on him from this article which causes him to lose his calm (not very often, but still) as a reminder that if he can't work out his differences on this page without using the undo button he won't be allowed to work on it at all. As far as Nableezy goes, I figure including this article into his Israeli-Arab city ban is worthy but probably not enough to get the point across. Perhaps a two week topic ban from the entire Arab-Israeli conflict area will be a good hint that if he can't work out his differences within this topic without using the undo button he won't be allowed to work in it at all.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added note: I noticed this type of commentary from Cryptonio on the talkpage: "Self revert this you little freckled house mouse. Final warning, and not because there are only three, but because I simply can't be here all night babysitting you. Cryptonio (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)"The editor is clearly confrontational to the point of trying to gain the upper hand by bullying his fellow editor off the page through incivility. Looking at his block log, I'd recommend a 48hr block.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  03:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing, and also thanks for trying to canvass a selected admin. Oh, and there is one edit warring block in 2010, and on my second edit-warring block I later found out you had privately communicated with the blocking admin who later said he should not have blocked me. And one of my supposed "reverts" here was adding an additional source from a peer-reviewed journal article.  nableezy  - 03:30, 1 Augusst 2010 (UTC)
 * Jaak, every edit you have made for more than a week has been to get me banned from something or another. Would you mind terribly trying to find a new hobby?  nableezy  - 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy using noticeboards to push out other editors is a common enough complaint about him. However, unless it is judged that Cryptonio was vandalizing the page (his talk page stuff makes it look like he is trolling but not sure), then AU did cross 3rr. This addition to the discussion makes it doubtful that anyone (including AU) would assume good faith. Nableezy did not cross 3rr himself but he has been reverting anything based on the term "massacre" for over a year while being unmovable to alternative methods of inclusion on the talk page if that means anything. And why is an experience user making so many reverts in a day anyways? Both should be reminded to use the talk page more and AU could be blocked for crossing a bright line while Nableezy's possible edit warring should be considered.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really need a reminder to use the talk page more.  nableezy  - 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear. Use the talk page... in an effort to establish consensus. Or to put it in a little harsher terms: not stonewalling.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG what a mess. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA: T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For persistent incivility, misuse of talk pages, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, as defined in WP:ARBPIA. I will not entertain any appeal until a minimum of three months has elapsed, although Cryptonio retains the right to appeal to the community or arbcom at any time.
 * In lieu of protection or blocks, Gaza War is subject to a 1RR/24h parole for two weeks. Notice will be placed on talk page and given via editnotice. Everyone involved is strongly urged to resolve the issue without resorting to edit warring. The sky will not fall if a POV tag remains for the time necessary to reach a consensus.
 * Any future attempts to edit war will be viewed very dimly and will likely result in a lengthy break from this topic area.
 * Cryptonio has just violated his topic ban. I also think a 1rr is sweet and could go for even longer.Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And . As to the 1RR, we can worry about extending it if necessary (I hope not) after or soon before it expires. T. Canens (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree with extending it being unfortunate if it keeps people calm. Of course walking on eggshells is not something that this project should be about so totally get it. Anyways, is this reasoning enough to limit talk page access?Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * People shouldn't have to put up with this stuff. Would it be appropriate to restrict access to his talk page for three months until he can make an appeal to the admin who made the topic ban? Shorter would be fine to but I am just going to continue to remove what looks to me like disruptive behavior and would rather not break 3rr.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Restricting access to his talk page during the block, something which already been done is sufficient. If he persists after his block, he can be reblocked. --  tariq abjotu  08:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was done after I made the request. I should have mafe mention that it was resolved.Cptnono (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Goethean reported by User:Tao2911 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I carefully reviewed article and edited to sourced information; article had consisted of mainly un-sourced original research and hyperbolic POV editorializing and commentary. I also found new sources and cited, adding other factual information, and added citations for facts already present but uncited. Goethean seems to have written the unsourced material, and inaccurately calling my edits "section blanking" has reverted the page 4 times now to biased version. Another editor has pointed out to him that the page is not the place for promotional material or personal opinion, and has pointed out possible ownership issues. Goethean has refused to discuss issues in talk before making edits, and is not making individual points, simply reverting whole page without providing any new sources or citations, etc. Editor has a long history of obstreperousness and contentiousness on a few different page, as evidenced by user:talk page.Tao2911 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Both parties warned. The four reverts listed are not within 24 hours, so there is no 3RR violation. Over the past few weeks there is a long-term edit war, between Goethean (who favors a laudatory 20Kbyte version of the article) and Tao2911, who favors a 3K version. Since the bigger version lacks extensive citations, the case remains to be proven. Please use the talk page to try to justify the respective versions during that time. Any party who continues to revert the article before getting consensus on the talk page risks a block. A WP:Request for comment is one way to bring in more people to a debate if those who are directly involved have no patience with each other. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trouble with other people checking in is they are accused, by Goeathean to be socks and chills any meaningful discussions on any article with Goethan thinks he owns. This is the problem when bullies like Gotheanan are enabled by admins who don't fully understand the situation and just knee jerk.
 * Additionally, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusation a complete red herring. Goethean himself vigorously voices his belief that I am not such. As for actual TOPIC here, Goethean still has not addressed the simple fact that all of the information he keeps re-including to article has no source support. 3 revert rule is not the only standard - if there is a clear pattern of reverting page, 24 hour rule is not the only measure by which edit warring can be gauged. Goethean needs to make case for reinclusion of individual points, that show secondary source support. This is my whole point. I should not be warned for simply maintaining the integrity of a carefully and respectfully edited page, that maintains much of the info there before, with sourced material researched and added to boot.Tao2911 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And if you come back as being unrelated via the CheckUser tool, then I will apologize. I just feel there is sufficient evidence to justify and SPI case being opened. Tiptoety  talk 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Victor Chmara reported by aprock (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:59,  1 August 2010  (edit summary: "rv: what's your source for "paid advertisement"; according to Gottfredson, op-ed editor David Brooks agreed to publish it; there's a similar quote from APA report") undoes revert
 * 2) 22:46,  1 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* 1960-1980 */ restored NPOV") undoes revert
 * 3) 22:49,  1 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* 1980-present */ restoring sourced content")
 * 4) 23:03,  1 August 2010  (edit summary: "rv: the interview was published in Kuukausiliite, which is an affiliated but separate publication from the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat") removes restored wiki-link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Victor Chmara started a flurry of editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy at 18:53, 1 August 2010. Some of these edits restored typos, added references and otherwise improved the article. On the other hand, several of the edits shifted the POV of the article. Several of these edits were reverted, and attempts were made to open a constructive dialogue:, ,. Instead of discussing his proposed changes, Victor Charma took a combative position on the talk page, while admitting that he was making changes without checking sources "I didn't have access to Winston's article. It looked like synthesis...". Instead of actively participating in discussion, he has restored many of the reverts, and declared that his edits should stand until others take them to talk, putting the responsibility of checking and discussing sources on the shoulders of other editors, not himself. He has also falsely accused me of reverting him wholesale:.

It may (or may not) be worth noting that User:Victor Chmara, myself, and other users active on the talk page are actively involved in an open arbitration case related to this article. 

—aprock (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there have been some misunderstandings here and this ought to be settled appropriately and not through yet another ANI? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Victor has started to discuss constructively, and stopped edit warring, both of which are good things. aprock (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This whole thing is ridiculous and unwarranted. I have been ready to discuss constructively from the outset, and I have not made a single edit to the article after aprock complained about my (wholly justified) reverts on my user talk page. Bizarrely, aprock decided to start this ANI process while we were in the middle of discussing the issues on the talk page. The problem was that aprock deleted lots of my sourced edits and falsely claimed that I had removed content from the article (he has admitted to his errors here). He also did not discuss his reverts beforehand on the talk page even though I had specifically asked for comments on my edits there. However, the situation seems to be okay now, and I think everybody should get back to editing articles.--Victor Chmara (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice that Aprock filed this report only 38 minutes after warning Victor Chmara about edit warring on his userpage, even though Victor Chmara did not revert the article again after Aprock’s warning. I also see from the discussion about these edits that Victor was attempting to discuss Aprock’s reverts with him, and that Aprock himself admitted there that he was failing to clearly justify them: “I'm just on a very small laptop, which makes the comparisons difficult when the diff goes awry (as they appear to have done). So yes, I do admit that I didn't read those diffs correctly, and I again apologize…” (and in another comment) “I misread the original edit. I did not see that the red text had been replicated below the references you added. My apologies.”


