Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive153

User:Biosketch reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 1RR notice added to article)
Page:

User being reported:

All Arab-Israeli conflict articles have a 1rr:. To rv IPs is exempt from the 1rr.


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

The user has previously edited the Israeli cuisine article: and the warning is linked to when someone edits it: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I mentioned this report to the editor on his talk page (User talk:Biosketch). He is new enough, has not been trolling or malicious, and has made some fine edits outside of the topic area. This leaves me assuming that he was simply unaware. Although blocks can be applied without any warnings, it should be noted that the remedy clearly says that the user may be blocked. If the editor is clear on the rules now then a warning might be the preventative measure needed. However, if the admins want to make an example of him as a reminder to others that edit warring will not be tolerated the it makes some sense (although I doubt many will agree with that line of reasoning). My assumption that he did not know about 1/rr might also be wrong so it is probably up to the editor to explain himself.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness, you are right for calling me out on this, and I accept your request for arbitration as constructive criticism. User:Cptnono, thank you for leaving the message on my talk page and alerting me to my 1RR violation(s).

If I may be allowed to explain how I believe this situation came about: The Israeli cuisine article has a notice on its Discussion page alerting editors to the WP:1RR restriction. The notice explicitly says, "The article Israeli cuisine, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010." The Golan Heights article, on the other hand, which one would think would have a similar notice regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, says only, "All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page." No mention is made of the Arab-Israeli conflict as motivating the restriction. The Itamar article, where my reverts yesterday were concentrated, did not have any notice at all until later in the day when User:ElComandanteChe added it to the Discussion page. It was this lack of consistency that led, I believe, to this situation. I only edited the Israeli cuisine article once, and the edit was a decidedly minor one – disambiguating a wikilink beneath an image – so I didn't pay much attention to the 1RR notice. I've been more involved with the Golan Heights page but, like I said, there the notice doesn't state anything about the Arab-Israeli conflict; which I interpreted to mean that not all articles with the potential to qualify as Arab-Israeli conflict articles actually do qualify as such. Then yesterday when things started heating up at the Itamar article, as news of the massacre spread and impassioned editors began venting their steam via the page, I basically took it upon myself to monitor the page and patrol it for instances of WP:UNSOURCED, WP:Soapbox, and outright cases of WP:Vandalism. Not surprisingly, there was a great deal of each of these behaviors, whence the need for constant reversions. So it was a confluence of two things: confusion on my part with regard to the application of the Arab-Israeli 1RR restriction to the Itamar article, on the one hand; and a perceived urgency in maintaining order in the face of a rapid succession of inflammatory edits to the article, on the other.

Needless to say, now that I have a firmer grasp on the nature of the Arab-Israeli 1RR restriction, I shall be more careful in observing it. Should ignorantia juris non excusat apply in my case, I'll take it in stride and bear the consequences of my actions in a positive spirit.—Biosketch (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I find the above explanation credible, and Biosketch has not continued edit warring at that article. I have added the ARBPI editnotice so it will appear whenever the page is edited. No further action appears necessary at this point, though the article will bear watching (it looks like the most active periods of editing occur while I am asleep, so help would be appreciated here). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:79.209.40.231 reported by User:Carlaude (Result: 31 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since this anonymous editor has no talk page I have only tried to make usefull comments, etc., in summary messages. See: Template:Christian History &action=history and Template talk:Christian History.

Comments:

I reverted to my version and apologize for any problems which were made by me.79.209.57.150 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: No warning given about 3RR or any other potential violations. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I spoke too soon apparently; the anon is now IP-hopping: 5th revert. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP addresses are allocated in a huge German /10, but all fall in the same /17 range, probably indicating that the range is subdivided. Please let me know or request page protection if this does not cover it. 79.209.xxx: you may be interested in Template:Latter-day Saints. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the above offer by User talk:2over0, please Semi-protect Template:Christian History, due to the IP vandalism. Thank you. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Declined. There are no more IP reverts since 2over0's last comment above. He blocked for 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Drsmoo reported by User:Oncenawhile (Result: blocked &c.)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 23:46, 10 March 2011
 * 2nd revert: 02:52, 11 March 2011 (within 3 hours)

Comments:

Simple violation of WP:1RR as per WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles

There is no 1RR rule listed as being in place for that article anywhere. Drsmoo (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * for move warring in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions after having been warned. I have move-protected the page at the wrong version pending a discussion following the procedure at WP:MOVE. I have also added the ARBPI 1RR editnotice and talkpage notices. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Shakzor reported by User:Duffbeerforme (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Too many diffs so just linking to the talk page.

Comments:

Shakzor is aware of 3RR, see diff comment at Shakzor has been blocked before for 3RR on this page,, 3RR archive. Shakzor has stated an intention of continual edit warring.
 * Yep. Shakzor (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have made another revert. Shakzor (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Shakzor without setting an automatic expiration because of their stated intent to keep edit warring against the result of the recent RfC. This is not intended to be an infinite block, and I would be happy to unblock given assurances of intent to follow community norms. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:24.18.37.151 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:





Comments: Reverted by three four five different editors.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * , 3 month block due to a long pattern of edit warring, disruptive editing, and multiple blocks for such at that IP (clearly the same editor). I would block Serienfan2010 as well, but there were no reverts after Xeworlebi's warning...  Kuru   (talk)  22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Santiago84 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 31h)
User being reported:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Note: Not a 3RR violation, but 4 reverts against 3 different editors in a relatively short period of time (26 or 27 hours).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No 3RR violation, but clear edit-warring over the same material in multiple articles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Calus reported by User:PPdd (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Which version does this refer to? There are many intervening edits now.]


 * 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:

Calus deleted the 3RR notice on “his” talk page:


 * Calus deleted the disruptive editing notice on his talk page
 * Calus deleted the WP:3RR notice on “his” talk page immediately upon asserting that he would seek mediation, and then continue to WP:Edit war.
 * Calus is a WP:DISRUPTIVE WP:SPA].
 * Calus is a subject of the multi]WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT investigation in which 5 related WP:SOCKs were blocked for edit warring so far, and the investigation only stopped because I was the reporter and asked for leniencey to give the disruptive edit warring WP:SPA WP:SOCK/WP:MEATs a second chance, and the second chance was abused.
 * Calus sometimes self declared his edit to be "vandalism" as the only explanation in the edit summary on some reverts.
 * As the above diffs show, Calus repeatedly reverted to WP:C violating versions in which he claimed to have copied the exact text (it was not a "quote"; it was a "copy:), saying "Yes, I went to your RS, Paid the $25 to download the article, and quoted directly from it. You then reversed those changes. Please, do tell, why are you allowed to paraphrase from the RS and make outlandish claims, and I am not allowed to make direct quotes from the source. When I undid his WP:C violation and self declared "vandalism", he continued to edit war PPdd (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am WP:INVOLVED here, so this will need attention from someone else. I have not been following the latest developments, but Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine and maybe a section or two up looks like a good place to start getting a handle on the issues here. The article is currently semi-protected for a few days.
 * PPdd: might I convince you to expand your acronyms? I assume that SP/MP means sock or meatpuppet, but is SPE single purpose editor? Also, your first diff goes to Calus' talkpage, not the article in question. Reverting in one's own userspace is an explicit exception to WP:3RR (as is reverting clear copyright violations), and removing a notice or discussion is usually taken as sufficient evidence that the material has been read - did you intend to include a different link there?
 * Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions apply to this article, and may be indicated in resolving this mess. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Acronyms linked. WP:SPE -> WP:SPA. oops. PPdd (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That definitely helps the readability of this report, thank you. I am changing WP:SP to WP:SOCK, as from the context it seems likely that you are referring to sockpuppets rather than subpages ). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has been much quieter in the last 24 hours. I suggest leaving the report open for a while to see if this continues. Either full protection or a 1RR restriction (under WP:ARBPS) might be considered if the dispute resumes. If an admin wants to tackle the sock case at Sockpuppet investigations/Brendan.mattson and consider sanctions it would help. An external forum might have been used to recruit editors here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. This is the second 3RR-Sock/MEAT situation on this. In the first I asked for leniency when the editors agreed to calm down, then the above occured.
 * However, one or more admins already shut down five Sock/MEAT accounts used by this group to edit war. PPdd (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * More edit warring and contitued disruptive editing, change from this, to this, again in the middle of article edit warring by others. Furthermore blatant lies to cause disruptions. Grad student Calus and his prof Herbxue claimed they and all their socks came to WP as a reaction to this discussion forum. The post has this date "Posted on February 8, 2011 by AugustPoint ”, but his contribs show dates BEFORE that post, beginning March 7 - . PPdd (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No action at this time, since the dispute has quieted. See the above discussion for ideas on how to handle this if the dispute restarts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:186.16.90.99 reported by User:Aspects (Result: Rangeblock)
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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:American Idol (season 10)

Comments:


 * Result: Rangeblocked for one month. Revert warring on the same article with a variety of IPs violates WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Koakhtzvigad reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 72h)
Page: User being reported: Time reported: 06:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 14:43, 13 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 418606289 by Til Eulenspiegel its not a lede, but the start of sub-section; mentions same thing twice; not my favourite, but a Jewish translation of a Jewish text")
 * 2) 15:07, 13 March 2011  (edit summary: "What consensus? This is a Jewish text being translated according to accepted Jewish translation; you are welcome to say that Christian translation is different")
 * 3) 15:46, 13 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 418623548 by Til Eulenspiegel I suggest you ask yourself why you are opposing my edits; the "policy" is the WP:SOURCES")
 * 4) 01:17, 14 March 2011  (edit summary: "per WP:UNDUE, there is nothing special about the Revelations mention except that it is a Greek translated borrowing so would be expected to be different if only gramatically, no reason to put in the lede, expand.refs, readings")
 * 5) 02:10, 14 March 2011  (edit summary: "Eschatology was the article I was looking for, some other wikilinks")
 * 6) [05:20, 14 March 2011 KoakhtzvigadMobile (talk | contribs | block) (39,967 bytes) (?Christian tradition: rephrase removing Mirriam-Webster, I try not to use dictionaries as a source for this reason) (rollback | undo) (Tag: references removed)


 * Diff of warning: here

I also warned - I'm not sure if his edit of the lead counts as a 4th revert. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: 72 hours. On the talk page, Koakhtzvigad gives creative reasons for why he doesn't need to wait for consensus. "I don't need to seek consensus on the translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jews....its their Bible!"  You can also see this theory relied upon in the edit summaries above. This is Wikipedia, so please follow Wikipedia policies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:69.64.201.2 reported by User:Yobol (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

IP appears to be POV pushing on this WP:fringe page as well. Yobol (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result Blocked 24 hours. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:92.7.28.215 reported by Mo ainm (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1RR notice, 3RR notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008, one of which is 1RR, which this editor broke and was warned about, I then followed up the community restrictions notice with a 3RR notice which the editor also ignored. Mo ainm ~Talk  19:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if you do not class the third and fourth reverts as reverts despite the removal of "assassinated" the editor has broken the 1RR restriction (it does not apply to the reversion of edits by IP editors) on the article which they were notified of here. Their second and fourth reverts are clear and unambiguous reverts. O Fenian (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 5th revert added, made despite being notified of this report. O Fenian (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 24h by User:John. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:ComtesseDeMingrelie reported by User:Maunus (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Svan language


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Georgians


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



Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I would block this user myself, but given that he has accused me of being motivated by anti-Georgian sentiment I would rather that someone else does it.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have explained myself very clearly in the edit summaries as well as on user talk pages. I am hardly the one who started this edit war and the I am puzzled why Maunus is singling me out. Furthermore, recent accusation against me by User:EdJohnston that I am being reported because I make assertions on others' ethnic identity is false. I am the one whose ethnic identity is denied by this organized groups of thugs who have been terrorizing me for weeks. Maunus does not want to take any action against them,and my only way to counter their propaganda is to revert as I have no other powers.If they were disciplined for multiple reverts before, this would not go as far as it went.