 * If I’m to assume good faith about this report, which is difficult, the best I can assume about it is that it was a mistake. Reports for edit warring are meant to be for dealing with editors who are aggressively adding or removing material instead of engaging in discussion about it.  They should not be made by an editor who (by his own admission) is himself failing to justify his edits, as a substitute for discussion with other editors who are trying to engage in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:CenkX reported by Takabeg (Result: Both users edit warring, article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bumin Kağan


 * 1) 08:48, 2 August 2010
 * 2) 08:52, 2 August 2010
 * 3) 09:03, 2 August 2010
 * 4) 09:26, 2 August 2010

He/She removed information with Identifying_reliable_sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Both users were edit warring. I'm not going to take sides on the underlying content dispute, but the right answer is not to continue to revert.  Because this report is stale, I won't block either party (and recommend against anyone else blocking) but I have protected the page for three days.  Try and hash things out on the talk page.  If you cannot come to an agreement, seek a third opinion or some other avenue for dispute resolution. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Binksternet reported by User:BS24 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Susan B. Anthony List

Comments:

User continues to add ridiculous and biased information. He insists on using the term "Academic history experts" to describe pro-choice authors and uses a citation from a biased pro-choice source to try to prove their "expertise". User did the same at the Susan B. Anthony page and was rebuked. The edit war has been going on for several days now. User has a history of edit warring as evidenced by his talk page. Please advise. BS24 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This report appears to me to be the wrong venue for the concerns of BS24. There is no edit warring involved—I added things, I changed things and I discussed both wording and sources on the talk page. BS24 visited the talk page only once to add a brief thought about the choice between calling angry Anthony scholars "pro-choicers" (BS24 wording) or "academic history experts" (wording of the Susan B. Anthony Museum). Discussion is still open, still in progress. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Musashi miyamoto Reported by User:Weaponbb7 (Result:)
Page:

User being reported: and

1st Revert

2nd

3rd

4th

Comments:

Talk page discussion of lengthy Discussion with IP User talk:92.10.208.209 Warned about 3RR Warring and User:Jmlk17 Semi-Protects page and then user in the 4th Revert is Quacking with a megaphone like a Sleeper account. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: IP had previous edited in a 3RR  the Same content and article two weeks ago Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My first question is, why are you using rollback in an edit war? Is the disputed content vandalism? Protonk (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider, going way against consensus to repeatedly add content is vandalism in my book. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well I consider what is under WP:VAND to not be vandalism.  Which specifically includes adding content against consensus.  My second question is, why was there not an attempt to come to a compromise with a shortened section covering the disputed materials? Protonk (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG moment here It occurred after i posted i'd better check that, Any mention of such material is unnecessary. One Family of 5 people is a major violation of WP:UNDUE in a population of 249,000 Amish people in the united states. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to local editors to determine whether or not any mention is necessary, but my suggestion is that discussion and compromise are almost always preferred over blocking and protecting. As for the ROLLBACK/VAND#NOT issues, I don't think it will hit you too hard. :)  I just want you to be mindful of when and where you use rollback--rollback is a specialized tool which can be easily used and misused.  I'll look into what to do about the article, but my preference is discussion, protection and blocking in that order. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion with the Editor on the talk page (s)he refuses to listen. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Amish Contains three seperate editors spelling out how it violates policy Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that discussion on the talk page. I'm not convinced it "violates" policy, as that implies an action against, rather than a preference (which is what UNDUE effectively is).  Tell you what, if the material gets inserted again by an account attached to this IP (not 100% sure the named account is a sleeper, but about 70% sure) then I'll block the account and the IP. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sturunner reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) July 16
 * 2) July 23
 * 3) July 23
 * 4) 01:34, 24 July 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Farsight001 identified as vandalism to last revision by Richiez. (TW)")
 * 5) 04:26,  2 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Inaccuracies */  deleted POV section. Jenkins has NEVER published ANYTHING in a scholarly publication on these issues,  He is simply an apologist for bishops' covering-up the the transfer of serial child rapists.")
 * 6) 01:13,  3 August 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nagle; Keep trying--you "WP' trolls have a pro-pedophilia bias, & it is being exposed as we speak. . (TW)")
 * 7) 01:21,  3 August 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 376702859 by Sturunner; I will always remember to only quote Glen Beck in the future.  You are just absurd.. (TW)")


 * Diff of warning: here (July)
 * and here (May)
 * and another unofficial warning for same edits earlier in May

Comments User is also edit warring on a number of other similar articles and has been warned elsewhere numerous times. His edit warring also goes back further than listed above.

— <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:74.101.108.117 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

First edit: 16:52, 2 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * together with 16:53, 2 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * and 16:55, 2 August 2010  (edit summary: "")

Second edit: 21:09, 2 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * together with 21:10,  2 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * and 21:12, 2 August 2010  (edit summary: "")

Third edit: 22:07, 2 August 2010  (edit summary: "")

Fourth edit: 01:31, 3 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * together with 01:33, 3 August 2010  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here. Please also see the discussion with this contributor on my talk page here.

—Thank you, CZmarlin (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:GabeMc (Result: unorthodox solution)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring:

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

Comments: Since June 25th, User:Malik Shabazz has reverted these edits 9 times, the first three are within 24 hours of each other, and the first 6 within about 51 hours. He refuses to engage in the talk page discussion, has ignored talk page RfC consensus, and has supplied scant sources for his claims:


 * Reverts from June? Really? Maybe you should re-read WP:EDITWAR, Gabe. This should be closed as stale. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: This isn't the page to bring a content dispute, Gabe. Nice try, though. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stale? The edit war is ongoing. In fact, everytime someone has changed the lede to co-author you have reverted them, since June, every time. Also, you made a substantive revert today, here, . So no, this is not stale. It's also not a content dispute Malik, you know that, it's an edit war, but nice try, though you need some work on your red herrings, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be instructional for the closing admin to look at this where nearly every uninvolved user agreed that the author of the Autobiography of Malcolm X was, shockingly, Malcolm X. An editor who was part of that discussion continues editing contrary to an established consensus and then files a report on edits going back over a month should be facing a block. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Reverts from June?" - 9 out of the last 42 edits to The Autobiography of Malcolm X are reverts by Malik, all within the past 35 days,.
 * @ Nableezy, thanks for that suggestion to the reviewing admin, the link you provided will support my assertion. — GabeMc (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Nableezy, you should look here, where I provided 182 WP:RSs that consider Haley a co-author, including Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, UCLA, Stanford, etc...
 * There seems to be an RfC open at Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X. If this is the same issue that is causing the reverts, it might be worth it for the RfC participants to ask for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfC pertains to the same issue and its 30-day period has elapsed. I'll post a message at WP:AN asking somebody to close it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @Nableezy, the only two uninvolved editors to comment on the discussion since the it's page protection,, and RfC tag, , agreed with me, here, , and here, .  — GabeMc (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here an "uninvolved editor" said Malik's "approach to this situation is not becoming of an admin in my opinion" — GabeMc (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ancient history, Gabe. This complaint is stale. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He is talking about the same edit war in which you made a revert today, how is that stale? It only shows how long you have been warring. — GabeMc (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here Malik seems to be threatening an edit war to hold up GA status for Roger Waters in retaliation for good-faith editing I have done at The Autobiography of Malcolm X. He made this comment at 16:24 (UTC), and then, this edit, less than four minutes later. His second edit ever to Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Gabe, Gabe, Gabe. You've never made any good faith edits. You came to the article to "have the back" of an editor who was blocked for edit warring there. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think what I wrote speaks for itself. If you read all of it, and get a feel for what I was saying in a bigger picture and not focus on that one sentence. I wished I hadn't used that phrase after I typed it, as I knew it would likely confuse Mk, and it did, he missed the whole point, as have you. I can tell you it was not about you, it was about him, it was not personal, it had to do with a good point that could be illustrated by showing him to source and gain concensus to sway opionions versus edit warring. I was trying to convince him to make some friends, a good idea for a disruptive editor I think. — GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should read this edit I made to the same page one hour earlier. — GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @GabeMc: Given the book itself states "as told to" your edits/reverts are little more (if even that) than vandalism and your reporting Malik here is speaks to your conduct, not Malik's. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Vecrumba, have you read any of this yet? I provided 182 WP:RSs to support my arguement, Malik provided three. — GabeMc (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Vercumba, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." — GabeMc (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Here, are two more editors who think Malik is behaving in a way unbecoming an admin. Here, and here. Here is an editor who thinks Mailk is lying about his threats to edit war. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The article in question, and the content about which there is a dispute, had been stable since creation, then Malik began a series of edits starting here. — GabeMc (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, you caught me. It had been a "stable" poorly sourced stub that I rewrote, tripling its size and adding two dozen references. Since when is that a crime, Gabe? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How many of your "two dozen" sources refer to Haley as a ghostwriter?
 * P.S., some editions of the book say "as told to" not "with the assistance of", so it's not an author attribution is it, if it can change with the edition? — GabeMc (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize this is your third attempt to use a noticeboard inappropriately to resolve a content dispute? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I opened a Wikiquette Alert because you were using profanity and insults, a totally appropriate thing to do, where at least 4 other editors thought your behavior was unbecoming an admin, here, here, here, and, here. And now I have this Edit Warring complaint, so how did you get to three, and how are either inappropriate? This outlines how Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. That's what you have been doing since April 25, 2010, removing sourced edits made in a neutral narrative. — GabeMc (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Wikiquette alert was appropriate considering the somewhat uncivil comments, however I consider this edit warring report to be slightly dubious. I suggest this should be closed with no action. I hope Protonk's involvement will help resolve the underlying dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "I consider this edit warring report to be slightly dubious"
 * Look here, here, here, here, and here, then look here. — GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not dubious, what else is there to do when someone refuses to discuss the content, yet reverts you for over a month no matter how many sources you find for your edits? — GabeMc (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) There's plenty of discussion at Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X and its archives.
 * 2) It's dubious because it's unfounded, your diffs are stale, and you're wasting everybody's time here with a content dispute. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not stale, you reverted the same substance two days ago! Look here. And I am sure, if I was the warring type, you would revery me again today. I must be missing something if an ongoing edit war is stale. — GabeMc (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Closure
No block, but see Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X.  Sandstein  10:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Dodo19 reported by User:Miacek (Result: both blocked 36h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (note the personal assault in his edit summary! baselessly accusing me of racism)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (note that he wrongly accused me of vandalism in his edit summary)
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (he reverted 4th time a few minutes before I managed to post it, but he was aware of 3RR and wantonly broke this since earlier today, he himself posted me a 3 RR warning.