 * Finally, the UNESCO link which they are inserting is based on a single Russian-language source which I think is biased. Just because something is on a UNESCO page does not mean it is UNESCO material. I already said in the edit summaries that they may include the information separately but not sell it to the readers as a UNESCO work. Dr. Klimov and Oniani are not UNESCO authorities on endangered languages, they are just authors. The map which they are linking is based on outside sources and can be altered by individuals by simply submitting a report for which there is a button.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie  17:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, stop. No personal atacks! The "organized groups of thugs" is (WP:NPA) --Kmoksy (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTTHEM. I have been extremely fair to you - twice giving you polite warnings for having reverted 5 and three times. I am now reporting you because you continued to revert after hhaving received by second warning. This demonstrates an utter lack of respect for our rules and policies. None of the other editors have broken the 3rr rule, several of them have participated in talkpage discussions. You are being singled out because you are editwarring. Throwing personal attacks at your opponents will also not help your case. Your opinions about your opponents source do not justify you in removing them without there first being generated a consensus at the talk page. You are editwarring and trying to justify it with faults in others behavior.  This is unacceptable, and I believe strongly that you need an editing break during which you will have time to read our fundamental policies such as WP:V, WP:EDITWAR, WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 31 hours. The Comtesse's repeated removal of a UNESCO source caught my eye. The claim that this is not a good source would definitely require consensus to establish. Repeated removal (against the opposition of other editors) makes no sense. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos reported by Tallard (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [I placed a 3r template on his talk page but he deleted it and purged it apparently, stating he does not accept the notification from me. EDIT: I was not aware that 3R templates could be "refused", so placed it again, to test, but it was deleted again.]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He moved my comment three times to place it under his, but I am not responding to him, but to the previous poster. I politely undid each of his reverts but he does not seem to understand the WP:INDENT rule No. 3--Tallard (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Notice that Tallard didn't provide 4 supporting diffs, because he can't (i.e. he's purely pointlessly wasting your time with respect to any 3RR accusations). The matter is exceedingly simple -- Tallard applied INCORRECT indentation prefixes to his own comment, and -- due to this error caused solely by himself -- insisted on shoving other people's comments around in violation of usual Wikipedia etiquette and suggested best practices for threaded discussions, in order to compensate for his own mistake.  (Of course, if he had supplied correct indentation prefixes, then it wouldn't have mattered whose comments preceded whose on the page -- the fact that Tallard thinks it does matter shows in itself that the indentation characters he chose to use are incorrect.)  This was really a very minor (almost trival) matter, but Tallard's consistent insistence on doing the wrong thing (refusing to fix his own self-created indentation error, and impacting on other people's comments instead) managed to transform it into a semi-pointless personal spat.  AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: I don't see a 3RR, and I don't see any reverts after the warning you placed on his page. I know you're not asking this here, but since you're both responding to the same comment, the first response should go first and both kept at the same indent level. Not a good thing to edit war over, though. Please don't revert again until the two of you agree on the indentation. Kuru  (talk)  00:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, after the 3R notice he no longer reverted me, he still does not understand the indent manual of style No.3. A response to a reply should be placed below that reply, but above all later replies. I had not specified the first 2 reverts because they were identical moves by AnonMoos, which I had mentioned in the comment. In addition, AnonMoos and Jonathanwallace were responding to my request for delete, then I responded to Jonathanwallace. --Tallard (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are both replying to joanthanwallace; that seems to be what you're missing. Condition 2 is the one you're looking for. You could probably clarify that with a discussion instead of reverting.  Kuru   (talk)  02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see what you are implying Kuru... that he was not voting on the delete request, but simply conversating with jonathanwallace, ... but on a request for delete page, usually initial responses are considered to be to the request, not general conversation? No? I read his "agree" as copy of the previous vote which was keep. If his intent was to vote, as one would suspect from the context, he should have used a single indent rather than a double indent, a vote on the request. It is unnerving to have someone screaming and deleting my post to place it elsewhere, even after polite my polite rebuttal. Cheers--Tallard (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ringpop7 reported by User:Serienfan2010 (Result: both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

-- Serienfan2010 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * , clear 3RR from a new account; was warned. Unfortunately, this is a simple content dispute, and Serienfan2010 also broke 3RR.  Since this is his fifth 3RR, I have set a much longer block.  Kuru   (talk)  00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okkar reported by Hybernator (Result: no violation, articles protected)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

This user keeps making changes on the May Sweet article that do not reflect what is being reported in the reputable sources. (He also made similar edits on the Irrawaddy article). He's reverted my edits, backed by reputable citations. I've made another change, with more citations, and opened up a talk page on the article. I would like someone to review the edit-war. I'm open to dispute resolution. Thank you. Hybernator (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First revert [1 ]
 * Second revert [2 ]
 * Third revert [3 ]
 * Fourth revert [4 ]
 * Fifth revert [5 ]Soewinhan (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with the user above. User Okkar seems to have COI issue. He deleted every facts that against Burmese military government. See his removal of contents and tags at Myanmar Armed Forces article. He even accused me of vandalism at my talkpage. Soewinhan (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is purely sock puppeting. Both Soewinhan and Hybernator are working together.  Please note Fifth revert [5 ] was not releated to article The Irrawaddy.  The first 3 reverts were for May Sweet and the fourth was for The_Irrawaddy, and the fifth was for Myanmar Armed Forces.  As you can see both users are using their friendship outside of Wikipedia to gang up.  This is clearly sock puppeting.  Further more Hybernator reverted the article May Sweet even after he was warned by admin for 3RR rule, infact he was clearly in breach of 3RR rule.


 * I'll let others decide whether my edits are propaganda. If you accuse someone of sock-puppeting, you'd better have some proof. For the record, I don't need anyone's help to refute your comments. I'm quite sure Soewinhan doesn't need my help either. Hybernator (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Soewinhan kept removing Military related information such as units and battalion information, commander in chiefs names 'etc. from Myanmar Armed Forces article and replacing them with overtly political POV message copied from media. I have already asked him to include those message in correct pages and Myanmar Armed Forces is a military article and it should contain military related information. If he wishes to include alleged human rights issue, he can either include as a section or add to Human Rights in Burma article instead.  However, he refused to accept and begin edit warring.  Okkar (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

2) Okkar, you are going into unnecessary details about that particular part of history. Rarely anyone finds an military article in Wikipedia with several graphs like "Ethnic and Army Composition of Tatmadaw in 1948" and "Staff and Command Positions in War Office (1948)". Why not you also add all graphs from 1948 to 2011? On the contrary, that article has no history about post-1962 era at all. When I tried to fix, Okkar reverted my edits saying "Overt political messages / POV pushing" and "vandalism"? He didn't comment at talkpage and blatantly reverting my edits saying "vandalism".


 * You have accused virtually everyone in Wikproject:Burma of vandalism, including Chris, Hintha, Hybernator and me. You clearly has COI issue. Always edit Burmese military regime articles and refuse to add human right violations even if cited by reliable sources. Soewinhan (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1948 is the official starting point of Modern Myanmar Armed Forces after the independance, as such, detail composition of the Armed Forces after the command was transfer from the British to Myanmar Government. Dont forget this is the article about Myanmar Armed Forces.  It is entirely necessary.  We dont need to add everything from 1948 to 2011, but it is important to show where it started.  You seem to be hell bent on including political issues in a purely Military article.  No other country articles include such political information, for example such as Indonesia or China, where Armed forces are involved in politics but the respective pages does not include overtly political write ups copied from biased media.  Your have serious COI issue with the article because you want to use Wikipedia to paddle political message.  You shouldnt do that!  I asked you time and again to include alleged Human Rights issue in a section rather than at the top of the article.  Regardless of citing reliable sources, alebit they are biased, the main focus of article is Military, it is about Military and it is part of Military article stub, and it should remain that way!  Okkar (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On the note of COI issue, the sources you have cited in your edits are mainly political organisations. For example,  in this Free Burma Alliance is a political organisation and as such their views and information contained in the sources you have citied are highly disputable.  On the other hand, i have citied books published by well known authors such as Andrew Selth, or Prof. Desmond Balls or Prof. Maung Aung Myoe and also archives from Historical Museum.  These are all non-bias in and purely military information in nature.  So you see, you are the one with COI issue and not me.  I have asked you repeatedly to include your alleged human rights violation in a section within the article rather than replacing relevant military information.  You repeatedly refused and kept reverting the article and including copyrighted information also.  You were already warned by an admin about this too! Okkar (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you please do not lie. See this edition. No citation to Free Burma Alliance. Also, I didn't write anything by myself as I have said. I drew relavent materials from History of Burma article.
 * You first cited FreeBurma Alliance website was your source, when it was pointed out to you that it was "Copy Righted", you then relegated to stating Free Burma Alliance source their information from Wikipedia. This is cycalic sourcing, which means you and your friends update History of Burma according to your politica. leaning, and then it was sourced by Free Burma Alliance, you then use Free Burma Alliance as your source in other Wiki page.  This is clearly POV. Okkar (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is you who cited to DSHMIR archives (only available at a military office) which constitutes original research.
 * DSHMRI is a public museum, anyone can visit. It stands for Defence Services Historical Museum and Research Institute.  It is a Museum and free for anyone go and look around and learn about the Military History.  Selth, Andrew (2002): Burma's Armed Forces: Power Without Glory, (Eastbridge. ISBN 1891936131) also use the same museum as source in the book. Myoe, Maung Aung: Building the tatmadaw - Myanmar Armed Forces Since 1948, (Institute of SouthEast Asian Studies. ISBN 978-981-230-848-1) also use DSHMRI as source in the book.  Neither of them are current or former military officers. As a native from Myanmar, you know this full well about the fact that DSHMRI is a museum and you are just try to pull wools over the eyes of the admins here to gather support for your claims.  You should not lie like that! Okkar (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, you said that you are current/former officer of military which mean you definitely have COI issue. Please refrain from editing politically sensitive pages in which you are a member from one side.
 * Have you any proof that I am current or former officer from military?. Read back properly what i said in the [talk page you quoted.  I said it "I think you are just accusing me because I am not writing politically contentious things in the article. In case you forget, our objective is to contribute and we are contributing to a Military article and I will only write about things that are of Military nature, and that does not mean I am from Military. Even if I was from Military, that should not be of any issue since everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. This is what Wikipedia is all about." . At no point did i say that I was a serving or former officer from military.  Why do you have to lie like this?  If you want to accuse me, please provide proof that I am actually a current or former officer from military. [[User:Okkar|Okkar]] (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The administrator who has warned me also withdraw his/her warning. See his talkpage for details. Soewinhan (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice try with your lies again, Ronhjones did not withdraw his warning, you deleted it as you stated above in your point 1.  Ronhjones explain to you on his talk page that it was a bad edit and it violates policy.  Please stop twisting stories here!Okkar (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is not the correct forum to resolve your dispute. See WP:DISPUTE for your dispute resolution options. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Both articles protected for 3 days. I don't see anyone exceeding 3 reverts in either article, although Okkar does have four similar reverts, albeit on different articles. I'll let that go for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Awindom reported by User:Zakhalesh (Result: blocked 24h)
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:

First, I acknowledge I made a fourth semi-revert myself and I'm sorry. I thought Awindom removed the other alumni by accident, which I tried to clean up by readding the information that I thought was removed accidentally (without undoing the other changes, of course). The edit was soon reinstated.

Awindom hasn't replied to any attempts to contact him, nor does he use edit summaries. This combined with his style of editing gives a feeling of ownership and edit warring without any attempt at consensus. Judging by his username and editing, he is Amir Windom, and also has a conflict of interest when it comes to these alumni. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

~Amatulić (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Liz walters7 reported by User:Kuru (Result: blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 3/15 15:52
 * 2nd revert: 3/15 17:09
 * 3rd revert: 3/15 21:01
 * 3RR Warning: 3/15 21:38
 * 4th revert: 3/15 21:48

Comments:

Age old content dispute at National Council of La Raza over the translation and intent of the organization's title. New account re-added the literal version again today, and proceeded to re-add it three more times. Kuru  (talk)  21:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:37, 27 February 2011  (edit summary: "undo: we do not write in WP jargon, so "disambiguation" means what it says in the dictionary. edits were also factually incorrect: the ED is not in general said to be later than the RD.")
 * 2) 09:12, 27 February 2011  (edit summary: "Yes, seriously. You're obfuscating the situation, and misrepresenting the claim")
 * 3) 19:57, 27 February 2011  (edit summary: "*sigh*")
 * 4) 22:48, 27 February 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 416254088 by Jayjg (talk)--No, you stop edit warring: read BOLD if you don't know how WP works")
 * 5) 16:10, 1 March 2011  (edit summary: "rv. to stable version until this is resolved.")
 * 6) 07:01, 2 March 2011  (edit summary: " ")
 * 7) 22:18, 2 March 2011  (edit summary: "factually incorrect: ED is not, in general, said to be composed at a later date")
 * 8) 06:36, 3 March 2011  (edit summary: "rv. unencyclopedic edits. Jay, articles are not about terms. That's what the dictionary is for. Take it to talk.")
 * 9) 15:04, 4 March 2011  (edit summary: "restore & add refs")
 * 10) 07:18,  8 March 2011  (edit summary: "still no refutation of the basic premise, nor reason to delete the alternate names")
 * 11) 23:45, 10 March 2011  (edit summary: "it's been five days, and the deleting editors have failed to provide any sources supporting deletion")
 * 12) 02:51, 11 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 418231919 by Plot Spoiler (talk)--then define it appropriately. Don't delete sources wholesale.")
 * 13) 04:09, 13 March 2011  (edit summary: "rv. content deletion for mere stylistic reasons")
 * 14) 18:04, 15 March 2011  (edit summary: "integrate new source into article")
 * 15) 19:31, 15 March 2011  (edit summary: "Okay, but then let's start from the beginning, per WP:BOLD")
 * 16) 21:01, 15 March 2011  (edit summary: "No consensus for these changes on the talk page. Follow your own standards.")