Comments:

Please block him for impudent 3 RR violation and vile accusations of racism against me, where there was no racism. (Peter Sichrovsky is a Jewish politician of the controversial Freedom Party of Austria. Some believe they are using his Jewish origin to 'pacify' the potentially critical Jewish electorate).

The user has been following me since today, when I edited the page Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt (he reverted me 3 times there, too!, , ). That's how he found the page on Peter Sichrovsky. I reverted him 2 times at Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, but gave up, waiting for more opinions by others. Based on serious arguments I had found on talk page, in my opinion I removed the political propaganda that this user pushed. I am waiting for more opinions at talk, having asked for comments from a constructive user, who has commented on the issue before (Dodo19 has been edit warring there since 2009, pushing the theories from obviously biased or even fringe authors). In my opinion, Dodo19 belongs to that group of authors from German Wikipedia, who believe they are entitled to censor everything from the 'politically correct' left-wing POV, which more often than not leads them to violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have informed him on that report. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:222.125.199.240 reported by User:mahjongg (Result: )
Page: dingoo

User being reported:

And many other anonymous users (sock-puppets ?)

Previous version reverted to:

and so on and so on.
 * 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:

There seems to be an edit war going on (in which I have no stake and have not contributed) on whether the dingoo (handheld game system) is made in Hong-kong, or mainland China.

The object of the edit war is to change the link to the "official website" to one or the others websites. It has going on for a long time, between many different anonymous users. I asked the contributors of the edit war to stop edit warring, and discuss the case on the talk page, but this was ignored, and the edit war continues unabated.

Mahjongg (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Alessandr79 reported by User:JD554 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has also been warned regarding the repeated addition of spam links on his/her talk page: and again following the most recent revert. --JD554 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Favonian (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Asik5678 reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * He has also been doing the same on the article for Saffron Terror.


 * 
 * 
 * 


 * I opened up a discussion on the talk page after the first time he put the info in the article to discuss if some of the info can be put in, if references can be found. I also notified him about it, but he gave no response and continued to add in the information, as shown in the links I gave above. After we kept reverting it, he just went to the Popular Front of India page, as the nom showed, and other articles to make changes there, mainly redirects. In some of these, I would have assumed good faith, but the lack of discussion on the part of the user when they have been notified time and again shows that this is very likely just a vandal. Silver  seren C 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He has been blocked by another admin. I just want to remind you that rollback is not supposed to be used except in cases of vandalism. You kinda crossed into a grey area using it here. --  tariq abjotu  10:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Bllasae reported by NuclearWarfare (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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


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

Discussion on the talk page was attempted but proved fruitless. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave up anyways because this guy's a bitch.Bllasae (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 24 hours. Disruptive editing, plus the above personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:71.97.210.117 reported by User:Jemiller226 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: not by the same IP address

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Yes, I was unnecessarily short with the first comment. It's unlikely to be read anyway as it's an IP address, not a user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above link

Comments:

This will likely continue to be reverted by multiple IP addresses as long as it sits on Art of Trolling. I imagine that website has to be a headache for admins here. --Jemiller226 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected the page and blocked one of the IPs for vandalism as a bonus. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Miacek reported by User:Dodo19 (Result:No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Miacek has recently - like myself - been blocked for edit warring. As I do not have the intention to start another edit war, but User:Miacek makes clear that he is not willing to discuss his actions with me  I decided to report the incident here, even though he has only reverted twice. --Dodo19 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC) P.S.: There is still no discussion on the article talk page regarding the removal. --Dodo19 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Purely disruptive request, an attempt to 'get even' as I reported him for 3 RR violation and stalking my edits a few days ago (he was blocked, but so was I, though I did not exceed 3 Rv's, but OK, this is past). I once removed an unfounded WP:BLP violation from that article and I had to do this for the 2nd time, after that subject had reverted me. Baselessly calling an author negationist is not sth we should take easily here. And don't show up to say I'm edit warring, when I just removed baseless claims from the article 2 times in the course of a few days. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. As for not being willing to argue, you are incorrect. I posted a comment at the article, everyone can offer 3rd opinions there. And note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I can challenge and remove the apparently libellous category at any time, without being an 'edit warrior'. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a 1RR active here? If not, I can't see that we're at the point of needing action, at least not yet. Any chance at all we could try some sort of DR? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no rule saying that you have to revert three times in order to be engaged in an edit war. This report was merely pre-emptive.--Dodo19 (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, everyone who understands Wikipedia's policies and accepts those should tend to agree with me on Viktor Suvorov. Is 1RR really needed there? Just WP:BLP, WP:RS and a few other guidelines. As for Peter Sichrovsky, what is there to be disputed? That a user 'expressed concern' that 'Jew' (!) is ethnic slur? Last but not least, as one can conclude based on my contributions, both today's (after the block expired) and the list in general, I am not here to engage in controversies. I have started around 60 articles and plan to proceed with at least two ones in the coming days. 's contributions, however, are by and large confined to bot-type additions of tags such as Wikiproject. If he wishes to continue constructively, he should just go on and start with constructive activities like writing new articles, instead of stalking me and reverting me ad nauseam. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (t) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You must have missed this then. --Dodo19 (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do not know the difference between historical revisionism and negationism, please acquaint yourself with the topic. PS. Persistently mischaracterizing my edits, be it in the article space or talk pages, as vandalism, may lead to withdrawing you the twinkle tool. So that, now you are aware of. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Final note by Miacek - as a sysop can easily ascertain based on the page history and the corresponding talk page, I'm not the only one who had problems with Dodo19's peristent additions. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 19:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported: All (All editors have been informed of this discussion at Talk:Kappa Sigma.)