 * Diff of warning: here (note, though I warned him I would report him on March 3, I delayed for almost two weeks, hoping he would stop reverting).


 * Comment: This is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR-violation report. For almost three weeks now has been reverting the Ritual Decalogue article, in almost all cases inserting the phrase  "one of three lists identified as the Ten Commandments in the Bible" (or close variations) into the lede. He has reverted 16 times now, and in turn been reverted by five different editors (Kwamikagami is the only editor supporting the use of this phrase). Despite lengthy objections to his edits on the Talk: page, Kwamikagami continues to revert, and apparently will never stop doing so, regardless of how many editors oppose him. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You have also edit warred, violating BOLD (it's not up to the reverter to justify the reversion, but the initial editor to justify that edit), adding information you must know to be inaccurate or misleading, deleting sourced information, refusing to supply sources for your claims, etc etc. It's also false that I'm the only one; two other editors have expressed support for what had been the consensus version until you and SLR expanded your POV war to this article, and one of the editors who reverted me (Lisa) accepted a compromise edit. As the outside editor who came to straighten this out remarked, trying to get sources out of the two of you "is like pulling teeth"; he also recognized the double standard that you two use, where you require no explicit sources for your edits and feel free to delete sourced information you disagree with. As for your primary contention, now that we have finally got a source from you that actually supports your claim (as all previous sources I was able to check did not), I combined them as two alternate POVs; that evidently is not enough, as you will only allow your own POV into the lede. We're an encyclopedia, and need to base our edits on sources, not on what we want to be true. SLR suggested that we go back to the beginning and discuss this on the talk page, but immediately reneged, reverting to your preferred POV when I returned the article to the pre-edit war consensus. This is simply ridiculous: provide sources for your claims, including why you feel the need to delete sourced information, to delete common names the subject goes by while substituting obscure ones, to promote one 19th-century theory over the scholarship that's gone since, etc.: that is, hold yourself to your standards for others, and we'll be fine. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't use me as an attempt to justify your edit warring. I accepted a "compromise" in hopes that you'd stop.  You haven't.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have stopped if our compromise had been accepted. But Jay just reverted it. I classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — kwami (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Namiba reported by User:Tzu Zha Men (Result: blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

All Arab-Israeli conflict articles are subject to 1RR, and a clear warning about this is both on the Talk page, and presented whenever a new edit is made on the page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Per the prominent notice on the Talk page, "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In addition to edit warring in violation of the 1RR imposed on all articles in the I/P conflict space, this edit violates both WP:BLP and WP:LABEL by adding a very contentious label ("terrorist") to a living person. The editor is engaged in similar edit warring involving the addition of contentions labels to BLPs in the I/P space (see for example


 * First off, I thought I had passed the 24 barrier. In fact, I was off by just a few minutes and for that I apologize. Anyway, Moshe Zar was not labeled a terrorist by me, but he was in fact part of a label terrorist organization, see Gush Emunim Underground and Jewish religious terrorism and this outside source. It is not my intention to get involved in the flame-throwing match over Israel-Palestine, but merely to add context. I can assure all adminstrators that I will be more careful with reverts and time in the future. Thanks--TM 16:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Allow me to express some skepticism with regard to the sincerity of the "It is not my intention to get involved in the flame-throwing match" comment, when it is followed almost instantly by the addition of the "terrorist" label to the biography of Moshe Zar, while relying on a source which does not use that word at all: . Also, you seem to be treating 1RR as an entitlement, implying that if you had held of for a few more minutes, you would not have been in violation. That is not correct. Tzu Zha Men (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

Not a first offense. And Tzu Zha Men is correct, 1RR isn't an entitlement. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:TheRealFennShysa reported by User:Synrfaytal (Result: User warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Talk page reverts:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Comments:

Hello. I'm a bit new to this, so I apologize for any error in protocol. On 8 March 2011, I included an external link to the Radio_drama article (then as User:24.18.132.182). The link was to a database of radio drama producers, shows, and cast members - sort of an IMDb for radio drama. My edit was reverted by User:TheRealFennShysa without explanation. I reverted it back and requested that he use the talk page to explain his actions. He then reverted the article back with an edit comment saying he thought the link was too close an already existing one. He also posted an edit war notice on my talk page.

I then when to his talk page to make my case for the inclusion. I gave him six days to respond and then added another comment asking him if he had anything to say about the matter. He then reverted my comments off of his talk page. Not really knowing what his opinion was, I included my edit into the article once again, commenting that I had tried to discuss the issue on his talk page without a response. He almost immediately reverted it back, labeling my edit as link spam. So I again went to his talk page to discuss the matter, and included several sources that pertained to why I though my edit merited inclusion in the article. Within a half hour, he erased those comments from his talk page as well, commenting that re had removed an IP edit.

So I signed up for an account and had a user name (User:Synrfaytal). I went back to his talk page and asked if he would care to discuss the matter. I waited for him to respond, but two days later he erased that comment from his talk page.

My issue isn't so much the inclusion of my edit into the article, although I believe that it is a valuable resource that pertains to it. If someone has an issue with an edit, it is Wikipedia's policy to talk the matter over and try to reach some sort of consensus. But if someone is going to continuously revert my edits, I at least want to have a two-way conversation about it. I am very mindful of edit warring and I've tried to include an explanation or comment in all my edits and reverts. I don't want to put my edit back up without some sort of official decision. I believe that I made a good case for my edit, but what can I do with a person who just deletes my conversation from his talk page? Synrfaytal (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User:TheRealFennShysa can revert his own talk page as much as he wishes, the other reverts are trivial but seem to be removing non-notable information. Seems to be abreach of WP:BRD by the new user.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All is see is a single purpose editor trying to promote a website. Continuing to spam the link will result in blocks of that account(s). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully admit that I am not as regular an editor as many people on Wikipedia are. As a radio drama enthusiast, my edits do focus on the subject simply because that's where my interests lie and I think I can share information with people who share an interest in it. But still, I believe that my link is consistent with the other accepted ones, is non-biased and fact-based, and provides a valuable resource for anyone wanting to research radio drama. In fact, the editor that made all the reverts implied that it was too closely related to an already accepted link, and that the information overlapped with it. The point of contention seems to be not that it is a link to a vanity site or such, but whether it contained enough unique content, which I tried to show that it did. An IMDb-style database of radio drama personnel is of great use to someone wishing to learn more on this topic. I think that in a case such as this, where it is basically one person's opinion versus another as to what is valuable to a subject, there should at least be a discussion. In the talk page reverts, I included several third-party sources that acknowledge its value to radio drama. I will definitely abide by the admins' decisions. I already said that I will not re-post my edit if it is decided that is not a valuable inclusion, but shouldn't that decision be made on the merits of the edit itself rather than the newness the the editor who made it? Synrfaytal (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result IP warned for spamming. Page will be watched for further SPA activity. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Oddbodz reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * – original first edit
 * – original edit reverted by Drmargi


 * – revert 1
 * – revert 2
 * – revert 3
 * – 217.34.55.17 makes the exact same edit
 * – 217.34.55.17 revert 1
 * – revert 4
 * – revert 5
 * – revert 6


 * – talk page discussin attempt
 * – 3RR warning

Comments: Content in itself not encyclopedic, names facebook fanpages as reliable source.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Dxdestroyer reported by User:Rehevkor (Result: declined)
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: User talk:Dxdestroyer

Comments: Using adding unsourced commentary/pov. Refusing to provide sources. Rehevkor ✉  21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor's final edit summary indicates agreement to stop warring. Blocks are not punitive. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:98.232.166.138 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: blocked 72h, article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (07:33, 13 March 2011)


 * 1st revert: (01:05, 16 March 2011)
 * 2nd revert: (02:19, 16 March 2011)
 * 3rd revert: (04:24, 16 March 2011)
 * 4th revert: (06:51, 16 March 2011)
 * 5th revert: (18:53, 16 March 2011)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR multiple warnings and previous blocks:

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

Comments: Please note recent identical warring from and ; all geolocate to Oregon, near the State University; common ISP, and all speak with one voice on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for 1 week. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome, User:Mobb One reported by User:Sharp962 (Result: malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No diff to 3RR warning, no 4th revert reported. User has a stale warning on talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the period during which those reverts were made was longer than 24 hours. HOOTmag (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Eliko reported by User:Basket of Puppies (Result: malformed)

 * Warning to Eliko:

Page: and

User being reported: Polyspermy
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [diff]

User_talk:Basket of Puppies Below represents WP:HARASSMENT on the part of Eliko. He is continually readding a warning to my talk page in violation of HARASSMENT and Don't restore removed comments
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th, related diff


 * I don't see four reverts in either of the diffs listed. In any case, Eliko has a short-term block for restoring templates on a user talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the second edit was self-reverted by the user themself, so it can't be counted as a "revert". See WP:3RR for more details. HOOTmag (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jonathangluck reported by User:Demiurge1000 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (before the reverts began)


 * 1st revert: (five edits in sequence, constituting one revert together)
 * 2nd revert: (two edits in sequence, constituting one revert together)
 * 3rd revert: (three edits in sequence, constituting one revert together)
 * 4th revert: (six edits in sequence with an intervening edit by another editor which only fixed a citation, so these six only count as one revert together)
 * 5th revert: (six edits in sequence, constituting one revert together)
 * 6th revert:  (two edits in sequence, constituting one revert together)
 * 7th revert: (one edit constituting the final revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Warning about inserting copyright violations; - this warning was made immediately before his second revert; he ignored it and continued to revert the copyright violations back into the article.

Recent ANI discussion about the same article, but preceding all of the listed reverts, in which the user was previously advised by three different editors, firstly that editorialising "is not ok; anything like that has to be quoted and attributed in-text"; secondly that "I'd like to suggest that you leave that article alone for a while" and thirdly that "Your misquoting of otherwise-reliable sources makes your material unusable under WP:BLP. That is the crux of the problem, and appears to be what has engendered this entire ANI discussion". Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive680

Preceding BLPN discussion about the same article and the material this user has been repeatedly edit warring to insert: BLPN

My attempts to engage User:Jonathangluck and others constructively on the article's talk page, in various sections including: Talk:Shmuley_Boteach ... Talk:Shmuley_Boteach ... Talk:Shmuley_Boteach ... Talk:Shmuley_Boteach ... Talk:Shmuley_Boteach

After all this reverting and Jonathangluck's claims that there is now no copyright problem, there are still obvious copyvios in the article. He needs to be stopped from edit warring to introduce and defend this type of material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

~Amatulić (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:


 * The article has had a lot of intervening edits since this report. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Beersaur reported by User:Doc9871 (Result: declined; warned)
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:

Reverted by three different editors, Beersaur wants to list Charlie Sheen as a "Notable warlock", combining Sheen's media comments and his own original research ("...has played the character of warlock in the short film..."). He directed others to the talk page several times and issued a statement, but never responded there afterwards. Stopped reverting only after 3 warnings for vandalism, then scoffed at the 3RR warning with, "woo scary. 3RR, I might get blocked. How tough are you.... haha lolz". Certainly a 3RR violation and certainly not a regular contributor (with this account). Doc  talk  06:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring, but only prior to the warning, and no more edit-warring since then. Will leave very clear warning.  Sandstein   20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :> Doc   talk  20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Pensionero reported by User:Chech Explorer (Result: blocked 72 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user tends to impose his nationalistic views on a number of articles on Wikipedia and has received many warnings on his talk page before and has even been blocked but continues to deny dialog and insist on his nationalistic views.


 * Also warned of applicable arbitration cases.  Sandstein   20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:71.203.85.14 reported by User:Tom Morris (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * ~Amatulić (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The revert warring is obvious if you look at the article history. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Eliko reported by User:Basket of Puppies (Result: declined)
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:

Comments:

Eliko has already been blocked for WP:HARASSMENT and is continuing to edit-war against WP:CONSENSUS. I urge the reviewing admin to take into consideration his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and consider the spirit of 3RR over the letter of the law. Basket of Puppies 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Editor has already been blocked subsequent to their last edit revert. Piling on more blocks would not help. Note: the last two diffs reported are sequential (interrupted only by a self-revert) and count as one revert.  Sandstein   21:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply He is continuing to edit-war against consensus and even after being blocked. The issue is on-going and blocking would prevent further disruption. Basket of Puppies  21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that in the contributions. Can you provide a diff of edit-warring after the block?  Sandstein   21:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strike my last. He made that revert previous to being blocked. He has still violated 3RR (either in spirit or in actuality) and editing against CONSENSUS, but he has not reverted post-block. Basket of Puppies  21:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Eliko's comments:
 * I didn't make even one revert - during the 24 hours (of 16-17 March) to which User:Basket of Puppies refers! Let me explain that:
 * The first diff belongs to 15 March, whereas the fourth and fifth diffs belong to 17 March, so where is the 24 hours needed for having violated the 3RR?
 * The second diff does not show a revert at all, because it does not revert to a previous version! On the contrary: In this new version of mine, I just improved the article according to User:Basket of Puppies' comments, as indicated on the edit summary ibid.
 * The third "revert" was self-reverted by myself, so it shouldn't be considered a "revert" - according to Wikipedia guidelines.
 * The fourth and fifth diffs - are the same diff - and show the same edit ! From 17 March at 01:17 ! Further, the edit shown by those identical diffs - does not show a revert at all, because it does not revert to a previous version! On the contrary: In this new version of mine, I just improved the article according to User:Basket of Puppies' comments, as indicated on the edit summary ibid.


 * As for User:Basket of Puppies' claim that I edit "against consensus": Not at all! I've already explained on my talk page that:
 * Returning the chapter they had removed - is not against the consensus at all. The chapter is supported by User:(MOB)DeadMeat, and is also supported by User:Chrishatch1973, and is also supported by User:Eliko; whereas the removal of the chapter is supported by User:Basket of Puppies and is also supported by User:DragonflySixtyseven only. So which option is more consensual? Returning the chapter, or removing it?


 * Further, I'm the only user who has really been discussing the issue on the article talk page! Further, I'm the only user who has been trying to "make the article better" (as Admin:Pete has suggested), not by reverting anything to a previous version - but rather by improving (again and again) the chapter that was wrongfully removed by others. Administrator:Pete agreed with me on my talk page (17 March, at 18:22).


 * Further, Basket of Puppies' request has already been declined by Sandstein (see above).


 * Eliko (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result:1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: (final revert of en dashes that had been restored after an earlier edit)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion at Talk:Mexican-American_War

Comments:

Pmanderson is on a crusade against the en dash. Regardless of what one feels about it, it should be discussed at the MOS page.

The edit summaries and comments on the talk page indicate he is editing in bad faith. For example, "Revert Original Research. This is not English - and the Manual of Style does not support it." All three points are false, and Pmanderson is obviously intelligent enough to understand that: The en dash is supported by RSs, as Pmanderson has admitted; it obviously is English; and it obviously is supported by the MOS (despite the fact that Pmanderson has misrepresented the MOS on this point), as the reason for the recent page move was that WP:TITLE takes precedence over WP:MOS. There was no conclusion that the MOS should be suspended for this article because of the move. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. You are arguing over whether this should read "Mexican-American War" or "Mexican—American War"? Where is Jonathan Swift when you need him most... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not. ;-> Actually, Kwami is arguing. There was a closed Move Request on the matter, and Kwami wishes to reverse it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My first edit is not a revert; it is an effort to secure one spelling of "Mexican-American War" in the article; a novel state of the text. That spelling is the one established by the recently closed Move Request, at Talk:Mexican-American War which Kwami would like to overturn.


 * Kwami's edits are all like this one, they are exact reversions; they break the consistency of spelling, contrary to MOS:CONSISTENCY; they reintroduce from 1846—48, a construction explicitly against WP:ENDASH.


 * In short, Kwami, having pressed 3RR to its elastic limit, is now coming here to settle a style dispute. In the process, he has neared vandalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The first edit was a revert. The only legitimate point Pmanderson makes is that I reverted corrections to the article. He was so quick to re-revert that there was an edit conflict when I tried to restore them. (Funny how he complains that violates ENDASH when he has edit warred to violate ENDASH.) — kwami (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? What edit am I reverting to?


 * As for the rest of this: it is a confession that when I restored his reversion, and began a discussion, he did not follow BRD; but reverted twice more immediately.  (For anybody who is interested in ENDASH, see the linked move discussion; WP:DASH does not support a dash here - outside Kwami's imagination; WP:HYPHEN 3 indicates a hyphen. I am therefore - as the move shows - defending WP:DASH against a small group of wilfull editors, who would like to make it say something it does not.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, the only point of interest here is that I do not intend to revert again. If Kwami performs a fourth revert, or tag-teams to do so, I will consider whether I wish to come back here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I make a modest proposal? Since there seems little possibility of reaching a compromise here, Wikipedia should instead have two articles: one on the Mexican-American War and another on the Mexican—American War. Let the readers decide for themselves which article they prefer... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The first edit is indeed a (partial) revert to this, in which Enric Naval changed to hyphens (later, these were reverted to en-dashes by Tony1). Regardless of whether that one is or is not a revert, this is; it reverts this. Though it falls outside the 24-hour limit for 3RR, with Pmanderson's history of edit warring blocks, he should really know better than to even approach it. It is on these grounds that I'm blocking Pmanderson for 1 week. If he had no history, I'd take his statement that he intends not to revert again as enough, but with all the edit warring blocks already, I'm not willing to accept his statement.
 * @kwami: I can't really see how your use of rollback in this dispute was justified, so unless I've missed something, please don't in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. You didn't miss anything. I get annoyed by editors who play stupid in disputes, but I should follow the proper procedure regardless. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, I'd like to invite AndyTheGrump to join me in holding a seance to retrieve Jonathan Swift from whatever mild (if justice exists) climes he may be enjoying these days. Second, isn't a one-week block a little disproportionate to the offense? Heimstern Läufer points out that the 3RR case here is far from straightforward (one is partial, there are intervening parties, one is outside the 24-hour period), and the content issue is a few punctuation marks, not funny things John Seigenthaler does with gerbils on the steps of the faux Parthenon. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad decision, Heimstern. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cynwolfe, I would agree if not for Pmanderson's long history of blocks for edit warring. That is the justification for length of this block.
 * Seb az, bothering to explain why would be appreciated. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that both were warring and kwami is pretty much gaming the system by being able to count to 3. At your discretion, you should block both or none. If nothing else, WP:BOOMERANG should be given some sorta consideration, esp. when you look at the corresponding talk page. Have you read it? Anderson's revert was 3 hours ago, so your assumption that s/he won't stick to the promise sounds more like jailing the usual suspects. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered blocking both. kwami's lack of a history of blocks for edit warring plays into my decision not to, as does the fact that Pmanderson is fighting a himself vs. everyone else edit war here: others have also reverted to the en-dash version, only Pmanderson has reverted to the hyphen version. And again, it's really the history that matters here. Arbcom has again and again affirmed recidivism as a principle for sanctioning editors. Yes, I read the talk, and I saw nothing there that convinced me any different. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert, but only because I was waiting for the second RM to close. It was Tony1 who first reverted, against the closing of the first RM. Kwami restored Tony1's removal of hyphens when his RM was still ongoing, which I find to be incorrect. (But, anyways, everyone should have waited until the RM(s) closed). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kwami and Pmanderson have a history of butting heads. Both are knowledgable, but come from different perspectives (generally, linguistics vs. philology). There are inequities of power because kwami is an admin. Anyone who's worked professionally in publishing knows that it's impossible to arrive at a one-size-fits-all stylebook; The New Yorker MOS is quite different from that of The New York Times, and internal challenges to even the best thought-out stylebook will always arise. WP used to deal with this by permitting variants to coexist, as long as they could be justified by a legitimate school of usage. Top-down rules with rigid enforcement are contrary to WP's original spirit, and it must be difficult for long-time editors to adjust to this. The 3RR is shaky, the content issue is trivial, and therefore a block of one week is excessive. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about 3RR being shaky, and, believing the block was about that, initially opposed it (see PMA's talk page). But now I understand that the block is ultimately about PMA engaging in yet another edit war.  Until he learns to avoid edit warring when he's in a conflict, I don't see any remedy besides blocking.  Do you?  And as I said on his talk page, since one-week blocks have proven to be insufficient in the past, I doubt one week will be long enough this time.   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Faraon24 reported by User:Patrick Rogel (Result: decline)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No edits since actually being informed of WP:3RR; simply linking the policy in an edit summary might be considered sufficient since Faraon24 was clearly expecting their own edit summaries to be read, but a relatively green user should not be expected to realize the importance of those three little characters.
 * Patrick Rogel: you started the talkpage discussion, but you might have done more to encourage the debate to move there. It takes two to edit war.
 * Faraon24: you made calls for discussion in your edit summaries, but appear not to have posted to Talk:Adam Skorek recently. When it was clear that your edit summaries were not sufficient to make your point, it would have been better to expand upon your reasoning at the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gold Hat reported by User:Chzz (Result: SNAFU)
Page:

User being reported:



Diff of related warning:

Comments:

User_talk:Amalthea

 Chzz  ► 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This appears to have all been sorted out;


 * So, IDK. Have a cup of tea, or something. All good.  Chzz  ►  13:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For reference, User talk:Elen of the Roads. Closing this. Amalthea  14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou reported by 78.1.99.215 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User:Timbouctou is constantly reverting the  removing sourced statements and inserting WP:OR, weasel words  and other unsourced nonsense etc.