Forgive me for not using the full report template, but the environment at the Kappa Sigma fraternity's article has become so hostile that I am reporting everyone involved (myself included). Despite having been protected twice (a two-month protection most recently), there is no sign of resolution between Greek fraternity members and non-members on the article. Since the article's last protection expired, one Kappa Sigma member has now announced that he will revert any edit I make (including the restoration of Conflict of interest or WP:NPOV tags that were added by outside editors from the WP:COIN noticeboard) "unimpeded." Can this article be placed on some sort of probation? Will someone enforce the "non-controversial edits" requirement of the Conflict of interest policy? There needs to be some sort of intervention or mediation between the editors on that article, because it has simply devolved into edit warring and bad-faith accusations of "vandalism" since the last protection. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I just read the solution for the edit war (reported at the top of this noticeboard) at The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Could the Kappa Sigma article get an administrative restriction like this imposed? I'll take anything to cool down the tone and ensure that no voice is drowned out. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This his humorous. The page is constantly disrupted by Adelphoi, not by any of the other active editors.  Here are some sample diffs:
 * 2010-05-19 02:50 -- AEKDB Adds some material material
 * 2010-05-19 06:04 -- Enos reverted noting see talk
 * 2010-05-19 08:08 -- AEKDB does not discuss issue on talk, simply reverts and accuses Enos of COI
 * 2010-05-20 20:06 -- I reverted asking to seek conensus and citing WP:RS
 * 2010-05-20 20:33 -- AEKDB does not discuss attempt to seek consensus (again), simply reverts
 * 2010-05-20 20:43 -- I again revert asking editor to seek consensus
 * 2010-05-20 20:54 -- AEKDB again ignores consensus, reverts and now accuses me of COI
 * 2010-05-20 21:08 -- Naraht reverts citing WP:SOURCEACCESS
 * 2010-05-20 21:11 -- AEKDB again ignores policy, reverts and claims to own a "physical copy" himself
 * 2010-05-20 21:28 -- I revert, citing WP:RS
 * 2010-05-20 21:36 -- AEKDB reverts, ignoring all policy concerns introduced thus far from multiple editors
 * 2010-05-20 21:40 -- I revert
 * 2010-05-20 21:43 -- AEKDB reverts, insisting sources are reliable
 * 2010-05-20 21:49 -- I revert
 * 2010-05-20 21:52 -- AEKDB reverts
 * As you can see, no less than three individual editors, all of whom have a broader and more experienced history with improving Wikipedia pages removed his edits, yet Adelphoi refused to accept consensus. On top of edit warring, the disruptive WP:SPA simply blanks content because he doesn't like it:
 * Removes a paragraph about philanthropy calling it promotion
 * Removes multiple images
 * Removes more images
 * Removes more sections on philanthropy calling them promotion
 * During the two months this page was on page protection, his account was completely inactive, refusing to participate in the discussion on how to improve the page that was on going. Yet when the page protection expires, he comes back and makes more contentious edits without seeking consensus.  The user simply doesn't understand the concept of consensus and actively denies its presence or validity when he doesn't like it.  jheiv  talk  contribs 18:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, this is getting beyond ridiculous. The page has been under protection on and off for several months, and a certain level of discussion did take place during that period, but only by a few editors. Since the protection ended, there have been several non-controversial edits made to limit or eliminate claims made by the fraternity, citations added, and to improve the readability of the article. Now that protection has ended, the hostility of the page has increased, but because of one editor who threatens other editors with violations of Wikipedia policies and suggests that any edits made by members who happen to be members of the organization are designed to either promote the fraternity or efforts to sanitize the article, without critically recognizing their own biases or perspectives in relationship with the topic. We all must assume good faith about the contributions of other editors. I would like every page I edit or work on to eventually become a featured article or at least more helpful to someone who encounters the page. I oppose additional protections, the NPOV tag, and I encourage every editor on this page to remain mindful that good faith, being polite, and avoiding personal attacks are the only ways to ensure collective reasoning and editing.--Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Small correction, that one editor's complaints are not limited to edits made by members of simply Kappa Sigma Fraternity but *all* fraternities (according to him, my membership in a co-ed service fraternity gives me an equal COI on the article). Other than that, completely agree with Enos733 and jheiv.Naraht (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have given Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou a warning for edit waring. If the disruption continues, they may be blocked.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:PepitoPerez2007 reported by User:Jorfer (Result:72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warning by other user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:PepitoPerez2007 has been going operating without and against consensus on this sensitive topic as seen on the talk page in pushing an anti-euthanasia POV on the Euthanasia article. It is important to note that I was warned for 3RR, but I was reverting different versions of the page, so I did not realize I was going over 3RR. His edits were only partial reverts, but they were consistently pushing an anti-euthanasia POV.--Jorfer (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia regulation, reverting does not need to be to a wholesale reversion. It can also be partial, which is why you got warned. Look at the top of the page: "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert." You reverted the inclusion of "Not all homicide is unlawful." three times.--Jorfer (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete but change the order of the paragraphs and made some changes to the wording that is not a revertion!!!. What is the POV edition Jorfer is acusing me to introduce when the paragraph is the result of more users than me, for example Bilby who made the wording of my editions? I organized the paragraph and I kept all the Jorfer editions, how could be that a revertion? I think Jorfer is assuming bad faith and is not dispossed to discuss the changes on the discuss page but to imposse his changes and wording via administrators noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PepitoPerez2007 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete anything!!! I told jorfer that I organized that paragraph in the discussion page: I organized the very long paragraph by breaking it into two paragrahps and kept both of them in the lead!!! I changed some things in the first paragraph based on britancia enciclopedia but as Jorfer doesn't like it then I will not touch that paragraph. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 added this and reverted himself. It is probably, because it was not visible due to a mistaken placement: "I am finding User:PepitoPerez2007 to be an editor who is impossible to communicate with. Part of this seems to be due to a background in a language other than English, but that is not the major issue. Because of his presence at the Euthanasia article I have largely withdrawn from the fray, as I'm sure other editors also have. Any comment I make seems to elicit a similar obsessional response, very rarely addressing the actual points I make. A look at his contributions will show an almost single minded interest in only this one group of topics, and it involves a view on the matter which is right at one extreme end of the spectrum. A massive amount of discussion has occurred, with no movement by User:PepitoPerez2007 towards the consensus position, and with repeated edits by User:PepitoPerez2007 pushing the article back towards his own POV. All very unhealthy."
 * My editions were discussed and accepted months ago by other users and moreover: the wording was corrected for example by user:Bilby. I didn't add a position on euthanasia as claims Jorfer, but a legal definition taken from scholars lietarature and legal encycloapedias. If there arised more than one point of view I always have kept both sides, where is the POV? Hilo never answer that question as Hilo just wanted my edition to be absolutely deleted otherwise I have kept all Jorfer's edition. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A POV can be conveyed by omission; as the other editors conveyed on the talk page, there is no very good reason to omit an explanation of the word homicide's meaning. Even when consensus was against removal Pepito still removed it on the pretense that it did not use legal terminology despite demonstrating that Manual of Style discourages the unnecessary use of legal terminology. Edits like disregard the accepted meaning of the term as almost all sources define "euthanasia" by the actual painfulness rather than the intent (e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euthanasia). That one is an innocent enough mistake, but Pepito did not discuss it on the talk page. The assertion that homicide regardless of circumstances is criminal is an assertion that I have not seen proved through any sourcing. Pepito put " Each homicide is a criminal offence while not always liable to punishment." and put these three sources, but the second at least did not support the claim as far as I could tell (in this edit ):

--Jorfer (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Manoj Kumar Mohanty (August 2004). "Variants of homicide: a review". Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine 11 (4): 214–8. doi:10.1016/j.jcfm.2004.04.006..
 * http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide
 * Carmen Tomás Y Valiente, La regulación de la eutanasia en Holanda, Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales - Núm. L, Enero 1997
 * Firstly I deleted user:Gabbe's edition because it was missusing legal terms. I changed the wording not deleted the Jorfer's editions. But let that pass because: user:Jorfer, have you realized that I reverted my edition and I let the first paragraph untouched? I changed that first paragraph based on Britanica Encyclopeadia, but as you were concerned then I reverted my edition!!! The first paragraph is now in the way you like it, and all your edition with the explanation of homicide was also kept and the statement that homicide is always a criminal offence was already removed; so, what is the problem then? what is the war? do you need the noticeboard to discuss the changes of an article? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I could live with the current version, but it is important not to go against consensus on an important page like Euthanasia. No one person owns the article (see WP:OWN). It was encouraged on the talk page for you to fix Gabbe's edits but not to revert them wholesale. After this block, I hope that you are more cooperative. Propose changes on the talk page; that is part of the reason they are there. You can also create a sandbox (see UP) and ask for comment on it.--Jorfer (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Miguel Escopeta (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 14:49, 4 August 2010
 * 2nd revert: 18:51, 4 August 2010
 * 3rd revert: 19:25, 5 August 2010
 * 4th revert: 20:03, 5 August 2010
 * 5th revert: 20:26, 5 August 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Very long term edit warrior, he already knows the rules, from his previous blocks on just this one article.

Comments:

Long running edit warrior on this one page, who is being continuously disruptive to the editing process for improving this article. An article topic ban/block for an extended period of time for just this one article would probably best fix the problem. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree to continue to work to consensus on the talk page regarding all the issues including especially the warning tag.  This two contemporaneous posts are evidence of my good faith.  I am tireless trying to resolve this on the talk page, but it is a very difficult editing environment. These two edits reported above and  were good faith edits part and parcel of the work occurring on the talk page.  The other three "reverts" are over the POV warning tag.  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits SaltyBoatr mentions above in his defense precede the latest revert. --  tariq abjotu  23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:90.207.105.117 (and prev IP's) reported by User:tmorton166 (Result:72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Other IP's previously used:

Example Reverts (I can provide more if needed, there are a LOT, so here is a brief overview)

Fernando Ricksen:

The Best (song):

Bob Balde:

Hugh Dallas:

Graham Spiers:

(note: this relates to a multi-page edit war. The IP has not violated 3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warned by another user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See all related talk pages. Can provide specific links if required.

Comments:

User is edit warring to get marginal/POV/attack content into Scottish football BLP articles and other articles relating to Rangers football club. This covers multiple articles with many similar content additions; editor only marginally engages in discussions - mostly (now, though in the past has taken part in more extensive discussions) to cite policy and demand reasons for removal of content.

I've tried patient dispute resolution and pointed the IP editor at policy. I've got in other editors to review the material and none have supported it's inclusion.
 * User:90.207.105.117 - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Teeninvestor reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Edit-warring despite ongoing ANI and RFC/U:


 * Edits by Arnoutf: (20:51, 2 August 2010)


 * 1st revert by Teeninvestor:
 * 1st revert by Athenean:


 * 2nd revert by Teeninvestor:
 * 1st revert by Arnoutf:


 * 3rd revert by Teeninvestor:
 * 2nd revert by Arnoutf:


 * 4th revert by Teeninvestor: (20:13, 3 August 2010)
 * Edit by Gun Powder Ma:


 * 5th revert by Teeninvestor: (21:41, 3 August 2010)

Comment on how to read diffs:

Teeninvestor's 1st to 4th revert refer to the paragraphs containing these quotes:
 * By the time of the Ming, gunpowder weapons were so ubitiqious that a battalion in the fifteenth century Chinese army had... (only slightly reworded in 4th revert)
 * The Song Dynasty's official military texts described the crossbow thus...
 * The use of the crossbow is also described...