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


 * - 2/0 (cont.) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GiovBag reported by User:IANVS (Result: protected)
Page: User being reported:

Many reverts since yestarday (see), against more than 3 other editors: Last major reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

He made more than 3 reverts after beign warned:
 * 

User holds his "rights" to mass contested changes on a discussion at talk page, in which he gained no consensus: Talk:Argentines_of_European_descent

He's been remainded of 3RR ta talk page, also:

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GiovBag, if other editors find your explanations unconvincing, please seek additional input as outlined at Dispute resolution. Repeatedly insisting that your preferred version of the article is the only correct one is not acceptable. If Wikipedia were run on a punitive rather than preventative model, you would be blocked for edit warring. Remember: there is no deadline for completion, so the article can afford to wait while consensus develops.
 * IANVS, the article history indicates that this report was ripe several hours ago at least. Part of due diligence in closing these reports is to determine whether there is a version of the article that has consensus and to examine the edits of all parties. Please do not refer to the good faith contributions of your fellow volunteers as vandalism. Reverting vandalism is an exception to WP:3RR, but your edits here do not qualify. If Wikipedia were run on a punitive rather than preventative model, you would be blocked for edit warring. Please also remember to notify the other user when you make a report such as this one. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IANVS, the article history indicates that this report was ripe several hours ago at least. Part of due diligence in closing these reports is to determine whether there is a version of the article that has consensus and to examine the edits of all parties. Please do not refer to the good faith contributions of your fellow volunteers as vandalism. Reverting vandalism is an exception to WP:3RR, but your edits here do not qualify. If Wikipedia were run on a punitive rather than preventative model, you would be blocked for edit warring. Please also remember to notify the other user when you make a report such as this one. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:passionless reported by User:mbz1 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

user:passionless just returned from indefinite block and right away started edit warring on the article that is under 1RR as all articles related to I/P conflict. More than that user:Passionless is limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 September 2011. Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Mbz1 does not seem to understand that my three edits made within 10 minutes without a major edit by anyone inbetween them is considered a single edit. Passionless   -Talk  03:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I read REVERT, and did not find anything about 10 minutes. Besides it was more like 17 minutes difference, and you yourself edited other pages in between your reverts. So I do believe you made 3 reverts and did violate your own and the article editing restriction. You made your last the third revert after I asked you to stop --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I responded to your message on my talk page in the middle of my edits!...and the last edit took longer than norm cause of a major edit conflict- I too was going to fix grammar. Passionless   -Talk  03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody forced you to make this third revert 17 minutes after you made the first one, and after I warned you, and you responded. There were quite a few edits made to the article between your reverts. Besides in at least two of your reverts you reverted info supported by a few wp:rs. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[socky post snipped]
 * The above user has one edit and it is to this page. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 04:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above user is a sock of a banned user, who has not a slightest idea what it is talking about, and now it is blocked. I reverted it.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've warned User:Passionless. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * by Gwen Gale. I would have blocked if I had seen this first, so let that fact reinforce Gwen's warning. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Daizus (Result: Decline)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article has an over-sized footnote on the theories of some Hungarian authors. I found that presented with undue-weight. Borsoka keeps removing the "undue weight" inline tag, without addressing the objections. Daizus (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE from uninvolved editor: The first edit shown above was made on 1st March. On 18th March Borsoka made an edit (the article hadn't been edited for more than two weeks (!) before this one) and three reverts. Daizus similarly reverted three times, but he forgot to report himself. Besides, Borsoka DID engage in a lengthy discussion on the talk page, Daizus simply didn't accept her answer. That's what he calls "without addressing the objections". Squash Racket (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake for the first diff, it should have been this one: (as you can see he changed the text AFTER the tag and he thought that is good enough reason to delete the tag also). On March 18, he removed the undue-weight tag 4 (four) times. He indeed engage in a lengthy discussion on the talk page, but he did not provide any reason why is it due weight (he kept repeating "Sorry I cannot understand your concerns"). Moreover the last edits were with no discussion whatsoever, he only kept reverting. Daizus (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no 3RR violation here, the edit-warring has not yet reached blockable proportions and I see some attempts at compromise. CIreland (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mystichumwipe and User:No More Mr Nice Guy reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:


 * Original edit: by No More Mr Nice Guy, March 15
 * 1st revert: by Mystichumwipe, March 17
 * 2nd revert: by No More Mr Nice Guy, March 17
 * 3rd revert: by Mystichumwipe, March 18
 * 4th revert: by No More Mr Nice Guy, March 18
 * 5rd revert: by Mystichumwipe, March 18
 * 6th revert: by No More Mr Nice Guy, March 19

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mystichumwipe, No More Mr Nice Guy has been notified in the past

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

The Invention of the Jewish People, like all pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict is subject to 1RR. User:Mystichumwipe and User:No More Mr Nice Guy each make one revert per day so this is a slow-moving edit war, but it is an edit war nonetheless. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Mystichumwipe and I adhered to the 1RR restriction all IP related articles are subject to. If you take a close look at the diffs, you'll see they're not all the same. We are making slow progress (one of Myst's changes was even accepted by me as a reviewer). Not sure why Malik felt he should run to the boards rather than maybe post something on the talk page to help us find wording we can both agree on, but never mind. Anyway, I'll self revert my last edit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:ComtesseDeMingrélie reported by User:Maunus (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:ComtesseDeMingrelie is just coming out of a 31 block for editwarring and is at it again... ·Maunus· ƛ · 02:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a 3rr report but an editwarring report. This user came straight out of a 31 hour block for reverting five and four times on two different articles and continued reversion. I think there is every basis for action here - it shows that he has not taken the editwarring policy to heart during his previous block. I think you should reconsider here.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not provide sufficient sources and that is why I reverted it. Linking to a website did not help us identify concrete evidence in any way. In this regard, you were edit warring as much as I. Providing these links while excluding what I wrote on talk pages is unfair and you know that.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie  15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, Arguni reverted twice and I reverted twice. You reverted three times removing sourced content in the face of two disagreeing editors. That is editwarring. I personally don't care one little bit about who is or isn't a mingrelian, but I do care about the way in which you try to enforce your personal viewpoint through editwarring. That is not acceptable and if you do not realise that you have to discuss instead of revert you will end up being blocked for a lot longer than 31 hrs.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it possible that your and Arguni's initial edits do not need to be discussed before being made but my reverts do? Throwing something in and then hoping that discussions are going to drag on does not help. When he saw that his edits were disputed (and being reverted is a clear sign of that), instead of reverting it back he was supposed to be the one opening the discussion as he was the one who initiated the change.You are playing with double standards and just because you are an administrator do not think that I am going to swallow this bias or any of your threats.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie  21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ComtesseDeMingrélie is editwarring according as his own opinions, here are the examples. I just wanted to change their nationalist propagandas about Lazs and Laz language. There are other users too who are spreading this propaganda with using wikipedia policies as politely. English wikipedia is not a playground of some users and this is not acceptable. Arguni (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You and your companion Apswaa, Arguni, were the ones who started ceaseless POV pushing, I was reverting it all merely because you have not answered multiple questions that I and some other users posed on the talk pages. Your goal on wikipedia is to promote secessionism, evident in your support of Apswaa and deliberate targeting of Georgia-related pages.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie  18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you speaking about? I said 100 times that i have no relation with Apswaa and i don't support anyone here. Stop this prejudiced blames about me. Arguni (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Bakhshi82 reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

On the 13th
 * 1st revert:

On the 19th
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The editor hardly discusses anything on the talk page, and seems to only use it to state that his edits should be in the lead, disregarding the Talk:Titanic (1997 film) discussion which centers on POV/unsourced/WP:Weasel wording and inaccuracies, and continues to revert to his version. All of this has also led to this discussion: Talk:Titanic (1997 film). But he is not willing to compromise; check out diffs 3 and 4 (on the 19th), and this comment in that discussion:. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Fully protected one week. Consider opening up an WP:RfC. The talk discussion is vigorous, but the fact that consensus is not reached does not seem to inhibit anyone from reverting whatever they want into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking over this case. Consensus has actually been reached about which version of the lead should be employed. See the section on a compromise proposal for a quick answer. Now there is only a minor issue of wording for the reported editor. But I suppose protecting the article for a week will not hurt, since the reported editor does keep "tweaking" a few words, and the article is not that active with editing (already being GA and all). Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Michael.suede reported by User:Spacehippy (Result:blocked 1 month )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

As far as we can tell on the talk page, this user is an advocate of the fringe theory known as plasma cosmology (see also the discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard). The user has been pushing his own views which he discussed on his external website and elsewhere. On this website, which is a forum for proponents of plasma cosmology, the user calls for others to participate in the edit war. The tone of this user on the talk page has been quite disruptive; it has essentially become a flame war. It is clear that this user is not willing to participate in consensus building. I also (embarrassingly) participated in this edit war; I apologize for this. At this point, the assistance of an administrator is necessary for this problem to be resolved. Spacehippy (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One month block. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tomstedham reported by User:RolandR (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Result: Warned. The editor broke WP:3RR but stopped reverting the article after getting a 3RR warning. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:MarshalN20 reported by IP 200.87.23.193 (Result: Protected)
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:

Earlier today it has been advised to avoid edit wars there was a previous formal mediation Requests for mediation/Diablada involving this user, I'm afraid the conflicts will arise again. It has been told the user to refrain from accusing of vandalism and defamation, the following statement is just more of that. There is no evidence of puppetry and can be checked if necessary. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would recommend to the reviewer to pay special attention to the links provided below, the full phrase says "...but I do see many revisions as "rv vandalism" when the edits aren't necessarily vandalism. I strongly recommend all users follow the WP:BRD system, and that Marshal refrain from reverting edits as "vandalism." Beyond that if anyone violates the three revert rule it should be reported at WP:AN3" which is what MarshalN20 is precisely doing here, my edits were also reviewed by User:Swarm and none of them were vandalism as he said also in the link provided, the same happens with the sockpuppetry accusation which was dismissed and later MarshalN20 unnecessarily even though it was a closed case started ranting, it's not a crime to read the rules before editing, there wasn't any "massive" image deletion I counted myself there were just 3 images, one low res map that seems disputed, one duplicated image and one that I didn't notice wasn't before, after MarshalN20 claims (though unfounded) I decided that the best way to be fair was to keep some of the changes proposed just fixing the POV issues (notice that the claims were at 16:11 GMT while my later edits were at 18:16 GMT yet the user tries to depict me as an irrational vandal who will destroy the article, while in the last trend of my edits the source, and should be notice is one not sources, is still in the first sentence, regardless that I consider it violating the NPOV because as the introduction later says, is danced in other places too, the low res map is still there, yet this person continues making a scandal and tries to get me banned by all means just for not liking his map, which will never hide the fact that he reverted 5 times in less than 6 hours, this only aggravates the situation when MarshalN20 could just have followed Swarm's advice and talk politely in the talk page instead of reverting constantly. Honestly speaking I believe that perhaps there should be a more in-depth review oh this article's history and the mediation, I think that there is a more complex problem with this user's behavior towards others. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All of my reverts are explained in the history of the links. This IP user (showing signs of being a puppet) has been vandalizing the article by: As such, reverting vandalism is not a 3RR problem. The real problem is having the vandal himself come and denounce the editor that has been reverting his vandalism. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Deleting sourced material.
 * 2) Deleting valid images (including this edit ).
 * 3) Being a sockpuppet of User:Erios30 (to evade 3RR). Investigation is currently being carried out at Sockpuppet investigations/Erios30.
 * 4) IP later admits to having deleted sourced material (but still deletes image: ). So, his first two pieces of rv evidence are invalid by his own confession.
 * 5) Third rv evidence demonstrates massive deletion of images:.
 * 6) The Wikiquette reviewer explicitly wrote: "I don't see any violations of civility". Despite this resolution, this user keeps accusing me of personal attacks and "defamation."
 * 7) For the last 3 alleged rv evidences, the following little conversation demonstrates the IP user didn't even bother to look at the description page of the image. The evidence for this is that he claims the "yellow area" of the map means the location of origin of the Diablada . I responded to him that the description page (in Wikimedia Commons) clearly has the yellow area labeled as the Altiplano region ( and the description page link, ). Conclusion: This IP address blunders his own argument by demonstrating he was simply deleting images with no real reason whatsoever; he had not even read the description page. This constitutes vandalism.
 * Result: Article protected one week. Please use this time to search for consensus on the talk page. Erios30 may be new here, but that editor has a record of contributions on the Spanish Wikipedia. On the other hand, it is strange for an IP with no track record to be making filings at WP:AN3. If you expect to be posting at noticeboards, you should create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time, I'll create an account right now. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

79.228.211.155 reported by User:GageSkidmore (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has continually reverted the article without discussing the issue on the talk, writing "Why?" when I attempted to direct them to bring up the issue on the Talk page. Despite this, they have reverted the article four times, and removed the 3RR template from their talk page by blanking it, and pasting it on mine instead. I have attempted to get the user to discuss why they believe the article should be changed to their version, but they have made no attempts whatsoever. Gage (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Both parties have broken 3RR, but there seems to be a formatting convention for the earlier seasons of Family Guy, and the IP is reverting against it for season 9. The IP just keeps reverting and offers no reasons for his preference. Since 24 hours have passed since the IP's last revert, a block may not be needed. If this resumes, submit again and the IP may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:223.29.227.6 reported by User:Minimac (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

It isn't just this article, but this IP has revert-warred on all articles contributed by Shshshsh. It's suspected that this IP is used by banned user User:Dr.Mukesh111, due to the nature of the edits. Me and Shshshsh have tried their hardest to revert their contribs, but this isn't working without a block. Minima c  ( talk ) 10:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * - 3RR, hounding, disruptive editing. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:08, 22 March 2011 (direct revert)
 * 2) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (revert of this edit)
 * 3) 17:37, 22 March 2011 (revert of this edit)
 * 4) 18:54, 22 March 2011 (revert of this edit)
 * 5) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (revert all the way back to here


 * Diff of warning: latest one here, user has been blocked for 3RR multiple times


 * What the hell? These are completely unrelated edits. The first one is a revert of vandalism. User:Lildyson314 (a SPA or sock) has removed sourced content from the article for no apparent reason.The other are normal article's changes. I'm working with collaborating editors on the talk page, but there are those that prefer to act in groups to revert my edits without discussion, forcing me into the 3RR trap. --Damiens .rf 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Item #5 is not event a revert. One of the links dates back to 2009! --Damiens .rf 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * #5 is bogus, but the first 4 are a clear violation. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:BornonJune8 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 31h)
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:

BornonJune8 is also editwarring on Season Finale: The Unexpected Rise and Fall of The WB and UPN and quite a few other articles where this new template has been added. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've very clearly stated and articulated my rationale behind why I felt that the CW Television Network template should include topics (since I strongly believe that they're essential in said network's history/background) involving the UPN and WB networks. I don't think that my fellow editors have really bothered to not seriously look into this particular factor (its practically been glossed over as if they aren't just as important). This is proof that the two networks merged, and not simply shut down with this brand new entity coming to fill the void per se: http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/commentary/mediabiz/index.htm

BornonJune8 (talk) 10:10 p.m., 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation. It is not enough to 'clearly state and articulate' your rationale. You also need to persuade the other editors that your version is correct. If the others disagree you should wait for consensus and not just continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Msnicki reported by User:Grandscribe (Result: Protected)
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:

As can be seen the definition of Bash needs to be improved. My contributions were done in good faith. Unfortunately Msnicki did not collaborate. He simply engaged in edit warring and has reverted revert my edits 6 times already. He has acted in bad faith by accusing me of vandalism because I did not agree with his reverts. A contribution by user Gronky is trying to help improve the Bash article but Msnicki is also threatening to revert his edits.

--Grandscribe (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that Grandscribe is unhappy. The edits Grandscribe wanted were discussed on the Talk:Bash (Unix shell) page.  When it became clear that we could not resolve it, I requested a WP:Third opinion which supported my position, that we should not allow GNU to speak in Wikipedia's voice, as the Third opinion pointed out.  Grandscribe ignored the Third opinion and wasn't able to drum up any other support for his position despite what I regard as a misrepresent of the disagreement.


 * I only began characterizing Grandscribe's attempts to continue inserting the same (or substantially the same) peacock language as vandalism after I made clear I was relying specifically on the Third opinion. I do my best to follow to rules and correctly use the tools (I'm using WP:Twinkle) to give appropriate warnings.  For example, I know from a previous (otherwise irrelevant) experience, editors are generally entitled to warnings about their behavior that got ignored before you have grounds to complain about them.  (And, btw, I notice Grandscribe has not done that here.)  Here is where I posted the warnings, which Grandscribe promptly deleted, also claiming vandalism.  And here is where I explained why I had given the warning.  But I'm not perfect in either my knowledge of the rules or in the use of the software.  If my characterization is judged unfair by consensus, then I promise to acknowledge my error, make an apology and follow whatever advice I'm given in the future.


 * I am committed to following the rules, treating other editors with respect and to the basic principle that this is a consensus project. I am open to suggestions for how I can improve.  But all that's going on here is that Grandscribe is unhappy that he wasn't successful in demanding that his view had to be the consensus.  Msnicki (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: Protected three days. This looks to be a slow-motion edit war. Both Grandscribe and Msnicki have misused the term 'vandalism' in their edit summaries, and I hope it does not continue. Grandscribe seemed to misinterpret Msnicki's 3RR warning template as a 'blocking threat'. Msnicki is not correct in believing that reverting a WP:3O suggestion is vandalism. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment and get it advertised. The RfC could ask which of two versions ought to be in the lead. An RfC sometimes brings in new people to a discussion, which can help to break a deadlock. Nearly all of the recent edits on the article seem to be reverts, so you all need to work on getting consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my incorrect use of the term vandalism. Msnicki (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:85.2.10.158 reported by Strikerforce (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:40, 22 March 2011  (edit summary: "Exposed the Cherokee Troll trying to delete G-WAN")
 * 2) 12:07, 22 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420132439 by Strikerforce (talk) Vandals at work (again...)")
 * 3) 12:09, 22 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134346 by Strikerforce (talk) Not impressed by the Opinion of the guilty "fellow editors"")
 * 4) 12:13, 22 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134636 by Syrthiss (talk) Vandal gaming Wikipedia to hide its crimes")


 * Diff of warning: here

It should also be pointed out that this user is utilizing a dynamic IP and is currently engaged in a very heated discussion at AfD. There is an RFC open that includes all IPs that this user has used —Strikerforce (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - user has now logged in as User:Bugapi and reverted to their preferred version, per this edit. Link added by Strikerforce Syrthiss (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected by Excirial. has been indef blocked by Excirial. The article has been nominated for deletion. The semiprotection will keep  Bugapi's IP socks from continuing to add nonsense to the article during the deletion debate. Notice Sockpuppet investigations/Bugapi and WP:Requests for comment/Bugapi. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * Note that the 2nd through 5th are within a 24 hour period.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Issue was discussed by User: Oda Mari and User: Prodego on User:Keyssence's talk page. User was informed that the point xe is disputing is explicitly governed by WP:NC-KO, specifically because this is a problem that has caused numerous edit wars in the past; as such, a clear, unambiguous set of naming conventions were set up so that we didn't have to debate the same issue again every page this body of water is named on.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. It is too long since the last revert to issue a block. If this behavior resumes, a substantial block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Bugapi reported by Strikerforce (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:17, 22 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134954 by Strikerforce (talk) Accused of vandalism while I AM THE AUTHOR OF THIS WHOLE ARTICLE")
 * 2) 12:36, 22 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420136622 by Tom Morris (talk)")
 * 3) 12:42, 22 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420137537 by Tom Morris (talk) Tom Morris removed a (requested) reference showing no vulnerabilities in server")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Strikerforce (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked indef by User:Excirial. Another report of the same dispute was closed here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:SuperblySpiffingPerson reported by User:Avanu (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuperblySpiffingPerson#Your_recent_edits_and_.27Neutral_Point_of_View.27_in_Wikipedia

Comments:

I'm not certain what the proper forum for this is, but the editor above seems to be tearing through Wikipedia at full speed to make changes to as many articles as possible in order to push forward a certain viewpoint, which seems to be somehow biased in a manner to minimize/delegitimize Gaddafi, and present the conflict in Libya as heading already toward a new transitional government. This is leading other editors to have to 'head him off at the pass', in order to stabilize articles that are already heated with many editors interesting in editing.

Most recently the persistent bias was presented in the following comment: "far too much emphasis on one spokesman of the Jamahiriya" which is the editor's way of referring to Gaddafi. Today, March 23rd alone, Superbly has made 60 edits, which include 10 new pages that are moves of existing pages. Other editors are trying to maintain these articles, keep bias in check, and provide sourced material, but I am puzzled how a user that made no edits before March 11, seems to have a firm grasp on page moving and editing so quickly, maybe they're just precocious. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Talkpage discussion has exposed the consensus that a civil war is being referred to by the outdated and minimising term 'uprising'. The two armies are the Jamahiriya and NTC-commanded Transitionists. This war involves vastly more participants than one family. That family name does receive mention, but per WP:Undue not constant and defining mention for all points of the entire war.

Libya isn't under a transition, 'Transitionist' is just a name of one participant in the ongoing war only because they chose to call themselves a national council by that appelation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. You should wait for consensus to be reached on the disputed names. Going ahead and renaming things unilaterally won't win you any friends here. You have also been misusing the 'minor edit' flag. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom reported by Philip Baird Shearer (Result: No action taken)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: -- but not all the time some of the edits are reverts of other intermediate edits.


 * 1st revert: diff "These changes turn a clear and concise history of the celebration into a factoid-filled badly-written mess. Reverting as per talk."
 * 2nd revert: diff "No discussion needed. Your changes are awful."

Having had two edits reverted rather than continue I (PBS) made a different edit which did not alter anything previously altered:

Change by PBS diff "minor changes new stub section Bonfire Night around the world"
 * 3rd revert: diff "Undid revision 420190901 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) What on earth is the point of this?"

Another change by PBS diff "Moved contemporary photo to the top"
 * 4th revert: diff "two images in the lead doesn't work"

Edits by Moonraker2 diff
 * 5th revert: diffs This is an edit made in multiple parts, and the diffs are complicated, but as an example of a reversal specifically look at the removal of section headers introduced by Moonraker2.

There is no need for a warning as Parrot of Doom is an experienced editor and has been warned in the past see here. I will post a message to POD's talk page that this entry exists

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff is not appropriate see the section Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 4 which I created as a new section ten minute before my initial bold edit to the article (that was made at 15:12, 22 March 2011) --PBS (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

It is possible to argue that the fourth and fifth reverts are part of the same revert because they were in a sequence of multiple edits ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). In which case the 3RR is only breached once not twice. But I chose to show them separately because they reverted the edits of two different editors and were not related. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if any admins looking at this could take into account the confrontational approach and WP:CIVIL violations shown by Parrot of Doom on the Talk:Guy Fawkes Night page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a 3RR violation, though the submitter could choose to view this as a complaint of long-term edit warring. As an admin, PBS must be familiar with the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. I have asked him if he has any suggestions for how to resolve this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocking would be entirely unproductive at this juncture. Basic dispute resolution would be far more helpful. Ghmyrtle, you might want to review your own conduct&mdash;it wasn't helpful at all for you to tell PoD to read WP:OWN in the manner that you did. NW ( Talk ) 06:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. My only comment that, in over four years of (wholly block-free and generally uncontentious) editing, I have never, ever, seen a more blatant case of WP:OWN than on that article.  It's unfortunate, but until the editor recognises that there is an issue there and undertakes to edit as part of a collective project, there is no possibility of that article being improved, and that is a shame.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NuclearWarfare why would blocking be unproductive? This is about a breach of the 3RR this is not usually discretionary. -- PBS (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston. Can we narrow it down which of the first four was not a revert? -- PBS (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @PBS: All admin actions are discretionary&mdash;there is no User:3RR Admin Blocking Bot. It is clear that discussion is proceeding on the talk page. What purpose would blocking serve? NW ( Talk ) 16:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it a mistake to combine edit warring with the 3RR rule, and this I think that this rather confirms it! You ask "What purpose would blocking serve?" it would serve as a future deterrent for PoD not to flout the 3RR rule, particularly given the comment by PoD in response to the posting by me of the message to PoD's talk page, which shows no indication of contrition. Second it would give a respite to cooperatively  edit the page without someone who has clearly shown their inability to do so by reverting more than three of edits by different editors within a 24 hour period. I am surprised NW, that you closed this debate before a consensus had been reached on what to do, and I think it would be a good idea to reopen it. -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, 3RR was broken by PoD. Yes, there was edit warring by multiple parties. Bold, revert, discus seems to have been completely tossed out the window though. As Guy Fawkes Night is an excellent GA, it would have been far reasonable to follow the underlying principles of WP:OWN#FA and discuss on the talk page before you all made the changes you did to an article where the article's primary editor, who is more familiar with the source material than anyone else, was telling you that you were wrong. I'm not sure how this noticeboard normally works; I pop in here once every blue moon. My apologies if I did this incorrectly. NW ( Talk ) 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:noclador reported by User:Sloane (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Two things are being reverted: A paragraph on some Turkish statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_military_intervention_in_Libya&action=historysubmit&diff=420345553&oldid=420341505

And a newly crafted lead: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_military_intervention_in_Libya&action=historysubmit&diff=420366654&oldid=420361542


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's some discussion underway here:

Comments: I'm pretty well aware that I'm almost over the line here myself, as I've done three reverts myself on this page the past 24 hours. The first was after user:noclador's removal of the paragraph on Turkey (a decently sourced paragraph, so I thought blatant removal of it was way too bold). The second is regarding the lead, as I thought user:noclador completely threw away some rather constructive edits by several users and inserted a pretty strong POV. The third revert was again, on the lead after user:noclador tagged my revert as vandalism, which I took as a good faith error on his part. This is clearly developing into edit warring and I'd like an admin to at least address user:noclador on this. His disregard for a 3rr warning and his rather aggressive attitude on this article leads me to think this will develop into an edit war again if user:noclador doesn't tone it down a little. I stopped reverting and left the in user:noclador favour, so I hope admins will take that as a good faith gesture from my part.