His 5th revert refers to my edit, the paragraph beginning with
 * However, in the conquest of China, the Mongols also adopted gunpowder weapons and thousands of Chinese infantry and naval forces into the Mongol army..

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see ongoing ANI (started 00:38, 3 August 2010) below

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see ongoing ANI (started 00:38, 3 August 2010) below

Comments: Teeninvestor has breached the 3rr, although he is fully aware that his edit pattern on the article is currently subject of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Teeninvestor's edit behaviour is also currently subject of a Requests for comment/Teeninvestor, and was recently of another ANI complaint about his removal of tags. A more complete account of the dimension of the problem with the editor's behaviour is given by Outside view by User:Athenean. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * GPM's portrayal of the above edits are completely fallacious. This user has been ignoring the discussion page of the article, in which I was constructively discussing issues with fellow editors 1 and 2. He also counts an addition of info as a revert 1, 2. He has misrepresented greatly the series of edits that went on here. The first three diffs were removals of POV and copyright violations which another editor (User:Arnoutf) mistakenly reinserted and reverting removal of quotes which he thought was not attributed. When I pointed this out, he acknowledged this and stopped reverting, as shown here. The fourth "revert" consists of me reintroducing material that Arnoutf objected to it in quote form, but had no objections in paragraph form; hardly a revert. The fifth "revert" is an even bigger representation, as I merely modified the quote because said editor was misrepresenting his source. This user has been disruptively forum shopping after getting negative replies by trying to discredit Robert Temple, a known sinologist, as shown here and here, after his disruptive POV edits were rejected by other editors besides myself. 1 and 2 34. This disruptive forum shopping and misrepresentation of other editors need to be stopped.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I endorse this report. The edit history of Military history of China (pre-1911)  says it all.  Teeninvestor seems to display strong WP:OWN behavior.  He has embarked on unilaterally re-writing the article, while at the same time taking it upon himself to police every single edit by other users.  This has brought him in conflict with multiple editors, and resulted in him reaching and breaching 3RR so many times in the last few days that I have lost count. His claims that he constructively discusses things in the talkpage is disingenuous, with this  as a particularly egregious counterexample.  He feigns consensus, then re-adds the disputed material when he thinks no one is watching, edit wars over it, and then taunts me, and in textbook example of psychological projection, accuses me of POV-pushing .  For the record, I have little interest in this article, I am mostly goaded by Teeninvestor's intrasigent, WP:OWN behavior.  Athenean (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be larger issues here, but edit-warring does not appear to be the primary and sole concern. Further, GPM shot himself in the foot with his remarks below that demonstrate he doesn't understand the concept of edit-warring. I'm not acting upon this; please resolve the dispute here via other avenues. --  tariq abjotu  23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am impressed. It took you three full minutes between lecturing me on the guidelines below and reviewing the full case above and writing the decline. So it took you 180s/14 provided links = ca 12s for looking into each link, provided that you wrote your decline text in 0 s. Did you actually bother to look into the case at all or is this just about making a point? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * GPM, I responded to both the request above and the request below around the same time more than twelve hours ago. So, I obviously noticed this one was here. I read some of it, but it was a more through and less timely case, what with links left and right.


 * No, I didn't read through all or most of the links. In fact, secret's out, I almost never read threads like this. Edit-warring is a basic thing that can easily be checked in the history; I really don't care about the back story or the long-term problems, or who started it and how this guy is a nationalist or a long-term POV warrior. If it's medium-term (slow motion edit-warring over a week or two), I'm interested, and I'll see there's a discrepancy in the history and I'll check what's here. But if it's some long-term problem that requires an FBI investigation into the history of all parties with more than a dozen links, it's not appropriate for this noticeboard. And you seemed to know that; hence, why you went to WP:ANI first. That's where this issue belongs.


 * So, once again, declined. --  tariq abjotu  01:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving us an interesting insight into how you do things here. And I am sympathetic to your quite fitting analogy of an FBI investigation required. However, I have to say that there is no such investigation necessary, I merely tried to give more background information which was probably a mistake in hindsight.


 * You say "Edit-warring is a basic thing that can easily be checked in the history". Well, we are dealing here with such a clear case: 1, 2, 3, 4, reverted within 24 h (22:29, 2 August 2010 to 20:13, 3 August 2010). Clear breach of 3rr. So why no action? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So when did reverting another editor's mistaken introduction of copyright violations and POV material (which he later acknowledged and apologized for), another editor's mistaken reverts based on a misunderstanding, and reintroducing information originally contained in a quote but objected to by other editors in that format as a paragraph count as edit warring? GPM, you lack even a basic understanding of wikipedia's policies, and a basic decency, or else you wouldn't be blatantly misrepresenting diffs and lying here. The other editor has already rejected your forum shopping, stop wasting time and please go discuss the actual issues on the talk page and stop trying to abuse this edit warring board, and actually get things done.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am amazed at much you are telling lies in the face of the admin. Athenean and me have already gone on record above, and the third user you disingeniously 'interpret your way', Arnoutf, has also long told you the same: "Temple has none of those, so there is no reason to quote Temple". And you still wonder why you have been involved in an arbcomm case, in a RFC/U and why you are a regular guest at ANI... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The quotes are from standard histories and Needham, GPM. If you even bothered to read the talk page. Yes, I have been in an ArbCom Case, so what? It was to do wikipedia a great service by restricting one of its most problematic users. I'm a regular guest at ANI? Your posts at ANI exceed mine several times (even including your forum shopping reports) and you've been blocked 4 times. Again, the pot calling the lamb black.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Teeninvestor. Wait a second here. You are confusing issues. Yes you took out copyvio's introduced by one of the editors, but in the same series of edits you introduced (over several edits) a whole lot of quotes. My apologies were about blanket reverting your stuff. I did not consciously reintroduce any text, I should have been more careful, but since this was the first time you deleted instead of added problematic stuff to the article, I just did not consider the possibility. That does not say I agree with the quotes, and I have argued on the talk pages repeatedly that they were/are problematic with regards to WP:MOS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Arnoutf (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request 2nd opinion
It's interesting to note that Tariqabjotu's just stopped to contribute when I pointed out to him that he missed a clear violation of 3rr (01:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC). From Arnoutf's post above it has also become clear that Teenivestor has misconstrued both his acts and intentions and that of other users. Therefore, I would like to hear the second opinion of another admin who is willing to spend more than a few seconds for the whole case. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't just [stop] to contribute then. I stopped to contribute after 01:15 (UTC), and then edited a few times several hours later. What is the mysterious reason for this several-hour break in editing? It's called sleep, GPM. You may not know this, but when it's 01:45 (UTC) in August, it's 2:45am in London. --  tariq abjotu  14:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Tedickey reported by User:Daven200520 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * My Warning:
 * Another editors warning(NOT 3RR):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No need for a diff: Comments:
 * The articles talk page
 * The mediation page
 * Reliable sources board
 * WQA