--Sloane (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * this is an wrongly filed report by a POV tainted editor, who tried to put factually wrong info in the lead paragraph of the article: a) Turkey is not criticizing the current intervention in Libya nor is there any criticisms in the paragraph that the editor wishes to keep; in fact Turkey is participating in the intervention with 5 ships and one submarine. The paragraph says "prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supports the full-implementation of the resolution" and as Turkey is a participant why keep this paragraph? because it is well sourced? well sourced doesn't mean it makes it correct to keep it in the article. Sloane, in my view, is biased against the intervention i.e. he named this map in a way File:2011 War On Libya Belligerents.svg that for me is not a NPOV of naming a map.
 * as for the reverts on the lead paragraph there is only 2 reverts: in the first edit I rewrote the lead as it was factually wrong: the error was "a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US". The error was inserted by Sloane . The coalition was much broader, but only this 5 nations were capable and with units ready in the area to strike first - to say it was a five nation coalition is erroneous! Also he removed any mention for what reason the UN resolution and the intervention are undertaken. And actually I was the one, who told him to take it to the talk page as his edits are factually wrong and after that he began to discuss.
 * The problem as I see it is that Slaone is biased and sometimes seems to edit without care about the factuality of his edits: i.e. one of his latest edits "Operational command of the operation has been turned over to NATO,", which I had to revert, because command of the operation HAS NOT been handed over to NATO! Some minutes later he actually corrected his error and put up the correct version but in another article.
 * To sum it up in short: this is not an edit war, but an editor, who put up wrong info and I reverted him on that. noclador (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Noclador just made a fifth revert on the article: * No consensus was reached over this on the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5th? I did two reverts all day, you bundle various other edits togehter and claim they are reverts, you mostly focus on the Turkish statement and deliberately misquote there to advance your point (see: Talk:2011_military_intervention_in_Libya for Turkey discussion), then you report me here for writing a new lead sentence which takes out an grave error???? and I put that even in the edit summary??? So, we must now not take out errors anymore? noclador (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there appear to be dozens of editors and it's an extremely fast-moving article, it's not clear how we can pick out any signal from the noise. Unless one of you can make a very clear and understandable complaint, it's unlikely that admins will take any action. From what I can understand of the above arguments, both of you seem to have some rationale for your positions. You should continue to use the talk page and try to persuade others. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do as suggested. noclador (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: No action at this time. Please continue to discuss and try to get the opinions of more editors. Focusing on the Turkey issue might be the easiest. Admins are not likely to issue any blocks unless there is an obvious talk page consensus which the other editor is refusing to accept. It is hard to see that the talk page has reached any definite conclusion on these matters. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

IP Range 78.177.41.127 reported by User:Wikicious (Result: Wrong wiki)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajinismus&oldid=9152091


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

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

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

Comments:

The given IP user uses this article for commercial purpose adding their links to end of article. Given links for CISEAD in subject article is Assosiation for purpose of enlightening people about this phsycological problem, no commercial purposes. The IP I'm complaining deleted links of CISEAD as I deleted their links because of commercial purpose. Also I know that CISEAD had applied and gave licenses for usage of their resources in Wikipedia.


 * I'm sorry but we cannot help here with problems at the Turkish Wikipedia. You will need to find the correct page at tr.wikipedia.org to report the matter. CIreland (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Vyx reported by User:Eraserhead1 (Result: Blocked, 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 0th revert (outside 24 hours):
 * 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:


 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Pensionero reported by User:Hittit (Result: 1 month)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Original version Pomaks: Original version Bulgarians in Turkey:

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

Article Bulgarians in Turkey
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / Tendentious editing : Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:   

Comments:

User:Pensionero has a recent ban due to egaging in an edit war. He has been involved in numerous reverts and tendentious editing, he has been warned on the talk page by me and other editors. Above examples of countless reverts within in 24 hours on two separate articles. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated.

Please before blocking view edit history I reverted twice in the both articles User:Pensionero 19:27 24 March 2011 (UTC) In Bulgarains in Turkey i reverted here and here , In Pomaks: here  and here  User:Pensionero 19:36 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked one month. Pensionero has made 11 reverts at Pomaks since 16 March, and his edits are very contentious. This is clear from a viewing of Talk:Pomaks, where nobody supports him. He has been blocked twice for edit warring since February, most recently for 3 days. His own talk page holds a dozen warnings from many different editors. The Pomaks are an ethnic minority in Bulgaria. I am notifying Pensionero of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:174.54.34.187 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Already blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

That was not a resolution of the dispute, you have been ignoring the consensus of multiple other editors for quite some time in order to whitewash (ironic isn't it?) the article. 174.54.34.187 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Comments:

I was not edit warring, I was reverting vandalism and censorship from 2 editors with an obvious ideological bias. THEY reverted me and continued to remove sourced information. These editors do not WP: OWN this page and should stop wiki lawyering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.34.187 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For a week by Elockid.  Sandstein   06:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Memills reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:48, 23 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420368667 by Logic prevails (talk) See the book "Evolutionary Psychology" by Gaulin & McBurney -- there is stuff to back up "this crap"")
 * 2) 20:58, 23 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420371707 by Logic prevails (talk)  Don't revert again -- getting close to vandalism.  This is sourced, the same material appears in several evol psyc textbooks.")
 * 3) 21:02, 23 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420372055 by Logic prevails (talk)  Way overstated -- and the ref is over 35 years old.   Take this to Talk page if you like.")
 * 4) 21:17, 23 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420382776  (talk)  It is uncontroversial that there is a correlation between bipolar disorder & creativity.   Do a literature search, or read the refs provided.")
 * 5) 23:37, 23 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420402788 by  (talk)  Do your own homework - read the friendly references.  And, don't delete the entire section if you have an issue with a sentence.")
 * 6) 17:27, 24 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420495673 by Logic prevails (talk) Per the Talk page, this is sourced info convered in two EP textbooks.   Add counter perspectives if you wish,  don't  delete.")
 * 7) 17:28, 24 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420499767 by Maunus (talk) Sourced, relevant info. Edit if you wish, don't delete. Deletions of sourced info are approaching vandalism.")
 * 8) 17:54, 24 March 2011  (edit summary: "Undid revision 420523836 by  (talk)  Discussed on the Talk page, without consensus.   Again, fully sourced material from evolutionary psych textbooks.  Edit it.   We need to go to arbitarion if there is another revert.")

Note: In the last 24 hours, long-time contributor reverted eight times on evolutionary psychology, reversing the efforts of at least two different editors (User:Logic prevails and User:Maunus). Memills is aware of the edit warring problem, as the article was fully protected due to previous edit warring approximately one month ago. Just several days ago, Memills himself said on the talk page that "suggestions to reduce edit wars on this page would be greatly appreciated." I would therefore like to address Memills query and suggest a nice long block. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas has a penchant for wikilawyering, hounding, and is the subject of 162 user complaints. A search of her username on the evolutionary psychology Talk page shows a series of unhelpful and uninformed comments.
 * Had she been following the discussion, she would have noted that editors in conflict have already reached a compromise to deal with the issue on the Talk page, and are already working together collaboratively to deal with the section in contention (see the bottom of the section linked in this sentence).  Memills (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving that I am uninvolved in your COI-driven, five-year, NPOV-violating ownership dispute on this article, which you, as an unambiguous single-purpose account, have attempted to control against the consensus of Wikipedia editors, by reverting anyone who dares to edit the article, which by every given assessment, is in worse shape now and has not improved during your five-year reign as self-appointed owner.  I not only maintain that you should be blocked for this ongoing behavior, but for attempting above to spread false allegations against me in order to distract from your continued disruption. Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like Memills did make 6 reverts (2&3 are one and 6&7 are one), but it also looks like user:Logic prevails made 7 reverts within 24hours and 2 minutes on the same page so I wonder why that user was not reported too. An admin may also want to look at Logic prevails for being an SPA and possible DUCK. Passionless  -Talk  05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering you can't get the names right, I'm not sure we should depend on your analysis. Memills very cleary made 8 not 6 reverts, and I have not edited the article. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I copied the wrong name over, fixed now. And the reason why there are really only 6 reverts is because "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."-from WP:EW. But it doesn't really matter, 3RR was easily broken. Passionless   -Talk  06:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * True. My mistake for not reviewing the auto-generated report. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Memills A standard first-time editwarring block. Logic prevails    Sandstein   06:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:98.254.83.35 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User wanted to insert this content while the page was protected, was told it did not meet verifiability requirements, in addition to being original research. Started edit-warring to insert it as soon as the page protection was lifted. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No more reverts after the warning.  Sandstein   06:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated this, as the IP came back earlier this evening to try again. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Since the IP resumed his campaign after the warning, he is blocked for one week. He is trying to force the article to link to a blog post at thadkomorowski.com/?p=2867. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch (Result:no vio)
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:

It all began when User:GoetheFromm edited the Miral article here, adding the text: , the Deir Yassin Massacre,

The Discussion page at Miral does not explicitly designate the article as being subject to the terms of WP:ARBPIA, hence the 1RR restriction which would otherwise apply there by virtue of its being a film about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may not in fact apply in this case. However, this particular instance of edit warring transcends that page alone and constitutes a disruptive pattern unto itself that demands Admin attention and involvement. After the Deir Yassin edit just mentioned – which, it ought to be noted, was not accompanied by an edit summary – I left a message on User:GoetheFromm's Talk page explaining that her unsourced addition was problematic per WP:BOP and that the page has recently been subject to anonymous IP edits that have compromised the integrity of the article. I concluded by requesting that she produce a WP:RS or else self-revert. When she failed to do either – she did not self-revert and the sources she added were not WP:RS – a previously uninvolved editor restored the article to its former condition, explaining in his edit summary that the sources did not qualify as WP:RS. User:GoetheFromm's reaction was to revert back to her previous edit and then to charge, "There seems to be a group of individuals who seem to want to avoid including the reference of the Deir Yessin Massacre..." on the Discussion page. Not four minutes passed and she reverted an addition to the article – entirely unrelated to the Deir Yassin dispute – by the same user as earlier (cf. WP:OWN). Eight minutes passed next and, as I was occupied watching a basketball game at this time and could not address myself to inspecting the sources she provided, User:GoetheFromm yet again reverted an attempt by User:Plot Spoiler to restore the original page pending resolution of the dispute in the Discussion page. At around halftime I composed a reply to User:GoetheFromm at the Discussion page imploring her to remain calm and be patient while I looked through her sources. Her response was to argue, "it quite clear to me what is occurring on this page, as I am sure others can also see." Though not all of User:GoetheFromm's comments were as WP:BADFAITH as those just cited, they are nevertheless important for the insight they offer into User:GoetheFromm's borderline paranoid frame of mind. (And I've chosen those words carefully.) Indeed, she would later confess to me: "Listen I know that you are pro-zionist, and I sympathize with you, but you are going to have to allow relevant information to be on wikipage, even if the unsavory material doesn't conform to your viewpoint on life" – this despite the fact that I took no part in her edit warring and never once acted in a way that could be construed by her as biased in favor of a "Zionist viewpoint." On the contrary, as I told User:GoetheFromm in my first message to her, I was equally as concerned with her Deir Yassin edit as I was with the preceding edit by an anonymous IP who labeled one of the Palestinian characters in the film a terrorist. Regrettably, User:GoetheFromm insisted on interpreting my behavior as being prejudiced against her and reacting to my genuine attempts at constructive dialog with suspicion and uncooperativeness.