For the record, User has seen and subsequently deleted the 3rr notificationPhoon (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been about two days since the edit war was going on. Will try to keep an eye on it, though. I have removed Daven's rollback rights, though, due to his use of them in an edit war. --  tariq abjotu  10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just curious but what is the rationale for admin inactivity in this case? I am not sure whether it has occurred to the admin that stale verdict in general actually favours the user who is more willing to revert, since it is his version which prevails, and that the other, more cautious user who deliberately restrained himself from taking things too far is actually punished for exactly his restraint. I believe the unwanted lesson from stale is that one needs to continue to revert even beyond 3rr so that the admin does not forget to take action. Pretty counter-productive this stale in that it fuels edit-warring. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to challenge this verdict because at the time of reporting the edit war was still in progress but the report simply sat on the page and the war cooled down however this verdict doesn't solve anything it just creates a larger tension about the subject.Phoon (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Stale is like waiting inactively until the house has burnt down and then pointing out that there is no need for firemen anymore. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Dave reported this, as the timestamp shows, at 8:55 this morning. It was stale when he reported it, and stale an hour and a half later when I fulfilled the request. And, no, it's not like waiting until a house a burned down. We are a bunch of volunteers; no one's life is on the line, and we don't let requests sit here just for our amusement. --  tariq abjotu  22:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I missed the time gap. I was under the impression that "stale" means that there was no edit-warring after the report was filed: because this rarely indicates that problems were solved meanwhile, but rather that one side sits back and awaits an admin reaction. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your excused.I did not report this at 8:55 this morning (I was simply adding more evidence) I reported it a 23:08 UTC and it was answered 11 hours and 18 minutes later. I wholeheartedly agree with Gun Powder Ma and his brilliant analogy of how this case has been neglected and in a final act of disrespect labeled as stale. Its an injustice and no one should have to be treated in such a harsh and cruel manner. Phoon (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. If the edit war is no longer going on, a block won't prevent anything. Blocks aren't given to punish past behavior, only to prevent ongoing behavior. Yworo (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No one in this report has mentioned blocks up until now. Blocks are not the only solution that can come out of this report. Besides, one needs to wait over 11 hours to actually get an admin to notice so its basically impossible at times to achieve a "Preventive" block on this noticeboard. Phoon (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then it took 11 hours until this was addressed. But it took you 30+ hours to bring this to the noticeboard (at which point, by the way, it was -- again -- already stale). That's what happens on a volunteer project. --  tariq abjotu  23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yworo, there is a logical fallacy in your reasoning. Remember that in a one on one edit war, even the more moderate side will have reached at least 3 reverts at the point the other has broken 3rr. So if the admins are still unwilling to take action at this point, they put the more reasonable user at a dilemma: if he keeps by the rules and stops reverting, the edit warrior will have saved his version, and thus he and his revert-style has 'won'. But if he continues to revert to prevent that, he will commit a 3rr himself. So, admin inactivity is clearly inducing a situation in which either no action is taken at all (3/4), or against both users simultaneously (4/4 and more). This is hardly ideal and actually creates favourable conditions for the more reckless reverters. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Posts like these never cease to amaze me. Your definition of "moderate side" and "reasonable user" is the one who reverts second. The one who starts the edit war is an edit warrior. The one who is so generous and honorable to defend the article, Wikipedia, and the world by continuously reverting the person who started the edit war is also an edit warrior. It doesn't matter that our gracious defender might only have three reverts, while our aggressive and stupid offender has made four. They both are equally culpable, and they both should be treated equally. The point of the 3RR and our edit-warring policies is to convey that disputes should not be resolved by continuous reverting. You, however, seem to think disputes are resolved (or, "won", as you put it) by reverting over and over. So, no, there's no logical fallacy; you just don't understand the meaning of edit warring. Please re-read WP:EW as ignorance of the rules, having been pointed to them, is no defense. --  tariq abjotu  23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot refer to my post because you didn't seem to have understood a bit. If "both are equally culpable, and they both should be treated equally", as you erroneously believe, then why should people still bother to report here, if either both will get indiscriminately a block or none? This isn't rocket science... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I understand exactly what you said, and it's obvious your set of conceivable edit-warring situations is very narrow. The only valid cases are when one person is edit warring against multiple other users. X reverts, A reverts, X reverts, B reverts, X reverts, C reverts, X reverts, B reverts... X probably gets blocked; A, B, and C probably do not. X reverts, Y reverts, X reverts, Y reverts, X reverts, Y reverts... X and Y both probably get blocked. Y doesn't get off easy just because he happened to be second. As you see, both X and Y are engaging in the same disruptive actions -- reverting. Still, there are many editors -- you included, apparently -- who think they are absolved because they have one fewer revert than their adversary. They come here to complain about said adversary and end up getting blocked along with their opponent. As you said, it's not rocket science, and they should be capable of foreseeing that outcome. Certainly, had this request been made earlier, as I have already suggested, both Daven and Tedickey would have been blocked for the same edit warring. --  tariq abjotu  00:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What a truly inefficient system, especially when I was (in this case) the editor who played by all the rules(and policies) and attempted to satisfy all of Tedickeys requests for better sources. I posted on the reliable sources board and even made an RFC on the article all of which he ignored. wow no good deed goes unpunished. Whats the point of having this noticeboard if nothing gets done? If the administrators fail to properly handle cases in a timely fashion? It may be a volunteer project but you (as an administrator) took the pledge to devote a portion of your life to the cause. So the more I tried to satisfy his needs the further he upped the ante, at which point I had to resort to reverting his edits, and he responded, I don't understand how this case is "stale" when truly the tension remains and is evident in over 100 paragraphs of dispute located on the articles talk page, the WQA and now here. So if blocking is a preventive measure then indeed maybe to prevent a further escalation of the dispute a few blocks will needed to be handed down. Phoon (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition of a stale report is given in Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Administrator instructions. Though he was not blocked this time around, User:Tedickey may be sanctioned for edit warring if he continues to revert the article regarding 'largest arson claim.' Since his point has been extensively discussed with other editors, and nobody else supports his view, we expect him to follow the consensus from here on. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What is really stale about this case is the way tariqabjotu immediately declined my case (less than 3min later) above after I dared to disagree with him here. Most admins do admirable work here but those who like to play Lord of the Buttons in such a high-handed manner, don't serve the project and thus don't deserve respect. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see this. Also stale(?)  Can't it be worked out?  Go easy... cripes... Doc9871 (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:79.151.189.17 reported by Ost (talk) (Result:Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 07:00,  5 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 2) 10:51,  5 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 3) 12:35,  5 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 12:53,  5 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 5) 14:07,  5 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 6) 14:39,  5 August 2010/14:39,  5 August 2010  (edit summaries: "/* External links */")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * User has not explained edits in summaries and has not responded to invitation to discuss.

—Ost (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:George McFinnigan ie reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result:No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 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: Recently this editor has removed material on Aragonese and paella, e.g, , , also removing the correct name A Coruña from a caption , replacing Ourense with Orense , there are earlier instances than these in the last few days. This editor also does not leave edit summaries. I have invited him to discuss at Talk:Spain and warned him about edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider making a report at WP:ANI if the dispute continues. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I have reported at WP:ANI as the editor has acted in a similar manner on other pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Tadija reported by User:lontech (Result: 4 days)
Page:kosovo

User being reported:

has violated 1RR per week on kosovo by adding split temp

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


 * (cur | prev) 21:46, 6 August 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) rv
 * (cur | prev) 20:59, 6 August 2010 Lontech (talk | contribs) (113,802 bytes) rv
 * (cur | prev) 13:19, 2 August 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) (113,865 bytes) (split)
 * (cur | prev) 16:34, 26 July 2010 Bobrayner (talk | contribs) (113,276 bytes) (Split template removed, in line with talk page consensus.)

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


 * 1st revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=376753737&oldid=376465354
 * 2nd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=377549219&oldid=377542096

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo


 * Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
 * All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see [1]

1RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Tadija


 * 14:33, 16 July 2010 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) unblocked "Tadija (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Procedural unblock: User was not given adequate warning. Sanction lifted as well. Consider this a strong final warning.) (This is completely unrelated to this subject, procedural error by admin.) -- Tadija speaks

-- LONTECH    Talk  22:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is false report. First edit pas proposition of the split that is still undergoing, as you may see on article talk page. User Longtech removed tag without completed consensus, that will last until 15 august. When i explained that to him, he was rude to me, and now he filled this false report. -- Tadijaspeaks 23:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is very clear that he added split temp after Bobrayner removed-- LONTECH    Talk  23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * it appears we are once again headed for a split, then. -, by User:Dbachmann
 * Split template removed, in line with talk page consensus.) -, by User:Bobrayner
 * split -, by User:Tadija Different proposal, still ongoing!!
 * disruptive edit / rv.per consensus ? Disruptive? How tag of still going vote can be disruptive? -, by User:Lontech

As user:Lontech had previous "notifications" against this kind of personal attack without reason, and he apparently just want me blocked, then i am asking for some admin help regarding this subject of dispute. -- Tadijaspeaks 23:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a dispute this is violation of rules-- LONTECH    Talk  23:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

just look how he is manipulating the report, by removing and adding text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=377565326&oldid=377564414 STOP EDITING MY REPORT-- LONTECH    Talk  00:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This should have been submitted to WP:AE, however. --  tariq abjotu  00:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Freakshownerd reported by User:Meand (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

I'm not following the strict format here, since the 3RR hasn't strictly been broken, although I believe edit warring is fairly clear.


 * Original version of article before warring:
 * Freakshownerd's first edits:
 * Second: (this diff includes a partial reversion by User:John)
 * Third: (less controversial, but still against consensus)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * From myself to Freakshownerd: (I used a template, which was probably a bad idea.  Mea culpa.)
 * From Freakshownerd to myself:

I attempted to bring Freakshownerd onto the Talk page by leaving a comment on his userpage. There's now some limited discussion on the talk page, but the edits are ongoing.

Comments:

I've been involved in the past in conflicts over this article, and I believe Freakshownerd has also from looking at his user talk page, although (to my memory) we have never previously disagreed directly. From the time of this report, I intend to avoid making anything but WP:FAIRY updates to the article until the dispute is resolved, and stability once again reigns supreme, although unless specifically requested otherwise, I may use Template:Request edit to request more controversial changes. --me_and (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Other editors have also commented on FSN's activities on that page (though not edits to the lead), see the second half of this section of the talk page (starting from LiteratureGeek's original comment "I followed this conversation from..."). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ou may wish to try dispute resolution, or consider making a report at WP:ANI if the dispute starts getting out of hand. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:75.128.15.231 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:06,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "that's better")
 * 2) 06:18,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "more facts")
 * 3) 06:21,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 06:41,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 06:57,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Oxford is the 1st English speaking institute in the world, Cambridge is the 2nd English speaking, here's the verification.")
 * 6) 07:18,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision by (talk) facts have been provided for verification, Oxford is an institutional and 1st speaking educational speaking university")
 * 7) 08:02,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377442618 not a grammer issue, the facts say it is the 1st English speaking institution, + acedemic sources!")
 * 8) 08:17,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "removed oldest")
 * 9) 18:33,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Oxford is an educational institution - acedemic sources provided, Also is the 1st English speaking institution -acedemic sources provided. The facts say this what it is, use talk to dispute")
 * 10) 18:34,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 18:40,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse, this IP's edits are increasingly disruptive and ignoring the clear consensus on the article's talk page against his/her changes. BencherliteTalk 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a technical violation counting consecutive edits as single edits, and the discussions do not seem to have reached WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT yet. 75.128.15.231 seems to be willing to discuss the matter, and has participated on the talkpage since the last reversion of their preferred content. I have protected the article for three days; please come back here if the issues continue. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Beg to differ, it was a violation
 * 06:06, 6 August 2010 - 1st revert
 * 07:18, 6 August 2010 - 2nd revert
 * 08:02, 6 August 2010 - 3rd revert
 * 18:33, 6 August 2010 - 4th revert

Codf1977 (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was counting the first one as a normal edit rather than a revert. Checking the geolocate on the recent history, though, I think that the similarity in edits and locations is conclusive enough to downgrade this to semi-protection. Thank you for checking this. I still think that they have shown enough interest in discussion that a block would be more punitive than preventative, but I will go request that they wait for consensus before adding any similar content. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well a block Codf1977 sounds a little cynical when you have really ignored providing consensus on acedemic sources then Codf1977 undoing edits. I have provided 4 acedemic sources and 2 media sources for terms on "first" "institution" and "Oxford University" and "English speaking" to verify the edit upgrade. I have asked already 4 times to Codf1977several questions on the matter of sources to provide for the article should stay as "oldest" university to "first English speaking institution" yet Codf1977 is not a student of Oxford University or former student and has admitted never been to Oxford either in anyway to enlighten his experience to the discussion with providing some objection sources I may ask for in return. It seems more of an argument that Codf1977 likes the article more than the facts to change the words "first" "speaking" and "institution" overriding "oldest". I am yet to wait for his responses to the questions I have asked Codf1977 and he has gone silent on the matter. Shall I just wait ever 24 hours to revert rule to edit back and let Codf1977 make another complaint of me reverting edits yet he refuses to census the facts on what he specifically is rejecting with providing no acedemic sources? I am clued to Codf1977 is stirring trouble more than discussing the issue of correcting the history on Oxford University I have provided than saying nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Codf1977 reported by User:75.128.15.231 (talk) (Result:see previous)
I am reporting this matter on the merit of the facts from acedemic sources but user Codf1977 is undoing edits creating misleading information on the Oxford University article page. First I have made the case that the words "oldest university" to "first speaking institution" providing the fact down below. Yet according to Codf1977 Codf1977 claiming the facts which are acedemic used for education purposes is denying the facts presented, saying it is not an institution and it is not the first but the oldest.

What defines "first" to "oldest"? The facts say Oxford University is an education institution and the word university is already in the "Oxford University" or "Oxford of University" adding the sense what the facts say that is an an "institution: and the "first institution in the world to speak English". I mean what institution was before Oxford Univesity as an english speaking institution? None. I am taking the facts and using those fact to support the claim is still a "university" and it is still an "institution" and instead of "oldest" it is the "first" of its kind as an "English speaking institute". Please view acedemic sources below.

The facts about Oxford University, Oxford, England:

1. First English speaking institution - StudyEnglishToday News by M. Boyanova 2007 "Oxford University is the 1st English speaking institution":

2. Oldest:

3. 1st English-speaking institution:

4. Oxford University is an education institution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Institution" is not synonymous with "university", "first" does not mean the same thing as "oldest", and you continue to misquote the first source. It's quite simple, really.  Please read your talk page and the article talk page rather than claiming that anyone reverting your ill-informed changes is edit-warring and should be blocked, a threat you have now made to four editors including two admins. BencherliteTalk 19:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bencherlite Codf1977
 * Well what hand of experience do you have on Oxford University then? What is your knowledge about the institution? Do have anything other than arguing the issue to speak of your experience of attending Oxford University to bring to the table?
 * I am rather confused? You are promoting "oldest" university instead of "first english university" or even the word "first" and your promoting "university" over "institution". What says your right?
 * What level of knowledge do you have to state that your are 110% right? I would like you state to me what you state is correct, then I will ask Oxford University the same question as I have several professors will reply back. Please provide acedemic sources so I am not reading a blog or something.
 * Have you have any facts that state Oxford University is not an institution? Do you have any facts that state Oxford University is not the first university or institution?

Do you have any facts that state "first English speaking"? Before disagreeing instantly, send the sources not the same on the Oxford University page but sources to your denial. I suggest you take a trip to Oxford University on one of the tour guides, you ask the guide for the tour guide books to refresh the what is Oxford University? First, Institution, University and founded when.
 * When you refer oldest to first, please think about that again. First is also the same defination category as oldest. Your mis-phrasing the argument on the terms of first with Oxford. I had tour guide books that are printed in 1930, 1980, 1997 that all state Oxford University is an institution and the first of its kind to speak English, not England but in the world. Shall I take imageshot to state the fact to reference the facts more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * see previous. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Susanne2009NYC (Result: Malformed)
I'm trying to make progress on the above article while user:Off2riorob is engaging in endless reverts, etc. Is he perhaps attempting to provoke an edit war and a violation of the 3RR? He's contributed nothing I'm aware of to the article but simply engages in reverting contributions, making progess difficult. This is tiresome, disruptive, and unproductive. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanne2009NYC (talk • contribs) 2010-08-07T3:43:18
 * Yeah, no. When an editor "reworks" an article, as you are: you should definitely expect some "feedback" from other editors.  Talk out the planned revisions on the article's talk page to get consensus for your edits, as Off2riorob has suggested.  Cheers, and Happy Editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Links for report (I am passingly familiar with some of the editors and will not be acting here. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)):

Page:

User being reported:
 * --  tariq abjotu  07:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AndeanThunder reported by Pfainuk talk (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 07:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 10:08,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377338139 by Pfainuk Uncited deletions")
 * 2) 13:24,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377459143 by Justin A Kuntz Do a little reaserch before deleting")
 * 3) 13:47,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Reverting unsourced, unfounded deletions.")
 * 4) 23:54,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* 20th century */ To use the very words of the New York Times article")


 * Diff of warning: here

Note in particular the repeated addition of the phrase "thus cutting off contacts between the islands and the outside world" - a claim that is false and not backed up the sources provided.

—Pfainuk talk 07:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Hope&Act3! reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:35,  4 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377099819 by 82.17.238.199 (talk)wp is not RS")
 * 2) 13:26,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377181026 by 209.118.181.16 (talk)was occupied then annexed by Jordan")
 * 3) 14:34,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377477255 by 209.118.181.16 (talk)not o.p.t  never was Palestinian, illegally annexed by Jordan today in Israel")
 * 4) 06:39,  7 August 2010  (edit summary: "accurate location")
 * 5) 21:37,  7 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377680669 by Jmlk17 (talk)until it's beamed away")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The first edit was a few days ago, only included to show this has been going on for a bit. On the talk page there are 4 users and 2 IPs agreeing that the article should not say the Church is located in Israel with Hope&Act3! and one other user arguing (without sources) that it should. Hope&Act3! is edit warring to retain language that is both unsourced and against the views of most editors on the talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There's something fishy at work here with the edits against this user being made by anon. IP with less than 30 edits many of them reverts. is clearly hiding his true identity and could very well be a banned/blocked editor (possibly related to the topic banned editor making this complaint). I see them making 5 reverts against established editors on the article in question while the other 2 editors are not hiding behind an IP. has an almost clean block log for his 4 months here (I can't make out the 12 hour block but it seems unrelated to edit-warring). I'd suggest a block to the IP and a notice on ARBPIA notifying Hope with a warning that next time he crosses the 3RR line -- even if its a sock puppet IP -- he'd be sure to be handed some time out to think about things with a nice little smudge on his block log as a sign for future edit-war violations. Just my 2 cents.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP does look very much like a blocked/banned user. However, unless Hope&Act3! can present concrete evidence clearly marking it as a sock, reverting so vigorously is not acceptable (and, to be clear, if there's concrete proof of sockpuppetry, one should use one of the noticeboards to bring the matter to an admin's attention). So, this should have resulted in a block. However, I think there are a number of users from a couple angles reverting on this article, so I think protection is the best route right now.
 * If evidence can be presented, a request should be made at WP:SPI. --  tariq abjotu  01:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Nascar1996 reported by User:NoseNuggets (Result:24h protection )
Page: 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

User being reported:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I used the format on the "TV/Radio" section from 2010, and did a do not show on the 2011 schedule until it is officially announced on August 18th, but he reverted them back.