The fourth revert I listed above, I should clarify, is not from the same page as the first three, wherefore strictly speaking it doesn't belong in the same group. (As I'm somewhat new to these things, I'm not entirely sure if WP:ANI would not have been a more appropriate forum for my complaint.) However, as it was a symptom of User:GoetheFromm's overall conduct throughout the whole exchange, I trust the reader will agree that its inclusion is warranted. In the course of our dispute on the Discussion page at Miral, User:GoetheFromm suggested that I follow a wikilink in the article to the Hind Husseini page. I took her advice but upon doing so discovered that the first reference at Hind Husseini had rotted and that another reference was to a user-edited website. The rotten reference was (and still is) cited seven times throughout the article – which has but four references to begin with – and the user-generated reference was (is) cited twice. I immediately tagged the first reference with Template:Dead link. Then twenty-five minutes later, upon further contemplation, I acknowledged that the article is so short that if two out of the four references are unreliable, it is enough of a reason to flag the article with Template:Unreliable sources and Template:Refimprove. I immediately created a new section in the Discussion page to explain why I had flagged the article. Less than twenty minutes after I flagged the article, User:GoetheFromm proceeded to revert my edit, and instead of explaining the reason for her revert on the Discussion page, scorned me by saying, "Keep up the good work, BioSketch." Later she claimed that she in fact meant that as a compliment. I would like to know if the Admin reviewing this case honestly thinks she was being sincere or if her ostensible apology was a duplicitous for-the-record retraction. Anyway, at this point I resigned myself to the reality that I was up against an edit warrior and, after communicating to her the offense I had taken to her remark, threw in the towel and called it a night. (User:GoetheFromm, I see now, has since gone on to harass User:Plot Spoiler at Victoria Affair and stalk me here and here purely for spite.)

The Admin may disregard my immediately following comment as personal reflection and an afterthought, but I feel it necessary to add: I did not refer User:GoetheFromm to the EW noticeboard on a whim in real-time just because I was frustrated with her behavior. I allowed the experience to settle over a night's sleep, convinced it would fade and seem trivial by morning. However, I now feel that by forbearing, User:GoetheFromm will have been sent the wrong message – that I condone her behavior and that her conduct is acceptable. That could not be further from the truth. Now even more so than yesterday, I understand that User:GoetheFromm was aggressive, uncivil, unjustly suspecting, stubborn, disruptive, and obsessive. I ask that, at the very least, she be warned that impulsively reverting good-faith edits and attacking users who are critical of her discourages constructive participation from other editors, is frustrating to editors with gentler dispositions than hers, and is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.—Biosketch (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

<-The 3 sources used now, Haaretz, Ynet and tinymixtapes (don't know the last one) support the content so the content issue looks like it is resolved. I'm familiar with most editors in the I-P conflict topic area but I don't know GoetheFromm and looking through their edits they don't seem to edit in the I-P topic area very much. I assume GoetheFromm isn't familiar with the discretionary sanctions. No one should be editing I-P conflict related articles without reading those and complying with them. I've added a link to the top of the Miral talk page together with the 1RR template. Perhaps the best way forward is for GoetheFromm to simply read the sanctions, particularly the "Editors reminded" section and try to follow them.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is minimally acceptable, although I would expect that the bad faith remarks, stalkings and insults would elicit something of a severer response. Even though this is an EW noticeboard, a user should not need to have it spelled out for them that they need to be civil and not stalk for spite, and I would like to see those aspects of my complaint in particular addressed by an Admin. There was some fairly nasty rhetoric on User:GoetheFromm's part, and his edits at Mayors for Peace and at Nahum Barnea were clearly performed out of spite and to generate friction across a larger area. Also, it is recommended that the Hind Husseini page be tagged for 1RR and sanctions.—Biosketch (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I must say that I am extremely upset over BioSketch's behavior. I will address them, (just give me a half hour) GoetheFromm (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To start, I am not a “she” as BioSketch seems to believe…


 * I was not informed that BioSketch had placed an inquiry on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I only received a “warning” on my talk page by BioSketch after editing had died down that I was allegedly engaged in “warring.”  Thus, it was only by chance that I came across BioSketch.


 * Now, on the main topic…I believe that an administrator will see after having seen the respective edits and discussion pages AND the times that they were conducted that my edits are not quite as bad BioSketch purports them out to be.


 * After adding additional material to the Miral] page, specifically material related to the [[Deir Yassin Massacre, I received a request http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoetheFromm&diff=420544503&oldid=420082768 on 19:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC) from BioSketch for references supporting the addition. I did so,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miral&action=historysubmit&diff=420550080&oldid=420533333 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miral&action=history providing five references (which is more than enough).  My actions occurred between 14:45, 2011 March 24 and 16:35, 2011 March 24, with no one editing in between.


 * On 16:39, 2011 March 24, user PlotSpoiler undid my Deir Yassin Massacre edits (which included references). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miral&diff=420550633&oldid=420550080


 * On 16:45, 2011 March 24, i undid PlotSpoiler undoing of Deir Yassin Massacre edits.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miral&diff=420551735&oldid=420551573


 * 16:49, 2011 March 24, I brought the issue to the talk page (the first topic incidentally for the page), and expressed some of my concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miral&diff=prev&oldid=420552209


 * On 16:52, 2011 March 24, PlotSpoiler undid my same revisions, again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miral&diff=420552810&oldid=420552610


 * In between 16:53, 2011 March 24 to 17:00, 2011 March 24, PlotSpoiler and I made edits on different parts of the page (which were not disputed in anyway).  The gist of it was that PlotSpoiler added a "Critics" section.  PlotSpoiler added two critics, i added two critics as well and removed "rotten tomato" as the rotten tomato was not notable but rotten tomato's own admission because it was a very small sample.


 * On 17:01, 2011 March 24, I undid PlotSpoiler's undoing of the Deir Yessin Massacre, asking him take the issue to the talk page, and a warning about edit warring.


 * On 17:03, 2011 March 24 to 17:18, 2011 March 24, I conducted edits by adding more references to the Deir Massacre material, added a "See also" section,


 * 17:05, 2011 March 24, BioSketch accused me of jumping to "conspiratorial conclusions" referencing WP:Cabal, etc. and stated that they would "check" the references.


 * 17:09, 2011 March 24, I brought my concerns up to PlotSpoiler http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plot_Spoiler&diff=prev&oldid=420555585. Saying, specfically:
 * "Not quite sure how it is that you are justiying your undos at the Miral page, but I am finding your edit exceedingly frustrating as it seems that you attempting to hide certain facts about the film as well as portray only specific elements of the film. Also, I am beginning to sense the beginning of an edit war as well as a 3rr vio, just want to warn you and see if we discuss the issue on the Miral talk page. Thanks."


 * On 17:31, 2011 March 24 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miral&diff=prev&oldid=420559000 to 17:36, 2011 March 24 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miral&diff=prev&oldid=420559805 I interfaced with BioSketch on the Miral Talk page.


 * On 18:21, 2011 March 24, BioSketch "concluded" that "none of the sources withstand critical analysis and until a more reliable source can be found, you should revert your edit" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miral&diff=420566514&oldid=420559805 . Of course, I disagreed with this.


 * On 19:03, 2011 March 24, I informed those on talk page that I removed huffington post reference (source), and addressed and sympathized with BioSketch possible affiliations, but also called for accurate wikipedia editing irrespective of bias or POV.


 * On 19:09, 2011 March 24, BioSketch made what i consider a strange request to put Hind Husseini's name in quotations with no link to the real characters (despite the fact BioSketch and I used that link to gather more information on the topic!) I made it clear that it is common practice to link characters in movie to the real world counterparts. BioSketch also made reference to the desire to follow wikipedia guidelines.


 * On 19:11, 2011 March 24, another editor entered the conversation on the Deir Yassin Massacre and provided sources for its inclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miral&diff=420573535&oldid=420573385


 * On 19:15, 2011 March 24, Biosketch stated that he stood corrected on a reference to the Deir Yassin Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miral&diff=420574120&oldid=420573732.


 * On 19:17, 2011 March 24 I wrote: "It pleases me BioSketch that you understand the difference between political orientation and wikipedia standards. That was my point." This in reference to the comments at 19:03 and 19:09


 * In between 19:17, 2011 March 24 and  00:08, 2011 March 25 there was a rich, albeit somewhat heated discussion on talk page regarding source material.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miral&action=history
 * I felt that Astarabadi called for a successful cooling down by stating:
 * "Folks, keep it civil please. Now we have two citable sources stating clearly that Deir Yassin was the origin of at least some of the orphans both in real life and in the movie. (Biosketch, you seem to have missed this ynet paragraph: "Like Jebreal, Miral grew up in an orphanage in east Jerusalem set up by a Jerusalem socialite from a wealthy Palestinian family, who one morning in 1948 came across a group of children who escaped the massacre of Dir Yassin, a nearby village, committed by radical Jewish militants.") This should be reflected in the article. Most of the other sources given for this point can be removed now. The number 55 appears in the following paragraph and is a separate issue."


 * On 19:20, 2011 March 24: As per talk, I added another reference to the Deir Yassin Massacre.


 * On 20:20, 2011 March 24 I requested Astarbadi to fix the material in contention that was now settled by stating verbatim:
 * "Astarabadi, will you please remove the appropriate sources? Thanks."http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miral&diff=420582715&oldid=420582396


 * On 20:46, 2011 March 24, PlotSpoiler specifically asked me to "format my references by stating":
 * "Goethe, would you mind formatting your references. Don't want to have linkrot. Much appreciated." See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miral&diff=420586296&oldid=420582715


 * On 23:24, 2011 March 24: As per talk, per user Astarabadi, and specifically per PlotSpoiler's request, I removed the references that were in dispute in talk regarding Deir Yassin and kept and added the references that were considered good. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miral&diff=420604310&oldid=420575753


 * So given the painstaking timeline provided above, I resent the implication made by BioSketch.
 * I think that my timeline indicates that Biosketch accusation are just that, accusations. I'd like to remind BioSketch that jsut because editors disagree with you doesn't mean they are out to get you.  GoetheFromm (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe that referring to an editor as having a "borderline paranoid frame of mind" (as is done above by BioSketch) is a direct violation of WP:EQ. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Other Comments:
 * My interests do not lie in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all and it was only due to Yahoo's recent press on Miral that I decided to make some contributions on the film. ::::::This process is a little sickening, but I'll do what I have to do to insure appropriate edits.
 * It is fairly common to at others' contributions (which is something that you did yourself when you first approached me!) . To accuse others of stalking is uncivil.  To state that my "edits at Mayors for Peace and at Nahum Barnea were clearly performed out of spite and to generate friction across a larger area"  is uncivil.  Kindly refrain from it.  Admins, please help out.GoetheFromm (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You will see that Nahum Barnea edit was a simple removal of a space in B. A. to make B.A. How on earth is that spiteful?! GoetheFromm (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) The paranoia remark was not addressed to you in the second person but to the noticeboard Admins. Moreover, it was after you twice implied that there was a conspiracy against you at the Miral page and that my involvement with the Zionist movement somehow discredited me as a contributor to the discussion. But this is all moot now because, like User:Sean.hoyland said, a consensus anent the Deir Yassin addition's been reached such that everyone's satisfied. That concern and the following one still remain: Why did User:GoetheFromm edit the articles at Mayors for Peace and Nahum Barnea at that particular moment? Not to mention that you never explained why you reverted my edit at Hind Husseini.—Biosketch (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me, BioSketch?! It doesn't matter whether or not the paranoia remark was addressed to me in second third, or first person.  It is still uncivil.  Not to mention that you've said other things and made other accusations.
 * I did explain why I reverted your edits at Hind Hussein. Please look more carefully.
 * Also, this forum isn't for you to figure out that there was a consensus reached, that was obvious in the end before you brought this issue to this page and that was because I called for a consensus by introducing the talk page! GoetheFromm (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, Goethe. My edit at Hind Husseini was elaborated on in the Discussion page. It was the first message I wrote there. You came along and reverted my edit providing no explanation. You did not address the reasons I articulated for why I flagged the page. And then you went and edited Mayors for Peace and Nahum Barnea, two articles where I was previously the most recent editor just to draw me into an edit war with you after I resisted edit warring with you at Miral and at Hind Husseini.—Biosketch (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you go:
 * Explanation 1: 19:10, 2011 March 24 GoetheFromm (talk | contribs) (5,369 bytes) (Undid revision 420570988 by Biosketch (talk) Needs to be discussed and reach consensus before taking action such as BioSketches) (undo)
 * Explanation 2:'' "I did provide an explanation which was that you need bring it to the talk page first. You are not the only editor and you need to consult other people's thoughts on the issue.

second, I was complimenting you, not insulting. Sorry that you took it the wrong way. Perhaps you need to cool off the topic a bit. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)"'' GoetheFromm (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Biosketch, I'm gonna remind you one more time that your accusations and terms towards me are a violation of WP:EQ. GoetheFromm (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No violation, the fourth revert is from a different article. 3RR is per editor and per article. Please note that I've only examined the diffs, as the wall of text above is squarely in the tl;dr category. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)