Comments: He needs to "grow up". I told him that I have more experience, but he thinks I'm a smart-a**. Maybe a block is needed to make him think about his actions. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:54 PM US EDT Aug 7 2010. Comments: Please preview both of our talk pages before your decision. To NoseNuggets, I don't think your are that, but how does experience help you here? I have also asked for some help with this. NoseNuggets and I have never agreed with each other. I would hate to be blocked around this time becaus eI will get behid on editing the race articles, which have to be finished within five days. I know what ever you decide will be better with Wikipedia. I think someone should delete the articel until 2011. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Comments: NoseNuggets, I'll say one thing: telling someone to "grow up" is hardly the way to go about it. Airplaneman  ✈  03:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're both engaging in edit warring. You can either discuss this like reasonable people, or both get blocked. Nascar1996, I think you're right at 3RR; NoseNuggets, you're not immune because the other party started the reverting.   24 hours (I accidentally set it for 5 days to begin with), and if the reverting resumes there will be blocks.  This doesn't exist to hold WikiProject banners, please use it. Courcelles 03:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Norcalal reported by Ginelli (Result:No Violation)
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 attempted to have a civil discussion with this individual without success. Norcalal repeatedly makes accusation that I am biased towards San Jose. Given that I am a Bay Area native and he is not, I feel that my factual contributions should be respected even though Norcalal may not agree with them. He seems to be intent on asserting his San Francisco bias on the page. Norcalal will not even admit that San Jose is the center of Silicon Valley, despite the fact that both within and outside the Bay Area San Jose is known as the Capital of Silicon Valley. Ginelli (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

41.132.178.5 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: blocked)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Massive revert-warring on several pages combined with incivil edit summaries. Please just check the obvious situation in the article histories. Note: this is a cross-posting of a report I've also filed for enforcement at WP:AE to get a more permanent solution under WP:DIGWUREN, but I'm filing here too because the response time at AE is too slow to stop the revert war. For more detail please see the AE report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AE can do what it wants, but we have a clear 3RR violation going on here. If he IP-hops, the articles will be semi-protected until AE decides what to do. Courcelles 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles reported by User:FactStraight (Result: Both blocked)
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:

I made several efforts to resolve disagreements and avoid edit-wars; see diffs:
 * Diff Third Opinion concurring with the objections I've repeatedly enumerated on the talk page and affirming that they should be deleted, which I proceeded to do.


 * Diff My comment on user's talk page


 * Diff My reply to user's latest comment on my talk page

Repeated efforts to negotiate type of content notable enough for historical bios on talk page ignored or rejected. User defends his input and reverts, immediately or gradually, any changes I make, and won't dialogue on talk page unless his edits have been reverted -- then he defends, but won't compromise. He is now ignoring both my pleas for compromise and the Third Opinion which agreed with me entirely that some of his input is too trivial to be included in Wikipedia. He dismissed my 3RR warning with mockery. FactStraight (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  22:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:220.236.209.191 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: + previous block for 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked three days. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:71.234.119.12 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 04:38,  4 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377056475 by Bill the Cat 7 (talk)")
 * 2) 00:09,  5 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377084460 by Bill the Cat 7 (talk)")
 * 3) 12:09,  5 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Richard Dawkins Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig */")
 * 4) 12:10,  5 August 2010  (edit summary: "/* Richard Dawkins Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig */")
 * 5) 04:49,  6 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377291843 by Johnuniq (talk)")
 * 6) 06:51,  7 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377500380 by Theowarner (talk)")
 * 7) 14:51,  7 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377623910 by Johnuniq (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Subsequent warning here.

Comments: Note, the 3rd and subsequent reversions were a on the section, explicitly linking the two relevant policies against his behavior. Clearly he's seen those as well.

<b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  01:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet User:64.208.63.65 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Open proxy blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 05:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 09:31,  8 August 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 04:54,  9 August 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 377828481 by Mann jess (talk)")
 * 3) 10:33, August 9, 2010 (edit summary: "vandalism")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: Continuation of same behavior as above, after final warning, while primary ip (71.234.119.12) is blocked.

— <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 05:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - The IP has admitted that he is editing through a proxy server. I have blocked it for one year as an open proxy. The web site is known as 'Surf Again.' Open up http://64.208.63.65/ in your browser and read the announcement: "SurfAgain is a website which allows you to visit your favourite sites at work or school, where your school or work might not allow you to visit them."  I've also semiprotected Talk:William Lane Craig for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) - result - doncram was blocked 24hrs by User:Tariqabjotu
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:05,  8 August 2010  (edit summary: "â†Redirected page to Washington Bridge (Connecticut)")
 * 2) 20:10,  8 August 2010  (edit summary: "there are no other articles of that name")
 * 3) 22:11,  8 August 2010  (edit summary: "there are only 2 articles and one is a secondary usage -- a hatnote is sufficient")
 * 4) 22:18,  8 August 2010  (edit summary: "this is perfectly valid for only 2 uses with one being secondary at best -- please gain consensus for your preference")

Veteran edit warrior Polaron, with whom i have tangled before, is at it again. Now he is repeatedly redirecting a valid disambiguation page that links to two articles about bridges having Devon Bridge as an alternative name. The documentation is in their articles. I suggested that he open an AFD about the dab page to secure a consensus of editors, but as is typical for this veteran, he needs no consensus, and does not substantially reply. As usual, it's just an assertion akin to "i am right, u r wrong, i don't need no stinkin' sources".

I would like to request that he be blocked from editing this page, or enjoined to open an AFD, or otherwise to act within Wikipedia practices. Perhaps a new, larger edit restriction on Polaron is needed. I believe Polaron is still subject to a six-month edit restriction relating to previous long-term edit warring on other redirects of Connecticut NRHP articles, but this new case does not fall within the scope of that edit restriction.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notice of 3rr reporting to Polaron provided, but he is very experienced with this and needs no warning. I wonder why he persists with this type of behavior. I guess because he figures he will get away with it, as he usually does.

I tried opening discussion at User talk:Polaron. As typical for him, he may reply curtly but proceed with repeating his drastic edit, elsewhere, as if the curt reply sufficed to convince anyone of anything. —doncram (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black. Feel free to notify me on my talk page when you have reverted one more time, and I'll be happy to block both of you. --  tariq abjotu  22:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, big thanks. Your quick view is about as useful as nothing.  I hope no one minds to much, i am editing title here to remove "No violation" judgment just added.  Polaron exceeded 3RR, that is a violation.  You can also say, if you wish, that my reversions of his near-vandalism also was edit-warring, but there are key differences, as i have already explained to P at his Talk page.  Simply put, Polaron should not be given free rein to edit war.  This is not isolated, there is now a term coined at Talk:List of cities proper by population for him, as "Polaronics", see the I and II discussions there if you can stand to read them.  Actually, I would like to ask for anohter editor or two's opinion here. --doncram (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Simply making a change to a page is not a revert. --  tariq abjotu  23:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, rats, his first redirect was not a reversion. Sorry, i sometimes show my relative lack of experience relative to hardened veteran P.  Okay, anyhow, i would like other opinions.  Hope you don't terribly mind, i removed the "No violation" judgement in title again, towards keeping this open.  If you restore it again i won't revert that again, but it seems like it would save time and space if this is kept open.  The issue is not over, there will be more edits.  Currently i will plan to wait till 24 hours from my first revert, so as not to be in explicit violation of the letter of 3RR rule.  P is very good at playing that too.  However, this is all obviously edit warring, and if you look at the general patterns it is P engaging in edit warring, not me (though that takes some judgment, and not everyone has to agree, sure).  I would like some other opinions by others familiar with P's practices, if possible. --doncram (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I restored the "No violation" conclusion posted by another admin. --Orlady (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Orlady is in fact familiar with past practices by Polaron. Orlady, could you actually comment further and/or help resolve this issue, rather than just closing this as a discussion point about the behavior.  I would most prefer the article being restored and discussion occuring at its Talk page, but your commenting further here could be helpful. --doncram (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In this edit Polaron has now implicitly acknowledged the notability of another Devon Bridge in Canada, though he only saw fit to add a link that redirected to the bridge in Connecticut! I restored the dab now with a properly supported redlink.  Hopefully this should end it, but, we'll see. --doncram (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Whitehound reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 23:51,  8 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Kazini Elisa Maria */")
 * 2) 00:04,  9 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Kazini Elisa Maria */")
 * 3) 01:24,  9 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Kazini Elisa Maria */")
 * 4) 02:07,  9 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Kazini Elisa Maria */")
 * 5) 02:19,  9 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Kazini Elisa Maria */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit:(ugh...I used the wrong template; thanks to User:EdJohnston for fixing that).

Warnings given to user:Since this is a new user, clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, I brought the discussion to her talk page (including brief notes in edit summaries). Warnings (both templated and personal) can be seen at User Talk:Whitehound

Comments: I really don't want to report this user for edit warring--he/she is clearly trying to add what s/he believes is accurate information about his/her grandparents. Unfortunately, Whitehound is not responding to my requests to talk or to the warning being given by User:Jeff G.. I don't know what else we can do other than a very short block (maybe 24 hours) to hopefully catch Whitehound's attention and start talking about the issue of verifiability. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. New editor may be confused. No block needed unless they continue to revert the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)